HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.B 01/22/20074.8
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA January 22, 2007 PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AGENDA BILL
Agenda Title: Discussion and Action Approving the Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration for Petaluma Boulevard Street Improvements Project Meeting Date: Janum-y 22, 2007
C200304.
Meeting Time: 0 3:00PM
0 7:00PM
Category: D Presentation 0 Consent Calendar Q Public Hearing D5] Unlini~hed Business D New Business
(
DeJ:!artment: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number:
Public Works V'(n1/arengo Nick Panayotou 778-4587
Larry Zimmer 776-3674
'-. A/1;
Cost of ProJ:!osal: N/ A Account Numbe1·:
3900-5411 O-C200304
Amount Budgeted: N/A Name of Fund:
PCDC
Street Reconstruction Fund
TLC Grant
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: In an effort to reduce paper copies, 1. Resolution Approving the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
for Petaluma Boulevard Street Improvements numbering approximately 70 pages,
2. Location Map is available for public viewing with
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration (see opposite box) Citv Clerk and online.
Summary Statement:
On May 12, 2006, City staff applied for a Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) grant to help fund the
Petaluma Boulevard Street Improvements project. A total of $485,000 in grant money was subsequently awarded
to the City for tllis project. Tllis grant includes funding from the Federal Transportation Improvement Program
(FTIP) and from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). To meet the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a Mitigated Negative Declaration was drafted by Winzler and
Kelly and advertised for public review on November 27, 2006. The 30-day review and comment period was
completed on December 26, 2006. During the public review period, the general public and various agencies were
able to review and provide input on tllis doctm1ent. There were no comments that would change t11e contents of
this document. The next step in the process is for the Petaluma Conm1mlity Development Commissioner (PCDC)
to adopt the attached proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Recommended PCDC Action/Suggested Motion:
Adopt tl1e attached resolution, approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project.
Reviewed bv Admin. Svcs. D lr: Reviewed by General Counsel: Ann roved bv..Executive Director:
I"' WI II Qj ~(? ~\ ? . vv ..J1!1~
\L \ . D\ . Date: \) Date: Date:
I I !
S:\CIP Division\Projects\Pctaluma Blvd C200304\DESIGN\330 Agenda Bills\Mitigated Negative Declamtion\PCDC Agenda Bill Mitigated Negative Declaration lz 0 l
22 06 {2).doc Page I
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 22, 2007
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
DISCUSSION AND ACTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR PETALUMA BOULEY ARD ROAD/STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT C200304.
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On May 12, 2006, City staff applied for a Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)
grant to help fund the Petaluma Boulevard Street Improvements Project. A total of
$485,000 in grant money was subsequently awarded to the City for this Project. This
grant includes funding from the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)
and from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). To meet the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was drafted by Winzler and Kelly and advertised for public review on
November 27, 2006. The 30-day review and comment period was completed on
December 26, 2006. During the public review period, the general public and various
agencies were able to review and provide input on this document. There were no
comments that would change the contents of this document. The next step in the process
is for the Petaluma Community Development Commissioner (PCDC) to adopt the
attached proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. BACKGROUND
This project includes repaving Petaluma Boulevard North from Washington Street to
Lakeville Street. It also includes streetlight beautification, signal replacement, tree
placement, and concrete sidewalk upgrades over that same stretch.
The design process began for this project in mid 2004 and was nearly complete on July
18, 2005, when staff went to City Council for approval to change the section of roadway
between Washington Street and Lakeville Street from four lanes to two through lanes and
a two-way-left-tum lane. The intent at the time was to go to construction in the late
summer of 2005 and complete construction prior to the winter rains. Upon Council
acceptance, the design was completed, traffic signal poles were ordered, and an
engineer's estimate was completed. The engineers estimate revealed that the project
budget was inadequate, based upon current bidding conditions. Therefore, alternate
funding sources were sought and an application was made for a TLC grant for $485,000,
which was obtained on May 12, 2006. The project plans were then changed to meet
updated ADA guidelines and standards.
S:\CIP Division\Pmjects\Pctaluma Blvd C200304\DESIGN\330 Agenda Bills\Mitigated Negative Dcclaration\PCDC Agenda Bill Mitigated
Negative Declaration lz 01 22 06 (2).doc Page 2
With the new design nearly complete, staff met with Cal trans on June 20, 2006, in order
to perform the steps necessary to obtain the Authorization to Proceed with Construction.
On August 4th, 2006, Caltrans foiiowed up by requesting a Phase I and 2 Hazardous
Materials Site Assessment, Traffic Study, Historic Property Survey Report, and a
Cultural Analysis. City staff and the design consultant Winzler & Keiiy have worked
through those items requested by Caltrans, including producing a Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The process of completing a Mitigated Negative Declaration involves a 30-
day public review period, and for the City Council to adopt the document. Once the
report is adopted, staff wiii submit all documents to Caltrans and request a California
Transportation Commission (CTC) vote, which requires two months advance notice.
Once the CTC accepts the project and agrees to ail ocate their portion of the grant money,
and the Federal Government aiiows for issuance of the E-76 by Cal trans, staff wiii put the
project out for bid.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
Adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The budget for this project has already been approved.
5. CONCLUSION:
Adopting this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration wiii aiiow this project to
continue to move through the Cal trans review process.
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR
COMPLETION:
Tills project wiii be completed and accepted in FY 2007-08.
7. RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution adopting the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
S:\CIP Division\Projects\Pctaluma Blvd C200304\0ESIGN\330 Agenda Bills\Miligated Negative Declaration\PCDC Agenda Bill Mitigated
Negative Dcclamtion Iz 0 I 22 06 (2).doc Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION# 2007-
PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
PETALUMA BOULEY ARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT C200304.
WHEREAS, staff and City's consultant designer, Winzler and Kelly, prepared an Initial
Study which evaluated all potential significant environmental impacts of the Petaluma
Boulevard Street Improvements Project C200304 ("the Project"), and potential mitigation
therefor, and based thereon prepared a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project;
and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2006, the City submitted and the County Clerk posted
City's Notice ofintent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, for a period of
time to and including December 26, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the City advertised its Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the project by publication in the Petaluma Argus-Courier, a newspaper of general
circulation in the City, on November 22, 2006; and
WHEREAS, on or about November 17, 2006, City staff caused to be mailed to all
owners and occupants of properties within 300 feet of the proposed project the Notice of Intent
to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2007, City staff caused to be mailed to all owners
and occupants of properties within 300 feet of the proposed project notice that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration would be considered for adoption at 3:00p.m. on January 22, 2007 in the
City Council Chambers, II English St., Petaluma, CA; and
C:\Documcnts and Settin£s\ccoopcr.COFP\Loca\ Settings\ Temporary Intcmet Files\OLK65\PCDC Agenda Bill Mitigated Negative Declaration
lz012206(3).DOC Page4
WHEREAS, no comments were received during the required public revtew and
comment period which would have required substantial revision of the mitigated negative
declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Petaluma Community Development Commission has reviewed the
contents and findings of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and find that said contents
and findings adequately evaluate and mitigate all significant environmental impacts of the
Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, The Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for the Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project C200304 be and
hereby is adopted this 22"d day of January 2007 by the following vote:
C:\Documents and Scttings\ccooper.COFP\Local Scttings\Tcmpornry Internet Filcs\OLK65\PCDC Agenda Bill Mitigated Negative Declaration
lz 01 22 06 (J).DOC Page 5
d Settings\ccooper. C·\Documcnts un
1;012206(3).DOC
COFP\Locul Settmg . s\Temporary F.l s\OLK65\PC Internet 1 c
ATTACHMENT #2
, c Declaration . d Ncgat1v 6 B·n Mitigate Page DC Agenda l
ATTACHMENT #3
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Available for public viewing in
City Clerk's office and online)
C:\Documents and Settings\ccooper.COFP\Loca[ Settings\ Temporary Internet Fi[es\OLK65\PCDC Agenda Bill Mitigated Negative Declaration
lz o 1 22 06 (3).DDC Page 7
Draft Initial Study/
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the
Petaluma Boulevard North
Roadway Improvements Project
Prepa1·ed for:
City of Petaluma
Public W arks Department
11 English Street
Petaluma, Califomia 94952
Phone (707) 778-4587
November 27,2006
Prep_ared by: ...,...,
~.;;r.;;r 'X7INZLER&_KELLY
........ ~ c 0 N S U L T I N G E N G 1 N E E R S
Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers
495 Tesconi Circle
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 523-1010
Draft Initial Study/
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the
Petaluma Boulevard North
Roadway Improvements Project
Prepared for:
City of Petaluma
Public Works Department
11 English Street
Petaluma, California 94952
Phone (707) 778-4587
November 27,2006
Prepared by:
*~~~~~~~I;~
Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers
495 Tesconi Circle
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 523-1010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. General Information ................................................................................................ · .................. 1
Determination ................................................................................................. : ........................ 12
II. Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................. 13
ill. Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................. 13
IV. Environmental Checklist and Explanatory Notes ................................................................... 13
Aesthetics .............................................................................. : ............................................ 15
Agricultural Resources .......................................................... , ............................................ 16
Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 17
Biological Resources .............................................................................. , .......................... 19
Cultural Resources ·····················'·······················································································22
Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 24
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 26
Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... .30
Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 32
Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ .36
Noise ................................................................................................................................. .38
Population and Housing ............................................................................................. ,. ....... 40
Public Services .......................................... : ....................................................................... .41
Recreation ......................................................................................................................... .42
Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................. , ..................... 43
Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................ : ................... .45
Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................. .46
Figures:
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... .3
Example of Common Parking Practice on Petaluma Boulevard North .......................... 4
Current Roadway Lane Configuration ............................................................................ 5
Proposed Roadway Lane Configuration .......................................................................... S
Roadway Improvements .................................................................................................. 6
Roadway Improvements .................................................................................................. 7
Roadway Improvements .................................................................................................. 8
City of Petaluma i Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project ·
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendices:
Mitigation and Monitoring Program
Biological Resources Assessment
Land Use Consistency Table
Appendix A
AppendixB
Appendix C
AppendixD Focnsed Traffic Analysis for the Conversion of Petaluma Boulevard North
City of Petaluma ii
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
CEQA Requirements
This project is subje~t to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The lead agency is the City of Petaluma beqause they would be carrying out the
project. The purpose of this Initial Study is to provide a basis for deciding whether to
prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration. This Initial Study is intended to satisfy the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,. CEQA, · (Public· Resources
Code, Div 13, Sec 21000-21177), and the State'CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Sec 15000-15387). CEQA encourages lead agencies and applicants
to modify their projects to avoid significant adverse impacts (for example, CEQA Section
20180(c)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b)(2) and discussion), ·
Section 15063( d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states the content requirements of an Imtial
Study as follows:
15063(d) Contents. An Initial Study shall contain in brieffonn:
(I) A description of the project including the location of the project;
(2) An identifil::ation of the environmental setting;
(3)An identification of environmental effects by use oj acheck:list, 1natrix,
or other method, provided thatentries (Jiia checklist oi· other form are
bi·iefly explaiiled to indicizte. fhat there is some eVidence to support the
entries· · · · · ,
'
(4) A discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if
any;
(5) An examination of whether the project would be consiste1it with existing
zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls;
(6) The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the
Initial Study. .
NEPA Requirements
An application for the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) Transportation for
Livable Co=uuities (TLC) grant is being prepared for this project NEPA documentation
is required for the grant funding process. NEP A regulations allow agencies to "exclude"
certain classes of action from detailed review. These are referred to as "Categorical
Exclusions" (CatEx). Categorically excluded projects must receive sufficient level of
review to determine if the project would cause adverse effects to public health, wetlands,
endangered species, historic properties, and to determine if the project would result in a
violation of.a law or an environmental protection procedure. The information for the
Categorical Exclusion determination will be prepared separately for this project: · FHW A
will be the NEP A lead agency. '
City of Petaluma I
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
1. PROJECT TITLE:
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, California94952
3. CONTACTPERSON:
Nick Panayotou, Program Manager
Phone: (707) 778-4587
4. PROJECT LOCATION:
The City of Petaluma is located approximately 40 miles north of San Francisco along U.S.
Highway 101 in Sonoma County (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The City of Rohnert Park
lies to the north, the .. ,Community of Penngrove. to the northeast, the Sonoma Mountain
range to the east, and the City of Novato to the south. The project is located to the west of
U.S. Highway 101 along Petaluma Boulevard North between Lakeville Street and
Washington Street. A temporary staging area would be at the western comer of Copeland
and East Washington Streets (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map).
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, California 94952
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Roadway-Streets, Staging Area-Mixed Use
(MU)
7. ZONING: :R_oadway: Streets, Staging Area: Urban Core (T-6)
8. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
· Background
Petaluma Boulevard North is a fourclane arterial that runs north/south. Petaluma
Boulevard North between Washington Street and Lakeville Street has inadequate street
width to safely accommodate the current lane and parking configuration oftwo 10-foot
wide lanes and one 6-foot wide parking lane in each direction. Also, patrons and
employees of businesses along Petaluma Boulevard North often park their cars partially on
the sidewalk in order to provide safe access lei their vehicles along the narrow parking lane.
Parking in this manner impairs sidewalk access to businesses along the road.
City of Petaluma 2
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
E
0
~
N
,;;
~
0
fi
N
N
>
0 z
-"' .,
·u
5
/
D
"" ;!-
"" ib z
I
"" 0
~ u > a;
0
E
0
:§
ID n.
N
0
0
~
0
"' "' 0
N
~
0
E
0
:§
ID n.
·~·
~
I:) ,.
.-~'--~-·'<--_-,."
I:)
SONQMACOUNTY.
City of Petaluma
Petaluma Boulevard North
Roadway Improvements Project
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
'-------------------~----------------------------~~~y -COIIIULTIIIII EIICIIIIEERI
J
Figure 2 -Example of common parking practice
on Petaluma Boulevard North
There have been 90 collisions along this section
of Petaluma Boulevard North between 2001-
2005. These 90 collisions include 51
sideswipes, 18 rear ends accidents, 8 broadsides,
and 2 hit pedestrians. The "Road/Streetscape
Improvements -Petaluma Boulevard" Capital
Improvements Project, as approved in the
2005/2006 Capital Improvements Plan, was
initiated to address these safety issues. The
project has also been identified as a
redevelopment project through the City and
would receive funds .. from the City's
Redevelopment Agency.
Pwpose of Project
The purpose of the project is to improve safety
for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclistsalong Petaluma Boulevard North. The project would
decrease the number of vehicle lanes and increase lane widths to provide more vehicle buffer
space along the roadway. Pedestrians would have to cross fewer lanes of traffic, thereby
increasing safety. Business patrons and employees would no longer have to partially park on the
sidewalk in order to access their vehicles safely. The increased width of the travel way and the
adjacent parking would provide more area for bicyclists to safely use. ·
Project Description
The project consists of road and intersection improvements along about 2,500 feet of Petaluma
Boulevard North.· . Starling from the north, the improvements would begin on Petaluma
Boulevard North about 200 feet north of the intersection with Lakeville Street and continue
along the roadway to about 400 .feet south of the intersection with Washington Street. The
roadway restriping would change the lane configuration tp a single 12-foot wide lane and one 8-
foqt parking lane in each direction between Lakeville a.rid Washington Streets. A 12-foot wide
turning lane would. be addf:d. to the center of the roadway. The northbound lanes of Petaluma
Boulevard North south of Washington Street would be restriped to acco=odate a right-tum
only pocket, one 12-foot'Widethrough lane and one 10.5-foot wide left-tum only pocket. The
roadway would be resurfaced and restriped to change the lane reconfiguration. See Figures 3
and 4 for an illustration of the current and proposed roadway configuration between Lakeville
and Wa.Sbington Streets.
City of Petaluma 4
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Stndy!Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Figure 3 -Current Roadway Lane Configuration between Lakfn•ille and Washington
Streets
Figure 4 -Proposed Roadway Lane Configuration betwee/l Lakeville and Waslzingt011
Streets
In addition to the roadway reconfiguration, the following improvements would be part of
the project (see Figures 5, 6, and 7 for details):
• Modification of the traffic sigoal at the intersection of Washington Street and
Petaluma Boulevard North to facilitate s:yncbronized left tum movements;
• Addition of a full right tum lane on southbound Petaluma Boulevard North at
Washington Street;
e Installation of 19 new streetlights;
City of Petaluma 5
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Wiozler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
J:\0•\1!15502\CAD\M~O!L!I~mpn>vemo"\ Plan.d•9 11~-. 20, 2006-4:0ivm
"' 0 )>"0 em ~~ $ -<Eo "! iii: ;: ::; a ""''l>-< : ::!! ;:om 0 ~ GloO'Il
~ c < c ""0' ; ;omr-m
a m:s::m-1 ~r.nm;;~
::S;:oc en cO:
-ozl>
~ ;oo o;o <...-! m;,;
" -l
~
~
·,,_
'";::
*·k~~ ,, ' ! . ;I~ ~ !l ~i ! ! ~~ l:l ;; lq' ~ ~
~ ~ l 0
I
g[)
.\11
u ~ : .. N
r " ~ 0
• 0
I
'
I
I
I
I
' l •
I
1l1
/ 1'\-u ; \m
/ ' \;;!
I " cr ;;:::,
,)>
I~ c 'r I~ •;u I~
•0
~~Ml
~ . \
I lQ.
~s; \., ~
~' :;;
~ ~ ~ / m r "' -< "' ~m ,_, """" ~
I \ , I [\tr
' I PJI:I.J.---, ,o, .. I m : _,.
~ ~ . A n .. I~ ". . "\ H \ ( , Hilil I\
MATCHLINE ·SEE BELOW LEFT
• ~ .
I
I
.t\04\2055Cl2\CAO\AAiiOrl_ll2~mr.rnvemont Plan2d"g 1/o• 20, 200G-4:C!f>m
;o
0
)>"1J
c!!j
:E)>
<l<. l>r
oQ:IC -<cO i1:n
:!!;gmo
G)QO-n
C<C""O ;;Qmrm ms:m-i mm<l> zl>r -{;oc: enoS:
,zl>
:oo
0:0
<-.-{ m:>:
" -{
~
)>
MATCHLINE-SEE ABOVE RIGHT • • j.\LJ;j \
~·~~ •§•· r::;;l D ~"' ~ ;~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .'U " . . :
E' .~ ..
~6 ~~ ·" !
I
' I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
~~ m
"l
i'
I~
MATCHLJNE-SEE FIGURE 7
,:t?ll il~ e .. oa -' ':1~ ~ 9 ~~ t: ~ ~~ i ~
§ ~
' ! !! ;
MATCHLINE-SEE FIGURE 5
',
' I ,_
_/l\ ·,.: ;,n;,
/ I ., t , l!!§i~ -. / I~ ·J ~~~ :·.· II ';:g} J !~i . j 1-1 g ' . )>
'r
·,
I~
iiJ ~~ 'I~ ~-)>;
I;Q
I~ ,p \@
lf.l\L_
PI \
l:JI rr-
J
l c
-~j\
I
I
I
I
d-
'~
IT
' t ,bf
d. \ :
MATCHLINE-SEE BELOW LEFT
'I
.. a•
I
I
I
I
~
L/:1
e Installation of an in-roadway pedestrian warning system at the mid-block
crosswalk south of Oak Street and north. of Prospect Street;
e Installation of new electrical conduit along both sides of road for streetlighting;
o Construction of new curb extension bulb-outs at intersections;
• Addition of new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps for
pedestrian, bicycle and disabled. perso11s' ·use;
• Relocation of the existing fire-hydrant at Kent Street and Oak Street;
• Construction of t±ee wells iri sidewalks and planting of street t±ees;
• Addition ofbike boilards (racks), plaza benches and trash poles;
• Removal and relocation of street signs; and
• Relocation of stormdrain facilities at intersections.
Work Crews
The typical roadway crew would have 6 workers, 2 truck drivers, a construction manager,
and an inspector. There would be approximately 32 truck trips to and from the work sites
per day.
Work Area Access
Construction vehicle access to the work area would. be restricted to Petaluma Boulevard
North, Lakeville Street and Washington Street.
A Traffic Control Plan would be developed as part of the project. The Plan would include
details r~::garding vehicular access to each portion of the project area, including those
properties which may experience ,temporary delay or disruption of access. Construction
vehicles would be routed mainly using Lakeville Street.
Construction Staging Areas
There would be an approximately 22,000-square foot staging area in the comer of
Copeland and East Washington Streets (see Figure 2, Project Location). The staging area
would be fenced. · Larger construction equiprhent would be stored in the staging area and
maintenance and fueling would be conducted there. Construction equipment would be
parked nightly within the fenced staging area. The staging area would be returned to pre-
construction condition once construction is complete.
Erosion Control and Groundwater Management
Dewatering is not anticipated during construction however, it may be required. If required,
water would be filtered to remove sediments and then discharged into the existing city
sewer system. The discharge would comply with. sanitary sewer regulations.
Roadway Restoration
Roadways affected by constrUction would be repaired to preconstruction condition or better
following construction activities.
City ofPetaluma 9
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Stndy/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Schedule
Construction activities are expected to begin in the summer of 2007 and last approximately
120 days.
Cumulative Projects Scenario
The City's Capital Improvements Plan includes projects in the vicinity of the project area:
o "D" Street Bridge T~on Pin Replacement, Bridge Deck Rehabilitation and
Painting (project #C500204). The project is federally funded and has completed the
field review and 50% of the environmental requirements with Caltrans.
Construction may begin as early as summer 2007.
o "D" Street widening: Streetscape and Utility Design (project #C200205). Master
planning of the area is required to Qomplete the design and determine the
appropriate funding mechanisms. The schedule for construction is unknown.
o North Water Street Extension (project #C200105), River Trail (project #C200503).
Street construction is anticipated some time after the new Water Resources
Department sewer line is complete.
a City Wide Bridge Rehabilitation-Washington Street Bridge (project #C501404).
This project would repair the Washington Street Bridge columns where spalling has
occurred and apply a bridge deck surface treatment to maintain the structure
integrity on Washington Street and Lakeville Street bridges.
Alternative Solutions
Three project alternatives were investigated for this project. Alternative 1 would consist of
resurfacing the roadway, restriping with two 12-foot wide travel lanes and two 8-foot parking
lanes with a 12-foot wide turning lane in the center. Alternative 1 also includes traffic curb
extension bulb-outs, traffic signal modification, landscaping and assoCiated relocation of
stormdrain outlets at intersections. . Alternative 2 would consist of resurfacing the roadway
and restriping .)vith four, 11~foot lanes and two 3~foot shoulders. This alt.ernative would
eliminate all parking on both sides of tl).e road between Lakeville Street and Washington
Street. AJ.ternative 3 would consist of resurfacing the roadway and restriping in the current
configuration (four 10-footwide lanes and two 6 foot wide parking lanes).
Alternative 1 would improve automobile, pedestrian and bicycle safety and enhance parking
conditions. Alternative 2 ·would improve the automobile safety, but would remove on-street
parking. Alternative 3 would do rioiliing to help safety within the projectirrea. After
reviewing the Alternatives, the City decided to pursue Alternative 1 (July 18, 2005 City
Coun~il Meeting) which is evaluated in this Initial Study/Proposed MND.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The area is generally surrounded by one-and two-story commercial complexes, restaurants,
and retail stores. Richard Penry Park is located on the west side of Petaluma Boulevard North
between Mary Street and Martha Street. · ·
City ofPetahuna I 0
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
The following agencies may be Responsible Agencies under CEQA. They may need to
issue approvals for the project would need to rely upon the Initial Study. Federal agencies
and their potential permit responsibilities are also listed ..
Califomia Transportation Commission (CTC)
CTC would use the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to approve the TLC
Grant. ·
11. Property Owners
The completed project and all construction activities would be within properties and rights-
of-way held by City of Petaluma. The staging area would be located oil private property
owned by the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART). A separate agreement would be
coordinated by the City prior to staging area use.
Per the advice of the City, the Notice of Intent to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration
will be circulated to the owners and occupants of properties within 500 feet of the project
(CEQA Guidelines §15072(b)(3)).
City ofPetalwna 11
Petalwna Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
D
D
D
D
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an.ENVrRONMENTAL IlV1P ACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact"
or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at
least one effect l) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IlV1P ACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (I) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
anayotou, Public Works
of Petaluma
City of Petaluma 12
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
ll. .ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This is a brief overview of existing conditions. Additional information about the setting is
·presented in the environmental checklist, as appropriate for discussion of each item.
Regional access to the City of Petaluma is provided by U.S. Highway 101. The City's total area
is 13.4 square miles. The City has a population of approximately 56,727 residents (in 2006) and
the population is projected to grow to 65,300 by 2020 (Association of Bay Area Governments,
Projections 2005). Land use and planning in the project area is governed by the City of Petaluma
General Pian (1987-2005) and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (2003).
ill. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
With recomniended mitigation measures, rio significant adverse environmental effects are
expected from the proposed activities; An environmental checklist follows that addresses
potential advetse effects and provides mitigation measures to ensure that significant
erivrroiili:iental. impacts do riot ot:ctif·as a result of this project. Each following resource area
evaluates potential impacts for the project.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND EXPLANATORY NOTES
The following checklist is used to ·evaluate the potential of the project. for significant
environmental impacts. All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including
off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
The references section contains. a list of sources used to prepare this initial study. References are
available for review at the City of Petaluma Public Works Department.
The 17 CEQA subject categories-or environmental factors -which must be considered are
presented below. Each category is scored according to the potential level of significance the
project may have on the environment. The levels of significance are indicated and described
below.
