HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.C 08/03/2015DATE: August 3, 2015
Agenda Item #5.0
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Resolutions Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, Approving the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Adopting Statements of
Overriding Considerations from Cumulative Impacts for the Rainier Crosstown
Connector Project.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council conduct the required public hearing on the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Rainier Cross -Town Connector and adopt the
attached resolutions:
• Resolution certifying the FEIR and approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) for the Rainier Cross -Town Connector Project; and
• Resolution adopting the statements of overriding considerations for cumulative impacts.
BACKGROUND
The environmental review process initiated with the release of the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
on August 11, 2011. In July 2014, the DEIR was released for public review and was considered
before the Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings in August and
September 2014, respectively. On May 28, 2015, the FEIR was released for public review and
was considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing on June 23, 2015.
DISCUSSION
The following narrative summarizes the Planning Commission's review and discussion of the
FEIR on June 23, 2015. A detailed analysis of the consistency of the proposed project with
applicable planning documents, an overview of the FEIR, and responses to comments raised
during the DEIR review period is provided in the Staff Report prepared for the June 23, 2015
Planning Commission (Attachment 3).
Planning Commission Hearing on the FEIR (June 23, 2015)
Per the City's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Planning
Commission requested that the FEIR return to the Commission for consideration. On June 23,
2015, the FEIR was brought before the Commission for review and input.
The Commission's discussion focused on responses to comments set forth in the FEIR, per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b). The Planning Commission heard a staff presentation,
accepted public comment, requested clarification on several items (further described below) and
provided comments.
Three individuals offered public comment at the Planning Commission meeting (Dave Libchitz,
Janis Cader- Thompson, and David Keller), all expressing opposition to the Project for the
following reasons:
• The FEIR fails to address comments raised during the public review process
• Responses to comments were incomplete or inadequate
• Funding is not available, only way to fund Rainier is to build out in the floodplain
• Impacts were not properly identified
• Proof of traffic relief is not apparent
• Lack of a replanting plan for Oak trees
• The project does not implement the River Enhancement Plan
• The Project fails to provide access to the River
• The Project fails to protect the River
• The Project fails to provide access to multi -modal network
• The attachment to David Keller's comment letter was omitted
A motion to recommend that the Council certify the EIR and approve the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program failed with a tie vote, (3 -3, Barrett absent). Due to the tie vote and
resulting lack of action by the Planning Commission, staff has presented both sides of the
Commission vote for the Council to consider as part of their deliberation.
The three commissioners supporting the motion noted the following reasons:
The responses in the FEIR were adequate
The FEIR was understandable and disclosed potential impacts
The Project achieved identified objectives
Those Commissioners in support of the motion found that responses to comments provided in the
FEIR and the record were satisfactory. They concluded that the Project's objective to improve
the overall circulation network is fulfilled as congestion relief is realized. This conclusion was in
part based on the data in the EIR showing that more intersections are improved (increase in LOS
or decrease in delay) relative to intersections that degrade. Commissioners that supported the
motion noted that data and information was set forth in a manner that was understandable and
achieved the identified project objectives. Additionally, those in support found that the EIR met
the intent of CEQA by fully disclosing potential impacts, considering a range of possible
alternatives and requiring mitigation measures that avoid, reduce or offset impacts. The lack of
funding for the project at this time was not thought to be a reason to reject the EIR.
The three commissioners that voted against the motion noted the following reasons:
• The responses in the FEIR were inadequate
• The EIR does not identify all impacts
• The EIR does not demonstrate sufficient traffic relief
• The EIR does not address induced traffic from a new roadway
• The Project fails to provide sufficient multi -modal connectivity
• The Project does not achieve objectives
• The FEIR fails to address induced growth in an area prone to flooding
Those opposed to the motion argued that the Project failed to achieve the identified objectives,
foremost by not providing traffic congestion relief. Commissioners opposed to the motion stated
that based on the data presented in the EIR, the project does not demonstrate that traffic
congestion is alleviated; rather it shows that the location of traffic congestion shifts. It was also
noted that the increased traffic from induced demand generated by additional roadway capacity
was not evident in the EIR. These commissioners stated that the objective to relieve congestion is
not accomplished in the EIR analysis. Specifically, the LOS and delay improvements as a result
of the Project do not constitute a relief program. For example, the delay time along Washington
Street improves by one minute, which is not adequate relief. Commissioners opposed to the
motion noted that separating the interchange element resulted in reduced traffic congestion relief.
Another comment from the Commissioners opposed to the motion noted that the objective to
"Not preclude future connection from adjacent parcels along the roadway" is by default growth
inducing and the EIR does not analyze those impacts. Additionally, those parcels that would be
accessible via a new future connection to Rainier are all located within the floodplain, which
exacerbates the risks and losses associated with a functioning river system. Commissioners
acknowledged that the City's General Plan designates those parcels for residential and
commercial development, and suggested that development in that location is in conflict with
other objectives of the General Plan.
A further concern expressed was the apparent lack of connectivity to alternative modes of
transportation. It was acknowledged that Rainier could potentially provide an important piece of
the multi -modal network, but that connections to existing and future paths would be needed. The
Citywide issue of congestion requires a holistic approach including improving safe routes to
schools, providing pedestrian access and developing the multi -modal paths identified in the
City's Bike and Pedestrian Plan. It was stated that Rainier could be an important opportunity to
realize these multi -modal connections, but currently falls short.
There was concern expressed that this was the only time that the Commission would be
reviewing the roadway project. Additionally, the Commission formally requested that draft
statements of overriding consideration be presented to the Commission for comment prior to
going to the Council on future projects.
3
The lack of consensus on the adequacy of the EIR resulted in a failed motion (3 -3). No action
was taken by the Planning Commission. As such there is no recommendation from the Planning
Commission to the City Council to proceed with certification and adoption of the EIR and
MMRP for the Rainier Cross -Town Connector stands.
Staff Response
The attached Staff Report prepared for the June 23, 2015 Planning Commission hearing provides
a summary of the responses provided to many of the overlapping comments received on the EIR
(Attachment X). Additionally, the Final EIR provides both Master Responses and individual
responses to each comment raised. At the public hearing both city staff and the EIR consulting
traffic engineer responded orally to questions and comments raised. The following provides a
summary of the additional concerns that were raised at the June 23, 2015 Planning Commission
hearing with staff response in italics:
Induce Growth: It was stated that the Rainier Cross -Town Connector would induce growth in
currently undeveloped portions of the City that are currently inaccessible.
As described in response to comment 3 -22 of the FEIR (page 2.41), the project is considered
growth accommodating since the new roadway would provide future opportunities for
connection and access to parcels that are currently landlocked. The General Plan already
considers the buildout potential of these parcels and Rainier would not induce growth beyond
what has previously been identified and considered.
Traffic Relief: It was stated that the Project does not provide sufficient traffic relief.
As described in Master Responses 3, S and 6, the Project would increase the roadway capacity
of the City by providing an additional east /west connector. Linder the opening year condition
(2020) the project would correct 3 LOS deficient intersections (Table B in the FEIR, page 2 -10)
and tinder the cumulative condition, six intersections would improve from deficient LOS to
acceptable LOS (Table C in the FEIR, page 2 -13). As traffic patterns would shift, the project
would result in degraded LOS at one new intersection under opening year and cumulative
conditions.
Multi - Modal: It was stated that the Project misses an opportunity to provide interconnectivity
and enhance the City's multi -modal network.
The Project as currently designed is consistent with the City's General Plan and the City's
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan in that it would introduce both sidewalks and striped bicycle lanes
on Rainier, which would provide for an important East -West connection for these alternative
modes of travel. Response 6 -29 of the FEIR (page 2 -73) further describes that the design of the
bridge allows for the future development of a trail along the river as well as a Gateway planting
scheme as depicted in the River Enhancement Plan.
Omitted Attachment: It was stated that the attachment to the comment letter submitted by David
Keller was omitted from the record.
4
Mr. Keller submitted a comment letter along with 3 attachments at the City Council hearing on
the DEIR on September 8, 2014. The letter is included as comment letter 6 in the FEIR
(beginning on Page 2 -56). The attachments provided as part of the letter are considered
reference documents, are included as part of the record, but were not included in the FEIR. The
attachments consist of the following:
• A Letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the City of Petaluma Planning Division
regarding comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on Rainier Avenue
Extension and Freeway Interchange (dated September 14, 1993);
• A Letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the
Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Project (dated August 25, 1993); and
• An article from the Argus Courier, "Rainier Spurs Land Boom: Developers buy up
acreage around crosstown connector" (dated May 31, 1994)
The comments provided by Mr. Keller, along with any references to the attached documents,
were considered and responded to as part of the FEIR (see page 2 -69 through 2 -76). The
attachments from the Fish and Wildlife Service are in response to two past projects that
occurred over a decade ago. Translating comments from 1993 letters on different projects to the
current EIR is neither appropriate nor intended by the agency. It is important to note that the
Fish and Wildlife Service was notified as part of the public review process for the current EIR
and to date no comment letter has been received. Also relevant is that consultation with the Fish
and Wildlife Service may be required to occur (depending on the final design) as part of the
permitting process for Rainier (page 3 -21 of the DEIR).
The concerns raised in Mr. Keller's comment letter relate to the extensive biological resources
that are located within the Petaluma River corridor. The EIR for the subject Rainier Cross -Tovvn
Connector includes an assessment of resources, full disclosure of potential impacts, and sets
forth a number of mitigation measures in an effort to avoid, reduce or offset those impacts. The
comment letter provided by Mr. Keller is included in the FEIR which references the documents
that were attached and a good faith effort has been made in responding to all comments raised
in accordance with CEQA.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Although state funding for construction of the project is incomplete at this time, completion of
the EIR allows Caltrans to conduct the necessary undercarriage improvements (raising the profile
at the Highway 101 undercrossing); thereby permitting the project to move forward at the time
that funding is secured.
5
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution certifying of the Final Environmental Impact Report
2: Resolution making Finding of Fact and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations
3: Staff Report prepared for the June 23, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting
4: Comments on the FEIR
® Items listed below are large in volume and are not attached to this report, but may be viewed in the
City Clerk's office.
FEIR: Previously provided, hand delivered on May 28, 2015
DEIR: Previously provided on July 24, 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RAINIER CROSS -TOWN CONNECTOR PROJECT,
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Public Works and Utilities Department ( "Applicant')
proposes a 0.65 mile, four lane arterial roadway featuring bridge, median, pedestrian, bicycle
facilities and new signalized intersection. The Rainier Cross -Town Connector will connect North
McDowell Boulevard on the eastern side of Highway 101 to Petaluma Boulevard North on the
western side of the City ( "Project'); and
WHEREAS, the Project boundaries constitute roadway and appurtenant improvements
that would extend at grade from the signalized North McDowell Boulevard intersection, cross
beneath Highway 101 under an elevated portion of the Freeway that will be constructed as part
of the Marin- Sonoma Narrows HOV Project, would cross over the Sonoma Marin Area Rail
Transit (SMART) Corridor and Petaluma River via a bridge, and return to grade proximate to
Petaluma Boulevard North where it will terminate at a signalized T- intersection; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Project was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on August 11, 2011, pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ")
Guidelines Section 15082; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "Draft EIR ") was prepared for the
Plan in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between July 24, 2014 and September 8,
2014, with a notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15087; and
WHEREAS, Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025,
certified by City Council Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S on April 7, 2008, for information
relating to certain cumulative impacts, as identified in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has committed to implementing the mitigation measures contained
in the Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the
City as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2008 -084 N.C.S., Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Petaluma Making Findings of Fact, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
Adopting an Implementation and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in support of the
General Plan 2025, pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to
the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other
interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting and hearing on August 12,
2014 to consider the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting and hearing on September 8, 2014 to
consider the Draft EIR; and
1 -1
WHEREAS, written and oral comments to the Draft EIR have been received and
responses to those comments have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Project ( "Final EIR "); and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR and
accepted public testimony; and
WHEREAS, the motion to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and approve
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program failed with a tie vote of Commissioners present
at the June 23, 2015 meeting (3 -3); and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public meeting on August 3, 2015, at which
time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and
WHEREAS, the Project does not have the potential to have a significant adverse impact
on wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or
cumulatively, though it is not exempt from Fish and Game filing fees; and
WHEREAS, the Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be
reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures, and pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been
prepared and set forth with the Final EIR to ensure that all mitigation measures which serve to
reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully implemented; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that the project will contribute to significant and
unavoidable cumulative impacts identified in the City's General Plan EIR including a) City -wide
traffic -noise impact; b) greenhouse gas emissions; and c) deficient level of service (LOS) at the
Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard intersection; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby certifies the
Final Environmental Impact Report and finds as follows:
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been completed in
compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review
Guidelines;
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council which
reviewed and considered it prior to making a decision on the Project; and
3. The Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and
analysis of the potential for environment impacts of the Project.
