HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 01/28/2019 Attachment 10SOLURI
VoMESERVE
law Corporation
September 14, 2018
SENT VIA EMAIL (hhines(a),m-aroup.us)
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, California 94952
ATTACHMENT 10
tel: 916.455.7300 • fax: 916.244.7300
510 8th Street - Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: September 17, 2018 Regular Meeting of the City Council and
Petaluma Community Development Successor Agency
Agenda Item 6.B. (Safeway Fuel Center)
Dear Ms. Hines:
On behalf of our clients, JoAnn McEachin and No Gas Here, we submit these
comments in support of the appeal filed by Ms. McEachin concerning the Planning
Commission's approval of the proposed Safeway Fuel Station Project ("Project"). This
letter explains why the Project's land use entitlement should be denied, and also
addresses several fatal flaws in the Project's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
("IS/MND").
As discussed more fully below, the City has full authority to deny the requested
land use entitlement for the Project. Indeed, the location of the proposed use and its
resulting health risks to Petaluma residents, workers, and children compel that result.
Even if the City Council finds that it is inclined to grant the entitlement, however, the
Project's potential adverse environmental impacts have not been adequately considered,
evaluated, or mitigated in the IS/MND. Simply put, because substantial evidence supports
a "fair argument" that the proposed Project may have significant adverse environmental
impacts, the City cannot make the required findings to certify the IS/MND under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). To comply with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, the City must prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") to analyze the
Project's potential direct, indirect and cumulative adverse environmental impacts.
This letter was prepared with input from three experts in the areas of air modeling,
environmental engineering and traffic engineering: Phyllis Fox, PhD, PE, Ray Kapahi,
BSC, M. Eng., and Larry Wymer, T.E. Documentation from Mr. Wymer is attached as
10-1
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 2 of 15
Exhibit A. The documentation from Dr. Fox and Mr. Kapahi is presently being fmalized
and will be submitted on Monday, September 17, 2018.
In order to comply with the requirements of CEQA, the City cannot certify the
IS/MND, and must instead prepare an EIR prior to approving the Project. In the
alternative, the City Council may choose at any time not to approve the Project and an
EIR will not be necessary.
I. THE CITY HAS BROAD AUTHORITY TO DENY THE PROJECT, AND
SHOULD EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY HERE TO AVOID
POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
A. The Proper Nature of the City's Discretionary Review
The Project requires a site plan and architectural review ("SPAR") pursuant to
Chapter 24 of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance ("IZO"). The Applicant's legal
counsel, Rutan & Tucker LLP, submitted a memo to the City claiming that the City's
discretion over the Project was extremely limited, stating in relevant part:
[T]he City has limited discretion over the Project. The scope of discretion
relates to aesthetic and design issues. To the extent the City attempts to
employ this limited discretion to preclude a use that it or some of its
residents to do not want, it would be acting in contravention of the law.
(Rutan & Tucker memo to City dated June 6, 2018, p. 3.)
Nothing could be further from the truth. The SPAR is a discretionary entitlement
by the City that expressly includes the authority to "approve the project as applied for,
approve the project with modifications, or disapprove the project." (IZO, § 24.010, subd.
(G).) The City's decision to deny the Project would be afforded great deference by a
reviewing court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(b).) The agency's decision will be
overturned only if no reasonable person would have reached the same conclusions.
(Harris v. City of Costa Mesa (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 963, 969 (Harris); Breakzone
Billiards (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1244.) A reviewing court presumes a city's
decision is correct, and will resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative
findings and decision; the party challenging the decision bears the burden to demonstrate
otherwise. (Evid. Code, § 664; see Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar (1998) 69
Cal.App.4th 166, 175.)
10-2
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 3 of 15
Further, the law is well settled that only one reason is required to deny a
discretionary entitlement like the requested SPAR. (Desmond v. County of Contra Costa
(1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 330, 336-337.) Desmond explains with clarity:
Because we are reviewing a denial of a requested land use permit, it is not
necessary to determine that each finding by the Board was supported by
substantial evidence. As long as the Board made a finding that any one of
the necessary elements enumerated in the ordinances was lacking, and this
finding was itself supported by substantial evidence, the Board's denial of
appellant's application must be upheld.
(Id. at 336-337 [italic in original]; see also Saad v. City of Berkeley (1994) 24
Cal.App.4th 1206, 1213 [inadequacy of a single finding does not undermine denial of
permit when other adequate findings were made].)
Finally, agencies are afforded considerable latitude with regard to the precision
and formality of their findings denying a project. (Young v. City of Coronado. (2017) 10
Cal.App.5th 408, 421.) Findings under Code of Civil Procedures section 1094.5 need not
be "extensive or detailed." (Environmental Protection Information Center v. California
Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 516.) Findings may
incorporate matters by reference, or omissions may be filled by relevant references
available in the record. (Craik v. County of Santa Cruz (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 880, 884.)
An agency may memorialize its findings in writing after the quasi -adjudicatory decision
itself. (See Levi Family Partnership, L.P. v. City ofLos Angeles (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th
123 [upholding planning commission findings supporting the decision to deny a permit
application given first orally at a public hearing and then memorializing the decision in
writing nearly one year later].)
The applicant also misleads the City regarding the scope of permissible
considerations. Contrary to the Rutan & Tucker's suggestion, the City's authority to
deny the SPAR may be based on broad considerations:
1. It is the intent of this Section that any controls be exercised to achieve a
satisfactory quality of design in the individual building and its site,
appropriateness of the building to its intended use, and the harmony of the
development with its surroundings. Satisfactory design quality and
harmony will involve among other things:
a. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of
the overall design.
10-3
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 4 of 15
b. The architectural style which should be appropriate for the project in
question, and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood.
c. The siting of the structure on the property, as compared to the siting of
other structures in the immediate neighborhood.
d. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of all
signs and outdoor advertising structures.
e. The bulk, height, and color of the proposed structure as compared to the
bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood.
(IZO, § 24.010, subd. (G)(1) (emphasis added).)
Thus, the IZO authorizes the City to consider whether a proposed project is in
harmony with its surroundings as well as its siting as compared to other structures in the
immediate neighborhood. (Ibid.) These considerations are in addition to unspecified
"other" considerations that are described in the IZO's general "Applicability" provision:
Minimum requirements. The provisions of this Zoning Ordinance shall be
minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, and
general welfare. When this Zoning Ordinance provides for -discretion on
the part of a City official or body, that discretion may be exercised to
impose more stringent requirements than set forth in this Zoning
Ordinance, as may be determined by the review authority to be necessary to
promote appropriate land use and development, environmental resource
protection, and the other purposes of this Zoning Ordinance.
(IZO, § 1.040.)
Approving or denying the SPAR is unquestionably a discretionary action, and so
the City is empowered to "impose more stringent requirements" than found in the express
language of Chapter 24 to the extent necessary to promote the general health and welfare,
including the health of City residents, workers, and children.' Thus, the IZO grants the
City authority to deny the requested SPAR based on broad considerations such as
i The applicant's legal counsel cited Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83
Ca1.App.4th 1004, 1014) to support its argument for a more constrained scope of review.
(Memo dated June 6, 2018.) Friends of Davis is irrelevant here because that case
addressed the narrow issue that "design review ordinance does not encompass tenant
approval." We are not quibbling with the specific tenant or operator, but rather
challenging the underlying land use itself.
10-4
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 5 of 15
whether the siting of a proposed use is not in harmony with the immediate neighborhood
due to toxic air emissions.
The City's General Plan is in accord. Any discretionary action by the City,
including the requested SPAR, must be consistent with the City's General Plan. "The
propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends
upon consistency with the application general plan and its elements." (Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570.) "A project is inconsistent if it
conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear."
(Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777,
782.) The City's General Plan includes a specific policy concerning toxic air
contaminants, and compels denial of the requested SPAR. General Plan policy 4-P-17
provides:
To avoid potential health effects and citizen complaints that may be caused
by sources of odors, dust from agricultural uses, or toxic air contaminants
the following measures may be considered:
• Locate new stationary sources of air pollutants, such as industrial
facilities, at sufficient distances away from residential areas and facilities
that serve sensitive receptors to avoid significant impacts caused by odors,
dust, and toxic air contaminants.
The intent of General Plan policy 4-P-17 is clear: do not approve new sources of toxic
air contaminants where they could pose "potential health effects" to citizens.
Finally, and while not likely necessary here in light of the obvious public health
impact, the City is permitted to deny the SPAR based solely on neighborhood opposition.
"It is appropriate and even necessary for the [agency] to consider the interest of
neighboring property owners in reaching a decision whether to grant or deny a land use
entitlement, and the opinions of neighbors may constitute substantial evidence on this
issue." (Harris, supra, 25 Ca1.App.3d at 973, emphasis added; Dore v. County of
Ventura (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 320, 328-329.) IZO section 24.010 requires the City to
consider whether the Project is in harmony with its surroundings, and so the opinions of
the neighbors who reside in those surroundings are relevant under case law.
In short, the City is vested with discretion to deny the requested SPAR based on
broad considerations of human health and harmony with the surroundings. Further, only
one reason is necessary to deny the Project, which would be upheld by a reviewing court
10-5
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 6 of 15
unless no reasonable person could reach the same conclusion. This applicant's
misleading legal analysis to the contrary is inexcusable.