1
2
2
0
1
0
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
3 = Potentially Significant
2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation
1 = Less than Significant
O=No Impact
0 Agriculture Resources 2
2 Cultural Resources 1
2 Hydrology and Water 1
Quality
2 Noise 0
0 Recreation 1
Utilities and Service Systems 2 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality
Geology and Soils
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Trans]'Ortation
Potentially Significant Impact (3) is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant, or where an established threshold has been exceeded. If there are one or more
"Potentially Significant Impact" entries, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be required.
City ofPetalurna 13
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
· November 2006
0205506002
Less than Significant with Mitigation (2) applies where the .. incorporation of mitigation
measures would reduce an impact from Potentially Significant to Less than Significant. Such
mitigation measures must be effectively described and implemented. Measures from earlier
analyses may be cross-referenced.
Less than Significant {1) applies when the project would affect the environment, but based on
sources Cited in the report, the impact(s) would not have a significant adverse effect. For the
purpose of this Initial Study, beneficial impacts are also identified as Less than Significant. Such
benefits are identified in the appropriate subject discussion.
A No Impact (0) answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that
the impact simply. does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a
fault rupture zone). A No Impact answer is explained where it is based on project-specific
factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would notexpose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier Em or Negative Declaration. Wherever possible, references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) are
incorporated into the analysis.
The project's Mitigation Monitoring Plan is found in Appendix A.
City of Petaluma 14
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
I. Aesthetics
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surrounding?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
.
Less than No
Significant Impact
La & c) Less than Significant. The project site is a level, heavily traveled four-lane arterial street
that runs north/smith through dowritowri Petaluma. The area is' generally surrounded by one-and
two-story ccmlinerdal complexes, restaurants, and retail stores that were established with very little
setback from the street. Richard Penry Park is located i:in the west side of Petaluma BoUlevard North
oil a bill with an approXimate six-foot high retaining wall adjacent to thesidewalk. The view from
the park is of an often crowded roadway with vehicles parked on the' sidewalk. Roadway
improvements associated with the project would enhance views by creating a more pedestrian-
friendly environment. Curb extension bulb-outs, additional street trees and lighting and plaza
benches would add character to the corridor.
The project is included in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and borders the Historic Commercial
District. Specific guidelines are set forth in both these plans to direct streetscape improvements in
order to create an aesthetically pleasing enviromnent. An analysis of the project relative to these
plans is discussed in Section IX Land Use and Planning. Impacts are considered less than
significant.
I.b) No Impact. Petaluma Boulevard North is not a designated state scenic highway. The
project would have no impact to scenic resources related to scenic highways.
I. d) Less than Significant. The project would introduce new sources of light and glare into the
project area, with the addition of 19 pedestrian-level street lamps (see Figures 6 and 7). The
street lights would be installed to increase pedestrian safety at nighttime. Design plans specify
that the lighting would conform to the Zoning Code 22-304.1, which specifies that low-intensity
light sources must be used to minimize glare and to minimize impacts to passing motorists and
surrounding businesses. Lighting would be consistent with the Historic Downtown design and
would be appropriate for the downtown urban area. Adherence to the zoning code lighting
designs would reduce glare,. thus reducing the impacts from the new light sources to less than
significant. No additional design measures would be required.
City orPetalurna 15
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
.··
ll. Agriculture ResoUJrces
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
showu on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
h. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
.
No
Impact
II.a.-c.) No Impact. The project is within the urban/suburban area of Petaluma. The project does
not cross any Prime or Unique farmlands, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as mapped by the
California Resources Agency. The project also does not affect agriculturally-zoned properties or
properties under a Williamson Act contract. The project would not affect active agricultural
activities or convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. .
City of Petaluma 16
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
m. Air Quality
Would the ptoject:
a. Coi:J.flict with or abstract iroplemeutation·ofthe
applicable air qualiiy plao?
b. Violate aoy·air quality standard ~r contnb1lte
substantially to ao existing or projected aii: quality
violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of aoy criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under ariapplicable ..
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutaot
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial•
number of people? . ·
Potentially
Significant
Impact
I
I
· Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
.
Less than
Significant
Impact
.
No
Impact
III. a) Less than Significant. The Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP}.:." jointly prepared by the
Bay Area Air Qlfality Managemettt District (BAAQMD), Association of Bay Area Governments,
·and· the. Metropblita:D. Transportatirin Commission -encompasses the City of Petaluma· and
contains specificmeasures intended to improveairquality. Under the CAP, any projectthat
attracts automobile traffic or induces growth beyond that anticipated in the regional air quality
plan may be found to have. a significant air quality impact.
The project, once complete, is not expectedto increase or decrease traffic volumes within the
study segment (W-Trans 2006). . The improvements themselves would not generate air
emissions.
ID.b, c, & d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Once completed, the project would not
generate increases in air emissions, because the project would not increase or decrease traffic
volumes. ·
Project construction activities would produce temporary air quality impacts. The Bay Area,
including Sonoma County, is currently in marginal non-attaimnent for the federal 8-hour ozone
standard and non-attaimnent for the State 1-hour ozone standard. Ozone is the major component
of smog.
The Bay Area also is designated a non-attaimnent area for particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5)
under the California Clean Air Act (BAAQMD 2005). Particulate matter includes dust, dirt,
soot, smoke, and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power
City of Petaluma 17
Petaluma Boulevard No)i:h Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
plants, cars, construction activity, fires, and natural windblown dust. The project would create
very little dust because construction activities only include minor hand grading that would occur
with sidewalk removal and compaction prior to replacing the sidewalk.
Construction vehicle/equipment exhaust contains reactive organic gasses (ROG) and nitrogen
oxides (NOx), which are of concern because they add to the regional ozone problem.
Construction activities, expected to last approximately four months, would result in minor,
temporary emissions of diesel and· gasoline engine combustion emissions and dust. · Therefore, ·
the project would temporarily increase ozone, NO"' PM10; and PM2s concentrations and may
temporarily expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. The BAAQMD does not
consider this increase and exposure to be significant given the duration of construction activities,
so long as the following exhaust and dust control measures are implemented.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Equipment Exlzaust Control
The City of Petaluma shall control eqUipment· emissions, and . these measures shall
include:
• Reduce unnecessary idling of construction equipment (i.e., limit idling time to 10
minutes or less);
• Where possible, use newer, cleaner-burning diesel-powered ~onstruction
equipment.
• Properly maintain construction equipment per manufacturer specifications.
• Designate a Disturbance Coordinator responsible for ensuring that mitigation
measures to reduce arr quality impacts from construction are properly
implemented.
Implementation of the mitigationp1easure AIR.-lwould reduce air quality impacts to less than
significant levels. Mitigation Measure AIR~ 1 has been defined by BAAQMD as suffiCient to
reduce impacts from construction toiess thai?-~ignificant. ·
III.e) Less than Significant. Odors created during construction would be!iniited to asphalt
activities and. exhaust from heavy equipment. This is not expected to be significant given the
small scal.e of the project. The completed project would not cre<:tte odors. ·
City of Petaluma 18
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
.
IV. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a. Have·a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications,· on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat orother sensitive natural community
identified in local or regionar plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Depart:rnent of
Fish and Game or U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, etc.) thr~ugh direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption; or other means?
d. Interfere substantially witll the movement of any
native resident oi nngratory fish or ,;ndlif~ species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery site?
e. Conflict with any local poliCies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan; Natural Community
Conservation Plari; or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
.
Less than
Significant ..
with
Mitigation
:
..
I
Less than
Significant ·
Impact
.
No
Impact
.
N.a, b, & d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project site is located along
Petaluma Boulevard North which is a heavily used,. paved roadway. The area is surrounded by
commercial complexes, restaurants, and retail. . There are .ten mature, ornamental landscape trees
greater than 6 inches in diameter' at various locations adjacent to the roadway. ·
Penry Park is l,qcated to the west of Petaluma Boulevard North between Mary Street and Martha
Street. A stone retaining wall separates the 1.25-acre park from the project site. The park consists of
an expansive lawn and numerous mature trees and shrubs including non-native palm trees, pine and
futrees. ·· ·
The southern end of the project area is located about 660 feet from the Petaluma River, and the
northern end, near Lakeville Street, is about 2,640 feet from the river (refer to Figure 1, Vicinity
City ofPetaluroa 19
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Willzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Map). The Petaluma River is included on the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies, and is listed as
impaired because of sediment. Other than storm drains that outlet into the river, there are no
drainages, streams or any type of water features on the site.
Construction equipment andmaterials would be staged on a vacant parcel on the south side of
East Washington Street between Lakeville Street and Copeland Street. The parcel is
approximately 1,000 feet east of the Petaluma River. The property was formerly a railroad yard
and is currently being used for staging for another construction project. The area is not paved;
however years of disturbance have fostered the establishment of ruderal plant species and thus
the area is not likely to support any sensitive plant species.
For additional setting information and photos of the project site, refer to Appendix B Biological
Resources Assessment.
Special Status Plant Species
No plant species with State and/or federal special status are likely to occur or be affected by the
project (see Appendix B). There is no habitat for rare plants in the project area.
Special Status Animal Species
A site visit was conducted on November 9, 2006. The wildlife species and habitat observed on
the project site were typical of a city streetscape. Mostly generalist species such as American
crow, feral pigeon, scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), house sparrow, and California towhee
(Pipllo crissalis) were observed. No special status animal species were observed, nor was there
any habitat for such species.
The California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2006) was
searched for records of listed wildlife species occurring in the USGS 7.5-minute map for the
Petaluma and Petaluma River quadrangles. Also a search was made of the project area for
species listed on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services online database for federal and threatened
endaiigered species (USFWS 2006). To see the list of wildlife species refer to Appendix R No
habitat for any of the listed species was found at the project site during the site visit. However,
two of the species, Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthvs
macrolepidotu), are known to occur in the Petaluma River. These two species' are discussed in
detail in Appendix B.
Special Status Bird Species .
Bird nests, eggs and youn~ are protected under California Fish and Game Codes (§3503,
§3503.5, and §3800) and are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treat Act (50 CFR 10.13).
Only non-native species such as feral pigeon (Columba Iivia), House: sparrow (Passer
Donzesticus), and European starling (Stumus vulgaris) are exempt from protection. Due to the
presence of ornamental trees along Petaluma Boulevard North, and the vegetation associated
with Penry Park in coinpliallce with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, preconstruction nesting
surveys should be conducted in these areas for nesting passerines (small songbird) and raptors.
Sediment additions to the Petaluma River could adversely impact both steelhead and the
Sacramento spittail. The project could produce some construction-related sediment and that
City of Petaluma . 20
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
sediment could enter the storm drains near the project site. These storm drains are connected to
the Petaluma River and sediment entering the storm drain could adversely affect the Petaluma
River, and .the impact could be considered significant. The following mitigation measure is
. required t~ prevent sediment from entering the storm drains: . ·
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Storm Drain Protection Measures
Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Preconstruction Nest Surveys and Construction
Exclusion Zones
The City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys to determine
if any active raptor or migratory bird nests occur within 200 feet of the project site. The
surveys shall occur within one week prior to the start of construction. If active nests are
located in the study area, construction exclusion zones shall be established around' each
active nest. Appropriate construction exclusion zones shall Be ' established through
consultation with California Department of Fish & Game. ConstrUction actiVities shall
be prohibited within exclusion zones until the end of the nesting season, which typically
is July 31. · ·
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GE0-1 would implement measures to reduce the
potential for sediment to enter the ,Petaluma Rlver. Precqnstruction surveys required in BI0-1
would identify nesting birds in and around the project are,ll so that construction exclusion zones
or otl.i.er mitigation in consultation with CDFG can be developed to protect. nesting species from
potential impacts due to construction.. · . · ·
N.c, e, f) .No Impact. There are no wetlands withlllthe projeptsite. There are no.loca} policies
or ordll}ances protecting biological resources that cover the project site. ,No trees would be
removed as part of the project.. There are no adopted, Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural
Conservation Co=nnity Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat .cmiservation
plans that cover the project area. .
City of Petaluma 21
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
V. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of historical resources as defined in
CEQA §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of au archeological resource pursuant .
to CEQA §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a uoique
paleontological resource or site, or uoique geologic
feature?
d. Disturb auy human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
V.a-c) Less than Significlini:with Mitigation. The project is within.the boundaries of the
Petaluma Historic Corniri.ercial District which was listed on the national Register of Historic
places in 1995. A cultnral resource records searchand field survey were conducted in November
2006 by the Sonoma State University Anthropological Studies Center for a Yz mile-radius around
the project. area of potential effects (APE). The results of the background investigations
indicated that no prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources had been recorded.within
the APE. However, oii~ prehist~ric midden and burial site with a historic-period component was
located about 700 feet east of the northern endofthe APE. The site is located outside the project
area. During the outreach effort to Native American contacts, Nick Tipon, representative of the
Sacred Sites Protection Committee of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria requested a
preconstruction meeting between the City of Petaluma, Caltrans, and the contractor to review
project plans and to determine if a Native American monitor should be on site during
construction activities.
It is unlikely that intact historic-period archaeological featnres are present within this area of the
APE. However, there is moderate potential for buried prehistoric archaeological sites within the
APE (SSU 2006). Mitigation Measure CR-1 is required for potential archaeological resources or
unique paleontological featnres discovered during construction of the project.
Mitigation Measnre CR-1: Protection or Recovery of Data
Should concentrations of archaeological or historic period materials or paleontological
resources be encountered during construction, the City shall stop all ground-disturbing
work in that area. Work near such finds shall not .be resumed until a qualified
professional has evaluated the materials and offered recommendations for further action.
Project personoel shall not collect cultnral or paleontological resources. Prehistoric
resources may include obsidian or chert flaked-stone tools or toohnaking debris,
. culturally darkened soil containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains,
City of Petaluma 22
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
stone milling equipment, or battered stone tools (such as hammerstones or pitted stones).
Historic resources may include, but not be limited to, stone or adobe foundations or
walls, filled wells orprivies, or deposits of metal, glass and/or ceramic refuse.
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Coordination with Interested Tribes and Provide for
Archaeological Monitoring if Requested ' .
The City shall coordinate a preconstruction meeting with interested tribes (including the
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria) between the City, Caltrans and the contractor.
The City shall ensure that the meeting provides Indian tribes a reasonable opportunity to
determine whether a qualified archaeological monitor should be present · during
construction activities. If. it is determined that an archaeological monitor should be
present, the City shall ensure that a qualified archaeofogical monitor shall be. present at
all times during trenching, storm drain relocation .and installation of ligb,ting.
Mitigation Measure CR-1 reduces potential impacts to less than significant by detailing a course
of action that would be taken in the unlikely event that archaeological resources are encountered
during construction activities. Mitigation Measure CR-2 ensures that Tribes have an opportunity
to provide input and request an archaeological monitor if necessary.
V.d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Construction would involve ground-disturbing
activities aSsociated with the electrical conduit trench; removal and replacement of street lights,
storm drains and fire hydrant; and installation of new street lights and curb extensions. Although
unlikely, there is a potential to encounter human remains.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Encountering Human Remains
If human remains are encountered within the coristructiou area, the City shall stop all
work in the immediate vicinity of the find and notify the project superintendent and
Sonoma County Sheriffi'Coroner. At the same time, an archaeologi~t should be .contacted
to evaluate the find. If the remains are found to be of Native American origin, the Native
American Heritage Commission must be notified within 24 hours of the identification.
The procedures to be followed at this point are prescribed by law. ·
If human remains are discovered during construction of the project, Mitigation Measure CR-3
would be applied. This mitigation measure reduces potential impacts to less than significant by
detailing a course of action that would be taken in the unlikely event that human remains are
encountered during construction activities.
City of Petaluma 23
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Wiozler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
VI. Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of!oss, injury, or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geo!ol;ist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, aod potentially r'sult in on-or off-
site lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
d. Be !pealed on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18:1-B'ofthe Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e. Have soils in~apable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the' disposal ofw.Ste water?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
.
.
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI.a) Less than Significant. Two active faults affect the Petaluma area but Alquist Priolo zones
are not located at the site: the San Andreas Fault and the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault. The
liquefaction susceptibility map (ABAG 2004) indicates that the project is within an area of very
high liquefaction susceptibility. However, the project is a roadway improvements project and
does not consist of structures that may fail due to liquefaction. The project would be subject to
ground shaking during an earthquake along the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek or San Andreas
faults. Earthquake engineering design as required by the Uniform Building Code would reduce
the probability that the project would be damaged during a seismic event, and thereby reduce
impacts to less than significant.
City of Petaluma 24
· Petaluroa Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
The project corridor traverses essentially levelland. No evidence oflandslides is present within
the project area.
VI.b} Less than Significant. . The project would be located within an existing paved area and the
staging area is within a highly disturbed and compacted non-paved site. Construction of the
project would not result in the loss of topsoil. There would be minimal hand grading associated
with sidewalk removal and replacement. This impact is less than significant.
VI.c) Less than Significant. The project is located on the Yolo clay loam soil mapping unit and
the staging area is located on the Clear Lake clay soil mapping unit (USDA 1972). T)le project
site is underlain by alluvial-fan deposits. Liquefaction potential is expected to be high (ABAG
2004). Design and construction of the roadway improvements would be in conformance with the
UBC, and the likelihood of damage to the project is less than significant.
VI. d) Less than Significant. Yolo clay loam and Clear Lake claysoil~ psedominatt::_1llong the
. project area. According to the Soil Survey, Sonoma County, California (USDA 1972), the clayey
alluvium is expected to be at least moderately expansive to highly expansive. Standard
engineering methods, such as replacing or reconditioning soils if necessary, would be used,
thereby reducing the impacts to less than significant.
VI. e) No Impact. The project consists of roadway improvements; therefore; there would be no
. . . : .'·· .. ' ' ; need to install septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
City ofPetaluma 25
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Stody/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
.
Vll. Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
· • disposal ofhazardous materiills?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions iovolviog the release of
hazardous materials iota the environment?
c. Emit hazardous. emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials; substances, or waste
withio one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d. Be located on a site which is iocluded on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a signifi~ant h~ard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located withio an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, withio
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result io a safety hazard for
people residiog or working io the project area?
f. For a project withio the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result io a safety hazard for
people residiog or working io the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically ioterfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, iojury or death iovolving wildland fires,
iocludiog where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
..
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VILa) Less than Significant. Fueling would take place in the staging area. The use of standard
equipment fuels and fluids during construction would create a minor potential hazard. The risk
of spill is small, and if a spill were to occur, it would be controlled and cleaned up as needed in
accordance with county and state regulations. Any impact would be temporary and less than
significant.
VII.b & d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. An Environmental Data Resource (EDR)
co=ercial database search, conforming to the American Society for Testing and Materials
City of Petaluma 26
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Ioitial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
(ASTM) Standard Practice for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-00) and All
Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), was consulted to determine the presence or absence of
hazardous sites in the project alignment (or adjacent properties) on any environmental records
lists, including the Cortese database (Government Code § 65962.5) (EDR 2006). The search
listed a combined total of 13 sites along or adjacent to the project alignment with potential for
environmental concem This number of potential sites is not unusual for a developed area such
as Petaluma.
A Hazardous Materials Corridor Study, similar to a limited Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment, is being conducted concurrently with the development of this Initial Study/Proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration. In the process of conducting the study, it was discovered. that
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) has beeh detected in the groundwater beneath two properties
on the project alignment. These two sites are on opposite sides of Petaluma Boulevard North and
file information il;ldicated that it is likely that MtBE is also present in the groundwater between
the tWo sites and therefore beneath the project alignment itself. These two sites are located at 420
and 415 Petaluma Boulevard North. · ·
A third property along the project alignment; located at 412 Petaluma Boulevard North, was
undergoing a subsurface investigation during a site walk of the project alignment (November 1,
2006) . .This property is not listed in the EDR database report, nor is it found in the State Water
Resources Control Board on-line databases. Local. agi:ncy files are currently beingreviewed for
any further information about the location of contamination. Although the contaminants and
plume location at 412 Petaluma Boulevard North are not yet known, the fact that a subsurface
investigation is being conducted indicates a potential for contamination to be present in the
project alignment associated with that property. Detailed information on. these properties would
be provided in the corridor study.
These three properties at 412, 415 and 420 Petaluma Boulevard North are located along the
project corridor between Kent and Oak Streets. Groundwater measurements collected at 415
Petaluma Boulevard North indicate depth to groundwater ranging from 0.2 to 8.76 feet below
ground surface (bgs). Groundwater measurements collected at 420 Petaluma Boulevard North
indicated depth to groundwitter ranging from 5.9 to 9.6 fi~et bgs. ·
The. following Mitigation Measure. would reduce the potential impact to these sites from
construction activities to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Contaminated Materials Handling aud Disposal
The City shall require the contractor to employ Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) trained (29 CFR 1910.120/8. CCR 5192) workers to
screen soils and groundwater for contamination; treat contaminated groundwater;
stockpile and characterize soil; and properly dispose of all contaminated materials in
accordance with all State and local laws. .These requirements shall be adhered to via
construction specifications which will detail the hazardous material handling and disposal
requirements necessary if contaminated materials are encountered.
City ofPetaluma 27
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Implementation of the Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires that properly trained personnel
strictly follow the specifications that detail hazardous material handling would reduce this
potential impact to less than significant levels by providing the means to safely handle
potentially haiardous and/or contaminated m.aterials.
VILe, e & f) No Impact. There are no schools within a 114 mile of the project area. The closest
school is located over l/4 mile to the west (private elementary school). The project is not located
within an airport planning area. The nearest airport, Petaluma Municipal Airport, is 2.3 miles to
the east
VII.g) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Construction activities would be within the
roadway travel lanes of Petaluma Boulevard North and could temporarily interfere with
emergency access, including emergency response plans. This impact is considered significant
without mitigation.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Standard Traffic Safety Control Procedures
The City or its contractor shall ensure that standard traffic safety control procedures are
included in the Traffic Control Plan being prepared a5 part of the project. Construction
flagging and signage, use of plates, and other safety measures shall be in conformance
with the CAL TRANS Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance of
Work Zones (CAL TRANS 1990). If temporary lane or road closures are required, the
City shall contact emergency response providers (hospitals, police, fire, and ambulance)
and Inventory the locations of their primary routes that may be affected by the
· construction.
.. Where construction necessitates lane or road closures along emergency response
routes, the City shall reco=end and obtain approval for alternate routes or other
means from the affected service providers, at a minimum of one week prior to
construction.
o During construction, the City shall riotify the service providers on a weekly basis
of the tiniing, location, and duration of construction activities:
Alternative routes are available along all segments of construction. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2
would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-siinilicant level by ensuring emergency access
vehicles would not be substantially delayed. . · ·
VII.h) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project is not located within or adjacent to a
known fire hazard area, but the staging area would be located in an empty lot. Construction
staging would likely occur during sururner, increasing the risk of fire in the dry vegetation on the
lot.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Clear Fueling Areas and Require Equipment Controls
The City or its contractor shall clear dry vegetation or other fire fuels neat staging areas
or any other area where equipment would be operated, prior to the start of construction in
that area. The City shall require contractors to use equipment with spark arresters in
good working order.
City ofPetaluma 28
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would reduce this potential impact to less than significant, as the
source of fires would be reduced and the fuel for wildfire would be eliminated.
City ofPetaluma 29
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
VID. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
h. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or lowering of the local groundwater table
level?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including the alteration of the course
of a streiun or river, in a manner which would result
in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on-or off-
site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned .
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff!
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or daro?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsnnami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.a & f) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Several components of the roadway
improvements would involve some limited ground disturbance. Dewatering is not anticipated
during construction, however it may be required. If required, water would be filtered to remove
sediments and then discharged into the existing city sewer system. This discharged water may
be regulated by the City to ensure compliance with sanitary sewer regulations.
City ofPetalillna 30
Petaluroa Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
The Petaluma River is not within the project boundaries,. but there are several storm drains
leading from the roadway to the Petaluma River. R\moff from the project site could enter the
River if adequate best management practices (BMPs) are not implemented. Mitigation Measure
HYD-1 describes the measures necessary to protect water quality.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Storm Drain Protection Measures
The City shall instal.! sediment control mea.Sures in and around storm drain drop-inlets in
the project area to ensure construction-related sediment does not enter the stormwater
system. Measures shall include the following or other measures that provide the at least
the same level of sediment reduction:
& Series of several sand or gravel bags (preferred) placed in gutter uphill from drop-
inlets to divert flow, slow flow velocity and filter runoff.
g Sand or gravel bags (preferred) placed around perimeter of drop-inlets.
• Temporary catch basin inlet filter placed inside drop-inlets.
The City shall remove a!.! inlet protection devices within thirty days after the site is
stabilized, or when inlet protection is no longer required.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would prevent sediment from reaching storm drains,
and thereby reduce the potential impacts to water quality to less than significant.
Vill.b) Less than Significant. Groundwater level conditions would vary along the project route
depending on seas,onal rainfall, flow in the river, regional groundwater extraction or recharging,
local construction operations, and leaks in underground utilities. The project would be located
primarily. above ground, with the exception of the trench for the 3-inch diameter electrical
conduit, relocation of storrndrain piping, tree plantings and installation of street lights.
Installation of the conduit may require dewatering, although the need for dewatering . is
considered unlikely. Should dewatering be required, the amount of groundwater removed would
be small because construction would occur during the dry summer months. The project would
not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge because no new impervious surfaces would be constructed and dewatering amounts
would be low. Impacts to groundwater would be less than significant and would not require
mitigation.
Vill.c -e) Less than Significant. The project is a streetscape project and would not alter the
existing drainage patterns of the site or area. The minor changes in location of stormdrain piping
would not alter the course of the Petaluma River because the rate of stormwater drainage to the
River would not change. This impact is considered less than significant.
