Of Course Bill Wolpert Supports the Rainier Connector
Petaluma Tomorrow has endorsed Bill Wolpert, an exceptional candidate for City Council. Wolpert recently released this statement on the Rainier Connector:
Of Course Bill Supports the Rainier Connector
My name is Bill Wolpert. I’m running for Petaluma City Council. And I’m learning that local politics is a full contact sport.
I’ve been accused by a robo call, paid for by my opponents, of being opposed to the Rainier Connector. The accusation is untrue. I believe that the Connector must play an essential role in Petaluma’s future. It’s true that I have questions about the Connector for which we all need answers, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t support the Rainier Connector. I’d like to be a part of the discussion about how it happens.
Providing stronger physical connections between the two sides of Petaluma is crucial to the community. Eastside families should be able to easily travel by bus or car to enjoy an evening stroll in downtown. Westside residents should be able to bike safely to SRJC or to conveniently deliver their kids to a soccer match. Emergency responders need alternatives to get to the hospital and transit providers need more routing options. Those are elements of a healthy town.
But all of the crosstown connectors, existing and proposed, from Old Redwood Highway in the north to the Caulfield Crossing in the south, have challenges ranging from proximity to capacity to construction cost.
For many years, the Rainier Connector has been perceived as the next crosstown connector to be built, but it isn’t immune from the challenges. It’s an alternative with many attributes, including good proximity and connectivity, but it’s not a magic bullet.
Here are my concerns about the Rainier Connector and the questions that we should all be asking.
- Interchange – A 2004 advisory ballot measure described the Rainier Connector as the “Rainier Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Project”. The connection to Highway 101 was a key project element. But even now, twelve years later, Caltrans hasn’t approved an interchange at Rainier.Questions: Do we think Caltrans will approve the interchange? If never, how does that affect the traffic relief? When can we get clarity on this key issue?
- Cost – Although my opponents bandy about an unexplained cost of $34 million, the Rainier Connector will be far more expensive. Although barely more than a half-mile in length, the cost is usually estimated at $60 to $80 million. Measured in dollars per mile, the Rainier Connector would easily be the most expensive street ever built in Petaluma.Question: Given that the interchange remains an uncertainty, how do we get a handle on the cost?
- Burden on taxpayers – The robo call claims that the Rainier Connector can be built without taxpayer dollars. Really? Let’s look at just one element of the financing. The City holds an $11 million loan to help build the Connector. The interest on the loan is now being paid with your taxes. After the funds are spent, they must be repaid with your taxes. That $11 million is your taxes building the road, despite what my opponents may say in their robo calls.Questions: After we have a firm handle on the cost, how do we put together a financing plan? How much of that must be generated from new taxes? And given the many other community needs, from restoring a full complement of police officers to repaving streets, how do we agree on spending priorities?
- Traffic relief – Traffic engineers measures capacity with letter grades from A to F. The traffic study done for the Rainier Connector Environmental Impact Report projects many of the traffic improvements at no more than partial grades, such as changing a C into a C+. Any improvement is good, but the projected improvements are less than many seem to expect.Questions: For the final configuration, what will the traffic relief be? Can we improve the traffic through stronger multi-use paths, more frequent transit service, or further walkable development?
- Readiness to build – Despite the expectations of some, the Rainier Connector won’t happen anytime soon. It can’t be built until Highway 101 is widened through Petaluma, a project that may be a half billion dollars down the Caltrans priority list.Question: What is a realistic schedule for construction?
- Public support – The proponents of the Rainier Connector often point to the 72 percent approval achieved by a 2004 advisory ballot measure, a ballot measure that assumed a connection to Highway 101 but failed to provide an estimated project cost. However, when a ballot measure was placed on the 2014 ballot to fund a portion of the Connector with a sales tax, only 44 percent voted in favor. That’s a significant difference.
Question: Once we have a firm handle on configuration, cost, taxpayer impacts, andtraffic relief, what will the public support be?