1 -2
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE RAINIER CROSS -TOWN CONNECTOR PROJECT, PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, The City of Petaluma Public Works and Utilities Department ( "Applicant ")
proposes a 0.65 mile, four lane arterial roadway featuring bridge, median, pedestrian, bicycle
facilities and new signalized intersection. The Rainier Cross -Town Connector will connect North
McDowell Boulevard on the eastern side of Highway 101 to Petaluma Boulevard North on the
western side of the City ( "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Project boundaries constitute roadway and appurtenant improvements
that would extend at grade from the signalized North McDowell Boulevard intersection, cross
beneath Highway 101 under an elevated portion of the Freeway that will be constructed as part
of the Marin- Sonoma Narrows HOV Project, would cross over the Sonoma Marin Area Rail
Transit (SMART) Corridor and Petaluma River via a bridge, and return to grade proximate to
Petaluma Boulevard North where it terminates at a signalized T- intersection; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Project was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on August 11, 2011, pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ")
Guidelines Section 15082; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "Draft EIR ") was prepared for the
Plan in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between July 24, 2014 and Sept. 8, 2014,
with a notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15087; and
WHEREAS, Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025,
certified by City Council Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S on April 7, 2008, for information
relating to certain cumulative impacts, as identified in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has committed to implementing the mitigation measures contained
in the Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the
City as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2008 -084 N.C.S., Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Petaluma Making Findings of Fact, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
Adopting an Implementation and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in support of the
General Plan 2025, pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to
the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other
interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting and hearing on August 12,
2014 to consider the Draft EIR; and
2 -1
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting and hearing on September 8, 2014 to
consider the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, written and oral comments to the Draft EIR have been received and
responses to those comments have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Project ( "Final EIR "); and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR and
accepted public testimony; and
WHEREAS, a motion to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and approve
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program failed with a tie vote of Commissioners (3 -3)
present at the June 23, 2015 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Project does not have the potential to have a significant adverse impact
on wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or
cumulatively, though it is not exempt from Fish and Game filing fees; and
WHEREAS, the Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be
reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures, and pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been
prepared and set forth with the Final EIR to ensure that all mitigation measures which serve to
reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully implemented; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that the project will contribute to significant and
unavoidable cumulative impacts identified in the City's General Plan EIR including a) City -wide
traffic -noise impact; b) greenhouse gas emissions; and c) deficient level of service (LOS) at the
Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard intersection; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that the City Council find
that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other consideration outweigh any
significant environmental effects of the Project which cannot be fully mitigated; and
WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations consisting of the City's finding
and determination regarding the Project's significant and unavoidable effects is contained in
Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, a mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program has
been prepared, as set forth in the FEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that
all mitigation measures relied on in the findings are fully implemented; and
WHEREAS, some mitigation measures identified in Exhibit A may require action by, or
cooperation from, other agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The above recitals are true and correct, incorporated herein by reference and adopted
as findings of the City Council.
2 -2
2. The City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report as an adequate
description of the impacts of the Project in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines.
3. Based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the findings
regarding potential significant impacts of the Project and mitigations, as set forth in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
4. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth within the Final
EIR.
5. Based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the findings
regarding alternatives to the Project, as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated
by reference.
6. Based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the findings set
forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding significant unavoidable impacts in
considering the cumulative impact of the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated
by reference.
7. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of
proceedings to date for the Project is the City of Petaluma, Planning Division, Petaluma City
Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952.
8. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
2 -3
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council
hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts of
the Rainier Crosstown Connector Project ( "Project ") and methods for mitigating those impacts. For the
purpose of these findings, the term EIR means the Draft and Final EIR documents collectively, unless
specified otherwise.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environment impact contained in the
EIR. Instead the findings provide a summary description of each impact and identify the applicable
mitigation measures set forth in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state findings on the significance of
each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these
environmental findings and conclusions is in the EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference
the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the EIR's determinations regarding mitigation
measures and the Project's impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts
supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and
explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the determination and
conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent
that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather then set
forth in full. The text of the EIR should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and
mitigations.
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ -8 Project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations resulting in cancer and noncancer risks. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
AQ /GHG -8: Reduce emissions produced by all diesel fueled off -road construction equipment by
at least 8 percent relative to Tier 2 engines.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With mitigation, the impact on the residents can be reduced to 9.8 in one
million, which is less than the BAAQMD's significance threshold of 10 in one million.
Therefore, the impact on sensitive receptors would be less than significant after mitigation.
2 -4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 11I0-3: The project would have substantial adverse affect on riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS).
13I0-1: Reduce construction related impacts by minimizing the area of disturbance, limiting
construction activities to the dry season when proximate to the river, locating equipment in
designated staging areas, protecting topsoil, covering stockpiled materials, restoring disturbed
areas, revegetating to achieve pre- construction coverage, and removing all construction
equipment from the site.
13I0-2: Minimize potential discharge of sediment by use of silt fences, erosion control blankets,
sediment - control devices, diverting runoff, covering materials stored onsite, preventing discharge
of construction materials, implementing BMPs, providing pallets for containment areas, and
training onsite personnel in spill prevention and spill containments.
BIO -3: Mitigate impacts to riparian habitat at a 1:1 ratio or as deemed appropriate by regulatory
agencies.
BI0-7: Prepare an arborist report prior to construction activities and adhere to the
recommendations therein and in accordance with the Petaluma Tree Preservation Ordinance.
11I0-8: The City of Petaluma shall develop a replanting plan such that at the end of a five -year
monitoring period the plan shall be considered successful if 75 percent of the tree plantings
survive.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation measures will limit areas of disturbance and timing of
disturbance to avoid or reduce potential impacts that could adversely affect a sensitive natural
community. In the event that minor and temporary disturbance occurs, any disturbed areas will be
restored to preconstruction conditions. Where on -site mitigation is deemed infeasible, impacts to
riparian habitat will be remediated by offsite measures proximate to the project site as practicable.
The mitigation to be imposed also outlines best practices for handling and containing materials to
prevent accidental environmental degradation. With the introduction of mitigation measures listed
above, sensitive habitat will be left undisturbed or restored as necessary such that the long term
health and vitality of on -site and surrounding sensitive habitat will be substantially retained.
Impact 13I0-4: The project would adversely affect federally protected wetlands through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption or other means.
11I0-1 (see above)
13I0-2 (see above)
2 -5
BIO -3 (see above)
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures will protect wetland habitat or
offset any losses to wetland habitat through onsite creation of wetland and /or the procurement of
mitigation bank credits that benefit the Petaluma River watershed. Therefore, after applying these
measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Impact BIO -5: The project would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the
CDFW or the U.S. FWS.
Amphibians
BIO -1 (see above)
BIO -2 (see above)
BIO -3 (see above)
BIO -4: A qualified U.S. FWS - approved biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys of all
ground disturbance areas within suitable habitat to determine the presence of California Red
Legged Frogs and Western Pond Turtle. Construction activities adjacent to the Petaluma River
shall be conducted during the dry season and shall be supervised by an approved biologist as
appropriate. Prior to initiating work, all construction personnel shall undergo training (conducted
by a qualified biologist) for Endangered Species Act provisions, best practices, and
species /habitat recognition. During construction, the area of activity shall be delineated and
limited to the area within a temporary high visibility orange fence, flagging, or other barriers. All
trash shall be kept in closed containers and removed at the close of each day and any holes or
trenches deeper than one foot shall be covered to prevent entrapment.
Fish
BIO -1 (see above)
BIO -2 (see above)
BIO -5: To avoid and minimize impact and potential disturbance to Central California Coast
Steelhead, Green Sturgeon, and Sacramento Splittail, all construction activities shall be conducted
during the dry season. Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall train construction
personnel in salmonid and habitat identification, best practices, and review of project site
boundaries. Should construction of cofferdams or dewatering occur during construction activities,
a fish rescue effort shall be conducted, as necessary.
2 -6
Birds
13I0-6: If construction is scheduled during the nesting season of migratory birds then pre -
construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify the presence of any
nesting birds. In the event that an active nest is identified, a qualified biologist, in consultation
with the CDFW, shall determine a buffer zone and clearly delineate the buffer area. If an active
nest is found after the pre- construction survey and once construction has begun, all construction
activities will cease until the nest has been evaluated by the qualified biologist and appropriately
protected.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation measures would limit areas and times of disturbance, require
pre- construction surveys and nesting bird surveys. Further, mitigation requires a training
component that will ensure construction workers are well aware of sensitive species and habitats.
Through minimizing the area of disturbance and limiting construction activities to a period least
likely to impact sensitive species (dry season and non - nesting season) and educating construction
workers, potential impacts will be less than significant.
Impact 13I0-6 The project would conflict with local policies or ordinances intended to protect biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy.
13I0-7 Prior to construction, a qualified arborist shall determine which trees need to be removed
and whether they are protected. For protected trees to be removed, they shall be replaced at a
trunk diameter ratio of 1:1 for healthy trees, 2:1 for marginal trees, and those in poor health do
not require replacement. Trees shall be replaced onsite, as feasible, otherwise suitable off -site
location shall be identified.
13I0-8 The City shall prepare a replanting plan that identifies where, how many and what type of
trees shall be replanted. The replanting site shall be monitored yearly and an annual report sent to
CDFW and USACE. At the end of the five -year monitoring period, the site shall be considered
successful if at least 75 percent of the tree plantings survive.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation measures limit disturbance and require replacement for
protected trees with potential to be affected by project activities. Further, the health of all trees
that need to be removed as a result of the project will be identified and replaced on an appropriate
ratio, which will avoid a net reduction to Petaluma's tree coverage. Mitigation measures are
consistent with the requirements of Chapter 17 Tree Preservation of the Implementing Zoning
Ordinance and promote the health and longevity of Petaluma's trees. Therefore, with mitigation,
impacts to protected trees will be less than significant.
2 -7
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CULT -2: The project would result in substantial adverse changes to a historic resource.