The staging area would be graded to the original, preconstruction condition following
construction to prevent erosion and siltation. No additional storm drain capacity is required for
the project. This impact is considered less than significant. ·
Vill.g) No Impact. The project is a roadway improvements project and would not place housing
within a 100-year flood hazard area.
City of Petaluma 31
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft lnitial Stndy/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
VIll,h & i) Less than Significant. The project would not place structures within a I DO-year
flood hazard area and as such, would not alter, impede, or redirect flood flows. The staging area
is located within a mapped 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 1989);
however use of the site would be temporary and would occur in the dry monfus of the yearwhen
flooding is not an issue.
VIll.j) No Impact. Given that the project is located on a relatively flat site and is not in
proximity to large waterbodies, it is unlikely that the site would be at risk of seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.
City of Petaluma 32
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
IX. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
.•
a. Physically divide an established commwrity?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to, the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
rnitigatiog an environmental effect?
c. Collmct with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natnral community conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
•
No
Impact
IX.a) No ·Impact. The project would .be consistent with the existing physical arrangement of the
adj~cent properties because the project would not change the existing use. No streets or sidewalks
would be permanently closed as yeslllt of tile project. No separation of land uses or disruption of
access between land uses are ariticipated. to occur as a result of the project. Implementation of the
project would .not disrupt or divide .the physical arrangement of the established co=unity. No
impact would occur. . . · · . . . . .
IX.b) Less Than Significant. The project would be consistent with applicable plans, policies and
regulations. The Petaluma General Plan Land Use Map designates the properties along the roadway
as Mixed Use, Co=unity Co=ercial and Public Parks.
Zoniog along the west side of the roadway is CC (Central Co=ercial District), CH (Highway
Co=ercial District), CN (Neighborhood Co=ercial District) and RMG (Garden Apartment
Residence District).
The east side of the roadway is within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and is designated MU .
(Mixed Use). A portion of the roadway, which extends south of East Washington, is located in the
Downtown Co=ercial District and theN ational Historic Register District.
The project would be consistent with the General Plan, Central Petaluma Zoniog Ordinance, Specific
Plan, and Petaluma Historic Commercial District Design Guidelines. Impacts to land use would be
considered less than significant. Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan
and Central Petaluma Specific Plan are shown in Appendix C.
IX.c) No Impact. The project site is not located within an area subject to a habitat conservation
plan or natural co=unity conservation plan. No impact is expected relative to conflicts with
any such plans.
City of Petaluma 3 3
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
X. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
iruportaut mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
.
No
Impact
X.a) No Impact. No known mineral resources occur in the area of the roadway improvements.
The Petaluma General Plan notes that the State Mining and Geology Board designates specific
geographic areas which sand and gravel deposits are available to meet the need for construction-
quality aggregate. Quarries occur outside the city limits and away from the project area.
Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources and would not result in the
loss of availability of known state orregionally-important mineral resources.
X.b) No Impact. The project would not result in the loss of any locally important mineral
resource recovery site. There are no such sites within the project area.
City of Petaluma 34
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
XI. Noise
Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of rioise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordioance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b. ExpoSure of persons to, or generation of, excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above. levels existing
without the project?
d. A substanti~ltemporary or peri9dic increase in .
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located ~thin an airport lar;d use plan
or, where such a plan has not been. a,d?pted, within
two miles of a public alrport or public use airport;
would the project expose peopleresidiog or working
· in the projectarea to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residiog or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. a, c & d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Construction of the project would involve
the use of construction equipment and generation of construction traffic, resulting in temporary
noise impacts. In addition, to accommodate the construction schedule and lessen impacts to
traffic,· work crews may work during the uighttime (up to 10:00 PM). These nighttime
construction activities would likely consist of grinding and paving and could last up to four
nights. Construction activities could temporarily exceed noise standards, and increase ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project.
According to Petaluma Zoning Code (Ordinance Article 22, §22-301.3±), the following specific
acts are declared to be public nuisances and are prohibited: The operation or use of ...
construction, demolition, excavation, erection, alteration or repair activity ... before 7:00 AM or
after 10:00 PM daily (except Saturday, Sunday and State, Federal or Local Holidays, when the
prohibited time shall be before 9:00AM and after 10:00 PM).
There are no residents or schools immediately adjacent to the project site. The project, once
complete, would not be expected to increase or decrease traffic volumes within the study
segment (W-trans 2006). The roadway improvements would not increase existing noise in the
area following construction.
City ofPetalurna 35
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
The following Mitigation Measures are recommended to reduce construction noise impacts to
less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Limit Construction Activities
In accordance with the City's Public Works department, noise-producing construction
activities shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday .(excludes
holidays) except during nighttime construction activities where, in accordance with the
City of Petaluma's noise ordinance (Ordinance Article 22, §22-301.3£), noise-producing
construction activities shall be limited to 7:00AM to 10:00 PM.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2. Equipment Noise Control
The City of Petaluma and its contractor shall reduce equipment noise to the extent
feasible. Mitigation measures may include:
• Newer equipment with improved noise muffling may need to be used and
manUfacturers' recommended noise ab-atement measures, such as mufflers, engine
covers; and engine vibration isolators be intact and operational.
• Construction equipment may require weekly inspection to ensure proper maintenance
and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding, etc.) ..
e Wherever possible, hydraulic tools should be used instead of pneumatic impact tools.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would limit construction to daytime hours, . .
except for during the identified nighttime construction where. construction activities would be
limited to before 10:00 PM. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would limit construction noise to the
extent feasible. The impacts related to construction noise would be reduced to less than
significant levels .
. XI.b) Less than Significant. Construction does not require blasting. No significant ground
vibration would be cansed by project construction or operation.
XI.e & f) No Impact. The project is not located within an airport planning area.
airport, Petaluma Municipal Airport, is 2.3 miles to the east
City ofPetaluma 36
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Stody/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
The nearest
Wiozler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
.·· ..
Xll. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population .growth in au area,
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes aud
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
h. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.a) No Impact. Project improvements to the roadway are intended to increase safety for
pedestrians, vehicles and bicycles along Petaluma Boulevard North. These improvements would
increase vehicular buffer spacing qetween lanes and parked cars and provide a more pedestrian-
friendly roadway between the west and east sides of Petaluma Boulevard. The project would not
change the existing population growth pattern in the area. No impact would occur.
XII.b & c) No Impact. Roadway improvements woi.Jld. not displace existing housing or
substantial numbers of people, since no existing housing or businesses along the roadway would
be removed. No impacts to· population and housing are expected to occur.
City orPetaluma 37
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
..
XIIT. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction ofwltich could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
../
../
../
../
../
No
Impact
XIII.a-e) Less than Significant. The project would not impact fue or police protection,
educational facilities or other.· public facilities, . because the . project .involves roadway
improvements and would not require new public services facilities. Petaluma Boulevard is a
major access route for the downtown area which would be kept clear for emergency vehicles to
the extent possible. The Traffic Plan included as part of the project would address emergency
vehicle access routes and would address necessary detours. This is a less-than-significant
impact.
City ofFetalurna 38
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
XIV. Recreation
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
·with
Mitigation
.
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
XIV.a & b) No Impact. The roadway improvement would not increase the City's population
and demand for recreation facilities. The nearest park is the Richard Penry Park, a 1.25-acre
City-owned park located along the west side of the project bounded by Mary Street, Kentucky
Street and Martha Street. The roadway improvements are not expected to affect any part of the
park.
City of Petaluma 39
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
XV. Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
a. . Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in ·
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
tbe street syste)Il (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in eitber the number of vehicles trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by tbe county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature ( e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV.a & b) Less than Significant. A focused traffic analysis has been drafted for the project
(W-tnins 2006) .aud is included in Appendix D. It analyzed potential vehicle delay aud public
safety impacts resulting from the conversion of four laues to three (two through laues aud one
middle turn laue). Traffic conditions during the weekday morning (weekday a.m.) aud afternoon
peak hours (p.m. peak hours) were analyzed because these time frames represent the highest
traffic levels. This signalized intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North aud Washington Street
was used in the analysis. The unsignalized intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North aud Oak
Street was used as a representative intersection similar to other intersections unsignalized along
the project area (such as Martha Street, Prospect Street aud Kent Street).
The City's General Plau uses Level of Service (LOS) to evaluate traffic load aud capacity for
intersections throughout the city, aud LOS was used to evaluate traffic load aud capacity impacts
associated with the project. The City's General Plau LOS standard for streets states that the
minimum acceptable operation is LOS C where it is currently LOS Cor better (see Table XV-1
below for a description of LOS Criteria). Where the LOS was D orE in 1985, the General Plau
City of Petaluma 40
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
-
states that it would be a significant impact if the LOS deteriorated to the next lower level. Under
a City Council Policy adopted in 1990, mitigation is required at any stody intersection where the
project would result in a delay worse than LOS D.
TableX:V-1
Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS Unsignalized Intersections .. · Signalized Intersections
A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds.. Gaps in traffic are Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive
readily available for drivers exiting the minor ·during the green phase, so do not stop at all
street.· · · · .·· ·.
B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in traffic are Delay of 10 to 20 seconds: • More vehicles stop
somewhat less readily available than with LOS than with LOS A, but many drivers still do not
· .. A, but no queuing occurs on the minor street have to stop. .
c Delay of 15 to 25 s~conds. Acceptable gaps in Delay of20 to 35 seconds: The number of
traffic are less frequent, and drivers :nlay vehicles stopping is significant, although many
approach while another vehicle
waitillito exit the sid.e street.
-
is already still pass through without stol'ping.
D Delay' of 25 to 35 seconds: There are fewer Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of
acceptable gaps in .traffic, and drivers may enter congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles
a queue of one or two vehicles on the side street have to stop.
E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few acceptable gaps Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all,
in traffic are available, and longer queues may vehicles must stop , and drivers consider the
form on theside street. delay excessive. · • ·
F Delay of more than 50 seconds. Drivers may Delay of more than 80 seconds. ·Vehicles may
wait for long periods before there -·is an wait through more ·than one. cycle to clear the
acceptable gap in traffic for exiting the side intersectiop..
streets, creating long queues. ' .
Source: JV-Trans 2006
The average del~yper vehicle in seconds (while stopped) was used as the basis for determining
the existing and the post-project LOS for intersections affected by the project. The existing
conditions analysis was based upon conditions at intersections and traffic volumes within the
stodysegments. Intersection LOS calculations are sunirnanzed in Table XV-2 for the existing
and post-project conditions. ·
Summary of Existing and Post Project onditions for P ea
TableX:V-2
c MP k
Intersection .·· Existing Conditions
Approach AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
HourL OSCal I . cu ations
Post Project Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
.?..~~-~-131Y.<!-.~~~~~g!~11-~.t _____ 37.2 D 39.6 D 35.9 D 36.2 D --------------------------------------------------------------------Petaluma Blvd. North/Oak St
Eastbound Oak Street Approach 23.8 c 24.5 D 19.2 c . 20.3 c
Northbound Petaluma Blvd. Left 9.7 A 9.2 . A 9.7 A 9.2
.
Existing intersection LOS was found to be operating within the General Plan guidelines of LOS
D or better. The project is not expected to increase or decrease traffic volumes within the stody
segment. As seen in Table XV-2, delays during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour are expected to
decrease once the project is completed. With the addition of the center torn lane, cars would
utilize the center torn lane to complete a left torn from Petaluma Boulevard North onto
driveways or minor streets. The center torn lane allows vehicles to wait for oncoming traffic to
clear without causing other vehicles to line up behind them. Additionally, motorists taming left
City ofPetaluma 41
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
from a driveway or minor street onto Petaluma Boulevard North can. use the center tum lane as a
refuge while waiting for oncoming traffic to clear. In both cases, traffic would not backed up
behind vehicles waiting to tum onto or off of Petaluma Boulevard North; thereby reducing
delays along the roadway. ·
Construction traffic would consist of employee trips; construction equipment; material delivery
trucks, and spoils and backfill trucks. The typical roadway crew would have 6 workers, 2 truck
drivers, one construction manager and one inspector. The contractor would likely h<J.ve a foreman
and/or superintendent on site. Roughly eight truckloads of ~aterial would be removed from the
project site, and eight truckloads ofmaterial would be brought to the work zone, on a daily basis.
The Traffic Control Plan, which is part of the project description, includes a work area access
plan detailing access to each portion of the project area, including those properties which may
experience temporary delay or disruption of access. This impact is considered less than
significant.
XV.c) No Impact. Construction and operation of the roadway.would not result in a change in
air traffic patterns. The project is a roadway improvements project and would not affect air
traffic.
XV.d & e) Less than Significant. The project would increase vehicle and pedestrian safety due
to the curb extension bulb-outs, center tum lane, and extended parking lane width. Curb
extensions, also known as bulb-outs or neckdowns, extend the sidewalk or curb line out into the
parking lane, which reduces the effective street width (see Figures 5-7 for illustrations of bulb-
outs). Curb extensions can significantly improve pedestrian crossings by reducing the pedestrian
crossing distance, visually and physically narrowing the roadway, improving the ability of
pedestrians and motorists to see each other, and reducing the time that pedestrians are in the
street.
Curb extensions prevent motorists from parking in or too close to a crosswalk or from blocking a
curb ramp or crosswalk. Motor vehicles parked too close to comers present a threat to pedestrian
safety since they can block sightlines, obscure visibility of pedestriansand other vehicles, and
can make turning particularly difficult for emergency vehicles and trucks. Motorists are
encouraged to travel more slowly at intersections or midblock locations .with curb ext!'lnsions as
the restricted street width sends a visual cue to motorists. Turning speeds at intersections can be
reduced with cfu:b extensions as well. This is considered a beneficial impact.
The addition of the center tum lane would increase vehicle safety. Traffic would no longer be
backed up behind the turning vehicle. Rear-end collisions are expected to decrease becailse the
traffic would be flowing and not encounter unexpected stops as frequently (due to left and right
turning vehicles). This is considered a beneficial impact. ·
Lastly, the increased width of the parking lanes would increase vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle
safety. Vehicles would no longer need to park with two wheels on the sidewalk in order to avoid
being broadsided. Bicycles would have more room to travel between the parked cars and traffic.
Pedestrians on the sidewalk would not have to avoid parked cars. This is considered a beneficial
impact.
City ofPetaluma 42
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Construction traffic can create travel hazards, due to slow and unusual vehlcles, construction
vehlcle parking, temporary lane closures and the presence of workers. Also, slow traffic can
adversely affect emergency vehlcle response capabilities and access to businesses, homes,
schools and recreational facilities. The contractor would develop a Traffic Control Plan as part
of the project which would include a work area access plan detailing access to each portion of
the project area, including those properties which may experience temporary delay or disruption
of access. Should entire roadways need to be closed during construction, detour routes would be
established with approval from the City.
The traffic hazard associated with tills project would be limited by its extent of approximately
120 days in duration and implementation of the Traffic Control Plan. Impacts on traffic flow,
parking, emergency routes, access, and pedestrian/bicycle safety would be less than significant. . '
XV.f) Less than Significant. Existing parking conditions in the project area are substandard due
to inadequate width (6 feet) and proximity to existing narrow travel lanes (10 feet). Dmi to these
conditions, the effectiveness of the existing parking is dfamatically reduced, causing motorists to
park on adjacent streets and co=only on the sidewalk. Therefore, tills segment of Petaluma
Boulevard North is not realizing its parking potential. After project implementation, parking
capacity along Petaluma Boulevard North would be reduce<f with the installation of the curb
extension bulb-outs. Up to four parking spaces would be lost. at each intersection. However, the
effectiveness and ·safety of the remaining parking would be dramatically improved, thereby
increasing the overall usefulness of parking along the project length. ·
XV.g) No Impact. Construction and operation of the roadway would not conflict With any
alternative transportation plans, policies, or programs setforth by the City, county, or state.
There are no waterborne or air traffic facilities within the geographlcal extent of the project. The
bus shelter north 9f Mary Street would be removed and reset in its current location. New bike
racks would be installed on both sides of Petaluma Boulevard North near. the intersection with
W ashlngton Street.
City ofPetaluma 43
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. · Require or result in the constroction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the constroction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c. Require or result ·in the constroction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the constroction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? : I ·
d. Have sufficient water supplies avru:J~ble to serve the
project from existing entitlem<mts and re~ources, or
are new or expa6ded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ·
capacity to acco=odate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statues and
regillations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
.
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
.
No
Impact
XVI.a-g) No Impact. The project would not cause an increased burden or need for water,
wastewater, stormwater, or potable water facilities, because the project is a roadway
configuration improvement project and it does not change existing uses. The roadway
improvements associated with the project would require the relocation and realignment of
existing storm drains with the curb extension bulb-outs. No new utility systems would be
required for the project. Minimal construction debris would be generated during construction
and be handled per BMPs set forth in the project's SWPPP. Issues related with hazardous waste
disposal are addressed in Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Section VII (d). A temporary, short-
term interruption of electricity or water may occur during connection to the existing facilities.
However, no impacts to the utility and service systems serving the project area would occur.
City of Petaluma 44
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
XVIT. Mandatory Findings of
Significance
a. Does the project bave the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustainiog
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
co=unity, reduce the number or res1rict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate iroportant.examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project bave impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the inpremental ~ffects of a project are.
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)? ·
c. l)oes the project have environmental effects that
will cause substantial adverse' effects on biunan.
beings, either directly or iridirectlfl
.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with .
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
XVIT.a & c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Mitigation measures arereco=ended to
prevent significant effects in ,the categories of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources,
cul~al resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydtolOgy and water quality and noise. The
analysis in this Initial Study shows that with the reco=ended mitigation measuh:s, the project
would have no lasting significant adverse effects.
XVIII.b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project is a roadway improvements
project identified in the City's CIP. The project's impacts would not add appreciably to any
existing or foreseeable future significant cumulative impact, such as species endangerment, air
quality degradation or noise impacts. The project would result in a beneficial impact related to
traffic level of service and pedestrian safety. Incremental impacts, if any, would be negligible
and undetectable. This project is not contingent on or otherwise related to the development of
any other project not already contemplated by the City.
City of Petaluma 45
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler& Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Preparers
Winzler & Kelly
Pat Collins, Project Manager
Carrie Lukacic, Senior Planner
Terrie Zwillinger, Planner
Ladd l'v:Iiyasaki, Planner
Sandy Etchell
Sandy Etchell, Biologist
Anthropological Stndies Center Sonoma State University
Heidi Koenig, M.A., RP A Project Coordinator and Staff Archaeologist
References
Association ofBay Area Governments. 2005. Projections 2005.
Association of Bay Afea Governments. 2004. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map: ABAG
Earthquake Program -Geographic Informatiol! Systems. April.
City of Petaluma. 2003. Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Jnne 2.
City of Petaluma. 20085. City Council Resolutio,n#2005cll8A N.C.S. Approving the
Proposed Lane Reconfiguration Plan for Petaluma Boulevard. ]l(orth ji·om
Washington Street to Lakeville Street C200304. ·
City of Petaluma 1995. General Plan, 1987-2005.
City of Petaluma. 1999. Petaluma Historic Commercial District Design Guidelines.
August 16,
City of Petaluma. 1999. Zoning Ordinance.
Enviroumental Data Resources (EDR}. 2006. Petaluma Boulevard North, Inquiry
Number 1767958.2s. October 3.
W-Trans, 2006. Focused Traffic Analysis the Conversion of Petaluma Boulevard North
from four Lanes to 17zree. November.
City of Petaluma 46
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Stndy/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers
November 2006
02.05506002
Appendix A
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
· .. Miti~ation Monitorin~ Plan-Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure AJR-1. Equipment Exhaust Control
The City of Petaluma shall control equipment emissions, and these measures
shall include:
• · Reduce uuuecessary idliug of construction equipment (i.e., limit idiiug
time to 10 minutes or less);
• Where possible, use newer, cleaner-burning diesel-powered construction
equipment.
0 Properly maintain construction equipment per manufacturer
specifications.
• Designate a Disturbance Coordinator responsible for ensuring that
mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts from construction are
· properly implemented.
Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Preconstrnction Nest Surveys and
Construction Exclusion· Zones
The City shall r~tain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surVeys
to determine if any active raptor or migratory bird nests occur within 200
feet of the project site. The surveys shall occur within·one week prior to the
s·tart of Construction. If active ncists are located· in the study area,
cobstruction ·exclusion zones ·shall be established around each active nest.
App~opriate construction exchision zones shall be established through .
consultation with California Department of Fish & Game. Construction
activities shall be prolu'bited withln exclusion zones until the end ofthe
nesting seasmi, which_ty]Jica!!Y_ is Ju]y_ 31.
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Protection or Recovery of Data
Should concentrations of archaeological or historic period materials or
paleontological resources be encountered during construction, the City shall
stop all ground-disturbing work in that area. Work near such· finds shall not
be resumed until a qualified professional has evaluated the matmials and
offered recommendations for further action. Project personae! shall not
collect cultural or paleontological resources. Prehistoric resources may
include obsidian or chert flaked-stone tools ortoohnaking debris, culturally
darkened soil containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts/:Or shellfish-remains,·-
City ofPetaluma
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Monitoring Verify Timing of Frequency and Compliance Initial Action Duration
City ofPetaluma During Ongoing through
construction construction
City ofPetaluma Prior to Prior to
construction construction
City of Petaluma During Ongoing through
construction construction
.. . .. .
A-I
Action Items
Implementation
ofBMPs
Complete
survey
Notify agencies
and prepare and
implement a
mitigation
program if
necessary
Cease work and
report findings,
as needed
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Mitigation Monitoring_ Plan-Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway llmprovements ProJect
Mitigation Measure ·
·.
stone milling equipment, or battered stone iools (such as hamrnerstones or
pitted stones). Historic resources may include, butnot be limited to, stone or
adobe foundations or walls, filled wells or privies, or deposits of metal, glass
and/or ceramic refuse.-·,
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Coordination with Interested Tribes and
Provide for Archaeological Monitoring if Requested
The City shall coordinate a preconstruction meeting With interested tribes
(including the Federated Indians of Graton 'Rancheria) between the City,
Caltrans and the contractor. The City shall ensure that the meeting provides
Indian tribes a reasonable opportunity to detenuine whether a qualified
archaeological monitor should be present during construction activities. If it
is detenuined that an archaeological monitor should be present, the City shall
ensure that a qualified archaeological monitor shaH be present at all times
during trenching, storm drain relocation and installation of lighting.
.·.·
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Encountering Human Remains
If human remains are encountered within the construction area, the City shaH
stop all work in the innnediate vicinity of the find and notify the project
superintendent and Sonoma County Sherif£'Coroner. At the same time, an
archaeologist should·be contacted to evaluate the find. If the·remains are
found to be of Native American origin, the Native ·American Heritage
Commission must be·notified within 24 •hours of the identification. The
procedures to be foHowed at this point are_IJrescribed by law.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Contaminated Materials Handling and
Disposal
The City shaH require the contractor to· employ Hazardous Waste Operations
and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) trained (29 CFR-1910.120/8 CCR
5 I 92) workers to screen soils and groundwater for contamination; treat
contaminated groundwater; .. stockpile -and ,~haracterize soil; and properly
dispose of all contaminated materials in accordance with all State and local
laws. These shaH be adhered. to via construction specifications which Wiii
detail the hazardous material handling and disposal requirements necessary if
contaminated materials are encountered.
City of Petaluma
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verify
Compliance
City of Petaluma
City ofPetaluma
City ofPetaluma
A-2
Timing of Monitoring
Frequency and Initial Action Duration
Prior to Prior to
construction construction
During Ongoing through
construction construction
During Ongoing through
construction construction
Action Items
Arrange meeting
with interested
Tnbes
If requested,
ensure a
qualified
archaeological
monitor is
present during
construction
Cease work and
report findings,
as needed
Screen soil and
groundwater
lmplement
BMPs as
necessary
Winzler & Kelly
N overnber 2006
0205506002
Mitigation Monitoring Plan -Petaluma Boulevard North Roadw:IY_ lm_IJI"ovements Pr«&ect
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Standard Traffic Safety Control
Procedures
The City or its contractor shall ensure that standard traffic safety control
procedures are included in the Traffic Control Plan being prepared as part of
the project Construction flagging and,signage, use ofplates, and,,other
safety measures shall be in conformance with the CAL TRANS Manual of
Traffic Controls for 'Construction and, Maint~nance of Work ,Zones
(CAL TRANS 1990)., If temporary lane or road closures are required, the
City shall contact emergency response providers (hospitals, police, fire, and
ambulance) .and inventory .the locations. of their .primary routes that may be
affected by the construc.tion.
• Where-construction necessitates_ lane _or road closures along eme,rgency
. response ,.routes,,, the City shall recommend and obtain approval for
alternate routes or other means from the affected service providers, at a
minimum of one week prior to construction.
• During construction, the City shall notify the service providers on a
weekly basis of the tinring, location, and duration of construction
, activities.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Clear Fueling Areas and Reqnire
Equipment Controls
The City or its contractor shall clear dry vegetation or other fire fuels near
staging areas or any other area where equipment would be operated, prior to
the start of construction in that area. The City shallrequire contractors to use
equipment with spark arresters. in good working order.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Storm Drain Protection Measures
The City shall install sediment control measures in and around storm drain
drop-inlets in the project area to ensure construction-related sediment does
not enter the stormwater system. Measures shall include the following or
other measures that provide the at least the same level of sediment reduction:
• Series of several sand or gravel·bags (preferred) placed in. gutter upbill
from drop-inlets to divert flow, slow flow velocity and fllter'runoff.
