Rainier: A Dream Delayed

Earlier this week, Petaluma’s new Public Works director Dan St. John sent the Sonoma County Transportation Authority a letter urging them to keep the Rainier crosstown connector and interchange as part of their Regional Transportation Plan, a blueprint for Bay Area's long-term transportation needs.

The letter was a response to a low ranking the project received from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which said it did not meet most of the required targets, such as reducing emissions and traffic accidents and doing little to encourage economic vitality and infill housing.

This is just the latest hiccup in the long and drawn out Rainier saga, an infrastructure project conceived in 1965 that over the years has become mired in controversy, lack of funds, political ambitions and has left the public dismayed about the city's ability to build one street connecting Petaluma’s east and west sides north of town.

According to the latest city estimates, presented by Capital Improvement Project manager Larry Zimmer at the April 2 City Council meeting, the price tag for the crosstown connector and interchange is now $120 million. Development is supposed to pay for it, along with the city’s traffic mitigation fees.

But many question where the money will come from, considering the fact that both Target and Deer Creek Village (Friedman’s) project, once approved, will bring in a total of $13-14 million in fees, and that the traffic impact fees, used for road improvements such as striping and signals, now total only $1.7 million.

“Rainier is a place holder in the general plan as a way to get development in,” said Janice Cader-Thompson, a former city councilmember who opposes the Deer Creek Village shopping center at Rainier and North McDowell because it's predicated on the connector and interchange being built. “But in the process, the city is duping the public into believing something they are never going to get.”

Others disagree. Mike Healy, who is serving his third term on the council and is expected to run again this fall, recently penned an opinion piece in the Argus Courier arguing that the city could save $64 million by eliminating various projects for which it is now setting money aside.

These include eliminating the proposed Recycled Water Distribution System, estimated at $26.2 million and getting rid of the “split-diamond” layout design option for the Rainier interchange, meaning cars on Highway 101 could get off Rainier and travel to East Washington Street via a frontage road (estimated to cost an extra $31.4 million)

But multiple sources interviewed for the story said the plan to tap the city’s water fund is against the law and that removing the “split diamond” or so-called Caltrans preferred alternative would have to be approved by Caltrans, since the agency frowns on interchanges located less than a mile apart.

“I agree that the recycled water distribution system is a boondoggle and should be nixed (because) not only is it wasting capital costs, it increases operating costs treating waste water to a higher level than necessary for agricultural reuse,” says Bryant Moynihan, a frequent critic of City Hall and a member of the Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association, a fiscal watchdog group.

“But I don't see how he (Healy) can logically take the funding from the reduction in development impact fees and apply it to Rainier…monies raised from water and sewer rates must be spent on the property related services of water and sewer per the state constitution. Healy knows this and he is politically posturing for his next election.”

Healy declined Petaluma Patch’s interview request saying he wasn’t comfortable with the anonymity permitted in the site's comments section. (See Healy’s full explanation on the right)

As far as removing the “split-diamond” interchange option, one observer who has been studying Rainier for many years, but who did not want to go on the record because the issue has become so explosive, said that it was Caltrans’ choice to add it.

“The city didn’t ask for the Caltrans-preferred alternative (split diamond interchange); it’s Caltrans that put it in because they were not going to allow the interchange and they wanted to complete a study that had an alternative in place,” the source said. “That way if a project was chosen, they would actually be able to do something.”

Numerous calls to Caltrans were not returned. But in a February 2012 letter to the city, Caltrans district director Lee Taubeneck wrote city engineer Curt Bates saying that more information was needed  before an interchange could be put in.

"While extensive efforts have repeatedly been made by the city to justify either the ramps or an interchange, at this time the Department (Caltrans) still needs considerable information before either ramps or an interchange can be deemed acceptable. Despite the need for more information, the city appears to be going forward with property reservation as part of the Deer Creek project for future improvements...The city should realize that it may be reserving property for improvements that never materialize."

Earlier letters (all documents attached on right) show that Caltrans only favored three options when it came to Rainier: a split diamond interchange, meaning cars could get off the freeway at Rainier, but not on, an undercrossing only or no project at all.

David Keller, another former city council member, says the entire infrastructure project has been used as wedge issue for local politicians when elections come around. He also says that the promise that Rainier will reduce traffic congestion for Washington Avenue crosstown travel is false, especially when viewed in the long-term.

“We may see a 10-12 percent traffic reduction for about 10 years after it’s built, but then the traffic will actually increase because of additional development that is premised on the crosstown connector,” Keller said, adding that the city has never provided calculations of time saved with the connector despite his numerous requests for the information.

“It’s the build it and they will come syndrome," he said. "But it's also become inescapably clear that the SCTA and Caltrans do not believe that this is a viable project.”

However, St. John, the city's public works director and many others at City Hall insist that even though no clear funding is now available, Rainier can get built with the help of federal, state and regional transportation grants. That's the reason the city is pushing the SCTA to list the project, in any shape or form, in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

“It’s an opportunity we didn’t want to miss because if funding became available we’d have a crack at it,” said St. John. “The project has been going and will continue to go forward, whether or not it's included in the RTP."

Meanwhile, San Francisco-based URS Corp., the same company that is working on the Highway 101 widening, has been hired to conduct an Environmental Impact Report at a cost of $1.2 million, which St. John says is covered by the $7.5 million set-aside from the now defunct redevelopment agency.

But Cader-Thompson says that unlikely because the money just isn’t there. And, she adds, it would take seven new shopping centers to finance the connector and interchange.

“We can’t even get state or federal funds to fix our potholes on our local streets and there is no state, regional or federal funds for this,” Cader said. “It’s a locally-serving project, so we have to come up with the funds ourselves.”

Calls to Councilmembers Mike Harris and Gabe Kearney, who voted to certify the Deer Creek Final Environmental Impact Report were not returned by publication.

Do you believe the city can find a way to finance the Rainier crosstown connector and interchange?

CORRECTION: Councilmember Healy was alluding to the Highway 101 widening project as "shovel-ready," not the Rainier crosstown connector. Petaluma Patch regrets the error.