B. The City Should Exercise Its Broad Discretion to Deny the Project in
Order to Protect Human Health and Ensure Harmony in the Area.
Having clarified the nature of the City's discretion over the SPAR, relevant
evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Project should be denied. The California
Air Resources Board ("CARB"), the state agency charged with addressing air
contaminant modeling and associated health risk, provides land use guidance to local
agencies in order to address human health risks from various land uses in its Air Quality
and Land Use Handbook ("CARB Handbook"). (See attached Exhibit B, CARB
Handbook, p. ES -1.) The CARB Handbook directly addresses the issue of an appropriate
location for gas stations, providing in relevant part: "Avoid siting new sensitive land uses
within 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a
throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater)." (Exhibit B, pp. 4, 32.) The
Project's proposed throughput of 8.5 million gallons would be more than twice the
minimum throughput triggering the recommended 300 -foot distance, and yet the gas
station would be merely 60 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor—the 4Cs Petaluma
Child Development Center.Z
In other words, the Project's proposed location flagrantly violates specific land use
guidance from the state agency with the greatest expertise on toxic air emissions. The
City is well within its discretion to deny the Project based solely on CARB's land use
guidance, since doing so is consistent with both General Plan Policy 4-P-17 as well as
ensuring "harmony of the development with its surroundings" under Section 24.010,
subdivision (G)(1).
Here, the Project's inappropriate proximity to residential dwellings, a daycare
center and elementary school—as articulated by GARB—constitutes, by itself,
substantial evidence supporting denial of the SPAR. As will be explained more fully
below, CARB's land use guidance is reinforced by a site-specific expert air quality and
health risk assessment unequivocally concluding the actual human health risk at these
sensitive receptors is significant under established standards. We urge the City to deny
Both the IS/MND and its HRA fail to properly identify all relevant sensitive
receptors. The closest receptor is the 4Cs Petaluma Child Development Center at 401 S.
McDowell Boulevard. The North Bay Children's Center is a second daycare center
located at 405 S. McDowell Boulevard. Incredibly, the IS/MND and HRA fail to identify
both sensitive receptors.
M.
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 7 of 15
the SPAR, and submit proposed findings that would easily survive judicial review. (See
attached Exhibit C, proposed findings denying the Project.)
H. CEQA REQUIRES AN EIR WHENEVER A "FAIR ARGUMENT" CAN BE
MADE THAT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WILL OCCUR BECAUSE OF A
PROJECT
If there is "substantial evidence supporting a fair argument the project may have
significant adverse effects, the agency must (assuming the project is not exempt from
CEQA) prepare an EIR." (Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach
(2011) 52 CalAth 155, 171-172; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(1).) If, on the
other hand, "[t]here is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record ... that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment," the agency may adopt a
negative declaration. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); see also § 21082.2,
subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(3); Communities for a Better
Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 CalAth 310, 319.)
The "fair argument" test requires the preparation of an EIR whenever "there is
substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively,
may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall
effect of the project is adverse or beneficial ...." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd.
(b)(1), emphasis added.) Furthermore, as the California Supreme Court explained long
ago, a project need not have an "important or momentous effect of semi-permanent
duration" to require an EIR. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75,
87 ("No Oil").) Rather, an agency must prepare an EIR "whenever it perceives some
substantial evidence that [a] project may have a significant effect environmentally." (Id.
at p. 85.) An EIR is required even if substantial evidence in the record supports a
conclusion that significant impacts will not occur, if a "fair argument" supports the
opposite conclusion. (Id. at p. 75.)
Where experts have presented conflicting evidence on the extent of the
environmental effects of a project, like here, the lead agency must consider the effects to
be significant and prepare an EIR. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124
Cal.AppAth 903, 935; Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1307,
1317-18; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (g).) "It is the function of an EIR, not a
negative declaration, to resolve conflicting claims, based on substantial evidence, as to
the environmental effects of a project." (Pocket Protectors, supra, 25 Cal.AppAth at p.
935.) In the context of reviewing a negative declaration, "neither the lead agency nor a
court may `weigh' conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be
prepared in the first instance." (lbid.) Where such substantial evidence is presented,
10-7
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 8 of 15
"evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with
preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration, because it could be `fairly
argued' that the project might have a significant environmental impact." (Sundstrom v.
County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 310.)
As discussed in section III, infra, expert testimony and additional substantial
evidence in the record establish much more than the required "fair argument" that the
proposed Project will have adverse environmental impacts, necessitating an EIR.3
HI. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A "FAIR ARGUMENT" THAT
THE PROJECT MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS ON
THE ENVIRONMENT
The discussion contained in this letter demonstrates that the IS/MND fails to
comply with CEQA. For each of the reasons discussed below, CEQA requires the City to
prepare an EIR before the City considers approving the Project. CEQA, however, does
not require that an EIR be prepared for a project that is rejected or disapproved by a
public agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15061, subd. (b)(4).) Therefore, the City Council
may, without violating CEQA, exercise its discretion to deny the Project.
A. The Project Will Result in Significant Human Health Impacts from the
Emission of Toxic Air Contaminants.
As set forth above, CARB has issued longstanding land use guidance to cities and
counties to locate gasoline stations with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons more than
300 feet away from sensitive receptors such as homes, daycare centers and schools. The
applicant asks the City to flout that expert guidance by approving a gas station with a
throughput of 8.5 million gallons a mere 60 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor.
The applicant prepared a health risk assessment ("HRA") suggesting that this
guidance is somehow incorrect because the health risks to these sensitive receptors are in
fact less than significant under the accepted standard of 10 increased cancer risks. We
retained preeminent experts to review the applicant's HRA in order to determine whether
it employed proper methodologies and accurately characterized the Project's risk to
In addition to misleading the City regarding the nature of its discretionary review
of the requested SPAR, the applicant also relies on San Diego Navy Broadway Complex
Coalition v. City of San Diego (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 924 to argue that the scope of
CEQA review should be similarly limited. (Memo dated June 6, 2018.) This argument
also has no merit, as City staff correctly found.
10-8
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 9 of 15
human health. These experts include Phyllis Fox, PhD, PE and Ray Kapahi, BSC, M.
Eng. Dr. Fox's work, in particular, has figured prominently in seminal CEQA cases such
as Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners (200 1)
91 Cal.AppAth 1344 and Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond
(2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 70, 90.
Dr. Fox and Mr. Kapahi agreed to peer review the applicant's HRA, but were
unable to do so comprehensively because the applicant and its consultant refused to
provide their underlying modeling data inputs and assumptions.4 While unable to obtain
the applicant's underlying data, Dr. Fox and Mr. Kapahi were nevertheless able to
determine from the available information that the applicant's HRA was not based on
current methodologies for air modeling and health risk assessment, among other errors
that will be documented in their forthcoming report ("Fox Report"). In addition to
documenting the various methodological flaws in the applicant's report, the Fox Report
will include stand-alone health risk analysis utilizing current methodologies. Due to
delay resulting from the applicant's refusal to provide its data, Dr. Fox and Mr. Kapahi
have not been able to finalize their report as of the submission of this letter and instead
will be submitted on Monday, September 17, 2018. While the Fox Report has not been
finalized, some of its conclusions and resulting implications may be summarized as
follows:
1. The applicant's IIRA fails as an inforrnational document because it relies on
outdated methodologies, namely the ISC air dispersion model, that is itself
outdated (in favor of AERMOD) and also prevents use of the required HARP2
tool to model to human health risks, which was not used by the applicant's HRA;
2. The Project will unquestionably result insignificant (i.e. more than 10 increased
cancer risks) human health risk to nearby residents (up to 69 increased cancer risk)
and workers at the 4Cs Petaluma Child Development Center (12.5 increased
cancer risks).
3. Substantial evidence of a fair argument exists for significant health risk to students
and teachers at McDowell Elementary School (8.2 increased cancer risks). When
accounting for prevailing winds in Petaluma that are primarily from the west-
northwest and therefore directly upwind from these receptors, the risk to these
receptors is likely above the threshold of 10 increased cancer risks.
4 City staff confirmed on September 10, 2018, that the applicant never provided the
City with this information.
10-9
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 10 of 15
4. The Fox Report's conclusions are consistent with guidance and studies prepared
by other agencies including CARB, CAPCOA and SCAQMD. The applicant's
HRA is inconsistent with these authorities.
In sum, there is no question that an EIR will need to be prepared before the City
can approve the Project. But because the health risk impact to residents along McDowell.
Boulevard is so high (nearly 700 percent of the significance threshold), the City would
likely be able certify that EIR, and approve the Project, only upon making the policy
determination that the claimed benefits of the Project (i.e. increased Safeway revenue and
resulting tax dollars) are more important than, and therefore "override," the harm from
exposing residents to an increased risk of cancer. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15093 (statement
of overriding considerations).)
B. The Project Will Result in Significant Impacts to Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Global Climate Change.
Substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project will result in
significant greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. The IS/MND acknowledges the issue,
and then sets forth a significance standard of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year.