CULT -1: The City shall implement an archeological data recovery plan (ADRP) prior to
commencement of construction. The ADRP shall identify the scientific /historical research
questions that are applicable to the expected resource, the data classes the resource is expected to
possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions,
amongst other things. Further, no destructive data recovery methods shall be applied where non-
destructive methods are practicable.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Mitigation measure requiring an ADRP would ensure that
interpretable information regarding subsistence patterns, trade, and responses to environmental
change that have yet to be extensively investigated in the Sonoma Region and potentially existing
at SON -225/H is recovered and interpreted to the extent practicable by a professionally qualified
archeologist. Proper recovery and treatment of previously undisturbed historic /archeological
resources would ensure impacts to historic resources are less than significant.
Impact CULT -3: The project could adversely affect expected prehistoric site deposits.
CULT -2: The City of Petaluma shall retain the services of a qualified archeologist who has
expertise in California Prehistory to monitor ground disturbing activity within 200 feet of the top
of the bank on either side of the Petaluma River.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation ensures that currently unknown
archeological resources will not be inadvertently disturbed or destroyed as a result of construction
activities. The qualified archeologist will be given the authority to stop work or redirect crews if
an intact archeological deposit is encountered and until such time that it has been thoroughly
evaluated and recommendations on how to proceed have been made. If it is determined by the
archeologist and the City that identified deposits may have significance, then an ADRP shall be
implemented. The monitoring, evaluation, and treatment measures prescribed by CULT -2 ensure
that potential impacts to prehistoric site deposits are less than significant.
Impact CULT -4: The project could result in potentially significant impacts to unknown archeological
resources, including human remains.
2 -8
CULT -3: In the event of accidental discovery of cultural resources, work would be suspended at
that location and City of Petaluma staff would be contacted. A qualified cultural resource
specialist would be retained and would perform any necessary investigations to determine the
significance of the find and provide recommendations on how to proceed.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation ensures that if unknown archeological
resources (including human remains) are encountered, all work would suspend until such a time
that a qualified cultural resource specialist could perform investigation and recordation or
protection measures as deemed appropriate by the City of Petaluma. Should human remains be
encountered, mitigation measures require that they be identified, treated, and managed in
accordance with Sections 5097.97 and 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The mitigation measures imposed on
the project limit the potential to harm or otherwise mishandle potentially significant archeological
resources such that impacts will be less than significant.
Impact CULT -5: The project could adversely affect unidentified paleontological resources.
CULT -4: In the event of paleontological discoveries, the City of Petaluma shall notify a qualified
paleontologist who shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and
assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in the guidelines adopted by the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. In the event of an
unanticipated discovery of a breas, true, and /or trace fossil during construction, excavations
within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined
by a qualified paleontologist and a determination of proper procedures is made.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation measures would require that a qualified paleontologist
document, evaluate, and assess any potential paleontological resources encountered during
construction. The measure further requires that appropriate procedures are determined in
consultation with appropriate agencies prior to re- commencement of earthmoving activities and
that an excavation plan is developed as necessary. With proper evaluation and treatment overseen
by a professional paleontologist, impacts will be less than significant.
2 -9
GEOLOGY
Impact GEO -5: The project could expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to
seismic hazards.
GEO -1: The City of Petaluma, or its technical consultant, shall prepare a geotechnical
investigation and report prior to completing project design. The report shall be prepared in
accordance with Section 17.31.180 of the City's Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance and
shall include an adequate description of the geology of the site, and conclusions and
recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed project. The City
shall implement all site - specific mitigation measures recommended in the geotechnical
investigation prior to or during construction, as appropriate.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures require that the project be
designed to minimize exposure of the structure to seismic related hazards by ensuring that the
project limits public and structural exposure to potential substantial adverse effects resulting from
ground shaking, ground failure, and /or liquefaction. Site - specific construction recommendations
such as the use of quality fill, proper compaction, over excavation, and grading requirements will
be implemented to ensure impacts are less than significant.
Impact GEO -6: The project would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that may
become unstable as a result of the project.
GEO -1: (See above)
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The geotechnical report will characterize the on -site geotechnical
conditions in order to make appropriate recommendations related to grading procedures and
design criteria. Proposed recommendations may include providing fill material, location and
compaction design requirements, over excavating the existing soils, and /or providing specific
grading requirements. The report will be prepared in accordance with the California Building
Code and City of Petaluma General Plan policy. As such, impacts will be less than significant.
Impact GEO -7: The project would be located on expansive soil that could pose substantial risks to life or
property.
GEO -1: (See above)
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
2 -10
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The geotechnical report will characterize the on -site geotechnical
conditions in order to make appropriate recommendations related to grading procedures and
design criteria. Proposed recommendations may include providing fill material, location and
compaction design requirements, over excavating the existing soils, and /or providing specific
grading requirements. The report will be prepared in accordance with the California Building
Code and City of Petaluma General Plan policy and will specifically prescribe measures to
address expansive soils. With mitigation, impacts will be less than significant.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HYD -9: The project would place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area which would
impede or redirect flows.
HYD -1: The City shall prepare a hydraulic design study at later stages of project design that
determine the project's potential to alter the river's flood flows at the bridge location and
upstream and downstream of the bridge. The hydraulic analysis would be conducted to quantify
the rise in base flood elevation in the floodway after compliance with the City's no net fill policy.
If this design level evaluation determines that the project would still result in a base flood
elevation increase in the regulatory floodway (even if the increase is minimal), the City would
obtain a CLOMR for the project from FEMA, and request a NFIP map revision.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The City's no net fill policy would ensure reasonable hydraulic
equivalence to existing conditions. Mitigation includes measures such as benching or widening
the channel near the bridge crossing to accommodate surface flows, which would likely result in
no net increase in base flood elevations within the FEMA- designated floodway. Therefore, upon
implementation of the mitigation measure, the project bridge features would not significantly
impede or redirect flood flows, nor would they significantly alter the 100 -year flood plain area.
Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Impact HYD -10: The project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.
HYD -1: (See above)
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
2 -11
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation would reduce potential impacts related to the placement of the
bridge bents, abutment, and outfalls or their associated erosion protection by limiting the area of
disturbance, providing slope protection and stabilization and preventing upstream and
downstream erosion. This will be accomplished by adhering to the City's no net fill policy and /or
design components that would accommodate marginal increase in surface flow elevations.
Therefore, with mitigation, impacts will be less than significant.
TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRANS -7: The project could increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
TRANS -1: To ensure that safe access for transit vehicles is provided into the Operations Facility,
the City shall relocate the access driveway farther away from the Rainier Avenue/North
McDowell Blvd. intersection. Reconfiguration of the access driveway shall also provide a break
in the median and extend the left turn pocket so that transit vehicles can turn left from eastbound
Rainier Avenue into the Operations Facility. This break in the median shall be marked with a "No
Left Turn Except for Buses" sign to dissuade use by non - transit vehicles.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The mitigation measure will result in modifications to the Transit
Operations Facility access driveway thereby maintaining functionality and avoiding a potential
design hazard. The median break and signage will discourage use by non - transit vehicles and
ensure that functionality is preserved for the Operations facility. Therefore, impacts related to
design hazards would be less than significant.
Impact TRANS -8: The project could cause substantial temporary construction related traffic impacts.
Trans -2: The City of Petaluma Public Works and Utility Department or its contractor shall
prepare a construction management plan.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Temporary construction impacts would be reduced by informing the
public of construction schedules, possible detours, and timing, which would allow the public to
select alternate routes in advance of construction activities. By providing adequate advance notice
of closures and construction, and alternate pedestrian/ bicycle routes as necessary to support
possible closures and construction, this temporary construction impact would be minimized.
Further, development of a construction management plan will establish a delivery and export
schedule that considers the least impactful time of day to minimize conflict with commuters and
peak travel times. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, temporary traffic -
related construction impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.
2 -12
Impact TRANS -9: The project could conflict with an applicable congestion management program
including intersection Level of Service Standards.
TRANS -3: The City of Petaluma shall include in its project design an additional westbound left
turn lane and a northbound right overlap phase at the intersection of Petaluma Boulevard
North/Rainier Avenue. The City shall also provide a median refuge (at least 5 feet wide) for
pedestrians crossing Rainier Avenue.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With an additional westbound left turn lane and a northbound right
overlap phase, the project's impacts on study intersections under Opening Year conditions would
be reduced to less than significant because this intersection would operate at LOS D in the PM
peak hour. Further, the installation of a median refuge would provide the necessary pedestrian
improvements to accommodate the additional crossing distance. With implementation of
mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact CUMULATIVE TRANS -1: Intersection level of service would operate at unacceptable LOS E
and F under cumulative conditions. All intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under
cumulative conditions with the project except: East Washington Street/Highway 101 Southbound Ramps;
Rainier Avenue /Petaluma Boulevard North (without Shasta Avenue Extension); and Petaluma Boulevard
North /Sycamore Lane (Shasta Avenue).
CUMULATIVE TRANS -1: The exact location of the impact would depend on the construction
timing of Shasta Avenue extension.
If Shasta Avenue extension is not constructed during the buildout of the General Plan, the project
would need to provide the intersection configuration at the Petaluma Boulevard North /Rainier
Avenue intersection described in Mitigation Measure TRANS -3.
If the Shasta Avenue extension is constructed, then the project could potentially have an impact at
the Petaluma Boulevard North/Sycamore Lane (Shasta Avenue) extension. Restriping the existing
westbound approach to Petaluma Boulevard North /Sycamore Lane (Shasta Avenue) to provide an
exclusive left -turn lane and a shared left /through /right -turn lane plus an exclusive northbound
right -turn lane would improve the intersection to LOS C in the PM peak hour. In order to reduce
impacts to pedestrians resulting from increased crossing distances, a median refuge (at least five
feet wide) shall be installed for pedestrians crossing the south leg of Petaluma Boulevard.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
2 -13
Rationale for Finding: The project would improve the LOS condition at the E. Washington/Hwy
101 SB ramps relative to the no project condition (it would reduce traffic volumes by —17 %). The
other two deficient intersections are dependent on the future Shasta Avenue extension. The new
intersection at Petaluma Blvd. North /Rainier Ave. could be modified to achieve acceptable LOS
under a pre- Shasta scenario by implementation of TRANS -3, which would introduce an
additional westbound left turn lane and a northbound right overlap phase and thereby achieve an
acceptable LOS D. Under a Shasta Ave. scenario, the intersection of Petaluma Blvd.
North /Rainier Ave. would operate acceptably at LOS B and C during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hour, respectively. However, with Shasta Ave, the intersection of Petaluma Boulevard
North /Sycamore Lane (Shasta Avenue) would degrade to unacceptable LOS F. Mitigation would
correct this deficit by introducing an exclusive left -turn lane and a shared left /through /right -turn
lane plus an exclusive northbound right -turn lane, thereby improving the intersection to LOS C in
the p.m. peak hour. It should be noted that the Shasta Avenue extension project would be
required to go through the City approval and CEQA documentation process to identify its impacts
and mitigations prior to its construction. Presumably, it would identify the need to improve the
Petaluma Boulevard North, Sycamore Lane (Shasta Avenue) intersection. Therefore, with
mitigation, the project's cumulative impacts to level of service would be less than significant.
2 -14
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(a) states that an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project or the location that would feasibly accomplish most of the basic
objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen any of the Project's significant
impacts. The EIR evaluated the alternatives listed below.
The City Council considered the alternatives but finds them to be infeasible for the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA
Section 21081(a)(3).
ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT / NO BUILD
Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and the site would remain
as it currently exists. No roadway would be constructed connecting Petaluma Boulevard North on
the west to North McDowell Boulevard on the east. No grading, road building, or construction
would take place. In addition, there would be no changes to existing roadways, such as turn lanes,
to allow access to the Rainier extension and no installation of a new signal at Petaluma Boulevard
North. The trees on the site would remain unchanged. Traffic would continue to use existing
roads, and there would be no construction impacts from the project.