I believe in the Rainier Connector. I’m convinced that it must be a part of Petaluma’s future. But we need to have real conversations about what it will be, how it will work, and how the costs will be paid. Robo calls with half-truths and outright deceptions don’t help. Good leadership will help. I’m committed to providing good leadership.
My opponents want the Rainier Connector to be a divisive issue. I want accountability and a transparent process. I hope you agree with me.
Petaluma Tomorrow Council Watch Report, October 17, 2016
-
The city moved forward with its railroad Quiet Zones application after much pleading from the public.
-
The city agreed to expand its sewage storage capacity in the event of an emergency while everyone sought to avoid visualizing what 4 million gallons of crap looked and smelled like. Poop storage at 10 cents a gallon is worth pursuing, the council agreed.
-
The changing role of food banks is worth pondering if you have a moment. Take a tour of the Redwood Empire Food Bank and you’ll learn a great deal and appreciate the organization all the more, according to the Mayor. It’s far more than simply an emergency food pantry.
-
Councilmember Barrett once more noted in Council Comment that transportation continues to be the hard nut to crack in our response to climate change.
Adjourned at 9:42 pm
Council Watch Report for October 3, 2016
Adjourned at 8:25
Basin Street Properties Has Solid Representation Amongst Healy-Led City Council Majority – April 4 Council Watch Report
Petaluma Tomorrow
Council Watch Report
April 4, 2016
Attendance
Councilmembers Mike Healy, Chris Albertson, Kathy Miller, Gabe Kearney, Vice Mayor Dave King, Teresa Barrett and Mayor David Glass present.
Key Issues and Commentary
Numerous representatives of Petaluma Parents Against Drugs gave the alarming impression that there is both easy access to recreational drugs and an epidemic of drug abuse on Petaluma’s public school campuses. Crime statistics raised by the group were also alarmingly high.
Bill Donahue, a longtime advocate for the renters of Sandalwood Estates, took the council to task for a dysfunctional, failing rent arbitration system, which has now allowed for several Sandalwood families to be forced from their homes due to skyrocketing rents.
Basin Street Properties did itself no favors – one thing the entire council appeared to agree upon – when it sent the body a letter the afternoon of April 4 regarding its Marina Apartments project, an item on the evening’s agenda. Some councilmembers had not had the opportunity to read the letter prior to the meeting, but it suggested that:
Basin Street might not develop the Marina Apartments if the bicycle path requirement remains, calling the $200k cost prohibitive, and
It might develop a medical office complex at the site with another interested party in any case.
Ultimately a majority of the council led by Mike Healy deferred to Basin Street, moving the project forward without the city staff’s proposed bike path expansion.
Mayor Glass and Councilmember Barrett succeeded in asking “Why no solar?” enough over the course of the meeting that the company did, reluctantly, agree to put solar panels on the carports associated with the project. The pair also took the rest of the council to task for yet another missed opportunity to build out Petaluma’s bike and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.
A Healy-led majority appears determined to avoid what the man himself calls “coloring outside-the-box-type of requirements or exactions” on developers in Petaluma.
Basin Street Properties consistently receives the concessions it seeks.
Key Quote from the meeting:
“Not to put in a Class 1 bike lane, which offers a safe and sane alternative to people getting around that area without having to worry about the traffic on Lakeville or Baywood, just doesn’t make sense for us as a city. We really need to look at improving the circulation alternatives for people in this city as we try to increase and approve infill. We want infill, but we want infill that serves our society, our community and the circulation of people within that community.”
– Petaluma Councilmember Teresa Barrett
Proclamation
National Crime Victims Week, April 10 – 16
General Public Comment
Alva Hernandez, formerly of Colombia, a student of the Petaluma Adult School’s citizenship class, thanked the council for its time, attention, and hospitality on behalf of her entire class. The meeting paused briefly so that the class could have its photograph taken with the councilmembers.