City of Petaluma
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verify Timing of Monitoring
Compliance Initial Action Frequency and
Duration
City ofPetaluma Prior to Ongoing through
construction construction
I
City of Petaluma Prior to Ongoing through
construction construction
City of Petaluma Prior to Ongoing through
construction construction
. . · ..
A-3
Action Items
Implement
BMPs into
Traffic Control
Plan
Clear vegetation
at staging area
Use spark
arresters
Install storm
drain measures
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
··Mitieation MonitorinePlan _;_Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
V ·r T" . f Monitoring
M . · ti 'M en Y mung ° F d A t" It ttlga on-ensure C 1. 1 "ti 1 A t• requency an c wn ems omp mnce m a c ton D ti ·.. .. ..•. urn on
• Sand or gravel bags (preferred) placed around perimeter of drop-illlets. ·
• Temporary catch basin inlet filter placed inside di:op~illlets.
The City. shall remove all.inlet protection device~.c'Nithin thirty days after the
site is stabilized, or when inlet protection is no longer required.
Mitigation Measure NOI4:·Limit Construction Activities City of Petaluma During Ongoing through Limit
In· accordance with the City's Public Works department, noise-producing construction construction construction
construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday activities
through Friday (excludes holidays) except .during nighttime .. construction
activities where, in accordance with the City ofPetaluma's.noise ordinance
(Ordinance Article 22, §22-301.3f), noise,producing construction activities
shall be limited to 7:00AM to 10:00 PM:
Mitigation Measure NOI-2. EquipmeutN!'ise Control City ofPetaluma During Ongoing through hnplement
The City of Petaluma and its contractor sha!I.r~duce eqnipmentnoise to the construction construction BMPs
extent feasible, Mitigation measures may include: .
• Newer equipment.'Nith improved noise. muffling may needto .be used
and manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measures, such as
mufflers, _engine covers, and,_engine v;ibration isolators _be intact and
operational. . . . , . .
• Constructiol). equipment may require ,weeldy inspection .to ensure proper
maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e,g., mufflers and
shrouding, etc.).
• Wherever possible, hydraulic tools·should be used.instead.ofpneumatic
impact tools .
.
City of Petaluma
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway hnprovements Project
Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
A-4 Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
AppendixB
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
City of Petaluma
Petaluma Boulevard North Street Improvement Project
Sonoma County, California
November 14, 2006
Prepared for
Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers
495 Tesconi Circle
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Prepared by
Sandra Etchell
5677 Old Redwood Hwy.
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 836-0122
INTRODUCTION
This biological resources assessment was undertaken to investigate potential sensitive
plant and wildlife species that could be impacted by the proposed Petaluma Boulevard
North Street Ii:nprovement Project ("project site"). The project site is located on Petaluma
Boulevard between Lakeville Street and Washington Street in the City of Petaluma.
The proposed project is a streetscape and pavement rehabilitation project that includes
repaving the entire street, pedestrian and curb ramp upgrades, new lane configurations,
relocation of a fire hydrant, installation of lighted crosswalks, new street lights, a traffic
signal, and a lighting electrical system. The entire project site is approximately 1,920 feet
in length and ranges from between 80to 120 feet in width. The only area of impact will
take place in previously paved streets or sidewalks.
PROJECT SETTING
The proposed project site is a level, heavily trafficked four lane main street that runs
north/south in downto\Vn Petaluma. The area is surrounded by commercial. complexes,
restaurants, and retail stores that were established with very little set back from the street.
Penry Park is .located on the west side of Petaluma Boulevard North ("the Boulevard"),
between Mary Street and Martha Street (see Photo 1). The Petaluma River parallels the
project site approximately 66.0 feet on the south end meanderjng northeast to a distance of
approximately 2,640feet from the north end of the project site.nearLakeville Street.
Other than stormdrainS that outlet into the river, there are no other drainages, streams or
any type of water features on the ·site. ·
Sidewalks parallel both sides of the Boulevard (see Photos 2 and 3). There are ten mature
ornamental landscape trees greater than 6 inches in diameter at breast height at various
locations along the BoUlevard located just beyond the sidewalk.
Penry Park sits on an eastern facing slope above the project area. A stone retillning wall
separates the 1.25 acre park from the project site. The. park in the vicinity oftl:!e project
site consists of an expansive lawn and numerous mature trees and shrn)Js including non-
nativepalm trees, pine and fir.trees.-The park is.bordered on_all sides by city streets and
provides benches and paths for public use. · ..
A proposed temporary yard for staging construction ~quipment and materials is .located.
on a vacant parcel on the south side of East Washington Street between Lakeville Street
and Copeland Street. The property was formerly a railroad yard and is currently
(November 2006) being used for staging for another project. The area is not paved;
however years of disturbance have fostered the establishment of ruderal plant species and
thus the area is not likely to support any sensitive plant species (see Photo 4). The yard is
approximately 1,000 feet east of the Petaluma River.
SURVEY METHODS
The California Department ofFish and Game Natural DiversityDatabase(CNDDB
2006) was searched for records of listed wildlife species occurring in the USGS 7.5-
ruinute map for the Petaluma and Petaluma River quadrangles. Also a search was made
City of Petaluma Appendix B-1
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
of the project area for species listed on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services online
database for federal and threatened endangered species (USFWS 2006). Utilizing these
lists a field survey was conducted on November 9, 2006 to determine what plant and
animal species may be occupying the site and to determine if the site is suitable for listed
species habitat. The survey was conducted at 10:30 a.m. on a warm, sunny day.
Systematic walking surveys were conducted over the entire project site. Wildlife species
were observed through 8 x 42Brunton binoculars for the purpose of identification.
SURVEY RESULTS
The wildlife species and habitat observed on the project site were typical of a city
streetscape (see Table 1). Mostly generalist species such as American crow, feral pigeon,
scrub jay (Aplielocoma califomica), house sparrow, and California towhee (Pipilo
crissalis) were observed.
Table 1. Wildlife observed on November 9, 2006 survey, Petaluma
boulevard north street improvement project site
. Birds
Common Name Scientific.Name
Feral pigeon Columbia Iivia
Western scrub-jay Aplzelocoma ca/ifonzica
American crow Corvus braclzyrhynchos
California towhee Pipilo crissa/is
House finch Carpodacus mexiciznus
House sparrow Passer domesticUs
.
LISTED SPECIES WITHIN THE REGION OF THE PETALUMA BOULEY AliD
NORTH ROADWAYS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Nine federal endail.gered species, .4 federal threatened species, 2 federal candidate
species, 1 state threatened species, 2 state species of special concern, and 8 California
Department ofFish and Ganie species of special concern were listed on the CNDDB (see
Table 2) for the Petaluma and Petaluma River quadrants, however due to the lack of
habitat and surrounding cityscape only wildlife and plant species with potential to reside
in the Petaluma river or Penry Park are discussed below.
Penry Park provides habitat for Wildlife and plant species adapted to urban settings such
as raccoons (Procyon lotor), pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), opossum (Didelphis
marsupia/is), California mole (Scapanus latimanus), California vole (Microtus
califomicus) and the species listed in Table 1
The Petaluma River is not within the project site but there are several storm drains and
runoff from the project site could enter Petaluma River if adequate Best Management
Practices are not implemented. Petaluma River was listed in 2002 as a sediment impaired
river by the California Coast Commission (CCC 2006).
City of Petaluma Appendix B-2
Petaluma Boulevard NortliRoadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Table 2. Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species Listed on CNDDB for the Project
· Region ·
. Common Name Scientific Name Management Statos*
_Myrtle's silverspotbntterfly .. Speye,ria zerene myrtleae FE
California freshwater shrimp Syncaris pacifica . . FE, SE
Fishes . . . . •'
Steelhead 0. mykiss . .. FT
. Sacramento splittail Pogonichth;ls m~crolepid~tus .. esc
Amphibians •
.
California}ed-legged frog I Ra1~~ Burora draytonii •'. esc••
• •.
Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii ·. DFGSC . · . · .
Reptiles c • . . ·.·
Western pond turtle Clemmys mannorata*** DFGSC
Birds
·.
Bald eagle Haliaeetus /eucocephalus . FT,CFP
Northern spotted owl c .. . Strix occidentalis caurina FT
Burrowiog owl Athene cibiicularia DFGSC
California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis ST,CFP .
cotunziculus
California clapper rail Rallus l01igirostris obsoletus
. ..
FE, SE,CFP
..
Saltmarsh common yellowthroat Geoth/ypis trichas simwsa DFGSC
.
San Pablo song sparrow Melospiza me/o"dia samuelis DFGSC
Mammals ·. .. .· •c:
Townsend's western big-eared I Corynorhinus townsendii 'DFGCSC
·bat toWnsendii . . .
. Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus . . DFGSC
American badger ' . Taxidea tcixus DFGSC · ..
Salt marsh harvest rnonse Reithrodontomys raviventris FE,SE
Plants . . .
Sonoma spmeflower ·. Chorizanthe valida FE, SE, CNPSE
Soft bird's-beak Cordylanthus mol/is ssp. Mol/is . . FE, SR, CNPSE
Yellow larkspur Delphinium [!Ileum FE, SR, CNPSE
Marin dwarf-flax Hesperolinon congestum FT, ST, CNPSE
Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens FE,CNPSE
Showy Indian clover Trifolium amoenum FE,CNPSE
*FE = Federal Endanger~d, CSC = California Species of Special Concern , FT = Federal Threatened, CFP = California Fully Protected
FC = Federal Candidate, CDFGSC=Califomin Department of Fish & Game SE = State Endangered, Species of Special Concern
ST = State Threaten~d, CNPSE = California Native Plant Society, SR = State Rare, Endangered, ** Afea is outside the federal listing
range for this_ species. ***Includes the subspecies Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys mannorata miJnnorata)
City of Petaluma Appendix B-3
Petalnroa Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Stody/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Steelhead ( Oncorlzynclms mykiss)
Steelhead in the Petaluma River are included by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) in the Central California CoastEvolntionarily Significant Unit (ESU) and were
listed as a threatened species on October, 181997 and reaffirmed on January 5, 2006.
The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead. (and their progeny)
from the Russian River south to Aptos Creek in Santa Cruz County and the drainages of
· the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays eastward to the Chipps Island at the confluence of
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. The Petaluma River is also
located within designated critical habitat for the Central California Coast Steelhead ESU.
The Petaluma River and its tributaries were a historical migration route and habitat for
steelhead (Leidy 2003), however t~ere is limited information available concerning their
historical or present abundance and distribution. The major factor influencing steelhead
populations in the Petaluma River system is loss of habitat due to construction of
impassable dams or culverts on the major tributaries.
Adult steelhead migrate upstream to spawning habitat in the tributaries during the winter
and early spring. Steelhead smolts migrate from rearing areas in the tributaries to the
ocean primarily in the spring. The project site is within the San Pablo Hydrologic Unit
2206. The Petaluma River in the vicinity of the project site would be used by steelhead
primarily as a migration corridor between the ocean and coldwater habitat in the
tributaries.
Sacramento splittail-Pogo11iclztlrys macrolepidotu
Sacramento splittail are a California species of special concern. They were listed as
threatened by theUSFWS in Febl1lliry 1999 then removed on September 22, 2003.
Sacramento splittail are now largely confined to the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta,
Suisun Bay, Suisun Marsh, Napa River, and Petaluma River. Since 1995, splittail have
been rare in San Pablo Bay which has constricted their distribution to isolated areas such
as the Petaluma River (Moyle et al. 1995). Splittail are large. minnows that live for up to
seven years and reach lengths of 12 inches or,more, Splittail are primarily found in
freshwater andappea:r to prefer shallow wat~;:rhabitat in slow-moving sections of rivers
and sloughs, Their range has been r~;:stricted since the arrival of Europeans. ahci their
abundance has declined, particularly dUring diought periods. Decline in abirndance has
been attributed to changed estuarine hydraulics (especially reduced outflows)
modification of spawning habitat, climatic variation, toxic substances, introduced species,
predation, and exploitation. .
Splittail spawn in the lower reaches of rivers, dead-end sloughs and in larger sloughs
(Moyle et al. 1995). Spawning peaks between February and April. Larvae initially remain
in close proximity to spawning sites and move into deeper water as they mature. The
Petaluma River in the vicinity of the project site could be used by Sacramento splittail.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Bird nests, eggs and young are protected under California Fish and Game Codes
(§3503, §3503.5, and §3800) and are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treat Act
(50 CFR 10.13). Only non-native species such as feral pigeon (Columba Iivia), House
City of Petaluma AppendixB-4
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
sparrow (Passer Domesticus), and European starling (Stumus vulgaris) are exempt from
protection. Due to the presence of ornamental trees along the Boulevard, and the ·
vegetation associated with Penry Park and the proposed staging area, in compliance with
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, preconstruction nesting surveys should be conducted in
these areas by a qualified biologist within 48 hours of construction for nesting passerines
(small songbird) and raptors. If nests are located, a buffer should be established by the
biologist in consultation with CDFG.
2) Straw wattles, gravel bags, or other Best Management Practices should be placed to
protect storm drains and any other sources that have a potential to convey runoff to the
Petaluma River.
City of Petaluma Appendix B-5
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Stndy/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Appendix C
Land Use Compatibility Table
Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and Central Petaluma
Specific Plan as they relate to the project are discussed in Table IX
Table IX.
Consistency with Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies
City of Petaluma
Reference I Consistency .
General Plan . ·. ::.
Community Character Consistent: The project would enhaoce the beauty of the area by the addition of
Chapters 3. Policy 8: streetscape iuline with the comprehensive area-wide revitalization scheme. The
The City will make project would add street tree planting and tree wells, ornate pedestrian level street
every effort to beautifY lighting, plaza benches, bicycle racks and pole-installed trash receptacles to the
its streets and build them project area.
at a scale comfortable to
pedestrians. . .. . .
Community Character Consistent: The road improvements include changing the lane configuration in the
Chapter 3. Policy 9: project area from two 10-foot wide lanes and one 6-foot wide parking lane in each
The aroouht of paving direction to one 12-foot wide lane and one 8-foot parking lane in each direction with
and the apparent width a 12-foot wide turning lane in the center. This lane reconfiguration would physically
of streets shall be and visually reduce the amount of paving by resurfacing and restriping the street and
reduced physically and adding bulb-outs.
visually. :. . .. •
Community Character Consistent: The project would add landscaping to the project area which includes
Chapter 3. Policy 11: · street tree planting and tree wells.
A city-wide pattern of
healthy street trees shall
be sought ,.
Transportation Consistent: The project would provide improved safety for pedestrians, vehicles and
Chapter 10. Policy 31: bicycles along Petaluma Boulevard North. Safety features include more vehicular .
Land use decisions shall buffer space, visible crosswalks and improved business access.
be based upon potential
traffic impacts.
Community Health Consistent: The project would provide improved safety for pedestrians, vehicles and
and Safety bicycles along Petaluma Boulevard North. Safety features include more vehicular
Chapter 11. Goals: buffer space, visible crosswalks and improved business access.
Strive to protect the
commuhity from injury,
loss of life, and property
damage resulting from
natural catastrophes and
any hazardous
conditions. .
Central Petaluma Specific Plan
Land Use Consistent: The project would provide improved safety for pedestrians, vehciles and
Chapter 3. Policy 1.6: bicycles along Petaluma Boulevard North. Safety features include more vehicular
Encourage pedestrian buffer space, visible crosswalks and improved business access.
oriented land use.
Community Design Consistent: The project would enhaoce the beauty of the area by the addition of
streetscape iuline with the comprehensive area-wide revitalization scheme. The Chapter 4. Goal1: project would add street tree planting and tree wells, ornate pedestrian level street Enhance Central
Petaluma's identity and lighting, plaza benches, bicycle racks and pole-installed trash receptacles to the
uhique sense of place. project area.
City ofPetaluma Appendix C-1 Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table IX
Consistency with Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies .
City of Petaluma
Reference Consistency
Community Design · Consistent: The project would provide improved scale between the two sides of
Chapter 4. Goal 5: Petalwna Boulevard Nori:h;
Establish a pedestrian
scale within the public
realm.
Public Space and River Consistent: The project would provide public amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists
Access and businesses along Petaluma Boulevard North.
Chapter 5. Goal 8:
Enhance the public
space character of city
streets.
Public Space and River Consistent: The project would provide improved scale between the two sides of
Access Chapter.5. . Petalwna Boulevard North by providing pedestrian-friendly crosswalks and bulb-
Policy 2.4: Encourage outs.
linkages from the river
to Penry (formerly Hill
Plaza) Park. .
Circulation Consistent: The road improvements include changing the laue configuration in the
Chapter 6. Policy 2.5: project area from two 10-foot wide lanes and one 6-foot wide parking lanes in each
Reduce the number of direction to one 12-foot wide lanes and one 8~foot parking laue in each direction with
travel lanes and ·a 12-foot wide turning lane in the center. This laue reconfiguration would physically
reconfigure Petaluma and visually reduce the amount of paving by resurfacing and restriping the street and
Boulevard to improve adding bulb-outs.
bicycle and pedestrian
access and redUce
vehicle speed. '· . . . .
" ·· .
Circulation .· Consistent: The project would provide public iunenities for pedestrians, bicyclists
Chapter 6. Policy 3.6: and businesses along Petaluma Boulevard North.
Enhance street
landscaping and design
to improve the
environment for "' pedestrians and
bicyclists. .
Historic Preservation Consistent: The project would enhance . the beauty of the area by the addition of
Chapter 9. Policy 1.2 streetscape inline with the comprehensive area-wide revitalization scheme; The
Maintain the status of project would add street tree planting and tree wells, ornate pedestrian level street
the Petalwna Historic lighting, plaza benches, bicycle racks and pole-installed trash receptacles to the
Co=ercial District as a project area.
district listed in the .
National Register of
Historic Places.
Petaluma Zoning Ordinance
Applicability of the zoning ordinance falls within each section of this document. Refer to
Section I, Aesthetics, for light and glare impacts and Section XI, Noise, for noise impacts:·
Petaluma Historic Commercial District Design Guidelines
The streetscape design guidelines establish design criteria for improvements within the public
right-of-way. The guidelines are used ill conjunction with the development standards of the
City of Petaluma Appendix C-2
Petalwna Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Stndy/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
City's Zoning Ordinance to produce creative impressions evaluated by material, color and
placement of architecturally-ornate and pedestrian-friendly streetscape. The project's
improvements would be consistent with and are a continuation of the comprehensive area-
wide revitalization scheme already being constructed in Downtown Petaluma.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan
The project falls under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
Clean Air Plan. The project would improve roadway segments along Petaluma Boulevard
and includes mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions and fugitive dust. Refer to
Section ill, Air Quality for further discussion.
Sonoma County Transportation Authority Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The project does not include the construction of any roadway segments that are part of the
2004 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Plan) network. However, the Plan does show
Sonoma County's extent of need of regarding pavement conditions defined in the Pavement
Conditions Index by jurisdiction. According to the Index an optimal rating would be 80 with
the City of Petaluma shown as having the lowest score of 40 for the nine incorporated cities in
Sonoma County. The project would assist the Sonoma County Transportation Authority to
improve roadway conditions and therefore, be consistent with the Plan.
City ofPetalurna Appendix C-3
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Kelly
November 2006
0205506002
AppendixD
Focused Traffic Analysis
November 22, 2006
Mr. Nickitas Panayotou
City of Petaluma
22 Bassett Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Focused Traffic Analysis for the Conversion of Petaluma Boulevard
North from Four Lanes to Three · ·
Dear Mr. Panayotou;
As requested, Whitlock& WeinbergerT ransportation, l~c. (W-Trans) has prepared a focused traffic analysis
of the proposed safety project to convert a portion of Petaluma Boulevard North in the City of Petaluma
from four lanes to three, .The segr:nent beihg considered for conversion extends_ from the intersection of
Washington Street to LakevilleStreet, a distance of 0.36 miles. ·This analysis presents an evaluation of the
potential impacts oftl~is,project iricludingthose t()vehicle capacity and public safety.
Study Area and Periods
The study area includes the following int~rsections:
I. Petaluma Boulexard North/Washington Street
2. Petaluma Bouelvard North/Oak Street
Conditiqns during the weekday a.m; and p.m. peak hours were analyzed as these pe~iods represent the
highest traffic levels. For the purposes of this analysis, the unsignalized intersection of Petaluma Boulevard
No_rth/Oak Street was,select~d as a rep':esentative intersection similar to other intersections along the
study segment such as M~rtha Street, Pr~spect Street, and Keont St~eet. Petaluma Boulevard North in the
study segment carries approximately 16,000 vehicle trips per day,
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes
and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service
A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow 'or breakdown conditions ..
The LOS designation is generally accompanied by a unit of measure which indiCates a level of delay.
The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies from the Highway Capacity Manua/2000 (HCM),
Transportation Research Board, 2000. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection
control, all of which are related to a measurerniont of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle.
The Level of Service for the intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North/Oak Street, which has side street
stop controls, was analyzed using the unsignalized intersection capacity method from t:he HCM. This
method determines a level of service for each minor turning movement by estimating the level of average
delay in seconds per vehicle. The movement with the highest level of dela.y is presented as the Worst Case
Mr. Nicholas Panayotou Page 2 November 22, 2006
Level of Service. The through movements on the main street are assumed to operate at free flow and a
Level of Service A.
The signalized methodology was used to· determine level of service at the intersection of Petaluma
Boulevard North/Washington Street and is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each
movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity.
Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology.
It should be noted that the levels of service for this study were calculated using the coordinated signal cycle
length and optimized signal split timing.
The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table I.
Table I
Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS Unsignalized InterseCtions
A Delay of 0 to I 0 secOnds. Ga~s in traffic ai-e readily avai!a'ble
for drivers exiting the minor street.
B Delay of IOta 15 seconds. Gaps in traffic are somewhat less
readily available than with LOS A, but no queuing occurs on
the minor street.
c
D
E
F
Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Acceptable .gaps in traffic are less
frequent, and drivers may approach while another vehicle iS
already waiting to exit the side street.
Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There are fewer accept:!.ble gaps
in traffic, and drivers may enter a queue of One or tY.to
vehicles on the side street.· ·
Del~y ~f 35 to So seC:orids. ·FeW a~cepml>Je gaps in traffic are
available, and IE?rlger queUes may fonn on th~ side street.
Delay of more than 50 seconds. Drivel-s may wait ,for long
periods before there is an acceptable gap In traffic: for exiting
the side streets, creating long queues.
Signa.Jized Intersections
Delay of 0 to I 0 seconds. Most vehicles arrive during
the green phase, so do not stop at all.
. . ' ' '
Delay of I 0 to 20 seconds: More v·ehides stop 'than
with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to stop.
Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles
stopping iS signific::an't.-although many still pass through
without Stopping.'
Delay· of 35 to 55 sec~nds. The influence of congestion
is noticeable, ilnd most vehicles have to stop.
Del3.y Of 55 to-80 seconds. Most, if not all,._vehic:Jes
must stop ·and drivers' consider the delay excesSive.
o'~1ay ~f more-·th;m--So'~econds. Vetilc·l~s ~aY Wait.
through more than one cycle to dear the intersection.
Reference: Highway Capadty Manual, T ransporr.a.don Research Board, 2000.
Traffic. Operation Standards
The General Plan's adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard for streets indicates th~t the mm1mum
acceptable operation is LOS C where it is currently LOS c.or better .. vv~ere the LOS wasD orE in 1985,
it shall not deteriorate to the next Jo.,...er level. Under .a ,cJty Council. Policy adopted in 1990, mitigation is
required at any st~d}' intersection where the project results in delay indicative of operation wo~se than LOS
D.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions analysis is based upon conditions. at .intersections and traffic volumes within the
Mr. Nicholas Panayotou Page 3 November 22, 2006
study segment. Intersection level of service calculations are summarized in Table 2 and calculation work
sheets are enclosed.
Table 2
Summary of Existing PM Peak Hour level of Service Calculations
Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions ' .
AM Peak PM Peak
Petaluma Blvd No/Washington Street
Petaluma Blvd No/Oak Street
Eastbound Oak Street Approach
Northbound Petaluma Blvd Left
Delay
37.2
23.8
9.7
LOS
D
c
A
Delay
39.6
24.5
9.2
Notes: Delay is in average number of seconds ·per vehicle;
LOS = Level of Service
LOS
D
D
A
Post Project Conditions
AM Peak
Delay
35.9
19.2
9.7
LOS
D
c
A
PM Peak
Delay
36.2
20.3
9.2
LOS
D
c
A
As can be seen in the preceding table the study intersections are operating within the established guidelines.
Collision History
The collision history for the segment of F'etahmia Blvd North between Washington Street and Lakeville
Street was reviewed for the' period between January I, 200 I, through December 3 I, 2005. Records for
collisions within the study area were obtained through the California Highway Patrol and published in their.
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The data revealed that there were 90
collisions reported within the study area. The data excluded intersection collisions at· Washington and
Lakeville Streets. Collisions by type are summarized in Table 3. A detailed summary of the collision data
is enclosed.
Mr. Nicholas Panayotou Page 4 November 22, 2006
Table 3
Summary of Collisions by Type
Collision Type Collisions (Percent)
Sideswipe 51 (57%)
Rear End )8 (20%)
Broadside 8 (9%)
Pedestrian 2 (2%)
Hit Object 2 (2%)
Other/Not Stated 9 (10%)
TOTAL 90 .(1 00%)
As can be seen from the preceding table sideswipe collisions have the highest frequency and comprise 57
percent of all collisions in the study segment. Rear end collisions rank second and represents 20 percent
of all collisions in the study segment, with broadside collisions third at 9 percent. The study segment of
Petaluma Boulevard North has a calculated collision rate of 3.20 collisions/million vehicle miles (C/MVM),
which is below the average rate for similar state facilities ofA.95 C/MVM.