(IS/MND, pp. 33-34.) The MND then states that the Project's total CO2e emissions is
947 metric tons per year, which the MND claims is less than significant. (IS/MND, p.
34.) This analysis is flawed for at least two reasons.
First, the IS/MND relied on CalEEMod calculations to determine the Project's
CO2e emissions. (IS/MND, p. 33.) Yet, as will be discussed more fully in the HRA
report, our experts found that the IS/MND's CalEEMod fleet mix assumptions and, by
extension, the output numbers, are flawed because they are skewed towards smaller
vehicles. Adjusting the CaIEEMod fleet mix will likely increase the output and, in turn,
increase the Project's CO2e emissions that are already very close to the stated
significance threshold.
The second and more significant flaw is the IS/MND's failure to account for
emissions from the fuel sold by the Project. The IS/MND states that the Project would
sell 8.5 million gallons of fuel annually, which translates to 75,540 metric tons of CO2
emitted annually. (See attached Exhibit D, EPA CO2 Calculator.) This is 68 times the
stated significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year. The IS/MND completely
ignores this Project impact. Indeed, even if it can be characterized as an "indirect"
impact of the Project, CEQA mandates analysis of indirect impacts. (CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15126.2, subd. (a) ("Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the
environmental shall be clearly identified and described"); § 15064.2, subd. (d)(2); see
10-10
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 11 of 15
Kings County v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 716-17; Citizens to Pres.
the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 430.)
The Project will result in CO2e emissions that are well above the threshold of
significance. An EIR will need to be prepared that will properly disclose this potentially
significant impact, and propose mitigation measures to the extent feasible. Numerous
measures are available to mitigate the Project's significant GHG. It can install
photovoltaic generation at it store parking lot as Petaluma's schools have done, and on its
store roof as many Petaluma businesses have done. It may utilize readily available
carbon -free power at its store. It may convert its distribution fleet to electric, as
contemplated by the BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan, and it can fund and facilitate transit. It
can work with schools like McDowell Elementary to inform the public about reducing
GHG and toxics emissions from gasoline.
C. The ISIMND's Analysis of Traffic Is Fatally Defective and Therefore
Fails as an Informational Document.
The IS/MND acknowledges that the Project will result in thousands of vehicle
trips per day, but ultimately determines that the impact is less than significant on all
issues except internal queuing. (IS/MND, pp. 51-58.) The IS/MND's analysis is based
on separate traffic studies that purport to describe the Project's trip distribution on City
roadways and associated impacts. Larry Wymer, T.E. peer reviewed the IS/MND's
traffic studies and issued a report identifying several defects. Mr. Wymer's report is
attached as Exhibit A. A few of the identified flaws include:
1. In several instances the traffic study is internally inconsistent and therefore fails to
adequately describe the project. Moreover, correcting for these inconsistencies
may result in significantly different Project trip distribution and associated traffic
impacts.
2. The traffic study assumes an admitted unrealistic trip distribution through the
Project driveways. As a result, the traffic study acknowledges that it does not
reflect actual travel patterns. The traffic study claims that this was done to provide
a "conservative" analysis, yet it is inconsistent with generally accepted
methodologies for traffic analysis. Further, this strategy violates CEQA by
concealing project impacts.
3. The traffic study acknowledges that it has some impact on CalTrans facilities,
namely highway 101 ramps and Washington Street. The traffic study failed to
identify Caltrans' threshold of significance for these facilities, and therefore failed
10-11
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 12 of 15
to identify a potentially significant impact to those facilities. (See Exhibit E,
Sonoma County Guidelines, p. 12.)
4. The traffic study failed to identify any methodology for its selection of roadway
segments and intersection included for analysis. Exacerbating this legal error is
evidence in the record suggesting that additional intersections should have been
studied. As such, Project impacts have not been adequately disclosed.
Additionally, the traffic analysis suffers from at least two additional legal errors.
First, the traffic study states, "The Petaluma General Plan 2025 has adopted a standard of
Level of Service ("LOS") D as the minimum acceptable operations for City streets, and
signalized intersections that operate at an LOS E under existing conditions would result
in a significant traffic impact if the addition of a new project would cause LOS E to
deteriorate to LOS F. The Project's 2014 TIS applied these LOS thresholds to all study
intersections, as appropriate." (Traffic Impact Study Update, p. 4.) This violates CEQA.
(Protect the Historic Amadou° Waterways v. 4mador Water Agency (2004) 116
Cal.App.4th 1099 [agency improperly applied thresholds of significance narrowly to
avoid finding significant impacts from stream flow reductions], Friends of Oroville v.
City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 832, 842 [agency misapplied threshold of
significance for measuring project's greenhouse gas emissions].)
In fact, the court in East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of
Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 301-03, struck down a city's reliance on a traffic
LOS significance threshold from its General Plan. As in East Sacramento, the IS/MND
fails to explain and support application of its General Plan threshold. Here, the IS/MND
fails to explain how LOS E can be acceptable simply because the project does not
deteriorate to LOS F. In these instances, it is common practice to identify the
significance threshold in terms of incremental additional delay. For example, Sonoma
County Guidelines provide, "If the intersection currently operates or is projected to
operate below the County standard, the project's impact is considered significant and
cumulatively considerable if it causes the average delay to increase by five seconds or
more." (See attached Exhibit E, p. 11.) The IS/MND's uncritical reliance on the City's
General Plan in the face of unacceptable conditions significantly exacerbated by the
Project is a failure to proceed in a manner required by law.
The IS/MND's traffic study suffers from the additional legal flaw that it relies on
speculative future roadway improvements that have not been adequately funded. More
specifically, the IS/MND assumes improved LOS under cumulative conditions by
assuming development.of the Rainier Cross -Town Connector. (MND p. 54.) This
violates CEQA. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction
10-12
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 13 of 15
Authority (2013) 57 CalAth 439, 453.) For example, the Sonoma County Traffic Impact
Guidelines provide, "Planned roadway improvements shall only be assumed completed
for use in the TIS if the improvement project is fully funded and programmed for
construction." (Exhibit E, p. 9.) None of the exceptions under Neighbors for Smart Rail
apply here, particularly since the Rainier Cross -Town Connector continues to have
uncertain funding. (See attached Exhibit F, Petaluma360.com article.) The IS/MND's
contrary approach is legal error and fails to adequately disclose Project impacts.
D. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Disclose and Mitigate for
Potentially Significant Hazardous Materials Impacts.
The IS/MND acknowledges that the Project is located withinl/4 mile of a school,
which triggers the need to consider whether the Project would emit or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials. (IS/MND, p. 35) While acknowledging the issue, the
IS/MND fails to adequately disclose and mitigate the potentially significant impact.
On this issue the IS/MND conclusively asserts, "As previously discussed,
adherence to existing federal, state and local regulations will ensure that all potentially
hazardous materials onsite are properly labeled, transported and stored. Established
policies and programs set forth by the EPA, DTSC, CAL/OSHA and other regulatory
agencies provide that the presence of potential hazardous materials occurs in the safest
possible manner." (IS/MND, p. 38.) This analysis fails to specifically identify what
hazardous materials are being addressed, much less the specific "federal, state and local
regulations" that will be applied to mitigate the impacts or the actions pursuant to these
"regulations" that will actually mitigate the impact. While in some instances compliance
with regulatory requirements may constitute adequate mitigation, the lead agency must
actually commit in the CEQA document to such compliance through imposition of
mitigation measures and not, as here, simply discuss purportedly applicable
"regulations." (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015)
234 Cal.AppAth 214, 243) Moreover, the agency must satisfy its duty of informed
decision-making engaging in a site-specific analysis of the potential impacts and the
effect of regulatory compliance. (Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department
of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.AppAth 1.) The IS/MND includes no such discussion
here.s
These same defects apply equally to the IS/MND's analysis of Impacts 3.8(a — b)
at pages 36 through 38.
10-13
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 14 of 15
The ISlMND also fails to include a meaningful cumulative analysis of this
important issue. (IS/MITI), p. 64). CEQA requires analysis of "[t]he cumulative impact
from several projects" which "can result from individually minor but collectively
significant projects taking place over a period of time." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15355,
15130.) "Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital `because the full environmental
impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important
environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs
incrementally from a variety of small sources." (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v.
City of Bakersfield (20 04) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214.)
While the IS/MND purports to address cumulative impacts, the discussion does
not even attempt to identify other projects that involve the handling or transport of
hazardous materials in the relevant geographic area. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15130.)
Nor does the IS/MND attempt to identify the number of other delivery trucks transporting
hazardous materials along South McDowell Boulevard, a City designated truck haul
route.
In summary, the IS/MIND is fatally flawed as an informational document.
Moreover, substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the Project will
have significant impacts requiring preparation of an EIR before the Project can be
approved.
IV. CONCLUSION
We urge the Council to weigh seriously the concerns voiced herein. The General
Plan requires the City to consider whether it should "avoid potential health impacts" to
residents by denying new emissions sources like the Project. Similarly the City's IZO
section 1.040 grants the Council broad discretion to deny the Project based on the general
welfare. The Project will unquestionably increase cancer to the City's residents, workers
and even children. The Council should rely on land use guidance from those with more
expertise in this field and deny the Project in order to protect its citizens from
unnecessary health risks.