Cynthia Ingram, an avid runner and longtime Petaluma resident, spoke to the council about the crosswalk at the intersection of S. McDowell & McKenzie Drive and her continuing desire to stay alive. She called this intersection the most dangerous on the East side of town and asked that the city reevaluate its removal of the left turn only light (when turning onto S. McDowell) at this intersection.
Heather Elliott-Hudson, co-founder of the relatively new non-profit, Petaluma Parents Against Drugs (PPAD), spoke to the council about the need to find funding to put School Resource Officers (SRO) back on Petaluma school campuses.
Brenda Martin asked the council to help find funding for SROs again to help deal with the drug problem on Petaluma campuses, where access to drugs is much too easy.
Lawrence Stafford said that drug trafficking on our school campuses is simply unacceptable and must be stopped and asked for the council’s assistance.
Kathleen Stafford, mother of teenagers, PPAD co-founder, and owner of a local sandwich shop, said her eyes had been “ripped open to the blatant teen drug abuse going on right under our noses.”
She also noted that crime had shot up 38% over the past three years, 18% in the last year alone. “Instead of saying there’s no money, we need to reallocate.”
“When you have teens that get into a car, obliterated by popping pills and chugging alcohol, every single one of our public, as well as you, is in danger.”
Krista Gabrowski, business owner and parent noted that there is a storm brewing of teens experimenting with drugs and alcohol. She found it alarming that every weekend there are dangerous episodes of partying happening all over Petaluma.”
Visit PetalumaParentsAgainstDrugs.org
Mayor Glass noted the council’s concern over drug use amongst Petaluma’s school children and the successes we’ve had thus far with various drug prevention programs. He also emphasized the extremely dire straits the city continues to be in financially, pointing out that, “there are all sorts of areas where we are coming up short of what we used to do.”
Councilmember Chris Albertson pointed out that Lafferty had been on the closed session agenda 27 times over the last 32 months and expressed the hope that the city would share information about what it’s doing in this regard with the public soon. Albertson expressed surprise that the media had not been following this issue.
Councilmember Mike Healy suggested that a joint meeting with the Petaluma School Board might be in order, as had occurred on occasion before, to discuss finding funding for the return of school resource officers to Petaluma school campuses.
1. Approval of Minutes
A. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council/PCDSA Meeting of Monday, March 21, 2016.
Approved as submitted.
2. Approval of Proposed Agenda
A. Approval of Agenda for Regular City Council/PCDSA Meeting of Monday, April 18, 2016.
3. Consent Calendar
A. Resolution Accepting Claims and Bills for February 2016.
B. Resolution Accepting the June 30, 2015 Annual AB 1600 Development Impact Fee Report.
C. Resolution Authorizing Award of Bid for a Two-Year Weed Abatement Contract and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Keystone Tractor Service.
D. Resolution Authorizing Program Administration Fees for the Mobile Home Park Space Rent Stabilization Program for 2016.
Bill Donahue of Sandalwood Estates told the council that the two most recent residents to go to arbitration via the Mobile Home rent control ordinance lost, and had their rents double. He pleaded with the council to amend this ordinance to give the city council final authority over the ordinance and its decisions.
Donahue called it a disgraceful, unjust situation and suggested Petaluma “do like Santa Rosa does” and retain the ability to overturn unjust decisions.
Councilman Healy asked City Attorney Danly to respond to Mr. Donahue’s comments.
Danly agreed to return to the council with more information about the City of Santa Rosa’s ordinance and its procedures.
The Consent Calendar was approved by unanimous vote.
4. Unfinished Business
A. Resolution Authorizing Grading Prior to Final Map Approval for the Riverfront Subdivision Project.
Approved by vote of 5 – 2, with Glass and Barrett in opposition, with the latter wondering why the city would give the applicant special treatment.
Mayor Glass noted he was voting against for sake of consistency. He remained deeply disappointed that the synthetic turf soccer field had been stripped from the development by the city council, despite having made it through so many layers of the planning process.
Councilmember Teresa Barrett expressed similar objections.
“I don’t see why we should be giving special treatment to a project that didn’t live up to its end of what it was approved to provide.”
