17,759 / 72.1% Yes votes ...... 6,877 / 27.9% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Specifically the AdvisoryMeasure asks voters to urge and advise the City Council to:

1. Make appropriate designations of the Rainier Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Project to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and CalTrans so that the project can be coordinated with the widening of Highway 101;
2. Expeditiously complete the Environmental Impact Report for the Rainier Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Project;
3. Finalize the design of the Rainier Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Project incorporating an at-grade railroad crossing if feasible, determine the precise footprint of land needed for the project and take steps to preserve the necessary right-of-way;
4. Prepare a financing plan for the Rainier Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Project that maximizes the contributions from property owners and businesses directly benefiting from the project via the use of benefit assessment districts and other appropriate mechanisms;
5. Not allow the Environmental Impact Report for any development proposal to utilize the Rainier Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Project as assumed traffic mitigation until such time as (1) all necessary Environmental Impact Reports have been certified, (2) all funds to construct the project have been identified and secured, and (3) no substantial impediments remain to construction of the project;
6. Design the Rainier Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Project so as to fully mitigate all flooding impacts and to incorporate appropriate bicycle and pedestrian pathways.

s/ Richard R. Rudnansky
Petaluma City Attorney

This measure is necessary to give current and future councils the support needed to stand up to a group fiercely determined to stop Rainier at all costs. Twice before, ballot initiatives designed to stop Rainier were defeated. Now we need to express community will in plain terms. The city needs the Rainier crossing, for many reasons: 1) Improvement envisioned in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (downtown) will create an additional 115,000 vehicle trips daily. 2) 329,000 square feet of retail is projected for the Kenilworth site (probably including a Target store), representing tens of thousands more cars daily on East Washington. 3) East Washington is already at gridlock. 4) Rainier will provide four times more congestion relief to East Washington than an interchange at Corona.

Proponents of the Urban Growth Boundary identified land along the proposed Rainier route for future development. This land will most likely be developed, with or without an effective cross-town connector.

Without Rainier, however, the two-thirds of our city living east of 101 will be denied convenient access to downtown, movies, shopping and restaurants. Residents west of 101 will be denied reasonable access to the hospital, SRJC, youth sports, jobs and shopping.

A previous council killed Rainier despite demonstrated community wishes to rid Petaluma of traffic gridlock. There are still those who want to keep our city divided.

Decades ago planners saw a need to unite Petaluma and proposed the Rainier connector and interchange. This is a feasible, fundable, practical solution, and it is ours if we have the will to proceed. Please vote yes.

s/ Mike Healy
Petaluma Councilmember

s/ Mike O'Brien
Petaluma Councilmember

s/ Clark Thompson
Petaluma Councilmember

That means there will be no state funding for this Rainier project, and the total cost would fall to local taxpayers. The city would reach into your pocket for tens of millions of dollars to subsidize development in the worst place for it.

In addition, as you read the Argument in Favor carefully, you will not find any claim of actual, measurable traffic relief on East Washington or anywhere else if this project is built.

This initiative does nothing to limit intensive new development along Rainier that, according to city projections, will actually worsen traffic on several main streets and intersections.

This initiative does not ask the right question. It should have separated out the one element most people want - improved mobility between east and west Petaluma - without opening the door for intensive, counter-productive development that adds 26,000 daily car trips to McDowell and Petaluma Boulevard.

Significantly, two members of the City Council did propose just such an initiative this summer, but the pro-development majority refused to put it on the ballot.

Send a message to the city council that you want real, measurable traffic relief, not million-dollar taxpayer subsidies to developers that worsens congestion in Petaluma. Vote No on Measure S.

s/ David A. Glass

s/ Janice Cader-Thompson

PETALUMA TOMORROW
s/ Larry Modell, Chair

If building more roads, highways, and interchanges solved traffic congestion, Los Angeles would be a driver's paradise rather than one of the most traffic-choked cities on earth. Without careful planning, new roads simply enable (and subsidize) new development, which leads to even more traffic.

The Rainier connector and freeway interchange are intended to enable (and subsidize) new development in the floodplain. The last remaining stands native oak woodlands run along along the Petaluma river. The new freeway access would primarily benefit a proposed 600,000 square feet (!) of big box retail development. Yet the Retail Leakage Study recently sponsored by the city and the Chamber of Commerce ranked this Petaluma River area dead last in terms of preferred locations for new retail.

Why should taxpayers subsidize development in the worst place for it? According to a recent city study, a fully built-out Rainier project would add 26,000 daily car trips to McDowell and Petaluma Boulevard. Is this traffic relief?

CalTrans has repeatedly told Petaluma the state will not pay for an interchange at Rainier, meaning local taxpayers would have to foot the bill for tens of millions of dollars. Is this responsible fiscal policy?

Let's insist on real, quantifiable traffic relief, not vague taxpayer subsidies for poorly planned development. Vote No on the Rainier Advisory Initiative.

s/ David A. Glass

s/ A. Christine Flum

s/ Janice Cader-Thompson
Registered Dental Hygienist

s/ Donald Weisenfluh
Major U.S. Army Retired

s/ Steven Kirk

Their "fix Washington first" effort led to spending $6 million gussying up the Washington / McDowell intersection, with minimal improvement to traffic. They wanted an interchange at Corona, but now two studies show that a Corona interchange won't work.

So what do opponents now recommend instead of Rainier? Nothing. Petaluma desperately needs a new cross-town connector, but the opponents want nothing. Will a Rainier crossing absorb vehicle trips? Of course, that's the point. Opponents don't mention that much of this traffic is now on East Washington.

Most of the potential new retail they complain about would be located on the vacant parcel on North McDowell, nowhere near the river. They ignore completely the substantial new development expected downtown and at Kenilworth.

They raise the specter of cost. Actually, coordinating with the 101 widening will save millions. There's at least $12.3 million available from Redevelopment. And developers city-wide will kick in millions. But cost isn't the real issue. Councilwoman Torliatt said "If we had the money, l would not want to spend it on Rainier." Nor can opponents seriously dispute the need for Rainier.Mayor Glass proposed his own measure supporting a Rainier cross-town connector, but still simultaneously opposes it.

With Washington at gridlock and more traffic coming, we need to tell the council to finally get serious about building Rainier. Please vote yes.

s/ Mike Harris
Petaluma Councilmember

PETALUMA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1415
Dan Epperson, President

s/ Judith H. Hillery

s/ Richard W. Sharke

s/ Richard A. Miram