Even if the Council is not inclined to deny the underlying Project entitlements, the
facts and law are clear that the Project cannot be approved until an EIR is prepared that
adequately analyzes and discloses the Project's environmental impacts.
10-14
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Planning Division, City of Petaluma
September 14, 2018
Page 15 of 15
Thank you for your consideration of the above matters.
Very truly yours,
SOLURI MESERVE
A Law Corporation
- f
Patrick M. Soluri
PS/mre
cc: Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner, City of Petaluma Planning Division
(oervin@m-group.us)
Mayor David Glass (mayordavidglass@gmail.com)
Vice Mayor Mike Healy (mthealy@sbcglobal.net)
Chris Albertson, Council Member, (councilman.albertson@gmail.com )
Teresa Barrett, Council Member, (teresa4petaluma@comcast.net)
Gabe Kearney, Council Member, (councilmemberkeatney@me.com)
Dave King, Council Member, (davekingpcc@gmail.com)
Kathy Miller, Council Member,(kathleencmilleroffice@gmail.com)
Claire Cooper, City Clerk (ccooper@ci.petaluma.ca.us)
Eric W. Danly, City Attorney (attorney@ci.petaluma.ca.us)
Attachments:
Exhibit A, Wymer Report
Exhibit B, Excerpts from the CARB Handbook
Exhibit C, Proposed findings denying the Project
Exhibit D, US EPA CO2 Calculator for 8,500,000 gallons of gasoline
Exhibit E, Excerpts from the Sonoma County Traffic Study Guidelines
Exhibit F, May 24, 2018 Petaluma360.com article, "After Petaluma highway
funding, focus shifts to Rainier."
10-15
10-16
Larry Wymer
& Associates
�i Traffic Engineering
September 14, 2018
Patrick Soluri,
RE: Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center Traffic Study Review
P.O. Box 16121 Seattle, WA 98116
Phone: (916) 768-6158
E -Mail: Larry@LariyWymerTE.com
Website: LarryWymerTE.com
This letter summarizes the professional opinions of Larry Wymer, licensed California Traffic Engineer (#1955) for:
Project: Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center
Address: 335 S. McDowell Blvd, Washington Square, Petaluma, CA
Location: Northwest corner of McDowell Blvd. & Maria Dr. (Southeast corner of Washington Square Shopping Center)
Size: 0.75 acres (32,450 ft2)
Use: 16 fuel pump gas station
3,180 sf mini -mart
Access: 1 -way inbound only driveway from E -W shopping center driving corridor between Washington St. and Maria Dr.
1 -way exit only — right turn only at SE corner of project onto SB Maria Dr. towards McDowell Blvd. intersection.
1 -way exit only — at SW corner of project onto internal driving aisles within shopping center connecting to all external
roadways including McDowell Blvd., Washington St., and Maria Dr.
Docs: (1) Traffic Study for Safeway Fuel Center at Washington Square — TJKM Transportation Consultants (8/13/2014)
(2) Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center Traffic Impact Study Update — CHS Consulting Group (3/16/2018)
(3) CEQA Environmental Checldist & Initial Study IS/MND — City of Petaluma (3/29/2018)
Following my review of these documents, I noted errors and/or omissions which should be revisited to correct the
traffic study and IS/MND. My review and opinions are included below.
Trip Generation / Trip Distribution / Trip Assignment
The peak hour project trip generation is reported as 210 AM pk hr trips, 276 PM pk hr trips, and 336 Saturday pk hr
trips (between 11 am and 1 pm), split evenly (50%/50%) between inbound and outbound trips. Trip generation
calculations were conservative and greater than those established from ITE Trip Generation rates.
Trip distribution gateway volumes are listed within the 2014 Traffic Study's "Project Trip Distribution and
Assignment" section (pg 14) and depicted graphically within the 2014 Traffic Study's Figure 4 (pg 16).
Trip Distribution COMMENTS
The following errors/conflicts were noted when reviewing and comparing the trip distribution list on pg 14 with trip
distribution numbers depicted on Figure 4:
1) US -101 Trip Distribution -The list on pg 14 contains the following two errors (Capitalization of NORTH and
SOUTH added for emphasis):
O "5% will travel to/from the NORTH via US 101 SOUTHbound ramps"
(Figure 4 shows 5% will travel to/from the SOUTH via the Southbound US -101 on-ramp & Northbound
US -101 off -ramp)
® "15% will travel to/from the SOUTH via US 101 NORTHbound ramps"
(Figure 4 shows 15% will travel to/from the NORTH via the two Northbound US -101 on -ramps &
Southbound US -101 off -ramp)
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center (September 14, 2018)
Trac Study/IS- ND Review Page -1-
10-17
If project trip distribution is 5% to/from the north/15% to/from the south as listed on pg 14 of the Traffic Study,
the traffic analysis will need to be revised
2) Lakeville St. vs. Kenilworth Dr. Trip Distribution - The list on pg 14 cites the following trip assignment:
• "10 percent will travel to/from the west via Washington Street"
• "3 percent will travel to/from the west via Lakeville Street neighborhood"
Figure 4 contradicts this trip distribution somewhat by assigning the 3% to Kenilworth Dr. (which is located less
than 1/4 mile west of US -101), and not Lakeville Street (which is located 3/ mile west of US -101). It is noted that
the alternative trip distribution would not alter the traffic analysis since the variation is west of the westernmost
study intersection.
3) Sonoma Mountain Pkwy vs. Maria Dr. Trip Distribution - The list on pg 14 cites the following trip assignment:
"15 percent "to/from the north via Sonoma Mountain Parkway" - which would result in the following trip
assignments:
• Outbound— 40% of project traffic — EB Washington St. between Maria Dr. & Sonoma Mountain Pkwy.
• Outbound— 15% of project traffic — EB left from EB Washington St. to NB Sonoma Mountain Pkwy.
• Inbound — 40% of project traffic — WB Washington St. between Sonoma Mountain Pkwy & Maria Dr.
• Inbound — 15% of project traffic — SB left from SB Sonoma Mountain Pkwy. to WB Washington St
Figure 4 contradicts this trip distribution by assigning the 15% to/from Maria Dr. north of Washington St., NOT
Sonoma Mountain Pkwy. If it is assumed NO traffic is assigned "to/from the north via Sonoma Mountain
Parkway", but instead assigned "to/from the north via Maria Dr. as shown in Figure 4, this would result in the
following trip assignments:
• Outbound — 156/o of project traffic — NB Maria Dr. north of Washington St.
• Outbound — 25% of project traffic — EB Washington St. between Maria Dr. & Sonoma Mountain Pkwy.
(with NO traffic continuing to Sonoma Mountain Pkwy.)
• Inbound — 15% of project traffic — SB Maria Dr, north of Washington St
• Inbound — 25% of project traffic — WB Washington St. between Sonoma Mountain Pkwy. & Maria Dr.
If 15% of project trips are distributed to Sonoma Mountain Pkwy. (north of Washington St.) as listed on pg 14 of
the 2014 Traffic Study instead of to Maria Drive (north of Washington St), the traffic analysis will need to be
revised to correct the trip assignment(s) along Maria Dr. north of Washington Pkwy., and Sonoma Mountain
Pkwy north of Washington Pkwy.
Trip Assignment Assumptions from 2014 Traffic Study & Initial Study IS/MND
It is noted that the Initial Study IS/MND ("Existing Plus Project Condition" section - pg 53) describes project
driveway access and trip assignment assumptions as follows:
"In order to maintain a conservative analysis all project traffic is assumed to enter and exit the
project site via the two-way Maria Drive site driveway located closest to the fuel center. This
assumption represents an anticipated worst-case scenario level of service since there are several
other access driveways by which to enter the Shopping Center. "
Aspects of this methodology are repeated, and expanded upon within the following two sections of the 2014 Traffic
Study:
(Level of Service Analysis - pg 14-15):
"For the purpose of maintaining a conservative traffic analysis, all project traffic is assumed to
enter and exit the project site via the two-way Maria Drive site driveway located closest to the
fuel center to estimate worst-case level of service. This assumption is considered conservative
(worst-case) since in reality trips would distribute to multiple existing driveways at the shopping
center. TJKM expects that approximately 40 percent of the project peak hour trips (55 inbound
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center (September 14, 2018)
Traffic Stud}/IS-MND Review Page -2-
10-18
and 55 outbound trips) would access via Maria Drive, 30 percent (42 inbound and 42 outbound
trips) would access via McDowell Boulevard and 30 percent (42 inbound and 42 outbound trips)
would access via Washington Street. "
(Project Access and Circulation - Project Access - pg 18):
Access to the project site is via any of the two project driveways located along Maria Drive, two
driveways along McDowell Boulevard and the farthest driveway access via Washington Street.
To access the fuel center area, most patrons are expected to enter from either Maria Drive or
McDowell Boulevard. "
E -W
E
Main E -W
Internal
2 Aisle F
Driving Aisle D
to/from Entrance
Driveway Main E -W
yob► /16f/ ••Male E-W(Aisle E - Internal G) Aisle' Internal
�y`1` J
DrivingtottrOm le C Fuel P p Aisle O
McDowell Fuel Pumps
Intersection #3 Blvd.
m Street/McDowell Blvd.