Project Conditions
The pr<;>ject will convert an existing 4-Jane segment of Petaluma Boulevard North to three Janes. The post
project configuration will have one travel lane and a parking lane. in each direction together with a center
2-way left turn Jane (TWL T). The project concept plan is enclosed. . ..
Level of Service
For the purposes of this analysis the traffic volumes used·for the Existing Conditions are retained for the
Post Project Conditions evaluation. The project is not expected to increase or decrease traffic volumes
· within the study segment. The project will permit the reassignment of signal phasing and lane assignment
at the intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North/Washington Street. The unsignalized intersections within
the study segment will have the added benefit of the TWL T Jane to use as a refuge area for motorists
making left turns for the side streets.
As seen in Table 2, delays during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour decreased at both of the intersection;
evaluated. For the signalized intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North/Washington Street the average
vehicle delay decreases from 37.2 seconds to 35.9 seconds during the a.m. peak hour and from 39.6 seconds
to 36.2 seconds during the p.m. peak hour. Motorists using the unsignalized intersection of Petaluma
Boulevard North/Oak Street will encounter average delay from the side street of 19.2 seconds during the
a.m. peak hour compared to 23.8 seconds under the current configuration. Similarly, average delay during
the p.m. peak hour will decrease from .20.3 seconds from 24.5 seconds. Delays for left turning motorists
from Petaluma Boulevard North will remain unchanged.
Mr. Nicholas Panayotou Page 5 November 22, 2006
Collisions
Based upon the data presented in 2002 Accidents on California State Highways (2003) the average collision
rate for a 4-lane urban street with a design speed of less than 45 miles per hour is 4.95 CIMVM. The
average collision rate for a 3-lane urban street is 2.05 C/MVM, which is less than half that for a 4-lane facility.
Analysis of a project in Seattle that included conversion of nine streets from four lanes to three showed an
average reduction in collisions of 34 percent as reported by Thomas M, Welch, P.E. in The Conversion of Four
Lane Undivided Urban Roadways to Three Lane Facilities (1999). Based upon these sources it can be expected
that a meaningful reduction in collisions would occur as a result of this project.
Pedestrian Safety
The project will.as well, construct curb extensions at several locations. Curb extensions extend the
sidewalk or curb line out into the parking lane, which reduces the effective street width pedestrian must
cross. Curb extensions significantly improve pedestrian crossings by reducing the pedestrian crossing
distance, visually and physically narrowing the roadway, improving the ability of pedestrians and
motorists 'to see each other, and reducing the time that pedeStrians are in the street. The inclusion of
curb extensions is considered a beneficial aspect of the project.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The project will have a beneficial impact on service levels at side street stop controlled
intersections within the study segment. The project implemented two-way left-turn lane on
Petaluma Boulevard North permits motorists to complete a left turn from the minor street in
two stages, first turning into the two-way left-turn lane and then completing the maneuver from
the refuge of the two-way left-turn lane. Each of the two stages of this maneuver are easier and
has less delay than a left turn from the minor street in a single maneuver.
The project will likely reduce the number of collisions on Petaluma Boulevard North within the
study segment.
• The construction of curb extensions at key pedestrian crossing locations is considered a
beneficial aspect of the project.
Thank you for asking us to provide these services. Please feel free to call if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Allan G. Tilton, P.E.
Mr. Nicholas Panayotou Page 6
Senior Associate
AGT/PET912.LI
Enclosures: Collision Data
Level of Service Calculations
Project Concept Plan
November 22, 2006
HCM Signaliz.ecllntersection Capacity Analysis
15: Washington St & Petaluma Blvd
Existing Conditions
812512006
' . ~V.:~roli:i'if&illi:iii~;>;:::::!:'''''';~'!I!1Sll~'''''~'l?li\t:li'''ll.i:!&'-\~~t;~~i''iiM~~';':i:i;l'i~i'''(i@.iP'i''''N~R;::;::af:l~'::;;:::s.mr::, ::'®~
Lane Config\,\rallo"s
Ideal Flow·{vpllplf
Total Lost time (s)
LaneiUtiL Factor
Frpi:>, ped/blkes
Rpb, pedlbikes
Frt
Fit Proteo!ed
Said. Flow (prot}
Fit Peimit!ed
Satd:Fiow (pefllll
Volume-(vph).
Peak-hour factor, PHF
Adj. Flow (Vph}
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Lane Group Flow {vph)
Confl. Peds. {#lhr)
T\lrn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
~
190il
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.()0
o:ss
1770
0.95
1770
122
0.90
136
0
136
Prot
5
~1+
1900 1900
4-.0
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.99
1.00
3446
1.00
3#6
59t 65
0.90 0.90
657 72
7 0
722 0
50
2
'i
1800
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0,95
1770
1n
0.90
147
0
147
Prot
1
tt.
19DO
4.0
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.99
1.00
3464
1.00
3464
sea
0.90
142
4
787
6
1900
44
0.90
49
0
0
50
1900
64
0.90
71
0
0
50
Split
3
.tt
1.900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
3512
0.99
3512
349
0.90
388
0
459
3
Actuated Green, G (•) 1M :07.9 11.4 38.7 16.2
Effective Green, g {s) Hl.B 37.9 11.4 38.7 16.2
Actuatedg/GRatlo 0.11 0.38 0.11 0.39 O.i6
Clearance Wne (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0. 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.3 2.0 2.0 2:0 1.5
~
1800
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
\1.85
MO
1583
1.00
1563
139
0.90
154
7t
83
Perm
5
15.2
16.2
0.15
4.0
1.5
Lanit Grp Cap {vph) .1 BB 1306 :202 1'341 569 Z56
vis Ratio Prot o.os 0.21 co.oa 60.2.3 c0.13
.tt
1800 1800
4.0
c,. 0.95
65
0.90
72
0
0
50
Split
4
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
3517
0.99
3517
439
0.90
488
0
560
4
18.5
18.5
0:18
4.0
1.5 .
651
c0.16
f
1900
4.0
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.85
1.00
1427
1.00
1427
136
0.90
151
64
87
50
4
18.5
18.5
0.18
4.0
1.5
264
vis-Ratio Perm 0.05 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.55 0.73 0.59 0.81 0.32 O.BB 0.33
Uniform Delay. d1 43.3 24.4 42.8 24.3 40.4 37.1 39.5 35.4
Progre5sion Faotor 1.00 UIO 1.00 1.00 1.0n 1.00 1.00 1.00
lncrementaiDelay,d2. 11.0 1.7 10,5 1.9 7.8 0.3 10:9 0.3
Delay (s) 54.3 26.1 53.3 2.6.2 48.1 37.3 50.4 35.6
Level of Service D C D C D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 30.5 30A 45.4 · . 47.2
Approach LOS C C D D
ia$Wcitcii.i'~i!i®i*M:'': :_ ·=:;-~-''=="'',':{':i=·.:=:=.'f='=:=::::::::=.:::~-.-::ic:::::;:::::=::t::::;:;::i:f:=:::::?=:f:~,,;.,:;,,:·_,;;;;::;i;i;:;;:;;;::::=:~:;:=~:;:~,:::~:,.:.::.:•:,~;:=:•,,:,:·::::r:==:i'=:; ,,:,,,_,,,,_,, .. -. -·= ..
HCM Average Control Delay 37.2 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
· Actuated Cycle Length {s) . t 00.0
lntersec:tion Capacity Utlnzatlon 65.8%
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
sum of IQst orne {s)
ICU Level of Service
Petaluma Blvd Reconfiguratlon Analysis B/2512006 AM Peak Hour
W-Trans
12.[)
c
Syn~;hro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: Washington St & Petaluma Blvd
Post Project Conditions
812512006
t
M®~f;i;'•':'::;~;~:;.:d:•!:t\:!::;;~:::::::•tt:st:::,:;:~ijf!::~)W®!J!:l:![:11)ilit::;;;;rwa.tt)@':iltitli;:;:,::lii'S.t::·;:i'i6R: .. ,.;,,.;s*!J:<·;.,.'6.Eii!!!i,';:ifiEJR
Lane Con1iguratlons 'i tlo ~ tt. 'I +to· 'I · +I>
Ideal Row (llphp!j 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190() 1900 1900
Total Los! time {s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4,0 4.0
Lane Ulil. Factor t.OO 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95
Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
F!pb, f>edlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LiJO 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96
fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0,95 1,00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1,00
Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3441> 1770 3484 1770 3388 1770 3334
At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 G.95 1.00 ii.95 1.00
S:1ltd. Row (perm) 1770 3446 1770 3464 1770 3388 1770 3:134
V<>lume (vph) 1·22 591 65 132 668 44 64 349 139 65 439 136
Peal<·hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj.·Fiow(vph) 136 557 72 147 742 49 71 366 154 72 488 151
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 4 0 0 41 0 0 30 D
Lane GroUJl Flow (vph) 136 722 0 147 787 0 71 501 0 72 609 0
Conft. Peds. (#lhr) 50 50 50 50 50
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 B 7 4
Pennitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 42.2 11.7 43.3 10.1 20.5 9.6 20.0
EffectlveGreen,g(s) 10.5 42.2 11.7 43.3 10.1 20.5 9.8 20.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.42 0.12 0.43 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.20
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 .4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension [s) 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
l;me Grp Cap (liph) 188 1454 207 1500 179 695 170 667
vis Ratio Prot 0.08 0.21 c0.08 c0.23 0.04 c0.15 0.04 c0.1 B
vis l'<atio Perm
vic Ratio · 0.72 0.50 0.71 0.52 0.40 0.72 0.42 0,91
Uniform Delay, d 1 43,3 21.1 42.5 20.8 42.1 37.1 42..6 3,9.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01J 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 11.0 1.2 9.2. 1.3 0.5 3.1 o.e 16.7
Det~y [s) 54;3 22.3 51.7 22.1 42.6 40.2 43.2 55.9
Level of Service D C o C D D D E
Approach Delay (s) 27.4 26.7 40.5 54.6
Approach LOS C C D D
!~Mi;~~iio\li!S.ulliiiiii~i~.:'i:i::;;:;•:,;;:::;:;:ii;:,:,,,;;;;~;;,;;::;;;:,;::i::,::;:·::o·•::::•:•:;g:::;Jt!t;:;::})i;;;{.;;:ii;:::'"'i:'·':':;'i'j'{·.''i}i{ii']iii'iiiifif.;;i;iii]iiii(,,:,:,:::;:::;,::•::···'. ·
HCM Average Control Delay S5.9 HCM Level of Service o
HCM Volume to capacity ratio 0.6:1
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 OO:!l Sum oflost time ts) . 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utlltzatlon 61.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Petaluma Blvd Reconfiguration Analysis 812512006 AM Peak Hour
W-Trans
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Si9nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: Washington St & Old Redwood Hwy
Exist! ngt Conditions
8/2512006
M~nt:;~~#~:'g:~m::fiitifll?'~I):fiSi.'t~~i;~Wf;i~:i:i:t<iiil$1)iM&e~H''il\t!!!pi:i::'.lilE11'fl':m~~~)~~sk:':f1SS.'ii?:ii:f!EiR
Lane Configurations "' t'Jl. ~ +to 4't I' .;t f
Ideal Flow{vphpl) 1900 1900 1800 1800 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost lime (s) 4 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, pad/bikes 1 .. 00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90
Flpb, pedlbikes 1.llO 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt · 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 O.S5
Flt·Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95. 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flo\V(prot) 1770 3474 1770 3429 3513 1583 3489 14:17
FltPermltted 0.95 1.QO 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3474 1770 34~9 3513 1583 34!!9 14:!7
Volume {vph) 148 671 50 177 712 98 B-1 458 . 283 · 140 348 108
Peak-hourfactor. PHF 0.94 0.94 · 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 G.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Aclj. f.low (vph) 157 714 53 188 757 104 B5 487 301 149 370 115
RTOR Reduction [liph) 0 5 0 0 10 0 o o 110 o 0 53
t:ime-Group Flow (vph) 157 762 0 188 851 0 0 573 191 o 519 62
Confi. Pt;>d$. (#/hr) 50 50 50 50 50
Turn Type Prot Prot SpiTt Perm Split Perm
Protected Phases 5 :1: 1 6 3 3 4 4
Permitted Phases 3
ActuatedGreen, G(s) 11.3 34.6 13.4 36.7 18.6 18.6
Eftecl!VeGreen,g(s) 11.3 34.6 13.4 36.7 16.6 18.6
AcluatedglcRatlo 0.11 0.35 O.iJ 0.37 0.19 0.19
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) · 1.3 · 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5
Lane Grp Cap [vph) 200 1202 237 1251l 653 294
vis Ratio Prot 0.09 0.~ c0.11 c0.25 cO. 16
17.4
17.4
0.17
4.0
. f.s
607
c0.15
4
17.4
17.4
0.17
4.0
1.5
248
vis Ratio Perm 0.12. 0.04
vic Ratio. 0.78 0.63 0.79 0.68 0.88 0.65 0.86 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 43.2 27.4 42.0 26.6 39.& 37.7 40.1 35.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.88 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 16.8 2.6 15.5 2.9 11,0 3,4 10.9 0.2
Delay (s) 60.0 29.9 57.4 29.6 47.9 36,5 51.0 35 9
level of Service E C E C D D D D
Approach Delay.(s) 35.0 34:6 44.0 48.3
Approach LOS D C D D
~($i'~~~i~i'i:!!lm~tf:''''''''''''~~'~'''':':':::=:::::::::::;;;::=~='t~::~:':i:::~:''l~''t.'-'~':w:~:"="'""'~'''i:~;~:::~:~:~:i:::i::::r::::::::::::::::::i:1::'1:::::;:m::::':::;_;:,:::•::,=;;:~:~:::~:::::=:::=;::::::::•;<::::::=. =::::=: ·.
HCM Average Controt l'.lelay 39.6 HCM level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9%
Analysis Period {min) 15
c Ct~lcat Lane Group
Sum of lost time (s)
leU Level of Service
East washington Corridor Studyfi:DD pm 111;!5!2002 PM Peak Hour
W-Tra'1S
12.fl
D
Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: Washington St & Old Redwood Hwy
Post Project Conditions
B/25/2006 -. t I". ..... .j. ./
~~@ii5~:::;;::~{m::::::l::~'':":=::=~:::::~::: .. ::~):;f~~:::l''!t6f.i=·;:jW:~V-~Wli\!f:!:~::Ni!.~S.:::==::=::I\l.e.l:::::J:!~t:?=:.-N~~::,:::,==~i:lV:=:='isar_ ~B.B
LaneConfigura~ons 'i tr. . '\ tr. '1 fl. ~ tt.
Ideal Flo\rl(IJphpl) · 1900 1900 · reoo 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 190.0 1900 1900 1900
Total Losttirne (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 -4.0 4.0 4.0
LaneUtll. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped!bikes 1.00 0.99 1,00 0._99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.9B
Flpb, ped/blkes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 . 0.94 1.00 0,96
Fll Protected 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3475 1770 3431 1770 3336 1770 3336
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3475 1770 3431 1770 3336 1770 3336
Volume (vph) 148 671 50 177 712 98 81 458 283 140 348
Peak-hour factor, PHF · 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.9.4 0.94
Ad]. Flow (vph) 157 714 53 188 757 104 86 487 301 149 370
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 10 D 0 101 0 0 3~
Lane Group Row (vph) 157 762 o 188 851 D 86 687 D 149 454
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 50 50 50 50
Tum Type Prot Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases' 5 2 1 6 3 8 7
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle_ Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio.Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
11.1
11.1
0.12
4.0
1.3
205
0.09
32.9
32.9
0.34
4.0
2.0
1191
0.22
12.9 34.7
!2.9 34.7
0.13 0.35
4.0 4,0
2.0 2.0
238 1240
c0.11. c0.25
7.0
7.0
Q.Q7
4.0
1.3
129
0.05
23.4
23.4
0.24
4.0
1.5
_813•
c0.21
10.8
10.8
0.11
4.0
2.0
199
cO.OB
4
27.2
27.2
0.28
4.0
1.5
945
c0.14
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.64 0.79 0.69 0.67 0.84 0.75 0.48
Uniform Delay, d1 41.2 26.6 40.2 26.0 43.4 34.6 .41.3 28.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .0.91 1.02
Incremental Delay. d2 14.2 2.6 14.8 3.1 9.6 • 7.7 12.4 0.1
Delay [s) · 55.4 29.2 55.0 29.1 53._0 42.3 49.9 29.2
Level of service E C D c D D D C
Approach Delay (s) 33.6 33.8 43.3 34.0
Approactl LOS C C D C
108
0.94
115
0
0
50
l~ffi.~ioo:=l!liiitf:im~~:::;:~"~-:i':;,::::===~:}S;i'i:=~::;ii=t::i''':rr::~=:=:~=~=:;::::::=:!:i(i:=ii{:!!i''~::::::=:==i:::t::::::::::::::m::=:=:==::::~:;:,:;{..,;;,::::::r========:::=~'::;:;::'=:=:=i=ii'),. __ ,,:.:::::r::~~~=:::;::: ., ,_::=. ·:. '
HOM Average Control' Delay 36.2 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle length (s) 96.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.3%
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lal'le Group
Sum of lost tline (s)
IGU LeYei of Service
East Wasl>ington Corridor Study 6:00pm 11/25/2002 PM Peak Hour
W-irans
16.0
D
Sy~chro 6 Report
Page 1
_·:::. l:..U·; 2.:":, 1.0:·;; l~=·~:::.:t;l
Ar< -·~~!k ~-:;·:r -~Y..-fJti;:.q :.:o.u:iilii:>ftl!
=·~-::al·;,rr.El 3J.;:(j n~~r.m .. :j·.: 1;./J :.1 ::··
:::.:..~v ut: ?Q-:.al•..ur.a
~tract t{::.n:: -:H:.rJl :.n.n ,,.,,.,) ~-h'~ll.!'.
.::.:·.::;1 6t~LT .. ::I
C::.k 5t:
Af.'f' ::::.1::!':.: ~·1:::-rth Tiott::d Fn:.:l, P.ou":i i;H.;i,. P.olJ"'d
t-:::c--.~:cent : T, -, ..:, L a L r ~
------------1------------. 1---------------1----------~----
Cont;:-Q-1:
K.:..:{.".tt::::
loHfiH~:
l:n·.::c~:..=::.:.lcd
:n·::l·...!:=.e T"!:·w:H; ·
t..llC:• i;;)l 1.1
---------------11---------------1
S>::::-o ~iqn
l:·;:·u:..:.~
(; :j 1 (1
---------------1
\."•:ll" .. tn::O t·=• .... d·;,l~:
IJ~ao:: Vol:
:.;ro·.·,:J:J A:i'1:
-:n: -:: • :;1 -=l~;H:
r:soi !':~J:
!fH.!.. A::i ·: ;
:·R"O:: V~)-l'.:lrf'::
1\.cd::.ct' "tJ::..:.:
-;;o"••<~ 1 Vol.:
l.C::•
·a:;
L o:;
Hf:
:.c•)l.(;:!
-::. ;o .-;. ~D
n 4 64
1. o:
0
{; (I (I
~ 4.64 . 0
·---------~~----
Kc .. :t·:.l·::o:
(;
1.0::
! -!J~
: -~ c~
~-.:;:)
7:19
:.:o
;;. . ~(;
D 8:.i:1
0
.:..:.o
c
.:1;,
1 -r::::•
4"
·: ..
0
1,1 "-3/:: ~:] '7
Q
. ::•)
Q
:.. :·o
~-~!J
·-
1---------------1! ----·-
-' :.:o
::.~0
H
---.. I
.3-:.c·p S :..:::r..
r•cl .. :,i~
1,1 :;; (; :)
---------·----·-·1
Q ,,
1,1 ::·
:, ::·G 1.•".::-• : .i;Q
:;,.i ":.:.o::e:::. GaJ:
::'J·i ::~:i:!l Gp:
1!-::l.l·:·-;.i'Cprin:
, ... •• A/J...t:. x.o.;:xxx xxxxx KY..xx xx.xx~
:: .1 ~;s.;:xv. :a.·x;·xr. Y.:-..~.,Y. Y.JtY.X. .x.;ac::.x
1;.:-3 x:,..x:--~. ~ -.-x;-.·x··· ·:x·cx YX)I'X/
3.:! XXXX J , :<. XAXM. XXZX XZXZX
---------------1 ------1 ---------------1 ---------------1
c~~:::i.::ity Xc:d·.:l~:
t:afli::::t ·~:::.:.: en 4 JL".XZ =~?':~x···
r.~l.:-+r L ::.Jp.: 1i!O !!X.:'lX XXY.:i.X
H::Y'J'!:: ::ap.: Hlt x,,,._, A.I-'.I'.X
V:,:.:_t;_"t.~/Gap: .:; , ::1 XAXX YXY.S:
------------1--------
x;;.x..-. .~;;-c..-_-.:: .!'1./.X/..A
KY.X.".: ::-:~'"X X.YXY.X
:o:::.;.x xz.xz. z.."GL;:;;t
Y..!\.)"..Jo.. 1'1..'~ 2C::X!::
1---------------
1:'!::16 x.:-:xx 431
:--·1· ;;.xxx 5'7::1
£(;:; ;.o;x;~x .::':3
;:.:::z Y.XY.:i. ;;.,:.:·3
1---------------
XXXX XXL.X X.::XZ.X
~XXX XX~X XY.XZh
"-:1.C'I."X X"•"X"( ·..::.:::eX'<
xKY.K n:s.z xz:~
1---------------
2:\\·.:.··l!I!:'•:.:-.Q:
·'::cml.·n.l toe.l:
r;. c
:: .. ;-·x·-x x·.;.x:..:x x.x.x... ... ~~=o:x xr.~x Y.:!>Y_'I\. KY.3X xr.xzx ;A;~:xv "·x·.·x x···x·.-,..
x:t.X..""' 2\Y.KY.~ x···x·.·x x;·x..-. /..X.I.!'<X. .I'..A.I'.X.t:. .."'.Jt.-.Jt ~X X.O:X::X x.:v::s. :sz:s.z:s.
LG5 by H:;·vs:
Xi~VC~'tC!D.':.:
;~r-.;t'nuf •::•Jf.:
.:?hax:~ct=:,ueur;::!
;:h::d ·~n.J::-:.:
,::.h ... .-.~d 1 .e:~:
. -.• ±
L'I L':"J ·-\':' t.•: -_l.:<. -~.r !..'I . ::rr. ..
,:-...x.!:.X X.XY.:X XA.'<.AX .X'l."XX XXX'!. XY..XY..X. Z'.Jt!'.Jt 2!:6 XXX:XX
:',..;) X/.XX. .X.!".~X x::!:XJ!:< X"LXZ 7.K:it~;< "':X"'X"i 1 . 1J xr.:<~:<
~, l JC::x·-· "">C'oi.XX XXX:< .X. .X..X..x.Y. XXY.XY. Y.:KY.KY. 23. ~ ~XA~ .• • •
±
:T' -t .... -. --... rr
XY.XY. ZXZX XXY..K:.O:.
:<:.'.:<A.X .;\;K!'<.X. X..."'..X..~
}I:Kx'·x )ct·x·.--,x·..:xx
'
I:..p;:=.:t;~.::b~e. ! XAxsxx XAX.nxx .. :; • R r.xxx.~.:-..
.;p,:::,;':J,lCh_:)S: ·J.· C
, ·~.,. ·J.· •• •l·" -:t.·,. -:t.· ·~ 1.·.., f• ~ ,. '*' .. ~.,. ,. ,.. ,. ~ ,. :. l • \ • l • l , ·J.· , •,1: ... •J.• ... '-'.· .. ·J:" ·J: ... ·l' ,. -. r-. f• '< t" •c 1:: .. -~:: ... 1:..,. ! .. 1-"' ~.,. t .. t " ~ • ,. ,. • ,. ~ J. •
~·h'~:.c; C••_:,;:o·;,c :t:OpQ=-:ed i.:; l.hE-': "IJ:'ll!l!!l c_: ~:;.!::::: ":::::::1: :?.:-.:>,
•J: 1.' • .,. .. "<I; ,.. ,. ,_..,. ,.. ~ ,.. ol .. "t ,.. ~ ., 1o ,. :; ' • I • J.• :; '•' ~ "' ~ •.:0•1: .,. '.1•" •J: "± .. =-,. =-.,. *"' '*',. ~,..-\ ,. "' "" 1-" ... ...-I " f "" j, • ~ • i'o " /o ,. • o o I • I • l o
?:.N :=:eak ff.:11Jr -P::!.;:, f:--:.; :el~ .. (:o;::i.:.L::.,::.r.
?~-:a,,Jr:> P. -::o-o -._<'!c::··l:o:;•;r!J:.ion
Ci -:y ::.-t Pet.;;. 1m"!
:.;;;-~.:::. c::: Sc-rvic.c C:-r::p·.:.tat:.~::. :<.epo:-:
:.;Q:;Q RCY t;-.;. :j!:iJ ".l.:"?C: L-1-'lthod (Jas.:: v~.:.ttn:-~ ... ~:cr::.;;.th .. ~)
""'"'""""""'""/r"" /rl;• '• ~ o .C. • I, I, \l. ,•J:, -J.•y-J:.,•.t.•.,•k••-J:+·k,_~,_.,.,_,. i-... 1: .. 1:'"*'""*"*'"'-4:"''" "''t ,_.,. /r"'fi-"<P"-4:1'">!1• f"<J. .,.f .. ~ •
-:ntar:;;e-:::l.ior. 4t?•: l~Ht-/~1: .::=:.