5. New Business
A. Resolution Appointing a Council Liaison to the Technology Advisory Committee for the Remainder of the 2016 Calendar Year.
The council unanimously (and enthusiastically) voted to appoint Gabe Kearney as the body’s liaison to the city’s Tech Advisory Committee.
B. Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Professional Services Agreement to Prepare a Partnership Agreement Proposal Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Multi-Agency Proponents for Dredging the Shallow-Draft Federal Channels of San Pablo Bay.
The Army Corps has proposed to seek an alternative delivery system for dredging the shallow channels of San Pablo Bay. Mr. St. John had little information to offer the council about what the Corps’ proposed partnership agreement would look like.
Hopes to have a solid proposal to give the Corps by summertime.
The prospective partners include Petaluma, San Rafael, Vallejo, Marin County, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Napa County Flood Control District.
The Corps is looking for a “Poster Child” for this collaboration.
Unlikely we would get any money for dredging for at least two years.
“It’s a step forward, but it’s a little bit of a step into the unknown,” said Mr. St. John.
Mr. Healy asked what Plan B is, should this plan not work out, to which Teresa Barrett responded, “This is Plan B.”
6. Public Hearing
A. Resolution 2016-051 N.C.S. Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Marina Apartments Project Located at the Petaluma Marina, APN: 005-060-053, -054, -059, -065, -070, -072, -079, -082, -084, -085, and -089 File No: PLZT-15-0001, PLSR-15-0011; and, Resolution 2016-052 N.C.S. Granting an Appeal and Overturning the Decision of the Planning Commission to Deny Modifications to the General Development Plan for the Marina Planned Community District Located at the Petaluma Marina APN: 005-060-053, -054, -059, -065, -070, -072, -079, -082, -084, -085, and -089; File No: PLZT-15-0001, PLSR-15-0011. – Continued from the March 7, 2016 Regular City Council/PCDSA Meeting.
Kevin Colin gave the city’s staff presentation regarding this project adjacent to the Petaluma Marina. It’s part of what is called the Lakeville Highway Subarea and the Marina Planned Community Development. Marina PCD was established in 1988, one year after the Marina was constructed. This considers an amendment to the Marina PCD to permit residential uses, which are currently not permitted. Increases building height to 5 stories and proposes up to 90 units in a new 5-story apartment building.
Mayor Glass asked if anyone had analyzed what economic impact the building would have on the Marina Sheraton’s business, since it partially blocks its view.
The Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee asked for improved access between Lakeville and Allman Marsh.
Planning Commission adopted a mitigated negative declaration in a 3 – 1 vote.
Paul Andronico, general counsel with Basin Street Properties, sought to explain why the applicant submitted a letter to the council immediately prior to the beginning of the council meeting. Andronico noted that the project is currently in jeopardy due to rising construction costs. He asked the city to not to put another obstacle up that might prevent the project’s construction.
There’s only one thing going up faster than construction costs, and that’s rents,” said Mayor Glass.
“I wish that were true, Mr. Mayor,” replied Andronico.
Glass suggested if the margin for this was really $180,000, as he suggested, perhaps Basin should walk away now.
Melissa Hathaway of the Pedestrian committee pointed out that there is never any funding for walking and bike paths. “Please,” she pleaded, “push forward on this bike path.”
Teresa Barrett was none too pleased about this project. She voted against it at the Planning Commission because there was no solar involved, a real shame given all the carports called for in the apartment project.
“I can’t believe that this is another missed opportunity of not adding solar and that’s a real problem.”
Paraphrasing Barrett: Now Basin has suggested in a letter that it may be an medical office building anyway, after it had already metastasized from 80 to 90 units. The letter Basin belatedly sent to the council sounds like what they want is entitlements rather than what would be best for Petaluma. The area is truly gridlocked with traffic at times. Not to put in a bike lane just does not make sense for the city. They’re getting over $200k break in their impact fees, this just doesn’t wash for her. Class 1 bike lane must be built and done early in the project.