Exit
DriveBwa 1
Legend
® Inbound
NOW, Outbound
K
+„ V+lumes
ir -i �—,S: -i n
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center
D-gjft StudylIS-MND Review
Exit
Driveway 19�7J�`�
A
1
m
J/B9J�t1 ,`
Intersection 1t6
Maria DrivelProlect Driveway
NOTE:
Project Volumes all shown toffrom
one driveway (aka Intersection #6)
but will actually be assigned to many
(including "right turn only" to Maria Dr.)
Intersection 115
McDowell Blvd./Marla Drive
(September 14, 2018)
Page -3-
10-19
Trip Assignment Schematic (Figure A) COMMENTS
It is noted within the excerpts above that trip assignments were simplified, however a review of these assignments
shodws omissions and/or error.
A review of the location of project driveways and corresponding ingress/egress turn restrictions, trip distribution, and
trip assignment reveals that some project traffic is not assigned to study roadways, and study intersection turning
movements, which would in fact contain added project traffic volumes. Figure A provides a schematic showing
project driveway locations, inbound and outbound movements along study roadways, and intersection turning
movements. The figure contains the following information:
• Snippets of added peak hour `project only' intersection turning volumes at study intersections 43, 44,
#5, and #6 (from Figure 4 of the 2014 Traffic Study)
• A schematic showing: (a) the main study roadways surrounding the Washington Square Shopping
Center; (b) shopping center driving aisles which connect the study roadways to the Safeway Fuel
Center project site, and (c) the 3 driveways (1 entrance driveway and 2 exit driveways) that provide
direct access to the Safeway Fuel Center project site.
• Colored directional arrows showing where inbound (blue) and outbound (red) project volumes could
be expected to travel to/from the project site.
• Red circles showing which movements did not have project traffic assigned, which should have had
some project traffic assigned.
Trip Assignment COMMENT
A review of Figure A shows that the 2014 Traffic Study did not assign any project traffic volumes to the following
roadway segments and intersection turning movements where some project traffic should have been assigned:
• Washington St. between McDowell Blvd. and Maria Dr. (between Intersection #3 & 44)
• NB right turn from McDowell Rd. to EB Washington St. (Intersection 43)
• EB left turn from Washington St. to SB Maria Dr. (Intersection #4)
• SB right turn from Maria Dr, to WB Washington St. (Intersection #4)
• EB Washington St. thru at Maria Dr. (Intersection #4)
• WB Washington St. thru at Maria Dr. (Intersection #4)
To provide a more realistic analysis of Washington St. intersections at McDowell Blvd. and Maria Dr., trip
assignments should be revised to add vehicles to critical movements at these intersections which the current analysis
does not provide, but which would almost certainly result in some worsened levels of service than those presented
within the 2 previous traffic studies.
At the very least, a couple of sensitivity analyses should be conducted to establish and further analyze
potential significant impacts by assigning:
(1) Some (or all) project trips through the Washington St./McDowell Blvd. intersection, including
inbound and outbound left turns;
(2) All project trips through the Washington St./Maria Dr. intersection., including inbound/outbound left
turns, and inbound and outbound through movements along Washington St. which load onto
Washington Street either to/from McDowell Blvd. &/or to/from the Washington Square Shopping
Center mid -block driveway.
Study Intersections
The 2014 Traffic Study establishes the study intersections for the project within the "Intersection Analysis
Methodology - Study Intersections" section (pg 7):
"The traffic iinpact study focused on six study intersections that the proposed project may
potentially impact based on consultation with City engineering staff. "
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center (September 14, 2018)
Ti•af c StrdylS-ALVD Reriew Page -4-
10-20
It is noted above that either 25% or 40% of project traffic continues to/from the east along Washington St. between
Maria Dr. and Sonoma Mountain Pkwy., which would result in the following peak hour project volumes along this
section of roadway, with all (or most) continuing through the Washington St./ Sonoma Mountain Pkwy.
AM peak hour = 84 trips
PM peak hour = 111 trips
Sat peak hour= 135 trips
These peak hour project volumes comprise the following percentage ranges of total existing peak hour volumes along
Washington St. between Maria Dr, and Sonoma Mountain Pkwy., depending on what percentage of project volumes
are assigned along Washington St. east of Maria Dr.:
• 1.4%-1.8% (with 25% of project volumes east or Maria Dr.)
• 3.5%-4.5% (with 40% of project volumes castor Maria Dr.)
Study Intersections COMMENT
Depending on a couple of outstanding questions, there is a valid argument that the intersection of Washington
St./Sonoma Mountain Pkwy. should have been included as a study intersection:
1. If 15% of total project trip distribution was incorrectly assigned to Maria Dr. (north of Washington St.) when
it should have been assigned to Sonoma Mountain Pkwy. (north of Washington St.), a total of 40% of project
traffic would have been distributed through this signalized intersection, with 10% or 15% distributed along
each of the 3 inbound and 3 outbound turning movements within the intersection, (15% to/from north along
Sonoma Mountain Pkwy., 15% to/from east along Washington St., and 10% to/from south along Ely Blvd.)
The addition of project volumes along critical left turn and thru movements would potentially worsen levels
of service to unacceptable conditions, warranting an analysis. Based on my personal experience as a traffic
engineer, standard practice is to include study intersections that experience project trips of this magnitude.
2. If 15% of total project trip distribution was correctly assigned to Maria Dr. (north of Washington St.) and the
list of trip distribution assignments on pg 14 of the 2014 Traffic Study was a typo, the fact would remain that
25% of project traffic would still been channeled through the Washington Blvd./ Sonoma Mountain Pkwy.
intersection, with distributions to all legs of the intersection. Based on my personal experience as a traffic
engineer, standard practice might require study intersections experience project trips of this magnitude.
Level of Service Threshold Criteria & General Plan Policies
The 2014 Traffic Study establishes the `Level of Service Threshold Criteria' as follows (pg 7):
"All study intersections fall within City of Petaluma jurisdiction. The Petaluma General Plan
2025 has adopted a standard of LOS D as the minimum acceptable operations for City streets.
Therefore, this LOS D threshold was applied to all study intersections, including the US 101 /
Washington Street ramp intersections. Additional General Plan policies with respect to mobility
are described below. "
The 2014 Traffic Study establishes the `General Plan Policies' as follows (pg 7):
"The City of Petaluma General Plan Policies for mobility are specified as follows: 5-P-10:
Maintain an intersection level of service (LOS) standard for motor vehicle circulation that
ensures efficient traffic flow and supports multi -modal mobility goals. LOS should be maintained
at level D or better for motor vehicles due to traffic firom any development project. "
The updated 2018 Traffic Study establishes the following (pg 4):
"The Project's study intersections fall within City of Petaluma jurisdiction, with the exception of
the US 101 Northbound and Southbound ramp intersections, which are under Caltrans
jurisdiction. The Petaluma General Plan 2025 has adopted a standard of LOS D as the minimum
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center (September 14, 2018)
Traffic Study/IS-MND Review Page -5-
10-21
acceptable operations for City streets, and signalized intersections that operate an LOS E under
existing conditions would result in a significant traffic impact if the addition of a new project
would cause LOS E to deteriorate to LOS F. The Project's 2014 TIS applied these LOS
thresholds to all study intersections, as appropriate. "
Level of Service Threshold Criteria & General Plan Policies COMMENT
As noted above, the 2014 Traffic Study assumed that (1) "All study intersections fall within City of Petaluma
jurisdiction", (2) "LOS D [is] the minimum acceptable operations for City streets'; (3) "LOS D threshold was
applied to all study intersections, including the US 101/Washington Street ramp intersections." Whereas the 2014
Traffic Study incorrectly stated that "all study intersections fall within City of Petaluma jurisdiction", the updated
2018 Traffic Study correctly acknowledges that "the US 101 Northbound and Southbound ramp intersections ... are
under Caltrans jurisdiction."
Both traffic studies fail to establish and use Caltrans level of service criteria for the two US -101 ramp intersections
under their jurisdiction.
Caltrans level of service criteria will be established within (1) Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies" (December 2002); with additional clarification within (2) the "Transportation Concept Reports" (TCR) for
the specific Caltrans facility (i.e. US -101 within Sonoma County).
Page 1 of Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" states the following:
"WHEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS NEEDED - The level of service (LOS) for operating
State highway facilities is based upon measures of effectiveness (MOEs). These MOEs (see
Appendix "C-2") describe the measures best suited for analyzing State highway facilities (i.e.,
freeway segments, signalized intersections, on- or off -ramps, etc.). Caltrans endeavors to
maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" (See Appendix "C-3") on
State highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible
and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target
LOS. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS,
the existing MOE should be maintained."
Per Caltrans' TIS guidelines, the LOS standard for the US -101 ramp intersections are "to maintain a target LOS at
the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D". The traffic study should be to establish Caltrans' LOS threshold for
the US -101 ramp intersections at Washington St., and analyzed accordingly if different than the LOS "D" threshold
assumed.
