• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Petaluma Tomorrow

Open Government • Responsible Development • Watershed Protection

  • Home
  • Council Watch
  • Election Watch
  • About PT
    • Our Mission
    • Open Government
    • Responsible Development
    • Watershed Protection
    • Board of Directors
  • Volunteer
  • Membership

News and Updates

Of Course Bill Wolpert Supports the Rainier Connector

October 28, 2016 by Christopher Fisher

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.

Filed Under: News and Updates Tagged With: Bill Wolpert

Great News Concerning Shollenberger and Dutra Asphalt Plant

April 19, 2011 by Greg

Shamrock Requests Release from Dutra Asphalt Plant Lawsuit

The following was released to the press today concerning the Dutra Asphalt Plant:

Shamrock has filed a demurrer in Sonoma County Superior Court, arguing that they are not a real party of interest in the Dutra Petaluma Asphalt Plant case, got no approvals from the county to do anything on their land, and should be dismissed from the case.

They argue that Shamrock and Corto Meno Sand & Gravel in fact never agreed to be a part of Dutra’s project, have no agreement to do so, and that any such inclusion in the Dutra project is incorrect.

Shamrock’s claim shows that the County’s EIR and Dutra Asphalt Plant Project approvals are patently inadequate because Shamrock never agreed to the Dutra Project that the County approved.

The conditions of approval require that Dutra’s Asphalt Plant Project must be built on a portion of Shamrock’s property which must be conveyed to Dutra’s ownership, destroying wetlands required to be created as mitigation for the Shamrock project, and require Shamrock to be Dutra’s exclusive supplier of rock and aggregate barged up the Petaluma River.

Dutra’s original project design depended on barged deliveries of aggregate to Dutra’s own river-frontage site.  However, the barge and tug operations and mooring facilities were found to block the river’s federally dredged channel, and impair navigational safety. Dutra’s river-front barge landing site was also discovered by us to be located directly over two PG&E high-pressure 12″ gas lines and PG&E easements, which are not buildable.  Dutra had to find another solution to remaining a barge-accessed project and avoid truck-only deliveries. Their proposal, ultimately approved and mandated by Sonoma County’s conditions of approval and CEQA conclusions, was to deliver all Dutra’s aggregate through the adjacent Shamrock property and barge landing site, and deliver it to Dutra’s site via a conveyor belt system that would cross directly through Shamrock’s previous wetlands mitigation site.

When the Supervisors asked county staff if there was an agreement between Dutra and Shamrock, they – erroneously – assured the Supervisors and the public that there was, or would be an agreement between Dutra and Shamrock to use Shamrock’s facilities as part of the project, including a transfer of property to Dutra for the conveyor belt system and construction, and wetland mitigations for the conveyor belt. Shamrock registered no objections to the Supervisors’ final approvals in December 2010.

Either Shamrock isn’t a participant in the Dutra Project despite the County’s requirements and assurances, or Shamrock will need to have a full environmental review of the alterations to its site, operations, permit and wetlands in order for the Dutra Project to proceed.  Either way, the Dutra project should finally come to a complete stop.

Filed Under: News and Updates, Uncategorized

2010 Petaluma Campaign Expenditures – The Cost of Your Vote

March 17, 2011 by Greg

Almost $200, Spent on 2010 Petaluma Mayor and Council Elections

Based on a review by Petaluma Tomorrow, a total of $194, 677 was spent to elect two Council members and the Mayor in the November election.*  Of this, $148,709 was spent by and for Council candidates with the remaining $45,968 on the race for Mayor.  Most of the monies spent, 96%, came directly from candidate campaigns.  The remaining 4%, $8,239, was spent by two PACs on behalf of candidates.

Of note:

  • Jeff Mayne spent over twice that of David Glass in his unsuccessful bid for Mayor.  Mayne’s votes “cost” $3.31 each versus a cost per vote of $1.44 for Glass;
  • Expenditures for Council candidate Harris were an exceptional $60,712. This spending represented over 40% of what was spent by all eight candidates combined.  His cost per vote was $5.65;
  • At the other end of the spectrum, the cost per vote for candidate Kearney was $0.48 – an irony given that Kearney was ultimately appointed to the vacant council seat;
  • The most for the least was spent on behalf of Council candidate Johnson.  His cost per vote was $4.14 versus a cost per vote of $2.20 for winning candidate Barrett.

Based on the outcome of the 2010 election there is no apparent direct relationship between dollars spent and votes.  However, there appears to be a necessary but not sufficient amount between $15,000 and $20,000 that must be spent in order to win.   Fortunately other variables – track record, message, name recognition and the quality of one’s campaign – not just money, are still critical factors.

The complete review is available as part of PT’s Election Watch activities and can be viewed by clicking 2010 Expenditures.

*Total expenditures and votes and those presented for the Mayor and Council races are based on the top two candidates for Mayor, Glass and Mayne, and on eight Council candidates.  Expenditures and votes for write-ins, Council candidate Bellefeuille, and Mayoral candidates Kilgore and Lickter are excluded.


 

Filed Under: News and Updates, Uncategorized

Congratulations Gabe Kearney!

March 4, 2011 by Greg

The City Council voted Monday to appoint Gabe Kearney to the vacant seventh seat. Congratulations to Gabe. We appreciate your willingness to take on the challenge.

Filed Under: News and Updates, Uncategorized

City Seeking to Fill Committee/Commission Vacancies

February 15, 2011 by Greg

CITY ASKS US TO GET INVOLVED

The City has posted a notice that it is seeking applications for city commissions and committees.  This is a great way to become involved in policy making at the ground level.  And, it has become a path to taking a more prominent role in city politics.  The notice from the city’s website is shown below with a link to the application and instructions.

Get Involved!

Applications are now being accepted to serve on City Boards, Commissions, and Committees. To learn more and complete an application, visit here.

Filed Under: News and Updates, Uncategorized

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Join Petaluma Tomorrow Today GIF Button Image 001
Newsletter Sign Up Button JPG Image 001

Recent Posts

  • Petaluma Mayor and Vice Mayor Endorse in 2020 City Council Race
  • PT Election Mailer
  • November 7, 2016 Petaluma Tomorrow Council Watch Report
  • Of Course Bill Wolpert Supports the Rainier Connector
  • Petaluma Tomorrow Council Watch Report, October 17, 2016

Archives

  • September 2020
  • December 2016
  • October 2016
  • August 2016
  • October 2014
  • November 2012
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011

Categories

  • Board of Supervisors (1)
  • Council Watch (4)
  • Events (2)
  • Meetings (2)
  • News and Updates (9)
  • Uncategorized (18)

Copyright © 2022 Petaluma Tomorrow · Log in