Finding — Infeasible. This alternative would avoid all of the Project's significant impacts.
However, it would not achieve any of the Project's objectives and would not provide for new
arterial as identified in the City's General Plan.
ALTERNATIVE B: 4 -Lane Roadway, No Future Connections
Unlike the proposed project, the design of this roadway would preclude future connections at the
Sid Commons driveway, Shasta Avenue extension, and the Petaluma Outlet Mall Expansion by
having a slightly longer bridge and therefore roadway elevation profile. As with the project,
grading, road building, and construction would take place on the site. In addition, there would be
changes to existing area roadways, such as turn lanes, to allow access to the Rainier extension and
installation of a new signal at Petaluma Boulevard North. Lastly, the Rainier extension would be
constructed in an undercrossing beneath Highway 101; the Petaluma River and SMART tracks
would be spanned by a bridge; and trees on the site would be removed.
Finding — Infeasible. This alternative would lessen some of the impacts, all of which would be
reduced to levels below significance under the proposed project with mitigation. Although this
alternative achieves most of the project objectives, it would preclude future connections, which
have been identified as an important need to achieve buildout of the General Plan.
ALTERNATIVE C: 2 -Lane Roadway, Future Connections
The design of this roadway, with a 2 -lane configuration, would allow for future connections at
the Sid Commons driveway, Shasta Avenue extension, and the Petaluma Outlet Mall Expansion.
Like the project, grading, road building, and construction would take place on the site. In
addition, there would be changes to existing area roadways, such as turn lanes, to allow access to
the Rainier extension and installation of a new signal at Petaluma Boulevard North. Lastly, the
Rainier extension would be constructed in an undercrossing beneath Highway 101, the Petaluma
River and SMART tracks would be spanned by a bridge, and trees on the site would be removed.
2 -15
Finding — Infeasible. This alternative would lessen some of the impacts, all of which would be
reduced to levels below significance under the proposed project with mitigation. Although this
alternative achieves most of the project objectives, it would not relieve traffic congestion, which
would result in LOS in excess of the City's standards. This alternative would not provide as much
of a traffic congestion relief relative to the proposed project alternative since it would only
provide for half of the added capacity to the roadway system (2 lanes rather than 4 lanes). This
alternative would only partially meet the project objectives.
2 -16
EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Petaluma adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR as
significant and unavoidable (Resolution 2008 -084 N.C.S., May 8, 2008). Although the City Council
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan EIR, pursuant to the court
decision in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98,
(2002), the City must adopt specific overriding considerations for this Project.
The City Council has considered the information contained in the EIR and has fully reviewed and
considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentation included in the
record of proceedings. The Council finds that each determination made in this Statement of Overriding
Considerations is supported by substantial evidence set forth in the CEQA Findings and /or herein and /or
in the record of proceedings.
The unavoidable environmental effects identified in the General Plan EIR that are applicable to the
Project will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the General Plan and by
mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. Even with mitigation, implementation of the
Project carries with it certain unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The Council specifically finds
that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been
mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use and other
considerations that support approval of the Project.
The project will contribute to the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified
in the General Plan EIR:
AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.10 -6 Implementation of the General Plan may result in a cumulatively considerable incremental
contribution to the significant cumulative impact of Global Climate Change.
General Plan Policies /Mitigation Measures which substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4 -P -7, Program A: Reduces vehicle related air pollution by enforcing multi -modal
transportation strategies.
Policy 4 -P -14: Integrates Intelligent Transportation Technologies into the City transportation
system.
Policy 4 -P -23: Provides for the staffing of a Program Manager with a focus on Green
Technology.
Policy 4 -P -24: Requires compliance with AB 32 and its governing regulations.
Policy 4 -P -25: Connects additional adopted State standards designed to reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions into the City's jurisdictional authority.
Policy 4 -P -26: Calls for the implementation of measures contained in the municipal Climate
Action Plan.
2 -17
Policy 4 -P -29: Requires training City staff on new technology and improving energy efficiency
in public facilities.
Policy 4 -P -32: Calls for the development and implementation of a municipal Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing Program.
Policy 4 -P -26: Calls for the implementation of measures contained in the municipal Climate
Action Plan.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Plan
which will lessen, but not avoid the significant effect identified in the General Plan EIR.
Explanation: The Rainier Cross -Town Connector will emit GHG emission during construction
and at operation that would contribute to this previously identified significant and unavoidable
impact as described in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR found the following:
"The City prepared a Revised Draft EIR which quantified GHG emissions, identified the
most recently available GHG strategies from a variety of sources, including the
California Air Resources Board, and incorporated an extensive list of GHG reduction
measures into the Plan, to supplement existing Policies regarding resources conservation,
energy efficiency, smart land use and multi -modal transportation. The City is preparing a
Climate Action Program. It has identified extremely aggressive municipal and
community goals for the GHG reduction through its Resolution 2005 -118. Evaluation and
mitigation of the effects of climate change by local agencies is currently in a state of
regulatory and technological uncertainty. The effects of national, State and regional GHG
reduction measures in Petaluma and the effects of local GHG reduction measures in
Petaluma on the larger regional State and global environmental are uncertain and difficult
to qualify. Therefore, the EIR concludes that it cannot be determined to a reasonable
degree of certainty that buildout under the Plan will not result in a cumulatively
considerable incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global
climate change. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable."
NOISE
Impact 3.9 -1: At buildout, implementation of the proposed General Plan would generate increased local
traffic volumes in the Planning Area that would result in a substantial increase to existing exterior noise
levels that are currently above the City standards.
General Plan Policies /Mitigation Measures which substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 10 -P -3, Programs A, B, D, E, F and G: Provides for the elimination or minimization of
noise problems by minimizing the increase of noise levels in the future.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Plan
which will lessen, but not avoid the significant effect identified in the General Plan EIR.
Explanation: The Rainier Cross -Town Connector will generate construction worker vehicle trips
during construction and will introduce a new roadway at operation, which will contribute to
traffic related noise levels on roadways Citywide. The General Plan EIR previously identified
traffic related noise as a significant and unavoidable impact as described in the General Plan EIR
2 -18
per the following:
"Under the various elements of Policy 10 -P -3, the city will locate and design
transportation facilities to minimize noise effects of adjacent areas. It will determine
acceptable uses and installation requirements in noise - impacted areas using Land Use
Compatibility Standards in General Plan Figure 10 -2. It will require a professional
acoustical engineer to provide technical analysis design mitigation measures for
development proposed in areas with noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, discourage
location of new noise sensitive uses in such area, and when permitted require mitigation
to achieve interior noise levels not in excess of 45 dB CNEL. The city will establish
noise - emission standards for city vehicles and continue to require noise control or
mitigation for construction related noise, including from construction vehicles. While
sound walls are discouraged, Plan Program 10 -P -3 -F permits them as necessary,
particularly along Highway 101 and the NWPRS rail corridor [now SMART rail
corridor]. While the identified Policy Programs will reduce traffic related noise, the effect
will remain significant and unavoidable."
TRANSPORTATION
Impact 3.2 -1: Increased motor vehicle traffic would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at study
intersections.
Traffic at six intersections will operate at LOS E or worse at buildout, thus creating a significant impact at
these intersections, under the revised LOS criteria called for by the General Plan.
The Rainier Cross -Town Connector would contribute to the deficient LOS under the cumulative condition
at the North McDowell Boulevard / Rainier Avenue intersection.
General Plan Policies /Mitigation Measures which substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 5 -P -1, Programs A, B, D and E: Provide for the development of a multi -modal
interconnected system to greatly expand upon the opportunity of travel on multiple routes by
multiple modes.
Policy 5 -P -5: Draws in full multi -modal components into the evaluation of potential mobility
impacts.
Policy 5 -P -8, Programs A and B: Identifies quality of life and community character as priorities
in the task of designing the multi -modal components of the community's mobility infrastructure.
Policy 5 -P -10, Program A: Sets the Level of Service D (LOS D) or better for motor vehicles
while recognizing a lower LOS may be acceptable if improvements are found to conflict with
Guiding Principles.
Policy 5 -P -11, Program A: Sets forth the major components to the mobility infrastructure and
requires new development to assist in their funding.
2 -19
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Plan
which will lessen, but not avoid the significant effect identified in the General Plan EIR.
Explanation: The Rainier Cross -Town Connector will contribute to a Citywide shift in traffic
pattern distribution that will result in deficient LOS at the Rainier Ave./North McDowell
Boulevard intersection. The General Plan EIR previously identified this intersection as a
significant and unavoidable impact as described in the General Plan EIR per the following:
"There are no feasible mitigation measures identified that would reduce the impacts to
the six study area intersections to less than significant other than measures that would
conflict with other Plan Guiding Principles. Feasibility of mitigation in this case includes
consideration of whether a possible mitigation measure meets overall project objectives.
Here, those project objectives are contained in the Plan's Guiding Principles set out at
Section i -3 of the Plan. The competing interests of building all roadway systems to meet
peak travel period demands and preserving the overall community character of the city
has been resolved in Policy 5 -P -10, Program A, which notes that a level of service lower
than LOS D for motor vehicles may be deemed acceptable by the City in instances where
potential vehicle traffic mitigations such as adding additional lanes or modifying the
signal timing, would conflict with the following Guiding Principles:
Guiding Principles #2, preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character; and
Guiding Principles #6, provide a range of attractive and viable transportation
alternatives, such as bicycle, pedestrian, rail and transit; and
Guiding Principles #7, enhance downtown by preserving its historic character,
increasing accessibility and ensuring a broad range of business and activities and
increasing residential activities.
It has been determined that installing additional lanes or expanding vehicle capacity at
these location would conflict with these Guiding Principles. The deliberative process led
the community and decision makers to recognize that the non - vehicular modes of travel
would be adversely impacted if roadway improvement were undertaken to weigh more
heavily towards a priority of vehicle demands. Building roadways to meet peak hour LOS
demands were balanced with the overall community desire to retain a roadway system
that meets a more balanced 24 -hour volume demand."
BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
1. The Project will enhance east -west connectivity.
2. The Project will alleviate congestion at several deficient intersections.
3. The Project will provide for multi -modal connectivity by introducing pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
2 -20
CONCLUSION
The City Council has considered the information contained in the Project EIR and has fully reviewed and
considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports and presentation included in the
record of these proceedings. The City Council finds that each determination made in this Statement of
Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial evidence set forth herein and /or in the CEQA
Findings and /or in the record of proceedings.
Based on the forgoing, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Section 15093,
the City Council finds that all the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits that the
Project will produce, as described herein, outweigh the remaining significant and unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts of the Project and render those impacts acceptable.
The City Council further finds that any one of the overriding considerations set forth therein is sufficient
to render the above described adverse environmental impacts acceptable.
2 -21
DATE: June 23, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENT 3
Agenda Item 8A
SUBJECT: Rainier Cross -Town Connector Final Environmental Impact Report
RECOMMENDATION
ENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the required public hearing on the
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Rainier Cross -Town Connector and adopt the
following resolution:
Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the FEIR and approve the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Rainier Cross -Town
Connector- Project (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND
A Rainier Connector was previously contemplated by the City of Petaluma (City) as part of the
larger interchange project evaluated for U.S. Highway 101 between East Washington Street to
the south. and Corona Road to the north. The need for a Highway 101/Rainier Avenue
interchange was .identified as early as 1965 by Caltrans and the City. Caltrans completed and
approved a Supplemental Project Authorization Report and a Project Study Report (PSR) for a
Rainier Avenue interchange in 1980 and 1988, respectively. Caltrans revisited-the interchange
location and spacing requirements in 1992. Because the proposed Rainier Avenue interchange
was less than one mile fiom the existing East Washington Street interchange, Caltrans required
that auxiliary lanes be added in both directions along Highway 101 between the proposed Rainier
Avenue interchange and the existing East Washington Street interchange.