Washington St./McDowell Blvd. LOS Analysis
Both the original 2014 and updated 2018 Traffic Studies established LOS E for the study intersection of Washington
St./McDowell Blvd. for the following 2 scenarios:
• Existing plus Approved (Background) Conditions - Unacceptable LOS E during PM peak hour
• Background plus Project Conditions -Unacceptable LOSE during PM peak hour
Under Background plus Project Conditions, the 2014 Traffic Study concluded that LOS "E" was not significant with
the following comment (pgs 26 & 32):
"Under Background plus Project Conditions, the LOS E condition at the Washington Street /
McDowell Boulevard intersection is expected to remain, while the remaining study intersections
are expected to remain operating acceptably. However, the Washington Street / McDowell
Boulevard intersection is expected to have only four seconds increase in average delay, which in
consultation with City staff was determined not to be significant consistent with TJKM
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center (September 14, 2018)
Trac Study/IS-MND Review Page -6-
10-22
experience in multiple Bay Area jurisdictions. Therefore, the LOS E condition is not considered
to be an adverse project -related impact. "
The revised operations analysis within the updated 2018 Traffic Study noted even higher increases in average delays
at this intersection would increase to 11 seconds (pgs 9-11):
"Under the updated [PMpeak hour] Background (Existing plus Approved) Conditions scenario ...
The LOS E condition at the intersection of McDowell Boulevard and Washington Street would
remain, with an approximately 10 second increase in average delay.... These increases in
intersection delay are attributable to the travel lane reconfigurations since 2014 at Project
intersections (see Section 2) and the added vehicle trips from approved projects in the City of
Petaluma. Compared to the Project's 2014 TIS analysis, the Project's updated LOS analysis results
show no new unacceptable conditions under the Background (Existing plus Approved) Conditions
scenario. "
"Under the updated [PMpeak hour] Background Plus Project Conditions scenario ... The LOS E
condition at the intersection of McDowell Boulevard and Washington Street would remain, with an
eight second increase in average delay compared to 2014 results.... These increases in intersection
delay are attributable to the travel lane reconfigurations (see Section 2) and the added vehicle trips
from approved projects in the City of Petaluma. Compared to the Project's 2014 TIS analysis, the
Project's updated LOS analysis results show no new unacceptable conditions under the Background
plus Project Conditions scenario. "
Washington St./McDowell Blvd. COMMENT
Both the 2014 and 2018 traffic studies show this intersection operating at LOS E for both no project and plus project
conditions for near term conditions. The 2014 Traffic Study shows that during the PM peak hour this intersection
will experience a 4 second increase in average delay (64.2-60.2=4.0 sec) between "Existing plus Approved
(Background) Conditions" and `Background (Existing plus Approved) plus Project Conditions". However, the
updated 2018 Traffic Study shows that this increase is narrowed to 1.5 seconds (72.2-70.7 sec) between `Background
(Existing plus Approved) Conditions" and `Background Plus Project Conditions". The updated 2018 Traffic Study
also notes that these increases from the 2014 and 2018 reports result in the following comparative delays/increases
(scenario names per updated 2018 Traffic Study):
As was established above, this intersection should be reanalyzed with more realistic trip assignment to/from the
project site with more trips to/from the Washington St./Maria Dr. intersection routed through the Washington
St./McDowell Blvd. intersection instead of directly to/from Maria Dr. driveways These additional trips, which will
include critical left turn movement from Washington St. to McDowell Blvd., will likely increase levels of service
delays more, and provide for a more realistic analysis.
Cumulative Transportation Improvements
Rainer Avenue Crosstown Connector / Rainier Avenue Interchange Project
The 2014 Traffic Study (pg 28) establishes the following assumptions regarding the proposed project to (1) extend
Rainer Avenue westward 0.65 miles from McDowell Blvd. to Petaluma Blvd, passing beneath US -101 via an
underpass; (2) build a new US -101 freeway interchange with the Rainer Avenue Crosstown Connector.
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center (September 14, 2018)
Traffic Stud}/IS-MND Review Page -7-
10-23
"As per the approved City of Petaluma General Plan, the Rainier Avenue Interchange Project would
be in place by 2025. It would provide an additional east -west cross-town connection between
western and eastern Petaluma and an additional, mid -city connection to the US 101 freeway. The
project is expected to shy local traffic patterns within the study area while alleviating traffic
congestion along the East Washington Street and Old Redwood Highway corridors and at their
respective US 101 interchanges. "
SUMMARY OF OPINIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Trip Distribution — Correct following errors:
a. trip distribution assignments to US -101 (NOTE: If project trip distribution is 5% to/from the north/15%
to/from the south as listed on pg 14 of the Traffic Study, the traffic analysis will need to be revised).
b. trip distribution assignments along Lakeville St. vs. Kenilworth Dr.
c. trip distribution assignments along Maria Dr. (north of Washington St.) vs. Sonoma Mountain Pkwy.
(north of Washington St.). (NOTE: If 15% of project trips are distributed to Sonoma Mountain Pkwy.
(north of Washington St.) as listed on pg 14 of the 2014 Traffic Study instead of to Maria Drive (north of
Washington St), the traffic analysis will need to be revised)
2) Trip AssiLinment — To provide a more realistic analysis of Washington St. intersections at McDowell Blvd. and
Maria Dr., revise trip assignment to add vehicles to critical movements at these intersections which the current
analysis does not provide, but which would almost certainly result in some worsened levels of service than those
presented within the 2 previous traffic studies. These revised project trip assignments would add project volumes
along internal roadways, project driveway, and study roadways as noted within Figure A, resulting in added
project volumes along the following roadway segments and intersections turning movements (some of which are
critical movements):
• Washington St. between McDowell Blvd. and Maria Dr. (between Intersection #3 & #4)
• NB right turn from McDowell Rd. to EB Washington St. (Intersection #3)
• EB left turn from Washington St. to NB Maria Dr. (Intersection #4)
• SB right turn from Maria Dr, to WB Washington St. (Intersection #4)
• EB Washington St. thru at Maria Dr. (Intersection #4)
• WB Washington St. thru at Maria Dr. (Intersection #4)
At the very least, a sensitivity analyses should be conducted to establish and further analyze potential significant
impacts by assigning all trips via two additional trip assignment scenarios:
(1) some (or all) project trips through the Washington St./McDowell Blvd. intersection, including inbound
and outbound left turns; and
(2) all project trips through the Washington St./Maria Dr. intersection., including inbound/outbound left
turns, and inbound and outbound through movements along Washington St. which load onto Washington
Street either to/from McDowell Blvd. &/or the Washington Square Shopping Center mid -block
driveway.
3) Study Intersections — Add Washington Blvd/Sonoma Mountain Pkwy, to list of study intersections if 40% of
project traffic continues east along Washington St. past Maria Dr. toward the intersection of Washington St.
/Sonoma Mountain Pkwy., with 15% continuing to/from Sonoma Mountain Pkwy. north of Washington St.
Consider adding intersection if only 25% of project traffic continues east along Washington St. past Maria Dr.
toward the intersection of Washington St./Sonoma Mountain Pkwy.
4) LOS E at Washington St./McDowell Blvd. — As noted above, to provide a more realistic analysis of the
Washington St./McDowell Blvd. intersection, trip assignments should be revised to add vehicles to critical
movements at this intersection which the current analysis does not provide, but which would exist in reality and
almost certainly result in worsened LOS E at this intersection, impacts which should be quantified to see if the
impacts are significant.
Petahnna Safeway Fuel Center (September 14, 2018)
Traffic Siudyll MND Review Page -8-
10-24
5) Caltrans US -101 Ramp Intersections at Washington St. — LOS Criteria —The traffic study should be revised
to establish Caltrans' LOS threshold for the US -101 ramp intersections at Washington St., and analyzed
accordingly if different than the LOS "D" threshold assumed.
CONCLUSION
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
pflyl�
Larry Wymer, CA T.E. 1955
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center (September 19, 2018)
Traffic Study/IS-bflVD Review Page -9-
10-25
J
Larry
Wymer
P.O. Box 161 Lincoln, CA 95648
�'\f ✓fit ��" P.O. Box 16121 Seattle, WA 98116
& Associates Phone: (916) 768-6158
E-Mail: Larry@LarryWymerTE.com
■ r�C Enlneer�n Website: LarryWymerTE.com
Larry Wymer & Associates Traffic Engineering provides traffic/transportation engineering and
transportation planning consulting services for development projects, public agencies, and others requiring solutions
to their transportation challenges.
Owner Larry Wymer is a licensed traffic engineer with three decades of diverse experience covering a full range of
traffic and transportation issues including completion of hundreds of letter reports, and over 100 full scale traffic impact
study reports for developments ranging from small single -use developments to large multi -use developments having
regional impact. His experience includes working with private clients, as well as public sector clients throughout
California (including Caltrans, numerous Cities and Counties throughout California, and California tribal
governments), as well as Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Florida, and other areas around the country. This experience
with both the private and public sectors, and the establishment of successful, positive, working relationships with both
private entities and public agency officials, helps to assure that fair and equitable traffic mitigation measures will be
identified and/or negotiated when project induced traffic impacts are identified within our client's traffic impact
studies. Mr. Wymer is known for his skillful report writing and strict attention to detail which assures that all traffic
studies conform to NEPA/CEQA, State (i.e. Caltrans), and local agency standards, and include well researched,
thorough, and detailed analysis which meet the expectation of reviewing agencies.
