OpEd: Politicians Need to Deliver on Promises of Traffic Relief

By: David Glass

At the Petaluma City Council meeting on Monday, September 12th, we had a detailed discussion about development impact fees and other costs of new construction in our community. By far the biggest item affecting development impact fees is how new development causes additional traffic congestion.  To reduce such congestion, about three-fourths of traffic impact fees assessed upon new development is related to construction of the Rainier cross-town connector, with its freeway interchange, and the Caulfield extension from Petaluma Blvd to McDowell.

Both of these projects are specifically included in the Petaluma General Plan as necessary components of the infrastructure improvements for traffic mitigation measures. Hanging in the balance of any decision to consider reduction of development impact fees is integrity.  Will the integrity of the General Plan be maintained?  What is the political integrity of those promising you traffic relief if they are willing to abandon the fundraising mechanism needed to achieve it?

For years I have been asking why some politicians promise traffic relief and too often only deliver half their promise…..the traffic!   You remember when Mike Healy was joined by Mike Harris, Karen Nau, and Mike O’Brien in deciding that it was worth many thousands of dollars of public funds to ask the voters if they wanted the Rainier cross-town connector and interchange. The voters were not asked how to pay for any portion of the project. The question was cut-and-dried - do you want it or not? The only surprise was that just 72 percent of the town was in favor of the proposal. That ballot measure was a complete waste of public funds and we could sure have found better ways to use the money. They might as well have asked the voters how many wanted free ice cream without any worry about the calories.

How a majority of this city council acts going forward on traffic mitigation fees could set our traffic relief programs back to the point where the only way the Rainier cross-town connector and interchange could be achieved would be if the voters were to approve a local tax to build it. Let me be clear, this is not a tax I would support.

Don’t believe for a moment that the council members who voted to spend your tax dollars putting the prior Rainier question on the ballot think the voters would support it either. It's clear to me that is why they refused to include funding the project as part of their meaningless ballot measure. It becomes even more meaningless if traffic impact fees are lowered for all new development to the point at which the projects those fees are supposed to fund become unachievable.

An affordable approach to accomplishing dual objectives would be to analyze the reduction of traffic impact fees within 1500 feet of the downtown train station. The goal would be to achieve a density of development in that area sufficient to qualify for state transportation subsidies under SB 375. That funding could replace the lost revenue from a higher fee and therefore would not jeopardize Petaluma’s ability to provide the infrastructure necessary for a livable community.

This is a balanced, business-friendly approach which meets the needs of our community and could do so without compromising our ability to provide the promised infrastructure improvements such as the Rainier cross-town connector.

It is time for developer-backed council members to serve the entire community and require developers to put their money where these candidates’ mouths have been. Rarely do you see such a defining issue as this one. If one is for Rainier then one must realize it has to be paid for somehow. The only realistic pool of money available with which to pay for it is the development impact fees. Those who supports significantly lowering these fees are not in favor of actually delivering on their promise of traffic relief but you can be sure they will deliver the traffic.

David Glass is the Mayor of Petaluma, first elected in 2003 and again in January 2011. He has also served as a city councilman and as a planning commissioner. The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the writer and not necessarily that of Petaluma Patch.