Subsequent to Caltrans' completion of an approved PSR for the interchange, the City of
Petaluma certified an EIR in 1994 for the project. The 1994 EIR studied a modified diamond
interchange with loop ramp alternative; however, the design and construction phases for the
interchange were abandoned.
In 2005 and 2006, City staff met with Caltrans to discuss the interchange project following
Caltrans' Project Development Procedures and began preparation of a PSR for the Highway
101/Rainier Avenue Interchange project. During the review process Caltrans notified the City
that the new interchange would require approval of an exception to Caltrans' design standards
that require a minimum interchange spacing of one mile.
In January 2010, the Petaluma City Council separated the interchange and cross -town connector
into two independent elements to allow coordination of the cross -town connector with the
Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) Marin Sonoma Narrows (MSN) C2 project
that includes mainline and ramp improvements along Highway 101 from just south of Caulfield
Lane to just south of Old Redwood Highway.
In 2009, Caltrans requested that the City suspend the development of a PSR for the Highway
101/Rainier Avenue Interchange Project and proceed with a PSR for the Rainier Avenue Cross -
Town Connector Project, and assuming an undercrossing structure at Highway 101 is installed
by the SCTA MSN C2 project, prepare an environmental document for the Rainier Avenue
Cross -Town Connector. (Since that time, Caltrans has determined that a PSR would not be the
appropriate document for the portion of the project within Caltrans right -of -way as its estimated
capital cost is under $1 million.) The appropriate document would be an encroachment permit.
The City met with Caltrans and SCTA on November 3, 2009 to discuss further including the
undercrossing structure needed at Highway 101 for the Rainier Avenue Cross -Town Connector
Project as part of the SCTA MSN C2 project through Petaluma. The MSN C2 project proposes
to locally raise the profile of Highway 101 crossing the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit
(SMART) corridor to correct and make standard the existing non - standard stopping sight
distance for the crest curve on Highway 101 that does not meet Caltrans' current design
standards.
The MSN C2 project has been designed and the Record of Decision was published in October
2009. Consensus was reached on May 11, 2011 between the City, Caltrans, and SCTA to include
the undercrossing structure component of the Rainier Avenue Cross -Town Connector element
into the MSN C2 design. SCTA initiated a revalidation of the approved environmental document
for the SCTA MSN C2 project that included the undercrossing structure where the extension of
Rainier Avenue from North McDowell Boulevard to the west to Petaluma Boulevard North
would cross under Highway 101. As a conclusion of these steps and decisions, construction of
the Rainier Avenue Cross -Town Connector Project would require minor modifications to the
area under the Highway 101 mainline bridge abutment slopes. Specifically, Abutment 1 and
Abutment 3 would require minor embanlcment modifications and construction of new slope
paving in front of the undercrossing abutments.
Following the Council's decision to separate the interchange and connector into two distinct
elements, the environmental review for the proposed Rainier Cross Town Connector Project was
initiated in 2011. In June 2014 the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was released for
public comment. The Final EIR for the project was released on May 28, 2015 and is the focus of
this Staff Report.
The following table provides a summary of the recent history of actions taken for the proposed
Rainier Cross -Town Connector Project.
2
Table 1. History of Actions
Date Action
May 11, 2011 Consensus reached between City, Caltrans, and
SCTA to include the undercrossing structure
component of the Rainier Avenue Cross -Town
Connector element into the MSN C2 design
Project Description
The project would consist of a new 0.65 -mile long 4 -lane arterial roadway connecting North
McDowell Avenue on the eastern side of Highway 101 to Petaluma Boulevard North on the
western side of the City. The Rainier Connector would extend at grade from the signalized North
McDowell Avenue intersection, cross under Highway 101 at an elevated portion of the freeway
that will be constructed as part of the SCTA MSN C2 project, and cross over the Petaluma River
and SMART corridor via an elevated bridge. The Rainier Connector would return to at grade and
continue to Petaluma Boulevard North, where it would terminate at a signalized T- intersection.
The project would introduce a dedicated right -turn lane and two future eastbound left -turn lanes
at the existing signalized Rainier Avenue and North McDowell Boulevard intersection. The
project would terminate as a "T" intersection at Petaluma Boulevard North with a westbound
right -turn lane and left-turn lane, and two eastbound receiving lanes separated by a median. The
new roadway would have on- street bicycle lanes and sidewalks with planter strips on both sides.
The median and planter area widths would vary depending on the roadway location. The project
would include landscaping in the median, where feasible, and planter areas. No planter areas are
proposed on the bridge portion of the roadway. The median ranges from 14 feet to 24 feet wide
in order to allow for future connections.
Best management practices (BMPs) for temporary and permanent erosion control and the
treatment of storm water would be implemented. These BMPs would include temporary and
permanent fiber rolls, concrete washouts, street sweeping, drainage inlet protection, rock slope
protection at new outfalls, biofiltration swales, hydroseeding and/or erosion control blankets and
temporary covers.
3 -- 3
Highway 101 Undercrossing
The project would cross under Highway 101 at an undercrossing structure to be constructed as
part of the SCTA MSN C2 project. Additional excavation would be needed beneath the
undercrossing structure at Highway 101 in order to construct the proposed roadway and install
utilities. The undercrossing roadway would be an adequate width to include a median, bicycle
lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting, and drainage facilities. These facilities could be
modified in the future in the event that a Rainier Avenue/Highway 101 interchange is
constructed. Storm water runoff from the undercrossing portion of the roadway would be
collected by an underground drainage system consisting of pipes and drainage inlets. The
roadway would meet applicable Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) design standards for
that portion within State right -of -way (the cross -town connector must meet vertical clearance
requirements where it passes under Highway 101).
Petaluma River /SMART Corridor Bridge
The project would include construction of a bridge elevated above the Petaluma River and
Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) tracks. The bridge would include a. 14 -foot wide
raised median, two travel lanes in each direction, 6 -foot wide bicycle lanes, 6 -foot sidewalks
with concrete barriers and chain link railings on both sides, and street lighting. The bridge would
be approximately 88 feet wide, 508 feet in length, would meet the minimum vertical clearance
requirements over the SMART Corridor tracks, and would be designed per the American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LFRD) Bridge Design and California Amendments.
In the preliminary design, the bridge would be constructed of 299 60 -foot long cast -in -steel shell
piles, hammer driven to approximately 50 feet in depth. Construction would include one bent
located west of the SMART corridor right -of -way and one bent between the river and the
SMART tracks, and bridge abutments. The shell piles would be located out of the river at normal
high water levels; however, temporary enclosures (cofferdams) would be used to divert the river
during construction as needed. The cofferdams would be designed so that water flows passively
and would not require pumping. Temporary structures to support the bridge during construction
would be installed in the diverted portion of the Petaluma River. Pile driving would be required
for construction of the temporary structures, and these piles would be the same size or smaller as
those used for the bridge supports. Cofferdams would be removed for the rainy season, but the
temporary support structures may stay in place. Storm water on the bridge would either be
collected by the roadway drainage system or gravity flow to bridge deck drains.
Project Phasing
The analysis conducted in the EIR for Rainier Cross -Town Connector project anticipates that
construction would begin in 2017. This date is based on the project's dependence on
implementation of the SCTA MSN C2 project, as construction of the undercrossing structure of
Highway 101 would be contingent on raising the profile of Highway 101 as part of the MSN C2
project. The analysis assumes that the proposed Rainier Cross -Town Connector would be
constructed in a single phase that is estimated to take 30 months to construct. Construction of the
bridge portion of the proposed roadway is expected to require a majority of the 30 -month
construction window. Completion of the Rainier Cross -Town Connector construction is
3- 4
anticipated for year 2020.
A future interchange at Rainier Avenue and Highway 101 and the future Shasta Avenue collector
roadway, as identified in the City's General Plan are not a part of the Rainier Avenue Cross -
Town Connector project. However, as both are identified in the City's General Plan they are
considered as projects that may be constructed in the future and are analyzed in the cumulative
impacts analysis.
COMMUNITY REVIEW
The public, interested parties and state and federal agencies have had an opportunity to provide
written and/or oral comment during the following review periods and public meetings:
• During the EIR NOP comment period between August 11, 2011 and Sept. 26, 2011
• At the EIR NOP public scoping meeting on August 30, 2011
• During the public review period on the DEIR between July 24, 2014 and Sept. 8, 2014
• At the Planning Commission Hearing on the DEIR on August 12, 2014
• At the City Council Hearing on the DEIR on September 8, 2014
Notices have been published in the Argus Courier and sent to residents and property owners
within 500 feet of the subject property, as well as interested parties, state and federal agencies
who requested notification, and all individuals that have provided comment. Copies of the
DEIR and associated Appendices have been made available at the Petaluma Library, the
Community Center, City Hall, and on the City's website.
Planning Commission DEIR Review — August 12, 2014
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to provide comments and receive public
testimony on the DEIR at its meeting on August 12, 2014. Comments from the hearing included
the following:
1. GHG Methodology. Clarify methodology for GHG analysis. Describe how operational
GHG would be reduced because of reduction in VMT created by the project.
Construction emissions should not be amortized over the life of the project.
2. Petaluma Transit Operations Facility. Concerns about conflict with transit vehicles
blocking the left turn lane on Rainier Ave near North McDowell.
3. Construction truck trips /project phasing. Expand detail on construction related traffic,
lane closures and delays.
4. CEQA Baseline. Concern that a future baseline is being used to assess impacts. The
impact analysis uses existing baseline to forecast future year conditions. The No Project
scenario is shown for informational purposes.
5. Hydrology. Concern that new improvements within the floodplain will result in flooding.
6. Project Benefit. LOS analysis does not appear to improve congestion relative to existing
condition.
7. Impacts from Mitigation. Concern that indirect impact from mitigation measures has not
been fully analyzed.
-3 5
8. Mitigation to offset fill to waters of the State should occur onsite.
City Council DEIR Review — September 8, 2014
The City Council held a public hearing to provide comments and receive public testimony on the
DEIR at its meeting on September 8, 2014. Comments from the Council hearing included the
following:
1. Construction. Concern that the presumed start date of 2017 for construction was overly
optimistic and that staging areas, detour routes, etc. are omitted in the DEIR.
2. Clarify the Shasta Ave. connection to Rainier and its consideration in the DEIR.
3. Future Connections. Concern was raised that insufficient detail was provided for future
connections to Rainier.
4. Flooding and City's No Net Fill Policy.
5. Cumulative Analysis. Concern that DEIR does not reflect induced traffic trips resulting
from development of Rainier.
6. Deferred Mitigation. Concern that DEIR puts of mitigation until later.
7. Traffic Congestion Relief. The DEIR does not clearly show that congestion relief is
realized by the proposed project.
The Final EIR includes all comments received on the DEIR and provides itemized responses to
address each comment.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion summarizes the consistency of the proposed project with applicable
planning documents, identifies the current funding status, and provides an overview of the Final
EIR including the concerns identified during the public review period on the DEIR and the
response to comments presented in the FEIR.
PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Rainier Cross -Town Connector Project is consistent with applicable planning documents
including the General Plan, the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan and the Petaluma
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
2025 General Plan Consistency
The City's 2025 General Plan sets forth 14 guiding principles that provide the basis for the goals,
policies and programs therein. Number 13, which is to integrate and connect the east and west
sides of town, directly identifies the Rainier extension as a means to accomplish this objective.
The Rainier extension mitigates traffic impacts that would occur under full buildout of the
General Plan.
As identified in the General Plan, the extension of Rainier is envisioned as a Cross -Town
Connector in conjunction with a Highway 101 interchange. As described above, the City Council
separated these elements into two distinct components. The focus of this EIR is the Cross -Town
Connector component, which meets the objective of the General Plan by enhancing east -west
connectivity. The proposed roadway alignment has been designed in a manner that would
3 -- 6
accommodate connectivity to Highway 101 via interchange ramps should such improvements be
proposed in the future.
The proposed Rainier Cross -Town Connector Project is consistent with the City's General Plan
2025, in that it provides east -west connectivity across Petaluma, relieves traffic congestion on
the street network, and provides opportunities for access to parcels designated for future
development.
Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan Consistency
The Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan provides a framework for preservation and
restoration of the Petaluma River corridor. The Plan addresses corridor improvements, land uses,
and accessibility along the 6.5 -mile section of the Petaluma River within the city limits. Its four
major components include restoration of the river's natural resources, construction of a multi -use
trail, a vibrant waterfront district adjacent to Downtown, and mixed uses along the river corridor.
The project falls within the Corona Road to Lynch Creek Segment of the Petaluma River Access
& Enhancement Plan, which depicts a future pedestrian trail along the north river bank upstream
of the Rainier / River overcrossing and a future pedestrian trail along both the north and south
river bank downstream.
Construction activities will result in the removal of vegetation along the riverbank and temporary
disturbance potentially within and adjacent to the River. However, mitigation measures as set
forth in the DEIR require that impacts be avoided as feasible, minimized as practicable and
offset. Mitigation measures further require that any offsets first be considered within and
adjacent to the project area prior to acquiring offsite mitigation via established mitigation banks.
The measures set forth in the DEIR ensure that temporary disturbance to the Petaluma River do
not result in a conflict with the River Access and Enhancement Plan.
At operation the Rainier Cross -Town Connector will cross over the Petaluma River via an
elevated bridge. There are no access points or trail elements along the Petaluma River that are
proposed as part of the Rainier Project. Full pedestrian and bicycle facilities are proposed on
both sides of Rainier. While no direct access to the River is proposed by the Rainier Connector
Project, the alignment does not preclude the future development of trails in accordance with the
Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan.
Petaluma Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Consistency
The Rainier Cross -Town Connector is also identified in the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan,
which calls for Class li bicycle facilities along the entire length of the proposed roadway. The
Plan states that the most significant barrier to increasing bicycling is the lack of sufficient east -
west commuter routes with a minimum of Class II bike lanes.
The Rainier Cross -Town Connector proposes 6 -foot wide on- street striped bike lanes on both
sides of the roadway. Sidewalks ranging from a minimum of 6 feet to a maximum of 14 feet in
width are proposed on both sides of the roadway. Project plans provide for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities along the entire length of the proposed roadway consistent with the Bicycle
and Pedestrian plan.
j- 7
FUNDING
Although funding for construction of the project is incomplete at this time, completion of the
EIR allows Caltrans to conduct the necessary undercarriage improvements (raising the profile at
the Highway 101 undercrossing); thereby permitting the project to move forward at the time that
funding is secured.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As described above under Community Review, the environmental review process initiated with
the release of the NOP on August 11, 2011. In July 2014 the DEIR was released for public
review and was considered before the Planning Commission and City Council during public
hearings in August and September 2014, respectively.
SB 743
On September 27, 2013 SB 743 was signed into law, thereby formalizing a new approach to the
way that transportation impact analyses have traditionally been conducted. The legislative intent
of SB 743 is to revise the current practice of traffic analysis conducted for CEQA review in order
to more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related
to infill development, promotion of public health, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. One
of the primary changes that SB 743 promulgates is a shift from using the delay metric known as
level of service (LOS) to an approach that relies on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
There are several steps that must occur before SB 743 can be implemented. In August of 2014
the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released Updating Transportation
Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines, which provides a preliminary discussion of draft
updates for the implementation of SB 743. A second iteration of the draft guidelines is expected
to be released in the spring of 2015 and the final guidelines are anticipated for release in 'the
summer of 2015. By the end of 2015, upon completion of the " rulemaking" process, the
Guidelines are expected to become law. It is expected that in 2016 lead agencies including the
City of Petaluma will be required to update guidance in accordance with the new law. Typically,
a 120 -day period is granted to lead agencies in order to come into compliance with new
legislation. In the event that OPR includes an implementation buffer then additional time may be
available for lead agencies to come into compliance.
As the notice of preparation (NOP) for the Rainier Cross -Town Connector Project was released
in 2011, well before SB 743 had been adopted, the Traffic Impact Analysis 'and EIR use the
traditional LOS metric and delays approach to assess potential impacts associated with
circulation. Given the timeline for the environmental review of the project and the rulemaking
process for adoption of Guidelines that would implement SB 743, the use of the traditional LOS
metric is appropriate and consistent with the standard threshold set forth in the City's General
Plan, which establishes LOS D as the minimum standard. At the time that the City's General
Plan standard is updated in accordance with SB 743, projects will be required to demonstrate
compliance with adopted methodology for evaluating traffic impacts including the use of vehicle
miles traveled in lieu of level of service, should that be the eventual outcome. The NOP and
DEIR for the subject Rainier Cross -Town Connector were released in advance of SB 743 being
3-8
implementable, as guidelines, procedures and completion of the rulemaking process have not yet
been finalized.
FEIR Summary
By the close of the public review period (September 8, 2014) on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the Rainier Cross -Town Connector Project, staff received written comment from the
following agencies, organization and individuals:
1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife
2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
3. Planning Commissioner Jennifer Pierre
4. Councilmember Mike Healy
5. Dennis Kelly
6. David Keller, Petaluma River Council
7. David Libchitz
8. Frederick Etzel
9. Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART)
10. Wayne Leach, Simon Premium Outlets
All the written and oral comments received during the public review period are included in the
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and are accompanied by written response to
comments. As indicated above, a total of 10 comment letters were received during the 45 -day
public comment period on the DEIR. Copies of all written comments received on the Draft EIR,
a record of oral comments made at the Planning Commission meeting on August 12, 2014, and
the City Council meeting on September 8, 2014, are contained within the FEIR. .
The FEIR addresses all comments raised on environmental issues, and provides clarification and
revisions to the Draft EIR where appropriate. The FEIR also includes Corrections and Additions
to the Draft EIR (Section 3) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP),
which identifies each mitigation measure, sets forth the requirement for implementation and
identifies the party responsible for ensuring compliance (Section 4).
Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
The FEIR Section 3 identifies text in the DEIR that has been changed and specifies str4ke+i,,.o
for deletions and underline for insertions. Minor modifications to the DEIR include clarification
on the project description and minor corrections to the environmental impact analysis.
The changes to the DEIR were promulgated pursuant to comments received and are intended to
provide clarification, update information, and enhance understanding of the analysis, site
conditions, and potential impacts of the project.
The FEIR does not meet any of the tests for recirculation in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5
as no significant new information has been added, no new significant impacts identified, and no
considerably different mitigation measures have been developed. None of the changes, revisions,
3-9
or clarifications provided constitutes substantial new information that would warrant
recirculation.
Overview of Comments and Responses
Section 2 of the FEIR provides all comment letters, identifies each comment by number, and
includes an individual response for each comment. Transcripts of the Planning Commission and
City Council hearings on the DEIR identify the oral comments received and are followed by
responses to comments.
Several of the comments received on the DEIR overlap and were responded to using a Master
Response approach (presented in Section 2.3 of the FEIR. Individual responses to each
comment received are also provided in Section 2.4 of the FEIR. The following discussion
provides a brief summary of the overlapping comments received, more detailed responses are
provided in the FEIR.
Baseline Analysis
Several comments were raised regarding the use of baseline conditions in the environmental
analysis. Specifically, concern was expressed that the analysis in the DEIR improperly uses a
future baseline to assess potential impacts associated with traffic and circulation.
The DEIR describes the existing environmental conditions and uses that baseline for analyzing
most environmental issues. However, for the purposes of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions
and traffic analyses the DEIR applies a 2020 baseline reflecting the City of Petaluma's growth
projections and transit system improvements expected to be in place.
Typically, CEQA analyses utilize a baseline that is reflective of conditions at the time the NOP is
released. However, in certain situations it is appropriate to use a future baseline. In the Neighbors
for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 439, 457, the
court states, "A departure from this norm can be justified by substantial evidence that an analysis
based on existing conditions would tend to be misleading or without information valued to the EIR
users." For the subject Rainier Cross -Town Connector Project, an analysis of traffic congestion
under existing conditions would be misleading for several reasons.
First of all, the new roadway would not be operational in advance of 2020. The Rainier Cross -
Town Connector project cannot proceed until Caltrans has completed the SCTA MSN C2
improvements, which will raise the profile of Highway 101 at the location of the proposed
undercrossing. Caltrans anticipates that work on the MSN C2 project will being in year 2018.
Once the improvements to Highway 101 are completed, construction of the Rainier Connector
may proceed. The expected duration of construction for the roadway is 30 months, which is a
realistic estimate for a project of this scale. Thus, the DEIR appropriately assumes that operation
of the Rainier Cross -Town Connector would commence in year 2020 at the earliest.
Secondly, an analysis of existing conditions would not capture increased vehicle traffic
associated with ongoing growth and development that is expected to occur between now and
2020. Any new development will add vehicle trips to the City's circulation system. An
evaluation of existing conditions would preclude these new trips and understate congestion.
,3- 10
The intent of CEQA is to disclose potentially significant environmental impacts and to provide
meaningful information to inform decision makers. The DEIR provides an analysis of traffic and
circulation conditions in year 2020. Conducting an analysis of traffic congestion under current
conditions would be misleading and would understate traffic impacts since there are currently
fewer cars on the road now relative to the volume of traffic that there will be in 2020 under
continued growth and development in accordance with the City's General Plan.
Finally, as a major infrastructure project intended to alleviate traffic congestion over the long-
term build out of the General Plan, a reasonable future baseline provides a means to evaluate the
ability of the new roadway to reduce congestion. The permanent effects of such a long -term
infrastructure investment should take into account increases in population and programmed
changes to the transportation system. For the Rainier Cross -Town Connector DEIR, the potential
impacts of traffic and circulation (as well as noise and air quality) are evaluated against projected
conditions for opening year 2020. Since the population within the City of Petaluma as well as
traffic is reasonably anticipated to increase during the interim years prior to operation, using a
future year baseline that coincides with the opening year of the project provides the public and
decision makers with a realistic evaluation of the potentially significant impacts of the project.
Thus, as further explained in the Master Responses 2 and 3 in the FEIR, the DEIR appropriately
utilizes a future year baseline in order to assess potential impacts from the proposed Rainier
Cross -Town Connector, which is anticipated to be operational no sooner than year 2020.
Cumulative Analysis
Concern was raised regarding the methodology utilized for the cumulative analysis. Specifically,
commenters noted that future development projects will generate vehicle trips that will
contribute to congestion on roadways and the DEIR must capture these.