In addition to his involvement in typical transportation engineering projects, Mr. Wymer is an experienced expert
witness in traffic engineering. His expertise includes three years of distinctive experience working with attorneys and
expert witnesses to analyze impacts, design conceptual mitigated alternative site designs, and formulate opinions for
use in depositions and expert witness testimony for over 100 properties undergoing eminent domain proceedings; as
well as investigating, analyzing, reconstructing, and formulating opinions for over 100 accidents.
SERVICES PROVIDED
■ Traffic/Transportation Engineering Consulting ■ Project Access & Internal Circulation Analysis
■ Transportation Planning Consulting ■ Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
■ Traffic Impact Studies ® Expert Witness
■ Circulation Elements ■ Traffic Data Collection
■ Traffic Operations and Flow Analysis ■ Speed Studies
LARRY C. WYMER
Curriculum Vitae
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
■ California T.E. (Traffic Engineer) #TR -1955, February 1998
e Florida P.E. (Professional Engineer) #47692, February 1994
® Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (P.T.O.E.) 42187, June 2007-2010
Qualifications - Larry Wymer & Associates Traffic Engineering Page -1-
10-26
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Institute of Transportation Engineers —Northern California Section
• President (2007-08)
• Section Administrator (2008-2012)
• Board Member (2004-2012) through positions as Treasurer (2004-05), Secretary (2005-06), Vice President
(2006-07), President (2007-08), Past President (2008-09), Section Administrator (2008-2012)
• Various Chairs: Career/Student Guidance Chairperson (1997-2000), Technical Chairperson (1999-2000),
Membership Chairperson (2004-2012), Archivist (2007-08).
Institute of Transportation Engineers — Western District (alta District 6 / Western United States)
• Candidate for ITE International Director representing Western District (2009-12 term)
• Candidate for ITE Western District Secretary -Treasurer (2008-09 term)
• Northern California Representative for Student Endowment Fund Grass Roots Committee (2007-2012)
• Vice Chair for Student Initiatives (2008-2010)
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
s Admiral Neighborhood Association (Admiral neighborhood in West Seattle district of Seattle, WA)
• President (Jan 2016 -present)
■ West Seattle Transportation Coalition (West Seattle district of Seattle, WA)
• Board Member / Program Manager / Treasurer (July 2015 -present)
■ Southwest District Council (Seattle, WA)
• Councilmember (Jan 2018 -present)
EDUCATION / HONORS
■ . University of Texas at Arlington. B.S. in Civil Engineering, 1989
• President -American Society of Civil Engineers Student Chapter
• Distinguished Senior Award -Civil Engineering Department
• Chi Epsilon National Civil Engineering Honor Society
• Omicron Delta Kappa National Leadership Honor Society
a Recipient of ITE District 6 (Western US District) Presidential Proclamation (2008)
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Owner, Lari y I yrner & Associates Traffic Engineering, Lincoln, CA & Seattle, WA
Jan 2009 —
Present
Manager, Traffic Engineering, Gene E Thorne and Associates, Cameron Park, CA
Oct 2006
—April 2009
Senior Transportation Engineer, Omni j1'leans, Roseville, CA
Feb 2004
— Sept 2006
Senior Transportation Engineer, Analytical Environmental SetTices, Sacramento, CA
July 2002
—Feb 2004
Manager, Traffic Engineering, David Evans & Associates, Roseville, CA
Aug 1999
— July\ 2002
Senior Transportation Engineer, CCSPlanning & Engineering, Sacramento, CA
May 1996
—Aug 1999
Transportation Engineer, Zook, Moore & Associate, West Palm Beach, FL
Dec 1992
—Nov 1995
Transportation Analyst, Kinnley-Horn & Associates, Orange, CA
Jan 1992 —Dec
1992
Associate Transportation Engineer, DKSAssociates, Oakland & Santa Ana, CA
Jun 1989 —Nov
1991
Colle.ge Internships
Transportation Technician, Texas Transportation Institute, Arlington, TX
Aug 1988
—May 1989
Environmental Technician, Environnnental Protection Agency, Dallas, TX
Sumner 1987
Qualifications - Lary Ilrymer &Associates Traffic Engineering Page -2-
10-27
RELEVANT SKILLS / REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
REPORT PREPARATION SKILLS
➢ Have established a reputation for preparing exceptional traffic studies. An environmental agency client who obtains
countless traffic hnpact studies for his EIR's calls mine `the best traffic studies I have ever seen'; and a consultant who
reviews all of the incoming traffic studies for a Northern California county has stated to me numerous times that those he
receives from me are the best of all those he receives and reviews, and are so thorough with few to no errors that they
require little to no review.
PROJECT MAMA GEMENT /PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
➢ Have served as project manager on hundreds of diverse types of transportation planning/traffic engineering projects.
Project management has included marketing to find and develop clients, identify their needs, and develop proposals to
solve those needs; develop, monitor, and troubleshoot project budgets and scheduling; identify and assign project staff and
resources; establish, attend, and/or oversee meetings with clients, stakeholders, public agency personnel, and the public;
quality control of deliverables; perform and/or oversee engineering analysis and technical work (including report text,
tables, figures, designs, report appendix, and overall appearance); oversee revisions and responses to comments; and
present and support findings in meetings.
➢ Have served as the on-call traffic engineer supporting the traffic engineering staff for the City of Sacramento (1996-99),
San Joaquin County (1999-2002), and Amador County (2006-08).
➢ Have organized, overseen; and seined on numerous Project Development Teams, Technical Advisory Committees, etc.
➢ Have presented and supported report findings in scores of City council hearings, County supervisor meetings, and other
public forums.
➢ Have served as a notable public representative of my profession through my work and leadership with the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. This includes running and campaigning for International office representing the Western ITE
District, running and campaigning for ITE Western District Secretary -Treasurer, and serving in two volunteer positions for
the ITE Western District. I was also actively involved with the ITE Northern California Section for over 12 years serving
in a total of ten different positions. I served on the ITE Northern California Board of Direction from 2004-2013, which
included a term as President (2007-08), and a 4 -year term as Section Administrator. I was also awarded an ITE Western
District Presidential Proclamation in 2009.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
➢ Project manager/engineer on over 100 traffic impact studies ranging from small single -use developments requiring simple
hand trip assignments and operations analysis to large regionally impacting multi -use developments requiring detailed
computer analysis. (NOTE.- See attached list of traffic impact studies)
➢ Project manager/engineer studying the feasibility of potential bypass alternatives for SR -49 traffic between I-80 and
North Auburn, as well as traffic continuing to/fi•om Nevada County. Analyzed existing travel patterns through use of
video surveys and an associated DMV license plate check, oversaw the development and calibration of a MIN UTP
traffic model to simulate these patterns, tested ten alternative routes and various improvement strategies to alleviate
congestion along the S.R. 49 corridor, and compared and contrasted the relative benefits and impacts associated with
each of these alternatives, particularly in terms of how it eases congestion and improves operation of SR -49. Was an
integral part of the SR -49 Bypass Study Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
➢ Project manager/engineer of transportation/circulation studies for various design options associated with development
of the Shingle Springs Rancheria in El Dorado County, a 160 acre site located adjacent to US -50 belonging to the
Shingle Springs Band of the Miwok Indians. The latest proposed project includes a 238,500 sq. ft. casino and 250 room
hotel with access via a new US -50 interchange. The various studies conformed to both CEQA/NEPA criteria and
included: (1) Shingle Springs Hotel -Casino Enviromnental Assessment (EA), (2) Shingle Springs Medical Clinic -
Residential EA, (3) Shingle Springs Interchange Project Study Report (PSR), and (4) Shingle Springs Interchange
Project EIWEA. Worked with El Dorado County traffic engineering personnel to establish analysis methodologies
consistent with the El Dorado County General Plan, including helping the County to establish a matrix which outlines
specific significant impact thresholds and criteria. The analysis investigated impacts to roadways and highways
throughout all of El Dorado County through use of the El Dorado County MINUTP traffic model. The analysis also
involved extensive research regarding recreational activity options within El Dorado County which resulted in an
Qualifications - Lany Wymer &Associates Traffic Engineering Page -3-
10-28
establishment of the likely distribution of recreation oriented trips to and from the hotel component of the project. Also
an active member of the Project Development Team (PDT).
➢ Project engineer for Project Study Reports (PSR) for I-80/Elkhorn-Greenback interchange in Sacramento and SR-
99/Hammer Lane and SR-99/Wilson Way interchanges in Stockton. Assisted with development of traffic forecasts,
performed traffic operation analyses for various alternatives and helped establish final recommended geometries.
➢ Project manager/engineer assisting the developer of the Pheasant Run development in the City of Dixon by providing
justification to the City of Dixon to change the parcel's zoning from light industrial to residential. Prepared a traffic
study using the City's MINUTP model. Presented Endings to the city council showing the lessened impacts which
would accompany the proposed change in zoning. The city council subsequently approved the project.