.,. .1. o J. r I o ~ o J. o -J. • l• • 1: "• 1< -...· '""-"' ~ "-1< <• ·,c-'"".t" 1•--t I'""'< 1-.,. i-,. +-• ,. .,. f "' ol. • "' .,. ;. • r • .. .C. r ~ '" ~ r ~ • ~ o .C. o ._ o ._ o .C. o .C. • \ • I ;. • ,. o I o J
.::.vH:"J:::~~ cn~.w (.::::-:-/v::::-.~: 1).~ '!Jur . .;·, C:!J!>H I,H"u"Hl n: .s~-·.--:::1:!: ..::: -~.2:
o \•.,. "1.--J.•-j.•y•J."".Ii:".l"'".l'"'"-"'"*"*"*'" 1-... f •,. "'< ~,. ._ o J. o J.; I o I '• \ • l• • -l.• ••.l• • •.1.-o •.l• "* r•l: r•J.• t.-•J.· o."'l" r.--..· l""J: o""J.." r-j.•,.:I:'W•.l•:."i""o J.. .. _. L·
8trc-:.ot t·:a.":le:
::-.pp.!::-a:-:--.:
'o-'C)VP..!Lt!!fLl:
-........ J l·:rr.oJ ::s:. ·~d N:: ~::.:--. C.slc :.::::
:-le>rth RrJtl-;J
L :t
. -··---------! ---------------
C-:~n~:.:cl:
":t 1 ~t'lol.:'>:
L~:!.a::':
'J"':!;OTI" ..... Ol'Hd
:n.-:lu:::.e
G
·----1
;,:--c nm:-; ··>"ud .. 1 ~:-
ita=::-'•lol: : ·1:!
.:;~c.\..-:.'t. Adl:
T·· i 1.1 :J 1 P.•l-H:
U::e= i\ct::
P! . .1:' l!.dj:
PEr ~:cl'.::l.K.·:
1.-e.--:w::. v~,l:
:. :;.o 1. r;;;
·, • :)t"! I . CO
~.~c; .;:.::1)
4 F.•Jl
•J
1 • (: :)
.:.. ·':0
-::. S-·0
il
r;
:-:n•J'.J• !::.t':u .. -;.:1
I ---
Luc---::--.:..!:-~.:.lcd
T··r:· Ut!.H
1 :.:· 0 1_1
---------------1
·1 • o:: · . :-a
·::J~
.!.. 0~; :. . ..:o
.:.. c:•
_. F;
:..co
53
c
Fi::.:;.. -:.:c·. ~ f: :!64 c IJ :!?." 5.}
-------------11----------I
Cr ·.:.-t:.ll tap ::-::c:::.u.:.c~
.I!:A!.:t Jo:;•.r.~
L '1 F.
1---------------1
Stor;: .:..ign
1:-:c::.ud::.:
.;_; :) ~ I :;. (;
---------------1
4.:: 1)
1.0: .:. • :-o
-1? 0
. ·:;;;. ·; . :)(:
~.::;) ::•,'JC
0 ·:
:.:o
. :)(:
:.i, ~H;
r.: !~
.. ·----------1
L "· ---------------1
.:.top .3i'JT1
.!.n::.:.u:i:::
.~ c: fJ ,} (i
1-----------··.
(1 ::·
:. '.:c 1.(:~· :..:..:-:.
·~ ~·
·:: 0 r,:
:·
---------------1
(:-' ~ '• : :;J 1 (;:_'.! ! . 4 , 1 ,t.:X.AX )QL"(X:0: ~'XXAX ){ 'U:: X .XY.XY.X.
_ ?::>_1 _,-..;-:lp"\ rr! ;;: • :;.; xx:-:x. x..:.X~:.X XZ..."':X X7.X7. _ji;;s.;-.c-x·( ~ • ~: -.·x.r x
6, 2. XXY.XX 7.XZ~ Y.h.Y.KY.
~~. ~) ~/.~..:.:< :-:xxx x..ut...:.X
------------1--· -------1 ---------------1 1----
::a:r.a~.: 1 •• y· ~-lPf:u·.;;;:
:::::t:ic:. Vol: 8 :.1
Po:.HT1l. Ci:."".l,;; 7BC
~·J"-:0 C:2p, : 7 f.;·::
XXY:-< :-c. ..... :OCX..!\.
XZXX XXX'!-:X
7.XX.X ~:.XI..
<HB
~6~
l'f~ 1..::.!. -. ::!ap:
;a{:fX XZXA XXXXX
Y. XX~ XY.XY. Y.X~
XZXX i!hZK )t~~x-.. x
x.~x..-.: xxr.:x XY.X?.X
:_:\2f. ;.IOX'itX
1-;3 7.XY.X
·r i~: xxx.x.
3:.:4 :;• ~:i<:'-:x·-:
V-:;-iur•HICu~: G • 0.:. XSY.S. £.Kj-t~ ·-·x-.·x xx.xx ~Y.J\...K :. , l:; .:!X:<X Go05
---------------I :. ------1 ---------------1
~Y.X7 r.XAX Y.X/~.f..
7-!G-!X XX~K KitX.XX
.XX.\.X .l-C:::..l<"' XY.:XY.X
;~•\•lYSo ::::.hr,;;: Cl. f) x::.rx•:-·~xt;.xx
9 . 7 ::J-Ci.X XKZK:~"
~.1'-'\..t ..t}{XX Y.:'XXY. AXAX X~!-:>t i-t;<";q·x ,.·x-.·x X"·<X:... XA~;t-'
CIJnl. 1 t). I:H •• : ·-·x··"X)' YX/..:>.. .!\..I.X.I..X X:-tx::x ~ 7..xx.xA. AX.KE'h X"'":-t ;("··x~·x
LC~ J;:_.r ~]C"'.'-8: A J: f. • *
\·:c)·-;~_'l:t::nt: L':' -l'F.: -K-1' _l -L':'R . r-:.'!' -r -rr~ -w· ,.._. -_.:.'K -I:':_·
i;;r.~n·~d 0::1~_:1.: XA.lG{ Xi"..XZ XXX~:>:; XS:Y.'i: XX.XY.. ~ X?.XY. ~1~· KXl'XX :cr.:o· >"'XXX Y.hJ'Ji..F..
!!harcd:t..:.e·.:.e ~ x x:,.· X7 x.:-cxx ~ Y.:x?.KZ :r;x:cx x:..-xxx X.X...'tX..\. ~. ~ . XY.XY.X xz::o;x XX:'-:x xxr.xY
:-:}, --d COl'..:-lO::!: XJI'..XZ.'C XX"l'X x:~x>.Y. :--..x..\.XX Y.XY.X :KY.,2;;~2t X"(x-.·x "J ~·.) /.:>.. ...... 'LX Y.XX.\:X XZ.XA ~X:X:O:
E·hare-d -~)~: ·.t-*
Appt:•:•:.·-:h.:•~. ! :"Y.XI'"J../. r;'·x;:x;.---19 .1 ·-tx ·ex 'tY.
.:.p"..!L"()~L;b!.,(i0::,: •..-••
-... •J: ·-".l•" -1.• ..-*.., -1:-., f "' ~ .. fo '" ~ • ' I l •l· o"".l· •• ':.!,· .. ':t -· "'< J: .. ,_"' 1-• ._ ~ "-o I. • I • J..• .-,j_. \' ~ •.t-._. -J.• -...· J: "<"l' •t .,_. "< ""•t """ 1-.,. t" ot "' -. ... "-... ._ o \ • \ • \
~-1-:·-:-F:: G•Jf':LJ~ .t" ce>.t't ":."::!. :.s :: .. e n· :n·b~ .. t<l. -:-u .c~ p·:-I: lanr:·.
·1..·*-*"'*-~"'*""" .. ,. ... ~ ... ~ .... ,..~o.r. • .t..~r.--...*~*··~-*"*-•-·-f~~~~~~~~~·~ .. \; ~··'·"'·*·*·* .... ~"-~'''"
rH Ex.l:::lng
.l:'l·t :c.:.k :r<:ur--Ex.:.sti::;;r .:onc.itiC~n.::
P<:!ti:l Un:;t "P.~•..;r; ·.:;.r-H:·::::r:o;.: ltt'J",;.ie:n !r,:.f::::_c lilpol=.t S·::.:dy
: ~. :1" IJ..:. -• ..,7.;1 I '!r.iJ
_c::•,;cl c:: :?·::=vi·:::: ::.·:·:r.::;rnt:::tion T!~y;vrt
?t•::·(: HO:::'>i l,JJ~tlCjJ:a.J.1.:~cd N.::::h·::d. :.J:a..:::-~/.,l·.::r.-: • .?~t::-:..-na-:.:. .. ~:
~~~~~~k·~·M·W·M~~~~~*p•~~~·r·~~~~~~~~·~f-~r4•~-~.~oJo~oJo~oroJ•o ~. 00 o&O~P ~. ~ ••• '
:n+:~,-~F;::;:t; i c,m ~·::--, PP.t·:/Ct~!· . .:~:.
• ~•'••••••••••V~·~·~·w·~-~-~-w~w·~~~~r•~,~,~~~~~~·~f•f•~•~•~•f•~•Ao4o4ololt-olo&o
l\?f-"'""·-~::i:::-: ~~t;r I b ~ou::d
XL·<-~rr.e:rlt: L ::" • ------------1---------C--.
~cml·,·ol:
Hog::t~:
LaJ.l0.:!:
'J ::.::cmL::t::l:.:.::d
-n-:~l1::I~
~11C:)
---------------1
'lc.:.:..!.."l~ [·~od:.:lF;::
·...;r: . .:'!f1 Vul;: ;.2
"1. (;!)
~2
~.::a
l21
"1.0::·
·:~·:
-S'r.o;.;~;n_ .:!l.dj:
:n:..:.:s.:.. 3sQ:
:J:.;H.:" .~d i:
:-.·.r-:-;:.::-.:: .:JC
:=·:~:: Vol·.:rr:s: ~ ~
1. G:J
! . ~:!) .:.~ .;o
(J
1.1
!:c'.l:.h ll-::u::d I:ast Jc·.:nd.
T ~ K L '1 R
·----. 1---------------1
t n·::c:-.:.!:'c.: !r;.-d
l:!c:uc::
(: :) '1 il
1.o: ~.:o
:l :-:: i;
l.GJ :.,:;r;
.:.G~ l.::G
8 t=i 15
;) c:
'"· ,, ..
_r .... .:.l:.:dt:-
:. 0 :! 0
.=.: ·-~
· . ::,(, • It::
:, ·:;.r; L (1:;
57 ...
.:; .. !
·,8
1. :,\.;;
g
'I • o:
' 1. D::·
lC
r:n .. Ll '-:"C1l.; 1:! 722 r; Q (.· .. s.: 5'1
---------------------------11----··I
cr~.-:~~al ,__-:;,p ·-rq:L.lH:
ex:.:. :::.~al Gp: ,: . -~ iCY. x:r ,. xr.:C/. ~;.:...r.A.r • ...:.x~..x x..xxxx
R ---------------1
S I'·='? ::.1 gr1
I::.::_ tli:J.;-
o::c:•
~~--------------
·~ 0
1. :)C . Jl•
:;; i}
·1. o:: :. :•c
;)
c
LO:·
"I .l:::•
;j
0 ~· .:-1---------------
::·::::lcY.·il_p_'ii:'.: 2_, 2 hXX..""C ~~"-"X:"' '"XYXY Y-.:Y.:<: ~I'.A·...:.x 3, 5 X:<.X:t 3, 3 ~1\Y.X X;>~]!; X:'X"(X
------------.---------------I ·------:
l.:r1rL:.·.•.: V::-1:
?o-:er.t C:;:p.:
7 = 8 X.XKY. ;,.: 2q': X-A
R'i? r.x;.--J. hi'.JCXX
6 ~ ·.~ XZXX XXXY.X
:) , ~-' ! :."-'A.'-X.l-:X:::
x·-·x·:. ;;.x~:x xxxx..'\
XX..'>Y. XXXE. x.z K7. h.
XXX~ ~Y.XZ ~X:."~~
XY.XY. 'l.XZX :hKXX
1----~----------1
1---------------1! --------------
.:os-: }:>U-:x
2::;;: x-;·x·-·
2lC zx:i.X
0 "·" ·J •• , •
36!:
f.3 ..
634
Z.'GOC Y.Kr.:K n:a .... :x··· ·
Y.XY.X h o'L\..X. x;:x_:.~
.KZXY. .it~:.X:: :'~"<X''
.,._..;,... .. , .x.x..ur: :'\Y..xx
I -.. ------------
2~·~<;:y:l.';.:" '"·;/::
:::.:mt=r:::! Je.t.~
f..:"': X:'.JU>: :'.XXXX XXXA li.Y.ZX YX""X,~ x·.-x·-. ;·.x,;.x XXY.XY. X.I".X.-t )(.);X}: 7..X:-\.Y.X
~~.;; -.-x-.::x X"-"·:..;,. /.Jt.l..x...! ::.x:=:x X..lUCKX Y.XY..KZ ~X'~'X x·-:x:-cx x·nc'<Y /,:<;.:,:-: :'.X.t'J......:.
*
l·t· , .. ~1'1~=~--:
?.ht'lr(;'cl :;1p.:
_l -u::o. :<.'I T .... ---TF. -!-~1' .:.1' -L'-~
Bllar..::-.i•.:;~.'lel.te:
~~::r::. :::.::tCcl:
Z~~· '"'Ott:::-•·r:·H 1:
;~::.::p:-ca~!".LCS:
Y.K-1"-'-_\.Jt!>_X >C-:XF..X ~XXX X'AX)I; iC~·x;.-x ;.-.:<X.X
:) • (I X,i.;.XX .XY.X.:'.Jt X~ XAX-2 .KY.X.'l:X X"'X'·"X
'J r i! }(',o;X"C :<.Y, XY.~ A:/..X.)'.X x..t.X.:: :-tY.ZXX. X..":l\.:~:!1;
1;. .,_.
t.-:t·~: ~t.r::ut;: :ep::.-: ~d i r. · .. he: l:1JI:'b•:-:r: cf .:;:;;;:s pt'r lr.,m-L
.. ?
"I~·. ;
:•
2~L 4
'
-.:<:'.t :'I I..":'-'1 '1'T
X.'\:X.\:.X ~:X Y.XY..X XA~X=-':
;.;:x>;.X~ XY.X/..h ~X X?~Y.XY.
'(X:.-X:o{ 'tY.'<Y.X XitY.X X.'.X.tf. .,.
-~~~~~~~~-~~~lo&o~•l•*~W·••··~~~~*w±•i•••Ar~oJo~oA•k•*•*·~w•-*~•·••~•~~~-t-+•f~~~~~
t·U'_'!C8 -E'E r·•d ::'t· nc: . -
F"-: T-HH v '".c -< -dL'Ot I·ro:, «:t '""""II. i """
.!!::t.:L:..ur.a -p,_ '7!"tj -\~-;~:··:: ~-L'tl :.ic.-. rraf::'it:'. Trpi;l ::: 1. • .S; ..• dy
C:;. ty u: ;:e .. OJ.l..::t . .l
LJS·-·e I .-:-..r EH :-v.:::.:c :::o:npu-:: a-:i·':'ln _nf;'lpO r 1..
~.GO·:: :-.::H :JL't!.i·~al:.=e;:l =~·e-:~·.:•·1 ~~~J.~a; '·/c.:.u:·K· lUt:crtiat:: .. :-=:e:•
~~-~•~••• L, \o ~-~·w·~~~~~~~~~~~··••4o4o~~*W*•*-~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~f-~o4o lo 1 ••• •~•*•
-n:.Hr:Hh:·_.:.::::. -26 ::,~/O:)a.-· St.
• l•-. •.1.• **..., 1.• ., •· ~ w +" i-~ p-" ,.. ~ ,.. ~ • ~ " I • 'l • 1.• ,. •J.• ,, •.t-f.• ., t· ., ,. " f.~ ~ ~ fo • 4 o 4 • ~ • l , .1. • J. • ·.1.-• •.1.• ~ •.l.-.. •.1.• w •J.• •• ·,t--•J; "-= ., ~" J.,. I<" "
P~f:.'i • ur:n:. H.:. ·.:d. t.c:::.h
~iuutL. !:C>u.:;d
S l_.t.'CCt [·Jartc-:
~·.?!H Or.H:!'J:
:;.]..;--:~nWI-;. : l P. :!-. :. f. T, d.
1··--------------·1-----------1----:..---------·I ·-----------I ·
G:::··: r:·::: r_ln~r:·ntrol B•i LJ'n·.cn:.=·J!.:.~d.
.:u.~tr::s: . nc:l_-:1.~ T·:::· u:l~
· .• tll'l~::'l: rJ (~ o/ 1 0 (r
---------------1
R;:~.:w: Vnl : .:.2 '•'2~ .: .... 616 b~
:-:o
f.~?.
Srr.r:,,-::h 2\cj:
·r,:~.-u: -'.:l~:
rJse= F.t;IJ:
::H..:' A:ii:
~::~ ';o 1 .. n:e:
!\.C"d::.ct -=.~::;_:
'.CO 'l.C:'.• l.C~; l.r.t:: · .::CJ
.. ~JC
:.. . ~'C
.!
:??:
.:.~CO
.. ::·0
712
:.~(1
:. :o
(:
c
: • C!) '!. :10
:.:.o l.<H..:
0 676
(:
'I • fJt.
3· .. ·:_:; ~ i grt
2:-::c._ur:J.e-
... 0 : ! !j c
.:: ,' (t
:.:0 l.:)G
57 ..::
:..:Jr; l.(t:;
J.::.c l.G:·
~·l ~
. " .o
1.:)':;
lU
'I • r)::
1. o:.;.
l::!
:)
.St:·:.p .:?ig"I'J
1~:::' IJ.~f:
~· r; tJ (:
1---------------
c 0
l.:)C :.·::o
•.:
1.0::
l.OJ
(:
.:)(';
(!
.:. . ::e
l. ;}(;
1.0~
:.:·
~· rm! ~·~1.: lC ·:-;.? o :e v :) r1
---------------J--------. 1-------------
8c.:.:..:.o:al Gap ·-.:c~n ....
~·r ·· .. :.-:::o.'J.l-C:o::: 4,1 .KY.~~.::: ·.:::x'-l>:~ X..t".X./.X XAXZ Jt~X"'"X
F;::_J.o-;.;Cp..,lrr: :.: :o:xx x~~;..: X>':OS:>":-.. X>'.Jt.!-:uc~x ~ •. :: x-··x-:
------· 1---------------I· ·----------1 -------
c,J.:::ol::;l-_y H::;d.u:::::
C:>.t-i r.~-. Vo 1 :
.:!U':.(;Ut Cs.:;:, :
"•cr.:P. C!'J_;:.:
T··ota~ <::~r:
'1 3!! x:u::~ KZX.:n<
·.; f: '\:Y.~,:. XXXXK
0::1 ;· :;.{~~~ )"X:;',Xt{.
XX XY. )'.X~ XAX1iY.
F.:XZK ~·.cx•-t XY_,'\./J..
:-.x..o..:x XY.:XY-:nK>t:o.: x
1?:.~·,1. --x~·.x
145 Y.XXK
1 .' :1 .:\./..X/.
_, 1---------------1
7-:J7 JC:t.x:!. 3.Y.XZ Y.X:l{X)t
: . .tY.'\.Y. y_,.,._ .... _!>.X!:XZ:
?.XXX }:)("•"X X:.;.>;'-%
V:·· rm~~/:::ap: •'.;, ::1 K~~x·.c Y.XY-'\. xxxx Y.KY.l; ·.:::x '\:Y. ::0 • l: C .-.x.::x. C • 0 ~ ~~~;.::: ·.:::>: x:;-xx.:-.x
----1--------------1----------------1 --------· 1---------
• H·/~: r.;;: .:1::.:.-;;:.c.c E'oU·.:lH:
o::onl.L'Ul D·:·l:
LCS b~· t·1n-..tt;:
Y.X;-..K:I. ;{X:!OQi. X.."::X:-: "'x:o:.x X!".X:LX XXXZ. XY..X.~K x-··x·.:x Y.'-/.:0.. .'-..tl-.X:: .•
- r -!.'1'.:-f. -.:~.·r L'f .. -l'F. -~!' L1' L':'P. J.·~ -L.:.H. -P.~
,S-hfJT'€-<t] Colp.: :tY..X?. 4~~...,. ".;::x:xxx ~XX.~ X~;X>-'X .<.XXX !1•:: U.XZ.'C XY..X"' "')C'.:::Y. Y.A:t"-'-..<.
5-har>::ctCtH:'lllH·: '->"-'X~ ~"iX Y.2\.Y.KiC :.cx"'xx x~c: ::>CiX1\. .K.!':~: .. x ::. ':o KXX.Y.x x:::xz.x Y.~x );:.<;r..:x:-·
I.;h.::d. :::"nr:::i: :n:xx·-·x x::-.:-Y ... , .h...U::XY. ZXZ..K;': ~rx·l:x Y.X.I..X.<. :or::xxx ::::.) , '!· ;~x:nc.c: '\:Y.!'-Y..>.. .>...u..x xz~
Stw-~:i LfJ~: ,.. .... •
[;p~=-'tt{.~"r.:Hl: XY.XZXX ~JU.XY..'C ?CJ •• 7.
A.pt:.:==a:::LCS! * G
oJ.-~t ... •-1•'•4o\o\~.e.e•o'l'~P'~,.~~~~·4•\• L••-•~~~~~J.~~~fo•4•1•l•l• ~.~~~v~~~~~~-~-~o4o4o
··lo:H: ·:i-O.::.~c =:-:.:;::;::;:rt.ad :~ :."H ll..!l.b":!~ ::·f .:::ar3 ~e-'::"l-1.
~ , J. , oj.• • •l•"' •.1.• •o 1: '0' ,,. ~ w *,. f-"< ~ ,. ~ ., ; • • .1.• ~ oJ.-• oJ.-._. •1: L' -:c .. " ,. ""~ .t ~ ,._ '" J. • ' l •J.• • ·.1.· ~ •l• L• •),' l• ~ •• •.t-... -= • * • i-• ~ • f • .1. r \. • l • L• .,, o' ·~·
Crossroads Software-licensed To
W-Trans
Traffic Collision History Report B/24/2006
Page 1
Midblock .Collisions
Arterial: PETALUMA BOULEVARD
Limit 1: WASHINGTON STREET
Limit 2: LAKEVILLE STREET
Date Range Reported: 1/1/2001 -12/31/2005
. MotorVeh. # #
Report No. Date Dist/Dir Location Type of Colllsoon · Involved With DOT1 MPC1 DOT2 MPC2 PCF lnj Kid
Time
01-97 1/5/01 10 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Making Left Turn South Proceeding Traffic Signals and a a
12:15 South of BOULEVARD/LAKEVILLE Vehicle Straight Signs
STREET
01-1383 2/21/01 a PETALUMA Rear·End Parked Motor South Backing North Parked Unsafe Starting or a a
19:59 In Int. BOULEVARD/MARTHA Vehicle Backing
STREET
01-2065 3/16/01 15 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Proceeding South Proceeding Unknown a a
19:45 North of BOULEVARD/WASHINGT Vehicle Straight Straight
ON STREET
01-2808 4/12/01 200 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Traveling Wrong South Stopped In Road Improper Turning a a
19:30 North of BOULEVARD/WASHINGT Vehicle Way
ON STREET
01-2830 4/13/01 a PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Changing Lanes North Proceeding Improper Turning 1 a
12:47 In Int. BOULEVARD/PROSPECT Vehicle Straight
STREET
01-2938 4/18/01 20 PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor North Stopped In Road North Slowing/Stopping Unsafe Speed a a
13:00 South of BOULEVARD/LAKEVILLE Vehicle
STREET
01-3047 4/22/01 a PETALUMA North North a a
14:00 In lnt BOULEVARD/MARY
. STREET
01-4152 6/3/01 50 PETALUMA Not South a a
15:50 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Stated
STREET
01-5181 7/9/01 ' 90 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor North North Parl<ed Improper Turning a a ..