As described in Master Response 1, the cumulative analysis does include all traffic resulting
from full build -out of the General Plan, including future improvements to infrastructure and
build out of nearby vacant land. The cumulative analysis is consistent with the General Plan and
captures vehicle trips from all potentially future development as identified in the Land Use map.
The Rainier analysis provides a side -by -side comparison of cumulative traffic conditions by
showing level of service and delays at study area intersection with the proposed Rainier
Connector in place and without the Rainier Connector.
The cumulative analysis also considers future potential connections to Rainier including the
Shasta Avenue extension, Sid Commons driveway and the Petaluma Outlet mall Expansion
driveway. Additionally, a future cumulative scenario that considers potential connections as well
as a fall interchange at Highway 101/Rainier Avenue was also evaluated and presented in the
DEIR (Section 6.4).
The analysis does not evaluate in detail the design of these future potential connections as they
are unknown at this time. Rather, the analysis presents peak hour volume and capacity data for
-3--11
mainline conditions of Highway 101 and sets forth LOS and delay time at study area
intersections assuming that future connections are in place.
The cumulative analysis is consistent with the approach and methodology used in the General
Plan EIR and fully captures the additional trips generated by population growth, infill
development, and future development on currently vacant parcels pursuant to the General Plan
Land Use map.
Construction Impacts
Comments were received regarding the level of detail provided in the DEIR associated with
construction including schedule, staging areas, routing, and adequacy of mitigation.
A potentially significant impact was identified due to the temporary increase in construction -
related traffic, which could introduce 8,000 truck trips over the course of , the 30 -month
construction period. Construction activities will add traffic trips to the existing street network
due to construction equipment, delivery and off -haul of material, as well as construction worker
commutes. Temporary partial lane closures along project area roadways may occur during
construction activities. Other impacts associated with construction traffic include blocking
bicycle or pedestrian facilities and introducing incompatibility due to the shared roadway of
vehicles and heavy -duty construction equipment.
Mitigation measures TRANS -2 requires that the City prepare a construction management plan
that identifies truck routes and staging, develops traffic control measures such as scheduling of
major deliveries, use of detour signs (as necessary), lane and sidewalk closure procedures (if
required), the need for flaggers or strategic traffic control at key intersections, and notification
procedures. Construction truck traffic would be limited to the designated truck routes in
Petaluma including McDowell Boulevard, East Washington Street, Lakeville Street, and
Petaluma Boulevard North, north of Lakeville Street. Implementation of TRANS -2 would reduce
the project's temporary traffic construction impacts to levels below significance.
The DEIR identifies the location of staging areas in Section 3.3.4.5. Staging would occur on
either side of the Petaluma River and would shift within the plan line as the roadway developed.
Staging areas would be fully located within the identified development area of the proposed
roadway and thus would not result in any additional impacts beyond what has been identified
through the analysis in the DEIR.
Construction will require removal of riparian vegetation, protected trees, and will result in work
within the channel of the Petaluma River including dewatering. Mitigation measures aim to limit
impacts to these biological resources through a combination of avoidance, minimization and
offsets, including restrictions on the time of year that certain activities may occur. For example
tree removal must avoid the bird - nesting season (Feb. 1 through Aug. 30) or be preceded by
nesting bird surveys. Additionally, work, within and adjacent to the Petaluma River must occur
during the dry season between June 15 and October 15.
As a substantial portion of the construction area is not subject to scheduling restrictions,
construction activity will occur year round. As the construction schedule is development, specific
activities will be scheduled to occur outside the identified seasonal restriction to meet the
- 12
requirements of mitigation. The FEIR clarifies that the overall construction period (30- month)
can accommodate the seasonal restrictions.
The FEIR further clarifies that the effects of mitigation were considered and evaluated in
sufficient detail in the DEIR. Specifically, measure HYD -1 indicates that later stages of design
may incorporate benching, terracing or widening of the channel to accommodate the City's no
net fill policy. The areas where such features may occur, should they be determined to be
required at the final design stage, are within the area that was evaluated for the removal of
vegetation and construction of the new roadway and bridge improvements.
The FEIR further explains that other than the temporary access to the River for bridge falsework
construction, all project impacts are assumed to occur within the eventual right -of -way, which
the City will have to acquire or otherwise be granted access. Should design level plans indicate
that construction activities or improvements could occur outside of the identified work area, then
those effects would be subsequently evaluated.
If the construction disturbance area or expected start dates change substantially from the analysis
in the DEIR, the environmental analysis may need to be updated and re- evaluated to determine if
the EIR would require modification and recirculation in accordance with CEQA Section 21166.
Flooding /Hydrology
Commenters expressed concern that the effects of hydrology and flooding were not fully
addressed in DEIR.
The DEIR explains that the project site is currently undeveloped and construction of the roadway
would introduce structures and impervious surfaces within the floodway and within the 100 -year
floodplain, which has the potential to impede, redirect flows, or increase runoff. The potential
changes to the flood conveyance of the River as well as the contribution of the project to peak
flood flows are fully analyzed in the DEIR.
As is appropriate at this stage of design a preliminary hydrological analysis was prepared and
indicated that the project has the potential to raise the base flood elevation by 0.03 feet in the
floodplain and floodway immediately upstream of the bridge and would result in no change
downstream. In order to mitigate potential impacts and in accordance with the City's no net fill
policy, a design level hydrological analysis utilizing specific bridge abutment design shall be
conducted to determine the bridge's potential to increase the base flood water surface elevation
within the regulatory floodway (Measures HYD -1).
The FEIR (Master Response 7) explains that the design level hydrologic model would
incorporate any proposed benching, widening or adjustments to the bridge features. The final
design will be refined in order to meet the City's no net fill standard. For example, shifting
bridge abutments 1 to 3 feet or more apart could potentially eliminate an increase of 0.03 feet in
base flood elevation. Similarly widening, benching or other refinements to the final design could
be implemented so long as they remain within the area of analysis for the project.
The DEIR also discusses the potential impacts to flooding that may result from the new 8.6 acres
3--13
of impervious surfaces (new bridge, sidewalks, and roadway) that the project will introduce.
Using the Flood Control Design manual prepared by Sonoma County Water Agency, pre and
post - project runoff were calculated to increase by about 6 to 7 cubic feet per second.
The FEIR clarifies that the timing of the runoff from the project site is unlikely to coincide with
the peak flow of the river given that runoff from the new roadway will occur promptly (under Y,
hour) due to its proximity to the river, whereas the timing of the peak flow runoff from the
greater watershed would be delayed. As such, any added runoff from the project site would be
evacuated well before the peak flows reached the location of the new bridge. Thus, there is no
measureable change in the water surface elevation downstream as a result of the new impervious
surfaces.
The City's no net fill requirement is intended to preclude new development from contributing to
flooding due to the introduction of fill and/or otherwise increasing surface flood elevations. The
FEIR explains that the Rainier hydraulic modeling analyzes the potential effect of the proposed
improvements, but not other future construction projects in the area. Other future projects are not
included in the hydraulic analysis since the level of development is unknown at this time and
would be considered speculative. However, at the time that future development is proposed each
project will be subject to environmental review, compliance with the City's standard for no net
fill and, as appropriate, may be subject to quantitative hydraulic modeling to assess potential
impacts on surface flood elevations from introduction of new impervious surfaces.
Project Benefits
Commenters note that an obvious relief in traffic congestion was not readily apparent based on
the analysis conducted as part of the DEIR; rather, certain intersections would experience an
increase in delay times and a degradation of level of service.
The Rainier Cross -Town Connector has long been envisioned as a means to reduce traffic
congestion associated with implementation of the City's General Plan. The DEIR presents
intersection level of service (LOS) data as well as delays at study area intersections under the
opening year condition and at build out of the General Plan (cumulative condition). The tables in
the DEIR circulation section and cumulative impact discussion provide a side -by -side
comparison on traffic conditions both with and without the proposed project.
CEQA strives to identify the adverse impacts of the project, rather than identify the project
benefits. However, in an effort to better demonstrate the net affect of Rainier on traffic
congestion, the FEIR provides Tables B and C, which show the net change in vehicle delay and
LOS between the no project scenario and the with project scenario.
In general Rainier is projected to reduce delay times and improve the LOS at existing
intersections, whereas new intersections are projected to experience increased delay times.
Operation of a new east -west connector via the proposed Rainier Cross -Town Connector will
shift the traffic distribution pattern thereby alleviating some of the congestion at certain
intersections. However, there will continue to be specific choice points within the circulation
system where traffic accumulates and delays occur. Under the "with project scenario" at opening
year and including implementation of measure TRANS -3, all study area intersections would
3-14
operate at acceptably at LOS D or better.
Under the cumulative condition a "with Shasta" and "without Shasta scenario" are evaluated.
Without Shasta the cumulative traffic conditions result in deficient LOS at two study area
intersection. With Shasta, the cumulative traffic conditions with mitigation would achieve
acceptable LOS D, however do to a shift in traffic distribution, delays would increase by several
seconds at new intersections. The FEIR provides further discussion of cumulative conditions
under Master Response 5.
The FEIR considers how Rainier would affect travel time on Washington Street. Table D
provides the net change between the "no project condition" and the "with project condition ".
Travel time is reduced between 9 and 42 percent and the average speed increases between 1.2
and 4.5 miles per hour under the with Rainier scenario. Thus, the FEIR clarifies that project
would improve travel conditions along Washington Street. The FEIR provides further discussion
of affects to Washington Street congestion under Master Response 6.
The FEIR for the Rainier Cross -Town Connector clarifies that the new roadway would result in
reduced travel times for certain routes, decreased delay times at study area intersection, and a
shift in traffic patterns that would increase delays at other intersections. As a major infrastructure
project, the Rainier would introduce a new east -west travel corridor thereby alleviating some of
the demand placed on the few existing east -west roadways that bypass the Petaluma River,
Highway 101 and the SMART tracks.
Impacts that are Significant and Unavoidable
The DEIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts of the project on the environment
that cannot be mitigated. However, the DEIR identifies cumulative impacts associated with
General Plan buildout, that in combination with existing and planned future development would
have the potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise and traffic.
Findings and Overriding Considerations
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires public agencies to make one or more written findings
for each of the significant environmental effects identified in. an EIR in conjunction with project
approval. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires a statement of overriding considerations for
significant and unavoidable impacts. Although no significant and unavoidable impacts of the
project were identified, the project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable
unavoidable significant impacts previously identified in the City's General Plan EIR to the
following resource categories: air quality, noise and traffic. While the proposed Rainier Cross -
Town Connector project will not cause significant and unavoidable impacts, it will cumulatively
contribute to previously identified significant and unavoidable impacts. As such, the City
Council would need to adopt a separate Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant
and unavoidable impacts, similar to those adopted at the time the General Plan was adopted.
Planning Commission Hearing on the FEIR (June 23, 2015)
Per the City's CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission requested that the FEIR return to the
commission for consideration. The commission's discussion is expected to focus on the changes
in the DEIR and the responses to public comments on the DEIR, per CEQA Guidelines Section
3-15
15089(b). The Planning Commission will comment on the adequacy of the document and decide
whether or not to recommend the document to the City Council for certification.
Subsequent Actions on the FEIR
At a noticed public meeting the City Council will consider whether to certify the Final EIR and
take other CEQA related actions. If the EIR is certified, the mitigation monitoring and reporting
program as presented in the FEIR will also be adopted, unless the City Council identifies
alternative mitigation measures or determines that mitigation is not feasible.
