City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ken Irwin, City Manager
BY: Bryan Stice, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2023
ITEM NO: 7.2
SUBJECT: Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (TIMP) and adopt the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Approve the Initial Study / EIR Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan (TIMP) and adopt the Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan.
BACKGROUND
In 2011, the City embarked on a process of updating existing Master Plans and creation of new Master Plans that would help guide how and where necessary facilities could be built in response to planned future growth. These master plans would address public safety, parks and recreation, roadways and circulation, water, wastewater and storm drainage. If the General Plan can be considered the bones of the city, providing a framework for how the city should develop, the master plans add a muscular system, which provides more definition to their respective subjects.
The master plans were undertaken concurrently, so that - as much as possible - each plan could be integrated with the others. For instance, the bicycle and pedestrian system was based, in part, upon information from both the TIMP and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to ensure that individuals and families would be able to use that system to access key locations throughout the city, including public recreation venues.
Around 2015, as the master plans neared completion, two changes occurred: First, the City Council directed staff to more closely scrutinize the master plans to ensure the recommendations were fiscally responsible and reasonable; and second, a series of laws were passed at the state level that required some changes to the master plans, particularly related to water issues, but that had impacts on other master plans. During the intervening period, staff and consultants have worked to address issues presented by a continually shifting State legal landscape.
The City’s consultant on the TIMP, Advanced Mobility Group (AMG), have completed work on the draft of the Master Plan. The Master Plan is now complete and ready for adoption by City Council.
ANALYSIS
The TIMP implements two measures identified in the General Plan Circulation Element. First, it serves as a street master plan showing existing and proposed right-of-way and street widths.
Second, it serves as a bicycle master plan. The TIMP identifies existing and future roadway infrastructure problem areas and potential solutions. It includes a comprehensive review of the City’s transportation facilities and identifies improvements and expansions to guide the City by anticipating and accommodating growth in a way that maintains an acceptable quality of life for Patterson residents, businesses, and visitors alike as anticipated by the General Plan.
The plan has been through a series of workshops and meetings with appropriate staff members and members of the public. The plan was also influenced by a number of public workshops that were held to ensure public concerns are addressed. As previously noted, it has also been prepared in concert with the other master plans to ensure a consistent development approach.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the TIMP with a 3-0 vote with one abstention. They also made several recommendations to the City Council, each of which is followed by comments from city staff:
1. Use roundabouts rather than traffic signals where possible. Roundabouts should be the preferred solution over traffic signals.
“Since roundabouts can provide substantial traffic flow benefits compared with conventional signalized intersections, it might be appropriate for the City of Patterson to carefully weigh merits of considering roundabouts at some of the future signalized intersections which might require a signal at buildout.”
We understand the safety and other merits of a roundabout, but applicability would still require additional LOS evaluation based on delay and queuing. The City can evaluate feasibility of a roundabout feasibility of a roundabout when a signal is required in the future.
1. The Commission desires that the City be more proactive with the County of Stanislaus with respect to the Southwest Corridor design features and the Corridor actually coming to fruition.
The City has secured agreements with the County ensuring the City’s preferred route for the South County Corridor will be used. The City actively pushes for realization of the South County Corridor.
1. The Commission wants to make sure the South County Corridor includes a new bridge.
Staff agrees that a new bridge over the San Joaquin River would be the best outcome, providing additional access, in the event that the current river crossing is blocked. However, such a bridge would likely increase the total cost of the project by a minimum of $60 million. The placement of City of Modesto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant on the opposite side of the river, also complicates potential siting that would make sense. It is staff’s opinion that the priority should be completion of the South County Corridor over provision of a second route.
1. The Commission desires to see an alignment of the South County Corridor that flows well. The alignment can be curvilinear if necessary but without tight turns and minimal stop signs and signal lights.
City staff agrees and it is our understanding that the South County Corridor will be designed to encourage rapid movement of goods and people across the County.
1. The South County Corridor design needs to include a grade separation at Zacharias Road and State Route 33 and the railroad tracks.
Staff agrees that grade separation at the railroad tracks would be ideal for the South County Corridor. This project is in a very early stage and quite a bit of work will need to be done before the viability of this approach is determined.
1. The Planning Commission desires that a future hospital site be identified in the Transportation Master Plan and that the Master Plan should be designed around that property/site in order to insure easy access.
While being able to plan for infrastructure surrounding a hospital site would be ideal, designating land for a hospital (and only a hospital) without the express consent of the property owner presents some potential legal challenges. Additionally, a hospital user may determine that a designated site would not work well for their use and select another location instead. Staff continues to work toward this end goal, but, at this time, recommends against designating a location for a hospital.