17:30 . North of BOULEVARD/WASHINGT Vehicle
· · ON STREET
01-6189 W17io1 50 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor East Bacl<ing South Stopped In Road Unsafe Starting or 1 a
12:37 North of BOULEVARD/PROSPECT . Vehicle Backing
STREET
01-6639 8/31101 a PETALUMA Not a a
16:30 In lnt BOULEVARD/MARTHA Stated
STREET
Crossroads Software-Licensed To
W-Trans
Traffic Collision History Report
8/24/2006
Page 2
Midblock Collisions
Arterial: PETALUMA BOULEVARD
Limit 1: WASHINGTON STREET
Limit 2: LAKEVILLE STREET
Date Range Reported: 1/1/2001 -12/31/2005
Mo!orVeh. # #
Report No. Date Dlst/Dir Location Type of Collision Involved With DOT1 MPC 1 DOT2 MPC2 PCF lnj Kid
·Time
01-6676 9/6/01 75 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor South Proceeding South Parked Unsafe Lane Change 0 0
21:05 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Straight
STREET
01-7311 9/25/01 300 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor South Proceeding South Parked Improper Turning 0 0
11:14 South of' BOULEVARD/OAK Vehicle Straight
STREET
01-7360 9/27/01 0 OAK Rear-End Other Motor East Stopped In Road East Backing Unsafe Starting or 0 0
12:24 In lnt . STREET/PETALUMA, Vehicle Backing .. BOULEVARD
01-7626 10/6/01 115 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Parked North Proceeding Other Hazardous 0 0
12:50 North of .SOULEVARD/WASHINGT Vehicle Straight Movement
ON STREET
01-6150 10/27/01 103 .PETALUMA Sideswipe Parl<ed Motor Not Parked Not Not Stated Unknown 0 0
South of BOULEVARD/MARTHA Vehicle Stated Stated
STREET
01-6153 10/26/01 0 .PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor North Slowing/Stopping North Slowing/Stopping Unsafe Speed 0 0
01:48 In lnl BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle
STREET
01-6167 10/29/01 103 PETALUMA Rear-End Parked Motor North Making Left Tum North Parked Unsafe Speed 0 0
16:07 North of BOULEVARD/WASHINGT Vehicle
ON STREET
01-8199 10/30/01 0 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Making Left Tum South Stopped In Road Improper Turning 0 0
08:07 In lnt. · BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle . STREET
01-9003 12/1/01 50 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor North Proceeding North Parked Unsafe Lane Change 0 0
18:00 North.of BOULEVARD/WASHINGT Vehicle Straight
., ON STREET
02-0152 1/5/02 80 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North North Improper Turning 0 0
21:30 North of BOULEVARD/WASHINGT Vehicle
ON STREET
02-207 1/9/02 10 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor North Proceeding North Parl<ed Improper Turning 0 0
11:40 North of BOULEVARD/PROSPECT Vehicle Straight
STREET
Crossroads Software-Licensed To
W-Trans
Traffic Collision History Report 8/24/2006
Page 3 Midblock Collisions
Arterial: PETALUMA BOULEVARD
Limit 1: WASHINGTON STREET
Limit 2: LAKEVILLE STREET
Date Range Reported: 1/1/2001 -12/31/2005
MotorVeh. # #
Report No. Date Dist/Dir Location Type of Collision Involved With DOT1 MPC1 DOT2 MPC2 PCF In) Kid
Time
02-264 1/11/02 100 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Parked North Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0
12:11 North of BOULEVARD/MARTHA Vehicle Straight
STREET
02-2060 3/20/02 100 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Stopped In Road North Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0
16:45 North of BOULEVARDIWASHINGT Vehicle Straight
ON STREET
02-2325 3/30/02 50 PETALUMA North North 0 0
14:45 North of EioULEVARDIWASHINGT
ON STREET
02-2634 4/11/02 91 PETALUMA Broadside Bicycle South Proceeding West Making Right Tum Other Hazardous 1 0
16:37 North of BOULEVARD/OAK Straight Movement
STREET
02-2688 4/13/02 70 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Parked Unsafe Lane ·Change 0 0
18:10 North of BOULEVARDIWASHINGT Vehicle
ON STREET
02-3360 5/7/02 125 PETALUMA Not Slated Other Motor North Proceeding .North Making Left Tum Unknown 0 0
13:56 South of BOULEVARD/OAK Vehicle Straight
STREET
02-3509 5/11/02 150 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor North Proceeding North Parked Unsafe Lane Change 0 0
22:47 North of BOULEVARDIWASHINGT Vehicle Straight
ON STREET . ·
02-3673 5/17/02 50 PETALUMA Broadside Other Motor North Proceeding North Proceeding Other Hazardous 0 0
12:02 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Straight Straight Movement
STREET
02-3674 5/17/02 40 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Merging North Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0
12:10 North of BOULEVARDIWASHINGT Vehicle Straight
ON STREET
02-3726 . 5/19/02 179 PETALUMA Broadside Other Motor North Making Left Tum South Proceeding Auto R/W Violation 0 0
12:22 North of BOULEVARD/OAK Vehicle Straight
STREET
02-4635 6/22/02 20 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Proceeding South Stopped In Road Driving Under 0 0
23:30 North of BOULEVARDIWASHINGT Vehicle Straight Influence
ON STREET
Crossroads Software-Licensed To
W-Trans
Traffic Collision History Report
812412006
Page 4
Midblock Collisions
Arterial: PETALUMA BOULEVARD
Limit 1: WASHINGTON STREET
Limit 2: LAKEVILLE STREET
Date Range Reported: 11112001 -1213112005
MotorVeh. # #
Report No. Date DisVDir Location Type of Collision Involved With DOT1 MPC1 DOT2 MPC2 PCF lnj Kid
Time
02-4770 6127102 0 PETALUMA North South 0 0
12:45. in Int. BOULEVARDIOAK
STREET
02-4792 6128102 5 PETALUMA Rear-End Parked Motor North Entering Traffic North Parked Unsafe Starting or 0 0
11:06 South of BOULEVARDIOAK Vehicle Backing
STREET
02-4832 6129102 50 PETALUMA Broadside Other Motor West Entering Traffic North Proceeding Auto RIW Violation 1 0
15:49 North of BOULEVARD/OAK Vehicle Straight
STREET
02-4886 7/1/02 100 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor North Proceeding North Parked Unsafe Lane Change 0 0
14:35 North of BOULEVARD/WASHINGT Vehicle Straight
ON STREET
02-5393 7119/02 1 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Parked South Proceeding improper Turning 0 0
23:01 North of .BOULEVARD/WASHINGT Vehicle Straight
ON STREET
02-5616 7/26/02 0 PETALUMA Broadside Bicycle North Stopped In Road East Proceeding other Hazardous 1 0
10:54 In Int. BOULEVARD/KENT Straight Movement
STREET
02-6283 8123102 100 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Changing Lanes North SlowingiStopping Unsafe Speed 0 0
14:13 South·of BOULEVARD/OAK Vehicle
STREET
02-6603 913102 0 PETALUMA Not 0 0
12:00 In Int. BOULEVARD/MARTHA Stated
STREET
02-7187 : 9127102 300 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor North Proceeding North Parl<ed Unknown 0 0
. '21:03 North'of BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Straight
. ·STREET
02-7590 10113102 74 PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped tn Road Unsafe Speed 2 0
11:21 North of BOULEVARD/OAK Vehicle Straight
STREET
02-9358 12120102 0 PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Road Following Too Closely 0 0
17:31 In Int. BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Straight
STREET
Crossroads Software-Licensed To
W-Trans
Traffic Collision History Report
8/2412006
Page 5
Midblock Collisions
Arterial: PETALUMA BOULEVARD
Limit 1: WASHINGTON STREET
Limit2: LAKEVILLE STREET
Date Range Reported: 1/1/2001 " 12/31/2005
MotorVeh. # #
Report No. Date Dist/Dir , Location Type of Collision Involved With DOT1 MPC 1 DOT2 MPC2 PCF lnj Kid
Time
02-9406 12122/02 90 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Making Right Tum South Stopped In Road Improper Turning 0 0
09:52 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle
STREET
03-856 2/6103 100 . PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Road Unsafe Speed 1 0
11:45 North of BOULEVARD/OAK Vehicle Straight
STREET
03-1094 2/15/03 45 PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor South South Stopped In Road Unsafe Speed 2 0
23:30 North of BOULEVARO/WASHINGT Vehicle
ON STREET
03-1385 2/28/03 115 PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Road Unsafe Speed 1 0
14:54 North of BOULEVARD/OAK . Vehicle Straight
STREET
03-1538 3/6/03 0 PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor North Changing Lanes North Stopped In Road Improper Turning ., 0
16:00 In Int. BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle
STREET
03-1684 3/13/03 0 PETALUMA Broadside Other Motor East Making Left Turn South Proceeding Auto RIW Violation 0 0
09:15 In Int. BOULEVARD/OAK Vehicle Straight
STREET.
03-2656 4/24/03 30 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Making Right Tum South Stopped In Road Improper Turning 0 0
06:24 North of BOULEVARD/WASHINGT VehiCle
ON STREET
03-2752 4/28/03 8 PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor South Other Unsafe South Parked Improper Turning 1 0
22:03 North of· BOULEVARD/PROSPECT Vehicle Turning
STREET
03-3050 519/03 30 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Proceeding North Proceeding Unknown 1 0
12:20 North of BOULEVARD/WASHINGT Vehicle Straight Straight
• ON STREET
03-3356 5/19/03 0 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor Not Parked North Unknown 0 0
17:00 In Int. BOULEVARD/MARTHA )/ehicle Stated
STREET
03-3532 5/29/03 10 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Proceeding South Parl<ed Unsafe Lane Change 0 0
17:39 North of BOULEVARD/MARTHA Vehicle Straight
STREET
Crossroads Software-Licensed To
W-Trans
Traffic Collision History Report 8124/2006
Page 6 Midblock Collisions
Arterial: PETALUMA BOULEVARD
Limit 1: WASHI~GTON STREET
Limit 2: LAKEVILLE STREET
Date Range Reported: 1/1/2001'-12/31/2005
MotorVeh. # #
Report No. Date DlstiDir Location Type of Collision Involved With DOT1 MPC1 DOT2 MPC2 PCF lnj Kid
Time
03-3581 5131/03 25 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Passing Olher South Stopped In Road Improper Passing 0 0
11:51 Nortn of BOULEVARD/WASHtNGT Vehicle Vehicle
ON STREET
03-4122 6/21/03 10 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parlted Motor Not Making Right Turn North Parked Improper Turning 0 0
01:39 North of BOULEVARD!MARTHA Vehicle Stated
STREET
03-5597 8121/03 15 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Proceeding North Parked Unknown 0 0
12:30 South of BOULEVARD/OAK . Vehicle Straight
STREET
03-5930 9/6/03 10 PETALUMA Sideswipe . Other Motor North Proceeding North Proceeding Unsafe Lane Change 0 0
15:01 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Straight Straight
STREET
03-6003 9/9/03 125 PETALUMA Hit Object Fixed Object North Making Left Turn Unsafe Speed 0 0
15048 North of BOULEVARD/WASHiNGT
ON STREET ·
'03-6364 9/26/03 0 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Road Improper Turning 0 0
08:45 In Int. BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Straight
STREET
03-7348 11/6/03 100 PETALUMA Broadside Fixed Object South Unsafe Lane Change 0 0
08:57 South of BOULEVARD/OAK
STREET
03-7634 11/17/03 200 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor South Proceeding Not Parked Unsafe Lane Change 0 0
14:39 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Straight Stated
.. STREET
03-8082 ' 12/6/03 0 PETALUMA Sideswipe other Motor South Stopped In Road South Parked Unknown 0 0
12:30 In lnt · BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle . STREET
03-8100 12/6/03 150 PETALUMA Olher Other Motor Not Backing South Parked Unsafe Starting or 0 0
22:14 North of BOULEVARD/MARTHA Vehicle Stated Backing
STREET
03-8490 12/23/03 10 PETALUMA Rear-End · OtherMot9r North Slowing/Stopping North Stopped In Road Unsafe Speed 0 0
09:05 South of BOULEVARD/PROSPECT Vehicle
STREET
Crossroads Software-Licensed To
W-Trans
Traffic Collision History Report 8/24/2006
Page 7
Midblock Collisions
Arterial: PETALUMA BOULEVARD
Limit1: WASHINGTON STREET
Limit 2: LAKEVILLE STREET
Date Range Reported: 1/1/2001 _, 12/31/2005
MotorVeh. # #
Report No. Date Dist/Dir Location Type of Collision Involved With DOT1 MPC1 DOT2 MPC2 PCF lnj Kid
Time
04-1232 2/4/04 10 PETALUMA Vehicle -Pedestrian Pedestrian North Proceeding East Not Applicable -Ped RNV Violation 1 0
19:25 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Straight Ped
STREET
04-2004 3/18/04 50 PETALUMA Sideswipe other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Road improper Turning 0 0
10:37 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Straight
STREET
04-2039 3/19/04 114 PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Proceeding Unsafe Speed 2 0
10:09 South of BOULEVARD/LAKEVILLE Vehicle Straight Straight
STREET
04-2646 4/12/04 40 PETALUMA , Vehicle-Pedestrian Pedestrian South Slowing/Stopping East Not Applicable-Pedestrian Violation 1 0
15:22 North of BOULEVARD/MARTHA Ped
STREET
04-3757 5/27/04 30 PETALUMA .sideswipe Other Motor South Proceeding South Parlted Improper Turning 0 0
14:51 North of BOULEVARD/PROSPECT Vehicle Straight
STREET
04-5731 8/18/04 154 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Proceeding North Parl<ed Unsafe Speed 0 0
21:22 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Straight
STREET
04·6099 9/4/04 200 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor South Parked South Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0
17:50 South of, BOULEVARD/OAK
STREET
Vehicle Straight
04-6567 9/26/04 42 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor South Proceeding South Parl<ed Improper Turning 0 0
10:16 South of BOULEVARD/MARTHA Vehicle Straight
STREET
04-7111 10/21/04 0 PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Road Unsafe Speed 1 0
11:20 , lnlnl BOULEVARD/KENT Vehicle Straight
, STREET
04-7560 11/9/04 60 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Passing other North Parking Maneuver Improper Turning 0 0
14:21 North of BOULEVARD/OAK Vehicle Vehicle
STREET
04·7719 11/16/04 35 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Passing Other South Stopped In Road Improper Turning 0 0
07:24 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Vehicle
STREET
Crossroads Software-Licensed To
W-Trans
Traffic Collision History Report 8124/2006
Page 8
Midblock Collisions
Arterial: PETALUMA BOULEVARD
Limit 1: WASHINGTON STREET
Limit 2: LAKEVILLE STREET
Date Range Reported: 111/2001·. 1213112005
MotorVeh. # #
Report No. Date Dist/Dir Location Type of.Colllslon Involved With DOT1 MPC 1 DOT2 MPC2 PCF lnj Kid
Time
04-8416 12/18/04 100 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor Not Proceeding South Parked Unlmown 0 0
15:00 North of BOULEVARD/MARY Vehicle Stated Straight
· STREET
05-0124 117105 0 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor North Making Right Turn North Parl<ed Driving Under 0 0
12:12 In lnt BOULEVARD/MARTHA Vehicle Influence
STREET
05-0700 1/27/05 150 PETALUMA Hit Object Fixed Object North Wrong Side of Road 1 0
17:35 South of BOULEVARD/KENT
STREET
05-1143 2116/05 175 PETALUMA Broadside Other Motor East Making Left Turn South Proceeding Auto RIW Violation 0 0
09:55 North of BOULEVARD/PROSPECT Vehicle Straight
STREET
05-2053 3/24105 200 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor Not Parked South Proceeding Unknown 0 0
15:00 North of. BOULEVARDIWASHiNGT Vehicle Stated Straight
ON STREET
05-2053 3124/05 200 PETALUMA Sideswipe Parked Motor South Parked South Other Improper 0 0
15:10 North of BOULEVARD/WASHiNGT Vehicle Driving
ON STREET
05-2767 4/23/05 70 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor South Changing Lanes South Proceeding Unsafe Lane Change 0 0
12:00 North of BOULEVARD/PROSPECT Vehicle Straight
STREET
05-4061 6/13/05 600 PETALUMA Sideswipe other Motor North Proceeding North Parked Unsafe Speed 0 0
17:30 North of BOULEVARDIWASHiNGT Vehicle Straight
ON STREET
05-4397 6/25/05 60 PETALUMA Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Slowing/Stopping Unsafe Speed 1 0
. 12:30. North. of BOULEVARD/MARY
STREET
Vehicle Straight
05-4542 6/30/05 0 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Proceeding North Parked Unsafe Speed 0 0
13:49 In lnl BOULEVARD/PROSPECT
STREET
Vehicle Straight
05-5616 6/12105 0 PETALUMA Sideswipe Other Motor North Entering Traffic North Parked Unsafe Starting or 0 0
15:30 In lnl BOULEVARD/OAK Vehicle Bacl<ing
STREET
Arterial: PETALUMA BOULEVARD
Limit 1: WASHINGTON STREET
Limit 2: LAKEVILLE STREET
Date Range Reported: 1/1/2001 -12/31/2005
Report No. Date Dist/Dir Location
Time
05-5676 6/24/05 100 PETALUMA
15:00 North of BOULEVARD/MARY
STREET
05-7779 11/4/05 0 PETALUMA
11:30 In Int. BOULEVARD/MARY
STREET
Crossroads Software-Licensed To·
W-Trans
Traffic Collision History Report
Mid block Collisions
MotorVeh. Type of Collision Involved With DOT1 MPC 1 DOT2
Rear-End Other Motor North Stopped In Road North
Vehicle
South
MPC2
Proceeding
Straight
PCF
8/24/2006
Page 9
Unsafe Speed
# #
lnj Kid
0 0
0 0
Crossroads Software-licensed To
W-Trans
Traffic Collision History Report
Midblock Collisions
Arterial:
Limit 1:
Limit 2:
PETALUMA BOULEVARD
WASHINGTON STREET
LAKEVILLE STREET
Date Range Reported: 1/1/2001 • 12/31/2005
Report No. Date DlstiDir
Time
Total Number of Collisions: 90
Settings Used For Query
Parameter
Limit 1
Limit2
,Jntermediate Intersections
Location MotorVeh.
Type of Collision Involved With
Segment Length: 0.37 miles (1,939')
Setting
~Do Not Include Intersection Related
Do Not Include Intersection Related
Include Intersection Related
DOT1 MPC1 DOT2 MPC2 PCF
8/24/2006
Page 10
# #
Inj Kid
PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
January 22, 2007
Lead Agency and Project Proponent
City of Petaluma
PROJECT LOCATION
11 English Street
Petaluma, California 94952
Phone (707) 778-4587
The City of Petaluma is located approximately 40 miles north of San Francisco along
U.S. Highway 101 in Sonoma County (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The City ofRolmert
Park lies to the north, the community of Penngrove to the northeast, the Sonoma
Mountain range to the east, and the City of Novato to the south. TI1e project is located to
the west of U.S. Highway 101 along Petaluma Boulevard North between Lakeville Street
and Washington Street. A temporary staging area would be at the western comer of
Copeland and East Washington Streets (see Figure I, Vicinity Map).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of road and intersection improvements along about 2,500 feet of
Petaluma Boulevard North. Starting from the north, the improvements would begin on
Petaluma Boulevard North about 200 feet north of the intersection with Lakeville Street
and continue along the roadway to about 400 feet south of the intersection with
Washington Street. The roadway restriping would change the lane configuration to a
single 12-foot-wide lane and one 8-foot parking lane in each direction between Lakeville
and Washington Streets. A 12-foot-wide turning lane would be added to the center of the
roadway. The northbound lanes of Petaluma Boulevard North south of Washington
Street would be restriped to accommodate a right-tum-only pocket, one 12-foot-wide
through lane and one 10.5-foot-wide left-tum-only pocket. TI1e roadway would be
resurfaced and restriped to change the lane reconfiguration.
In addition to the roadway reconfiguration, the following improvements would be part of
the project (see Figures 2, 3, and 4 for details):
• Modification of the traffic signal at the intersection of Washington Street and
Petaluma Boulevard North to facilitate synchronized left-tum movements;
• Addition of a full right-tum lane on southbound Petaluma Boulevard North at
Washington Street;
• Installation of 19 new streetlights;
• Installation of an in-roadway pedestrian warning system at the mid-block
crosswalk south of Oak Street and north of Prospect Street;
• Installation of new electrical conduit along both sides of road for streetlighting;
• Construction of new curb extension bulb-outs at intersections;
January 22, 2007 Page 1 Winzler & Kelly
0205506002
PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
• Addition of new Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-(ADA)-compliant curb ramps
for pedestrian, bicycle and disabled persons' use;
• Relocation of the existing fire hydrant at Kent Street and Oak Street;
• Construction of tree wells in sidewalks and planting of street trees;
• Addition of bike bollards (racks), plaza benches and trash poles;
• Removal and relocation of street signs; and
• Relocation of stormdrain facilities at intersections.
January 22, 2007 Page2 Winzler & Kelly
0205506002
w
0
0
N
.;
0
E
~
E
~
N
0
0 w
0
~
0
N
0
./
0
E
~
E
c1:
0
~ •n 0
N
0
./
"'
SONOMA COUNTY
\
0
~~·!'"'~
.... -bodou•'.Avft
..-~ -';.
<"t "".:;.
·~ .,
PROJECT
LOCATION
City of Petaluma
Petaluma Boulevard North
Street Improvement Project
/
!<'
'
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
~::• ~UOELLY
CUII.lllTINU INQIIIKIRB
I
!' :
li
'
' --
I
' ~I
0' ~I .,.
a:' ~I _,' ~I
-<' 31 _,,
~I a.,
I
'
r
' '' ''',, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,.)'''
, I ,, '
I
' I
'
I
lHDI~ 3AOB'tf 33S • ' • • • 3NnH::uv~-V
I
' ' f
31:ln~l:l 33S-3NilH:Jl'Vl/ll
I
PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENlS PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Based on the attached Initial Study and other pertinent information, with the
recommended mitigation measures, the project does not have a significant effect on the
environment. This project will not have a detrimental effect upon either short-term or
long-term environmental goals. This project will not have impacts which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable. This project will not have environmental impacts
which will cause substantial adverse effects upon human beings, either directly or
indirectly. Mitigation measures have been added to the project to reduce potentially
significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
INITIAL STUDY
An Initial Study was prepared for the Petaluma Boulevard Nortl1 Roadway Improvements
Project and sent to the State Clearinghouse and interested agencies on November 27,
2006 for a 30-day public review period. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was published in the Argus Courier on November 22, 2006, and
mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project. A letters was received from one
agency during the 30-day comment period.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY
The City Council must consider the comments received during the comment period prior
to adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Responses to the comments received are
included below. The comments did not require changes in the Initial Study or in the
Project, and no significant effects were identified.
LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS
The documents which constitute the record of proceedings for this Project are located at
the City of Petaluma Public Works Department at 11 English Street, Petaluma, California
94952.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures below are compiled from the Initial Study. These mitigation
measures have been added to the project and have been found to reduce potentially
significant impacts of the proposed project to less than significant. A Mitigation
Monitoring Program has been prepared and is attached as an appendix to the Initial
Study.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Equipment Exhaust Control
The City of Petaluma shall control equipment emissions, and these measures shall
include:
• Reduce unnecessary idling of construction equipment (i.e., limit idling
time to I 0 minutes or less);
• Where possible, use newer, cleaner-burning diesel-powered construction
equipment.
• Properly maintain construction equipment per manufacturer specifications.
January 22, 2007 Page 7 Winzler & Kelly
0205506002
PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
• Designate a Disturbance Coordinator responsible for ensuring that
mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts from construction are
properly implemented.
Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Preconstruction Nest Survevs and Construction
Exclusion Zones
The City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys to
determine if any active rap tor or migratory bird nests occur within 200 feet of the
project site. The surveys shall occur within one week prior to the start of
construction. If active nests are located in the study area, construction exclusion
zones shall be established around each active nest. Appropriate construction
exclusion zones shall be established through consultation with California
Department of Fish & Game. Construction activities shall be prohibited within
exclusion zones until the end of the nesting season, which typically is July 31.
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Protection or Recoverv of Data
Should concentrations of archaeological or historic period materials or
paleontological resources be encountered during construction, the City shall stop
all ground-disturbing work in that area. Work near such finds shall not be
resumed until a qualified professional has evaluated the materials and offered
recommendations for further action. Project personnel shall not collect cultural or
paleontological resources. Prehistoric resources may include obsidian or chert
flaked-stone tools or toolmaking debris, culturally darkened soil containing heat-
affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains, stone milling equipment, or battered
stone tools (such as hammerstones or pitted stones). Historic resources may
include, but not be limited to, stone or adobe foundations or walls, filled wells or
privies, or deposits of metal, glass and/or ceramic refuse.
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Coordination with Interested Tribes and Provide
for Archaeological Monitoring if Requested
The City shall coordinate a preconstruction meeting with interested tribes
(including the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria) between the City, Caltrans
and the contractor. The City shall ensure that the meeting provides Indian tribes a
reasonable opportunity to determine whether a qualified archaeological monitor
should be present during construction activities. If it is determined that an
archaeological monitor should be present, the City shall ensure that a qualified
archaeological monitor shall be present at all times during trenching, storm drain
relocation and installation of lighting.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Encountering Human Remains
If human remains are encountered within the construction area, the City shall stop
all work in the immediate vicinity of the find and notify the project superintendent
and Sonoma County Sheriff/Coroner. At the same time, an archaeologist should
be contacted to evaluate the find. If the remains are found to be of Native
American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission must be notified
January 22, 2007 Page 8 Winzler & Kelly
0205506002
PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
within 24 hours of the identification. The procedures to be followed at this point
are prescribed by law.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Contaminated Materials Handling and Disposal
The City shall require the contractor to employ Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) trained (29 CFR 1910.120/8 CCR 5192)
workers to screen soils and groundwater for contamination; treat contaminated
groundwater; stockpile and characterize soil; and properly dispose of all
contaminated materials in accordance with all State and local laws. These
requirements shall be adhered to via construction specifications which will detail
the hazardous material handling and disposal requirements necessary if
contaminated materials are encountered.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Standard Traffic Safety Control Procedures
The City or its contractor shall ensure that standard traffic safety control
procedures are included in the Traffic Control Plan being prepared as part of the
project. Construction flagging and signage, use of plates, and other safety
measures shall be in conformance with the CAL TRANS Manual of Traffic
Controls for Construction and Maintenance of Work Zones (CAL TRANS 1990).
If temporary lane or road closures are required, the City shall contact emergency
response providers (hospitals, police, fire, and ambulance) and inventory the
locations of their primary routes that may be affected by the construction.
• Where construction necessitates lane or road closures along emergency
response routes, the City shall recommend and obtain approval for
alternate routes or other means from the affected service providers, at a
minimum of one week prior to construction.