Barrett also suggested that there’s something really odd in Petaluma, whereby Basin St. claims there’s interest in a huge medical office complex, yet just two years prior the Walgreens project suggested there was an excess of office medical property in town and proposed removing some of it.
She suggested this really felt like a bait and switch on Basin Street’s part.
“Our right as a council is to decide what would be best for Petaluma, and the Mayor is right in saying that this is upzoning. This is [a] much more dense use of this property in an area that already has tremendous traffic problems.”
“Anyone familiar with the area knows” that around the time Casa Grande High School lets out on Lakeville and Baywood many other streets, “it is truly gridlocked.”
“Not to put in a Class 1 bike lane, which offers a safe and sane alternative to people getting around that area without having to worry about the traffic on Lakeville or Baywood, just doesn’t make sense for us as a city. We really need to look at improving the circulation alternatives for people in this city as we try to increase and approve infill. We want infill, but we want infill that serves our society, our community and the circulation of people within that community.”
Councilmember Mike Healy noted the bike path portion of this project, which Basin St. does not want to build, would just be one small piece. Over $40,000 in fees from this project (if it goes forward as apartments) would go into a fund which could fund future bike path construction. Those funds could accumulate and we could prioritize where to spend them.
Healy helpfully paraphrased the language of the Basin Street letter, commenting that “when I hear people talk about trying to burden this project with these additional ‘coloring outside the box-type’ of requirements or exactions, I think that’s letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that 90 units of housing for this community in the midst of a regional housing crisis is a good of incredible benefit to the community.”
Albertson suggested to Mr. Andronico that the applicant’s last-minute letter to the council didn’t help matters much, but he was inclined to approve the measure without the bike path.
Miller had problems with the bike path, as it’s not going to be a completed bike path, just a tiny little section. She suggested the council prioritize bike paths, echoing Healy’s suggestion. She’ll be supporting the project due to the city’s desperate need for housing.
Kearney had no comments initially, but later added that he was not comfortable compelling the appellant to build a bike path that it did not fully control. He also suggested there would probably be money in the budget to construct the path eventually.
Councilmember King suggested that yes, it’s just a piece of a bike path, but the whole bike system is a piece by piece enterprise and every small piece is a movement in the right direction. He was inclined to approve the apartments but on the condition of bike path construction.
A proposal emerged which King said he would support that required construction of just the portion of the bike path that the city controlled.
“This is a lack of vision, I’m sorry to say,” said Barrett.
“This is giving you the beginning of a backbone of a safe way for people to get around. It’s going to happen. This is the first step.”
Mayor Glass said that one bike path piece is the least we can do. He then went on to read extensively from the city’s staff report, which details many areas of our General Plan which explicitly require the city to pursue bicycle facilities like the one in question here.
Kearney didn’t like that the piece of the bike path in question wasn’t in front of, or touching the property where the apartment complex would be built, leading him to wonder how we tell Basin to do something off the property they’re developing.
Sensing consensus, Healy tried to move the item, but Glass wasn’t finished, bringing the conversation back to the lack of solar attached to this project.
Barrett helpfully offered a motion that included the bike path and added a solar panel requirement, which was promptly seconded by King.
Healy: “I’m not quite sure why we’re doing this. We have a council consensus and then we have the side that doesn’t have the votes trying to offer a motion; I’ve never seen this happen before.”
Healy proceeded to make a motion removing the bike path requirements.
Several motions to move the item were approved by 4 – 3 votes, with Glass, Barrett and King dissenting.
The final motion – without the bike path- was approved by 5 – 2 vote.
Council Comment
Healy: Water Advisory Committee approved its budget by unanimous vote. Lake Mendo at 100%, Lake Sonoma at 109%. He also noted there will be an extensive outreach to the Latino community soon that will focus on the safety of our tap water. The belief is that many in that community may have residual cultural beliefs that tap water is less safe than bottled, and be unnecessarily spending money on bottled water.