Public Comment on FEIR
On May 28, 2015 a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the 4rgus Courier and notices
were sent to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the proposed Rainier Cross -Town
Connector Alignment, as well as interested parties who requested notification. The project file
and FEIR have also been made available for review during normal business hours at the City of
Petaluma Community, Development Department, Planning Division, located at 11 English Street
in Petaluma.
Copies of the FEIR have been made available at the Petaluma Library, the Community
Center, City Hall, and on the City's website. Additionally, copies of the documents have been
made available for purchase by the-public for the cost of printing.
Written comments pursuant to the public hearing notice that were received prior to the
distribution of the staff report are attached.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Resolution recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Attachment 2: Public comment on the FEIR.
Attachment 3: Final Environmental Impact Report (Previously provided, hand delivered
on May 28, 2015). (DEIR previously provided on July 24, 2014.)
3-16
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE RAINIER CROSS -TOWN CONNECTOR PROJECT, PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, The City of Petaluma Public Works Department ( "Applicant ") proposes a
0.65 mile, four lane arterial roadway featuring bridge, median, pedestrian, bicycle facilities and
new signalized intersection. The Rainier Cross -Town Connector will connect North McDowell
Avenue on the eastern side of Highway 101 to Petaluma Boulevard North on the western side of
the City ( "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Project boundaries constitute a roadway and appurtenant improvements
that would extend at grade from the signalized north McDowell Avenue Extension, cross beneath
Highway 101 under an elevated portion of the freeway that will be constructed as part of the
Marin - Sonoma Narrows HOV Project, would cross over the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit
(SMART) Corridor and Petaluma River via a bridge, and return at grade proximate to Petaluma
Boulevard North where it will terminate at a signalized T- intersection; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Project was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on August 11, 2011, pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Guidelines Section 15082; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "Draft EIR ") was prepared for the
Plan in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between July 24, 2014 and Sept. 8, 2014,
with a notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15085; and
WHEREAS, Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025,
certified by City Council Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S on April 7, 2008, for information and
analysis relating to certain cumulative impacts and incorporates said analysis and conclusions to
the extent applicable, as identified in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to
the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other
interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting and hearings on August 12,
2014 to consider the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting and hearing on September. 8, 2014
to consider the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, written and oral comments to the Draft EIR have been received and
responses to those comments have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Project ( "Final EIR "); and
t °1
Page 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public meetings on June 23, 2015,
at which time it considered the Final EIR, accepted public testimony and made a recommendation
to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Project does not have the potential to have a significant adverse impact
on wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or
cumulatively, though it is not exempt from Fish and Game filing fees; and
WHEREAS, the Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be
reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures, and pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been
prepared and set forth with the Final EIR to ensure that all mitigation measures which serve to
reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully implemented; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council:
1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report as an adequate description of the impacts
of the Project in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma
Environmental Guidelines.
2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth within the Final EIR.
_;-I S
Page 2
Ervin, Olivia
From: geneehlers @comcast.net
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8;27 AM
To: Ervin, Olivia
Subject: Rainier Cross -Town Connector
6/3/'15
Dear Sir or Madam,
We are writing in regard to the proposed Rainier Cross -Town Connector. We live on Prince Albert
Court and are strongly opposed to the Rainier Cross -Town Connector. We have definitely noticed a
marked increase in the noise, traffic, and litter now that the F'riedman's shopping center (Deer Creek
Village) has been completed. Now if the cross town connector is constructed imagine how much more
noise, traffic, and litter we will have to incur on a daily basis. We ask that you vote NO to building a
cross town connector at Rainier.
Thank you
Gene and Joan Ehlers
229 Prince Albert Court
Petaluma, CA 94954
3 -19
Ervin, Olivia
From: Molly Farquhar <mollymac77 @gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 8 :55 PM
To: Ervin, Olivia
Subject: Cross town connector
I am a resident of Petaluma on the East side close to Ranier. This project has seen one delay after another. I
have noticed that there are many homes and businesses south of East Washington who use the Caulfield
overpass in order to get to the West side of town and then go North to D street in order to reach Petaluma
Blvd. The Lakeville and D street intersection is not built for that amount of traffic and it might make sense to
extend Caulfield straight over to Petaluma Blvd. This would give both the people on the East and the West side
of town an alternate route to either the East Washington or (if it is ever a reality) the Ranier underpass. I hope
somebody will have a discussion about this idea.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary Farquhar
92 Park Place Drive
Petaluma, California 94954
'9-9-0
CITY OF PETAL[.7IVIA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
ContnrnrriO )DevelopineiztDepartfl:ent, fl English Street, Petalmna, CA 94952
_Phone (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 , E- Xnail. edd @cipetalwna.ca -us
DATE: June 23, 2015
TO: Chair Lin and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:. Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Response to Caltrans Comment Letter on the Final Environmental Impact
Report —Rainier Cross -Town Connector
The Planning Division received a comment letter from Caltrans on the Final EIR for the Rainier
Cross -Town Connector Project. It should be noted that Caltrans also provided a comment letter
on the DEM which is included as comment letter 2, beginning on page 2 -23 of the FEIR.
Following release of the FEIR, Caltrans provided a subsequent comment letter, dated June 19,
2015, which is attached here. Below is a summary of the additional comments raised along with
responses to comments.
Comment A: Response 2 -6; 2 -8: This comment has not been addressed. Our previous comment
asked if the data has been verified according to 2014 conditions, not 2012 conditions. It is best to .
use current data, as data's usefulness diminishes with time. -
Response A: As explained in response to comments 2 -6 and 2 -8 traffic count data was
collected in 2007 and later verified in 2012. As presented in Table 14.12 -2, the counts
collected in 2007 were found to be higher than the counts collected in 2012, and therefore
represent conservative traffic conditions. There was not a subsequent verification conducted
in 2014. Rather, as is appropriate, the DEIR data coincides with the Notice of Preparation
which was released in 2011. In any event, the baseline traffic volumes as anticipated for
opening year 2020 are used to assess traffic impact and serve as the foundation of the traffic
analysis. The 2020 traffic data show an elevated traffic volume relative to the existing
condition, be it 2014 or earlier, since population growth is presumed to add more volume to
network roadway. As explained in the FEIR Master Response 2, the use of a future baseline is
appropriate for the analysis(see page 2-7 of the FEIR). The baseline analysis is conservative
since 2020 traffic volumes, as opposed to.2007 or 2014 traffic volumes are used.
Comment B: Response 2 -7: As we are unable to obtain volumes from PeMS vehicles detection
station (VDS) sites 42815, 42819, 42831, and 42833 for the date range specified in the report, we
cannot confirm that the values used in Table 4 -12 -6 are reliable. Please specify which dates were
actually used for each VDS.
Response B: As requested, the dates for which data was available are provided below by VDS
location:
• 42815 and 42831 —September 15-22,2010 • 42822 —March 3-11,2010
® 42819— September 17 -23, 2010 • 42833 —March 17 -25, 2010
Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at 707 - 778 -4556 or
oervin@ci.petaluma.ca.us.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Sr. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 4
P.O. BOX 23660, MS-101)
OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660
PHONE (510) 286 -5528
FAX (510) 286 -5559
TTY 711
http://www.dot,ca.gov/dist4/
June 19, 2015
Ms. Olivia Ervin
Planning Division
City of Petaluma
I I English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Dear Ms. Ervin:
Serious Drought.
Help save waterl
SON1011030
SON - 101 -5.61
SCH# 2011082032
Rainier Cross -Town Connector — Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
environmental review process for the project referenced above. The proposed project would
construct a new city road overcrossing of US 101 in Petaluma. The overcrossing would occur at
Rainier Avenue, approximately halfway between the existing overcrossings at Corona Road (to
the northwest) and East Washington Street (to the southeast).
Caltrans' new mission, vision, and goals signal a modernization of our approach to California's
transportation system. We review this local development for impacts to the State Highway
System in keeping with our mission, vision, and goals for sustainability /livability /economy, and
safety/health. We provide these comments consistent with the State's smart mobility goals that
support a vibrant economy, and build communities, not sprawl. The following comments are
based on the FEIR provided to us.
Highway Operations
Response 2 -6; 2 -8: This comment has not been addressed. Our previous comments asked if the
data has been verified according to 2014 conditions, not 2012 conditions. It is best to use current
data, as data's usefulness diminishes with time.
Response 2 -7: As we are unable to obtain volumes fiom PeMS vehicle detection station (VDS)
sites 42815, 42819, 42822, 42831, and 42833 for the date range specified in the report, we
cannot confirm that the values used in Table 4 -12 -6 are reliable. Please specify which dates were
actually used for each VD S.
Please feel free to call or email Greg Currey at (510) 286 -5623 or gregory.currey @dot.ca.gov
with any questions regarding this letter.
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficienl transportation
system to enhance Cal fbima' economy dnd livability
Ms. Olivia Ervin/City of Petaluma
June 19,201-5
Page 2
Sincerely,
PATRICIA MAURICE
District Branch Chief
Local Development — Intergovernmental Review
c: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient Ivansportation
system to enhance Califonda s economy and livability" a 3
ATTACHMENT 4
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER
From: REKB @aol.com<mailto:REKB @aol.com> mailto:REKB @aol.com_ _
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 2:21 PM
To: - City Clerk
Subject: Rainier Cross Town Connector Environmental Report.
TO: City Council Members
SUBJECT: Rainier Cross Town Connector Environment Report Comments.
Environmental Mitigation is not achieved with political promises, but with city funds. If the city can not identify specific
funding, then the Environmental Report should state: mitigation not achievable: No funds to achieve mitigation. Rainier
boils down to one issue: $$$$. Petaluma is technically bankrupt, but legally still in business only because it is
government.
The roadway mess we have today makes clear the importance of planning for the future. That failure belongs solely to
City Council.
Let's look at the logic of carrying this Rainier Connector business through. Your new budget says City Council will only
spend $2.5 million on roadway repair (if you do not reduce it further). The city faces a back log of over $100 million due
to under funding of repairs on the approximately 370 miles of roadway throughout Petaluma growing exponentially -
now at $8 million per year. So following through with this Rainier Street connection will suck up all future roadway
repair. This project will be creating the conditions that will require City roads to go without repair for 20 -30 years which
will create an environmental disaster. That issue is nowhere in the Environmental Report. Again, Environmental
Mitigation requires money; so where is the money?
I ran a word search and found "dollars" and $ only once in the entire report. Yes, it is true! It is as if money is irrelevant
when it is absolutely central.
The only way that Petaluma economic Hari Karl can be avoided would be if the Rainier Connector would create sufficient
tax revenues to pay for itself entirely. It is impossible for the Connector to pay its own way though tax revenue
generation. It does not improve a crucial aspect: highway 101 access. The City of Petaluma lacks the capital to even seed
this project. I am not informing you anything you do not know. Widening of Highway 101 will only marginally change
access but then visitor /shopper traffic will immediately encounter the Petaluma potholes, intersections, bottle necks,
and traffic patterns.
City Hall lacks any competence to gauge if increased traffic flow would translate into increase sales taxes. City Staff has
no idea of how much commerce neighboring cities will lure customers away simply because the connector worsens our
370 miles of rotten city streets and lousy access to highway 101. Besides, the two regional employment centers are
north and south of Petaluma. So why should traffic go the wrong direction specifically shop in Petaluma?
City Council represents various lobby groups, not the people of Petaluma. So, people have generally concluded City
Council is the source of all this connivance that has created the roadway mess, the fiscal mess, and distrust... no not
distrust...— disgust.
Find some backbone and acquire land but tell the people no construction until Petaluma roads are fixed.
Sincerely
Richard E. K. Brawn
141 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
4 -1