• During construction, the City shall notify the service providers on a
weekly basis of the timing, location, and duration of construction
activities.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Clear Fueling Areas and Require Equipment
Controls
The City or its contractor shall clear dry vegetation or other fire fuels near staging
areas or any other area where equipment would be operated, prior to the start of
construction in that area. The City shall require contractors to use equipment with
spark arresters in good working order.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Storm Drain Protection Measures
The City shall install sediment control measures in and around storm drain drop-
inlets in the project area to ensure construction-related sediment does not enter the
stormwater system. Measures shall include the following or other measures that
provide the at least the same level of sediment reduction:
• Series of several sand or gravel bags (preferred) placed in gutter uphill
from drop-inlets to divert flow, slow flow velocity and filter runoff.
January 22, 2007 Page 9 Winzler & Kelly
0205506002
PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
• Sand or gravel bags (preferred) placed around perimeter of drop-inlets.
• Temporary catch basin inlet filter placed inside drop-inlets.
The City shall remove all inlet protection devices within tbirty days after the site
is stabilized, or when inlet protection is no longer required.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Limit Construction Activities
In accordance witb tbe City's Public Works department, noise-producing
construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through
Friday (excludes holidays) except during nighttime construction activities where,
in accordance with the City of Petaluma's noise ordinance (Ordinance Article 22,
§22-301.3±), noise-producing construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 AM
to 10:00 PM.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2. Equipment Noise Control
The City of Petaluma and its contractor shall reduce equipment noise to the extent
feasible. Mitigation measures may include:
• Newer equipment with improved noise muffling may need to be used and
manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers,
engine covers, and engine vibration isolators be intact and operational.
• Construction equipment may require weekly inspection to ensure proper
maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers and
shrouding, etc.).
• Wherever possible, hydraulic tools should be used instead of pneumatic
impact tools.
January 22, 2007 Page 10 Winzler & Kelly
0205506002
PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 1, Abigail Smith, Sonoma County Watershed Coordinator,
California Regional Water Quality Control Board-San Francisco Bay
Region
Response to Comment 1-1
The Regional Board is correct that the site is bounded by storm drains.
A survey for wetlands was perfom1ed and confirms that no wetlands or other waters of
the state will be directly affected by the project. Indirect affects on tl1e Petaluma River
could occur due to construction-related sediment entering the stormdrain system.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, Storm Drain Protection
Measures, would prevent construction-related sediment from reaching storm drains,
thereby reducing the potential construction-related water quality impacts to less than
significant.
Response to Comment 1-2
The City appreciates the information regarding a Low Impact Development approach to
land development. Because the project is a roadway improvements project and not a
development project, the policies set forth in tl1e Low Impact Development approach
would not apply ( confm:ned during phone conversation with Abigail Smith, Sonoma
County Watershed Coordinator, January 2, 2007).
Response to Comment 1-3
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required for the project
prior to construction and would be prepared by the contractor. In addition, Mitigation
Measure HYD-1, Storm Drain Protection Measures, would require tl1e contractor to
install sediment control devices in and around existing stom1 drain drop-inlets to ensure
construction-related sediment does not enter the stormwater system.
The Regional Board has requested post-construction best management practices and
treatment controls designed to achieve water quality treatment of 85% or more of the
total runoff. This request pertains to development projects and is not applicable to a
roadway improvements project such as tl1is project (confirmed during phone conversation
with Abigail Smith, Sonoma County Watershed Coordinator, January 2, 2007). The
Initial Study did not identify significant water quality impacts during operation of the
project, and no mitigation is necessary.
Response to Comment 1-4
The city will require the contractor to obtain a State NPDES General Pennit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities.
January 22, 2007 Page 11 Winzler & Kelly
0205506002
PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Response to Comment 1-5
Roadway improvement activities are not included in the classification of commercial and
industrial facilities required to obtain coverage under and comply with the State NPDES
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities.
January 22, 2007 Page 12 Winzler & Kelly
0205506002
.. a California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
Linda S. Adams •
SecrCtary for
Environmental Protection
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612
(510) 622-2300 • Fax (510) 622'2460
http://www.wnterbofirds.ca.gov/sanfrnnciscobay
Arnold Schwnrzenegger
Governor
Nick Panayotou
Program Manager
City ofPetalunia
Public Works Department
11 English Street
Petaluma, .CA 94952
D~te. DEC 15 20.06
File No. 2148'.04(AHS/BAB)
.. , ..
Re: Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the :
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements ProJect, Petalmii~; · ·
California. ·
SCH #2006112137
Dear l'vfr. PlU1ayotou:
LETTER 1
We have reviewed t11e Draft lnitial StUdy (IS)/ProposedMitigated'Negative D~cl~ation for the
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project. The IS evaluates the potential
.enviroiljllental impacts from the construction of the proposed Petaluma Boulevard North
Roadway Improvements on approximately 2,500 linear feet (3.0 acres) of.P'etaluma Boulevard
Noi-th and a temporary stagillg area on a 0.51-acre site on the western comer ofLilkeville and
Washington Streets: The project is located west of U.S. Highway 101, between Lakeville Street
and Washington Street and the wesJem comer ofLalceville Stnietand Washington Street;City of .
Peta:Jillna. We appreciate the ppportunity to provide our cdinmerits and convey how our Board's •
policies may relate to the Project. ·we provide the following comments. · .. _
1-1 1) The Draft Iriitial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negatiye Declaration states that the site is bpunded
by storm drains that lead from Petaluma Boulevard North to the Petalutn~ River.
2) Board and State policy require avoidance of wetlands habitat to the maximum extent feasible:
Projects which do not adequately dempnstrate avoidance and minhnization of impacts to _
wetlands and other waters of the State may result in our inability to issue required waier quality
certification and/or waste discharge requirements for the project as proposed. ·
Preserving, enhanc.ing, and rest01jng the San Fri:r.ncisco Bay Area's waters for .over 50 years
~~ Recycled Paper
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
LETIER 1
-2-
3) The State Water Resoilrces Control Board has adopted a policy directing Regional Water ·
Quality Control Board staff to promote a Low Impact Development (LID) approach to land
development per our policies and siie specific regulatory actions. The LID approach:
• Maintains natural waters, drainage paths, landscape features and other water-holding
areas to promote stormwater retention aild groundwater recharge;
• Preserves the amenity and other values of natural waters;
• Minimizes generation of urban pollutants;
• Designs communities and landscaping to minimize stormwater generation, runoff,
and concentration, and
.. 1 • Promotes water conservation.
4) A stqrmwater management plan(s) will be required for project development.
Post-con~truction best management practices '(BMPs) and treatment controls must be designed to
achieve water quality treatment .of 85'io or more of the total runoff. Stormw.ater management
design elements should focus on sciurce control treatment to control both stonnwater quality and
· runoff discharge j"ates. The source control measures should be designed to mimic the
_ predevelopment hydrology by using design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and
1 detain runoff close to its source;
5) Projects dist).lrbing one acre or more efland are required to obtain coverage under and comply
with the State NPDES Genenil Permit for Sti:>rmwater Discharges Associated with Coristrnction
Activities~ . · · · . .
··-·:
6) Certain classifications of commercial and industrial facilities are tequir~d to obtain coverage
·under and comply with the State NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated·
1 with Industrial Activities.. · · ·
.. ,._.
'•,
The'Constrnction·andindU:strial General Permits and.corresponding Fact Sheets; application·
. forms, etc ... can beaccessep.at the}S.tate::Water.Resources Control B.ol.ll'd's web site·.
www.waterboirrds.ca.g6W. ....:..-.. ·:-:;.· · -::· ·· ··· -,-· · .
Ifymihave any questi~ns please coritaci Abighll Srriith ~~ (510) 622•2413; or email her at
asmith@lwaterboards.ca: gov:
Sincerely,
• . :··~ 7 --: ' . ·--·~ ·-···---" .. :L ...... ,<_ .. . Aofg'~l S1nifu / .
Sonoma County Watershed Coordinator
:·.· ~':'.; . :
cc:.
-3-
Stat7earinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
vNi"nzler & Kelly .
· 495 Tesconi Circle
Santa Rosa; CA 95401
LEITER 1
City of Petaluma, California
Memorandum
P11blic Works, 11 E11glisll Street, Petal11ma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4474 Fax (707) 776-3602 E-mail: p11blicwork5@ci.petaluma.ca.us
DATE: January 5, 2007
TO: File
FROM: Nick Panayotou, P.E.-Project Manager
SUBillCT: Petaluma Boulevard North Street Improvements Project-Comments to Draft
Initial Study I Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
During the course of the internal review of the above referenced document, City staff made
comments relating to the signalized intersection capacity analysis located in Appendix D of the
document. These comments noted the intersection title to be incorrect and the proposed lane
configurations to be incorrect. The tables in question have been revised and the corresponding
updated pages, including a revision to page 41 in the main body of the document, are attached to
this memorandum
These changes constitute an insignificant modification to the Mitigated Negative Declaration as
the result of the revised Signalized Intersection Capacity. The revisions do not change the Level
of Service (LOS) as reported in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The environmental analysis
(Section XV. Transportation/Traffic evaluation criteria a & b) does not change. No new
mitigations are needed.
Attachments
states that it would be a significant impact if the LOS deteriorated to the next lower leveL Under
a City Council Policy adopted in 1990, mitigation is required at any study intersection where the
project would result in a delay worse than LOS D.
Table XV-1
Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS Unsignnlized Intersections Signalized Intersections
A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Gaps in traffic are Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive
readily available for drivers exiting the minor during the green phase, so do not stop at all.
street.
B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in traffic are Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop
somewhat less readily available than with LOS than with LOS A, but many drivers still do not
A, but no queuing occurs on the minor street. have to stop.
c Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Acceptable gaps in Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of
traffic are less frequent, and drivers may vehicles stopping is significant, although many
approach while another vehicle JS already still pass through without stopping.
waitiJ!g_ to exit the side street.
D Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There are fewer Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of
acceptable gaps in traffic, and drivers may enter congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles
a queue of one or two vehicles on the side street. have to stop.
E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few acceptable gaps Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not ail,
in traffic are available, and longer queues may vehicles must stop and drivers consider the
form on the side street. del!!)' excessive.
F Delay of more than 50 seconds. Drivers may Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may
wait for long periods before there is an wait through more than one cycle to clear the
acceptable gap in traffic for exiting the side intersection.
streets, creating Jonp; queues.
Source: JV-Trai/S 2006
The average delay per vehicle in seconds (while stopped) was used as the basis for determining
the existing and the post-project LOS for intersections affected by the project. The existing
conditions analysis was based upon conditions at intersections and traffic volumes within the
study segments. Intersection LOS calculations are summarized in Table XV-2 for the existing
and post-project conditions.
TableXV-2
Summary of Existing and Post Project Conditions for PM Peak Hour LOS Calculations
Intersection Existing Conditions Post Project Conditions
Approach AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delav LOS Delay LOS
_ P_etal)l_m_a _Blv9, _"t:'.~r!h{Wash_~g[~~-St __ . _ __ 3_8.6 __ • ___ [) ____ .11 ,9 ______ [) _____ 3_6._<! _____ [) ______ 41 ,9_ _____ [) __ _
Petaluma Blvd. North/Oak St
Eastbound Oak Street Approach
Northbound Peta/nma Blvd. Left
23.8
9.7
c
A
24.5
9.2
D
A
19.2
9.7
c
A
20.3
9.2
c
Existing intersection LOS was found to be operating within the General Plan guidelines of LOS
D or better. The project is not expected to increase or decrease traffic volumes within the study
segment. As seen in Table XV -2, delays during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour are expected to
decrease once the project is completed. With the addition of the center tum lane, cars would
utilize the center tum lane to complete a left tum from Petaluma Boulevard North onto
driveways or minor streets. The center tum lane allows vehicles to wait for oncoming traffic to
clear without causing other vehicles to line up behind them. Additionally, motorists turning left
City of Petaluma 41
Petaluma Boulevard North Roadway Improvements Project
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Winzler & Keily
November 2006
0205506002
Mr. Nicholas Panayotou Page 3 November 22, 2006
study segment. Intersection level of service calculations are summarized in Table 2 and calculation work
sheets are enclosed.
Table 2
Summary of Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service Calculations
Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
Post Project Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Petaluma Blvd No/Washington Street
Petaluma Blvd No/Oak Street
Eastbound Oak Street Approach
Northbound Petaluma Blvd Left
38.6
23.8
9.7
D
c
A
41.9
24.5
9.2
Notes: Delay is in average number of seconds per vehicle;
LOS = Level of Service
D
D
A
36.6
19.2
9.7
D
c
A
41.0
20.3
9.2
D
c
A
As can be seen in the preceding table the study intersections are operating within the established guidelines.
Collision History
The collision history for the segment of Petaluma Blvd North between Washington Street and Lakeville
Street was reviewed for the period between January I, 200 I, through December 31, 2005. Records for
collisions within the study area were obtained through the California Highway Patrol and published in their
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The data revealed that there were 90
collisions reported within the study area. The data excluded intersection collisions at Washington and
Lakeville Streets. Collisions by type are summarized in Table 3. A detailed summary ofthe collision data
is enclosed.
Mr. Nicholas Panayotou Page 4 November 22, 2006
Tablel
Summary of Collisions by Type
Collision Type Collisions (Percent)
Sideswipe 51 (57%)
Rear End 18 (20%)
Broadside 8 (9%)
Pedestrian 2 (2%)
Hit Object 2 (2%)
Other/Not Stated 9 (I 0%)
TOTAL 90(100%)
As can be seen from the preceding table sideswipe collisions have the highest frequency and comprise 57
percent of all collisions in the study segment. Rear end collisions rank second and represents 20 percent
of all collisions in the study segment, with broadside collisions third at 9 percent. The study segment of
Petaluma Boulevard North has a calculated collision rate of 3.20 collisions/million vehicle miles (C/MVM),
which is below the average rate for similar state facilities of 4.95 C/MVM.
Project Conditions
The project will convert an existing 4-lane segment of Petaluma. Boulevard North to three lanes. The post
project configuration will have one travel lane and a parking lane in each direction together with a center
2-way left turn lane (TWL T). The project concept plan is enclosed.
Level of Service
For the purposes of this analysis the traffic volumes used for the Existing Conditions are retained for the
Post Project Conditions evaluation. The project is not expected to increase or decrease traffic volumes
within the study segment. The project will permit the reassignment of signal phasing and lane assignment
at the intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North/Washington Street. The unsignalized intersections within
the study segment will have the added benefit of the TWLT lane to use as a refuge area for motorists
making left turns for the side streets.
As seen in Table 2. delays during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour decreased at both of the intersections
evaluated. For the signalized intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North/Washington Street the average
vehicle delay decreases from 38.6 seconds to 36.6 seconds during the a.m. peak hour and from 41.9 seconds
to 41.0 seconds during the p.m. peak hour. Motorists using the unsignalized intersection of Petaluma
Boulevard North/Oak Street will encounter average delay from the side street of 19.2 seconds during the
a.m. peak hour compared to 23.8 seconds under the current configuration. Similarly, average delay during
the p.m. peak hour will decrease from 20.3 seconds from 24.5 seconds. Delays for left turning motorists
from Petaluma Boulevard North will remain unchanged.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: Washin~ton St & Petaluma Blvd
_f ..... f +-'-~ -+
r\/foviiment EBL EEif 'EEIR WBL wl3t' W13R NBV
Lane Configurations ~ t;. ~ t;.
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3446 1770 3464
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3446 1770 3464
Volume (vph) 122 591 65 132 668 44 64
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 136 657 72 147 742 49 71
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 4 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 721 0 147 787 0 0
Confl: Peds. (#lhr) 50 50 50
Turn Type, Prot Prot Split
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 36.6 11.3 37.4
Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 36.6 11.3 37.4
Actuated giC Ratio 0.10 0.37 0.11 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 186 1261 200 1296
vis Ratio Prot 0.08 0.21 c0.08 c0.23
vis Ratio Perm
vic Ratio 0.73 0.57 0.74 0.61
Uniform Delay, d1 43.4 25.4 42.9 25.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 12.0 1.9 11.4 2.1
Delay (s) 55.4 27.3 54.3 27.5
Level of Service E c D c
Approach Delay (s) 31.7 31.7
Approach LOS c c
lnters'El_cti&n,summa~,-
HCM Average Control Delay 38.6 HCM Level of Service
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Petaluma Blvd Reconfiguration Analysis 8/25/2006 AM Peak Hour
W-Trans
Existing Conditions
t r
NBt':c'NEIR'
<it ~
1900 1900
10 8
4,0 4,0
0.95 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
0.99 1.00
3278 1372
0.99 1.00
3278 1372
349 139
0.90 0.90
388 154
0 71
459 83
Perm
8
8
16.7 16.7
16.7 16.7
0.17 0.17
4.0 4.0
1.5 1.5
547 229
c0.14
0.06
0.84 0.36
40.3 36.9
1.00 1.00
10.4 0.4
50.8 37.3
D D
47.4
D
··.,-.::,-
D
12.0
c
1/5/2007
\. + .I
j-S'I3L-sst SBR
.
<ft ~
1900 1900 1900
12 10 8
4.0 4.0
0.95 1.00
1.00 0.90
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
0.99 1.00
3282 1237
0.99 1.00
3282 1237
65 439 136
0.90 0.90 0.90
72 488 151
0 0 64
0 560 87
50 50
Split Perm
4 4
4
19.4 19.4
19.4 19.4
0.19 0.19
4.0 4,0
1.5 1.5
637 240
c0.17
0.07
0.88 0.36
39.2 34.9
1.00 1.00
12.8 0.3
51.9 35.3
D D
48.4
D
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: Washington St & Petaluma Blvd
_)---.. ...... .f +-'-.._,
Moviinienr-c;;:cE:;'. . EBt. EBT
..
EBR W8L WBJ WBR N8L
Lane Configurations 'I tr. 'I tr. 'I
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3420 1770 3464 1711
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3420 1770 3464 1711
Volume (vph) 122 591 65 132 668 44 64
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 136 657 72 147 742 49 71
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 4 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 722 0 147 787 0 71
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 50 50 50
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.2 37.6 11.1 38.5 5.8
Effective Green, g (s) 10.2 37.6 11.1 38.5 5.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.38 0.11 0.38 0.06
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 181 1286 196 1334 99
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.21 c0.08 c0.23 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.56 0.75 0.59 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 43.7 24.7 43.1 24.5 46.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 14.4 1.8 13.3 1.9 18.5
Delay (s) 58.0 26.4 56.4 26.4 64.8
Level of Service E c E c E
Approach Delay (s) 31.4 31.1
Approach LOS c c
lnfei.sectior]Tsuinnia&·.··.'···•··, -' . ---.-, -----· -~
.
HCM Average Control Delay 36.6 HCM Level of Service
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Petaluma Blvd Reconfiguration Analysis 8/25/2006 AM Peak Hour
W-Trans
t
NBt
t
1900
11
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1801
1.00
1801
349
0.90
388
0
388
8
28.6
28.6
0.29
4.0
1.5
515
c0.22
0.75
32.5
1.00
5.5
38.0
D
38.5
D
Post Project Conditions
1/5/2007
I' '-. J. .;
NBR '.·.ssL .'"E;-t:lt' CSBR
~
1900
11
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1531
1.00
1531
139
0.90
154
46
108
Perm
8
28.6
28.6
0.29
4.0
1.5
438
0.07
0.25
27.4
1.00
0.1
27.5
c
D
8.0
c
'I t ~
1900 1900 1900
11 11 10
4.0 4.0 4.0
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.90
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1711 1801 1332
0.95 1.00 1.00
1711 1801 1332
65 439 136
0.90 0.90 0.90
72 488 151
0 0 41
72 488 110
50 50
Prot Perm
7 4
4
6.7 29.5 29.5
6.7 29.5 29.5
0.07 0.30 0.30
4.0 4.0 4.0
2.0 1.5 1.5
115 531 393
0.04 c0.27
0.08
0.63 0.92 0.28
45.4 34.1 27.1
1.00 1.00 1.00
7.4 20.6 0.1
52.9 54.7 27.2
D D c
48.7
D
.•.·--o';.',-.' -.'';:~::;;\'):-<~-
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: Washington St & Petaluma Blvd
-'" -"") • <I--\.. ""\
TV1aiii'lme6Y:··· ·-··· • • ''·EsTr ·.:EBT . EBR wsc· WBT WBR. NBC
Lane Configurations ~ t;. ~ t;.
Ideal. Flow .(vphpl} 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, pedibikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flpb, pedibikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3474 1770 3429
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3474 1770 3429
Volume (vph) 148 671 50 177 712 98 81
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 157 714 53 188 757 104 86
RTOR Reduction (vph} 0 5 0 0 10 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 762 0 188 851 0 0
Confi. Peds. (#ihr) 50 50 50
Turn Type Prot Prot Split
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3
Permitted Phases
Actuate'd Green, G (s) 11.3 33.5 13.4 35.6
Effective Green, g (s) 11.3 33.5 13.4 35.6
Actuated giC Ratio 0,11 0.34 0.13 0.36
Clearance Time (s} 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle'.Extension (s) 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 200 1164 237 1221
vis Ratio Prot 0.09 0.22 c0.11 c0.25
vis Ratio Perm
vic Ratio 0.78 0.65 0.79 0.70
Uniform Delay, d1 43.2 28.3 42.0 27.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 16.8 2.9 15.5 3.3
Delay (s) 60.0 31.2 57.4 30.9
Level of Service E c E c
Approach Delay (s) 36.1 35.6
Approach LOS D D
.16terseC:\icir(summa~~·. .;::~-~'J' -:~:_<--<?;·.·-_·_;· -
HCM Average Control Delay 41.9 HCM Level of Service
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
East Washington Corridor Study 6:00 pm 11 i25i2002 PM Peak Hour
W-Trans
t
NBT
.rt
1900
10
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
3279
0.99
3279
458
0.94
487
0
573
3
19.2
19.2
0.19
4.0
1.5
630
c0.17
0.91
39.5
0.94
15.0
52.0
D
48.2
D
Existing! Conditions
,..
NBF{
f
1900
8
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1372
1.00
1372
283
0.94
301
109
192
Perm
3
19.2
19.2
0.19
4.0
1.5
263
0.14
0.73
38.0
0.88
7.3
40.8
D
. ..
D
12.0
D
1 i4i2007
\. + ~
.·sse• SBT.' SBR
.rt ~
1900 1900 1900
12 10 8
4.0 4.0
0.95 1.00
1.00 0.90
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
0.99 1.00
3257 1237
0.99 1.00
3257 1237
140 348 108
0.94 0.94 0.94
149 370 115
0 0 53
0 519 62
50 50
Split Perm
4 4
4
17.9 17.9
17.9 17.9
0.18 0.18
4.0 4.0
1.5 1.5
583 221
c0.16
0.05
0.89 0.28
40.1 35.5
1.00 1.00
15.3 0.3
55.4 35.8
E D
51.8
D
-----,·:;,~:,.-_··:{'5'~'--'-.-_, __ ,:-i-
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: Washinston St & Petaluma Blvd
.)--+ t .f
..,_ ' ..._
Maveriieiit · 'EBI} l'El'f' 'EBR ''•WElL WBT WEiR NEiL
Lane Configurations ~ tr. ~ tr. ~
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11
Total Lost tiine (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, pedibikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00
Flpb, pedibikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3475 1770 3431 1711
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3475 1770 3431 1711
Volume (vph) 148 671 50 177 712 98 81
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 157 714 53 188 757 104 86
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 11 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 761 0 188 850 0 86
Confi. Peds. (#ihr) 50 50 50
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.1 29.5 12.7 31.1 7.0
Effective Green, g (s) 11.1 29.5 12.7 31.1 7.0
Actuated giC Ratio 0.12 0.31 0.13 0.32 0.07
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 205 1068 234 1112 125
vis Ratio Prot 0.09 0.22 c0.11 c0.25 0.05
vis Ratio Perm
vic Ratio 0.77 0.71 0.80 0.76 0.69
Uniform Delay, d1 41.2 29.5 40.4 29.2 43.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 14.2 4.1 16.9 5.0 11.8
Delay (s) 55.4 33.6 57.3 34.2 55.3
Level of Service E c E c E
Approach Delay (s) 37.3 38.3
Approach LOS D D
lntersection.Summacy, .. ''
HCM Average Control Delay 41.0
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.0 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
East Washington Corridor Study 6:00pm 11i25i2002 PM Peak Hour
W-Trans
t
'NBT
t
1900
11
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1801
1.00
1801
458
0.94
487
0
487
8
26.9
26.9
0.28
4.0
1.5
505
c0.27
0.96
34.1
1.00
30.7
64.8
E
51.9
D
Post Project Conditions
1i4i2007
r
NBRc
~
1900
11
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1531
1.00
1531
283
0.94
301
68
233
Perm
8
26.9
26.9
0.28
4.0
1.5
429
0.15
0.54
29.3
1.00
0.8
30.1
c
0
16.0
0
\.. ~ ../
'sEili-SBT SBR
~ t ~
1900 1900 1900
11 11 10
4.0 4.0 4.0
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.90
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1711 1801 1337
0.95 1.00 1.00
1711 1801 1337
140 348 108
0.94 0.94 0.94
149 370 115
0 0 37
149 370 78
50 50
Prot Perm
7 4
4
10.9 30.8 30.8
10.9 30.8 30.8
0.11 0.32 0.32
4.0 4.0 4.0
2.0 1.5 1.5
194 578 429
c0.09 c0.21
0.06
0.77 0.64 0.18
41.3 27.9 23.5
0.91 1.08 1.21
14.8 1.8 0.1
52.3 31.8 28.5
D c c
36.0
0
' -.;.:_.,~--''"'
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1