➢ Project engineer performing numerous screenline analyses of fatal impacts associated with the development of Indian
gaming casinos at various locations to help casino developers and tribes with the selection or elimination of potential
casino locations in and around the San Francisco Bay metropolitan area.
➢ Project engineer in responsible charge of preparing the fust circulation element for the newly incorporated City of Diamond
Bar, California. The project included development of a corresponding forecast transportation demand model using
EMME/2. Also organized and oversaw a license plate survey which quantified the through traffic along all of the city's
arterials. Also prepared circulation element updates for the cities of South Pasadena and Chino Hills.
➢ Project engineer performing analysis of added trips within various San Diego County sub -regions which would be
generated by new housing and commercial development associated with growth induced by development of the Jamul
Indian gaming casino. Trips were established based on the number of jobs which would be established and the number
of new homes which would be built to accommodate newly created jobs, with consideration for commutes occurring
between and within each sub -region.
➢ Project engineer involved in the development and post -processing of the Riverside -San Bernardino Regional
Transportation Model (RIVSAN) for the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) using TRANPLAN.
➢ Assistant project manager/project engineer for initial stages of preparation of the S. San Diego County Impact Fee Study.
TRAFFICENGIAEERING
➢ Extensive experience analyzing intersection -and roadway operations using a variety of methodologies, software
applications, and traffic impact study guidelines. Operations analysis includes detailed methodologies requiring use of
TRAFFIX and HCM software; more simple critical movement analysis methodologies (i.e. Circular 212, CMA); and
straight volume -to -capacity analysis. Experience includes detailed research and surveys for purposes of collecting and
establishing existing, proposed and future year field conditions including traffic volumes, geometries, and signal
timings; supplemented as necessary by experienced engineering judgment to establish reasonable assumptions when
data is not available.
➢ Owned and operated business performing traffic data collection services, including peak hour intersection turning
movement counts. Organized and supervised data collection crews, summarized traffic data for clients.
➢ Project manager/engineer for Ridge Road speed study to analyze 85th percentile speeds and safety consideration for
establishment of a speed zone in the vicinity of the Jackson Rancheria, including testimony to Amador County Board
of Commissioners.
➢ Served as traffic engineering expert on civil engineering site development plans for two civil engineering firms (David
Evans and Associates, Gene E. Thorne and Associates) to establish proper selection and placement of traffic control
devices, and assure conformity of other traffic engineering elements.
➢ Project manager/engineer for traffic control analysis of Lincoln Boulevard/Wyandotte Avenue intersection in the City
of Oroville. Analyzed the feasibility of various traffic control measures to improve traffic operations at the intersection
including signalization, all -way stop, and a round -about, along with opinions of costs for each alternative.
➢ Project manager/engineer for traffic operations and capacity analysis of design alternatives for a new roundabout intersection
providing access to the new Grand Canyon Transit Center.
➢ Project engineer and assistant project manager for inventorying of City of Lodi's traffic control devices (signals, signing, and
striping) and development of a database for use in monitoring and scheduling maintenance.
➢ Project engineer in responsible charge of overseeing data collection and analysis of traffic related data for the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority's (CCTA) Traffic Service Objective (TSO) Monitoring Study. The study was the first detailed study
performed to gauge the degree to which the County's traffic goals were met as compared to specific TSO's developed eight years
earlier by CCTA, the five sub -County districts, Contra Costa County, Caltrans, BART and other local transit agencies, and the
20 incorporated cities within the County. Traffic Engineering analysis included level of service analysis for 120 intersection and
numerous roadways, travel time studies and vehicle occupancy studies along fi•eeways and dozens of major arterials, transit
Qualifications - Lane W neer & Associates Traffic Engineering Page -4-
10-29
ridership, park and ride lot utilization, reduction of accidents, and reduction of through truck traffic.
➢ Project engineer assisting in the redesign of Tropicana Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada to an 8 -lane facility by analyzing intersection
design alternatives, and providing support in the preparation of final intersection, signal, and roadway designs.
➢ Principal project engineer for a corridor traffic improvement study for Spring Mountain Road in Las Vegas, Nevada.
➢ Experience and classroom training in use of TSIS/CORSIM (including TRAF-NETSIM, FRESIM), with ability to construct
simulation models using ITRAF or write input code from scratch, and calibrate model with actual field conditions;
applications include use in analyzing vehicle progression, signal coordination, and alternatives testing.
➢ Developed an expertise with the history of the development of civil and traffic engineering standards. This expertise was
developed while employed with Zook, Moore and Associates whereby I researched, obtained and studied copies of old
AASHTO, MUTCD, ITE, etc. manuals from their inception.
➢ Have collected and analyzed accident records for hundreds of locations to establish high accident locations, develop safety
improvements, and perform cost -benefit analysis to help prioritize safety improvements.
➢ Project traffic engineer overseeing collection of forensic evidence, status of traffic control devices, etc. at accident locations
as soon as possible after incident at the request of public agencies, insurance companies, etc.
➢ Project engineer assisting public agencies with dozens of tort cases involving traffic control devices. Performed detailed
research to establish governing professional and legal standards at time of installation, and analyzed traffic control devices to
establish conformity to those governing standards.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPOR TA TION S YS TEMS (ITS)
➢ Project engineer involved in the traffic engineering element of the Long Beach -Los Angeles Metro Blue Line Light Rail
Transit Project. Field manager overseeing the bench and field testing and installation of modified local and central traffic
signal control and surveillance software for all 27 traffic signals within the City of Los Angeles. Worked hand-in-hand with
City of Los Angeles traffic engineering personnel to integrate system into City's ATSAC (Automated Traffic Surveillance
and Control) system at the City's ATSAC Operations Center. Continued to provide system fine tuning, modifications, and
on-call troubleshooting during actual operation of the system. Modified design specifications and prepared final as -built
functional specifications and users manuals for the software. Also assisted in the development of the automated traffic signal
testing programs created specifically for the project.
CAL TRANS INITIAL STUDIES
➢ Project manager/engineer on seven Initial Studies analyzing impacts associated with roadway and intersection improvements
along SR -16 associated with the expansion of the Cache Creek Casino in Yolo County. The first of seven Initial Studies
analyzed impacts associated with revised project access to the casino including a new signalized entrance, two new additional
access driveways, and the widening and realigning of SR -16 adjacent to the casino. The other six Initial Studies analyzed
impacts associated with improvements at six off-site intersections along SR -16 to accommodate increased traffic volumes
associated with the expansion. Also active member of Project Development Team (PDT), and participated in public meeting
in the affected community accepting comments on the first of the seven Initial Studies.
BICYCLE ROUTE STUDIES
➢ Completed the Safety and Transportation Analysis section ofthe City of Sacramento Bikeway Master Plan Update EIR which
addressed safety and traffic related impacts which would be associated with adoption of the proposed plan amendments
studied. Issues which were addressed included cyclist safety including shared use of roadways, potential conflicts with traffic,
adequacy of roadways to accommodate proposed bikeways, and impacts associated with barriers such as freeways, freeway
interchanges, rivers, railroad crossings, and major intersections. The analysis also addressed the consistency of the Bikeway
Master Plan Amendment with local and regional transportation plans and programs.
CONSTR UCTION TRAFFIC HANDLING
➢ Project engineer responsible for evaluating traffic impacts and preparing preliminary traffic handling strategies for SRCSD
pipeline construction projects along major arterials in Sacramento County including the 8 mile long Folsom 2 Interceptor and
the 34 mile long Northwest Interceptor.
➢ Project engineer responsible for performing field inspections and assisting in the preparation of PS&E for traffic handling,
construction area signing, and pavement delineation along the project corridor for the US -50 Storm Damage Repair Project
in Caltrans District 3.
SPECIAL EVENT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
➢ Project engineer responsible for aspects of traffic and parking for the first annual Wings over Stockton Air Show with an
attendance of over 100,000 people. Responsibilities included designing and overseeing creation and placement of signing
Qualifications - Lawry TYynier & Associates Traff c Engineering Page -5-
10-30
designating routes into and through the City of Stockton to off-site shuttle lots and on-site parking; design of on-site parking
including public parking, handicap, and various special pass lots; overseeing actual parking and traffic during the show
including coordinating the activities of approximately 250 volunteers and troubleshooting.
EMINENT DOMAIN/SITE DE VEL OPMENT & ANALYSIS
➢ Project engineer involved with analyzing the impacts to over 100 properties undergoing eminent domain proceedings for use in
expert witness testimony. Analysis of impacts and design of mitigating cures requires investigation and analysis of numerous
issues encompassing many disciplines of civil engineering in addition to traffic engineering, transportation planning, and
roadway design. Civil and traffic engineering issues which are typically addressed include site access and circulation, parking,
building setbacks and landscape buffers, site drainage, adjacent roadway design, conceptual site redesigns, and preparation of
construction cost estimates. Transportation planning issues include concurrency reviews and conceptual traffic impact analysis
for both vacant sites and fully developed sites with alternative land use concepts. Work with attorneys as well as marketing
experts, appraisers, contractors, and engineers acting as expert witnesses to help formulate final opinions and courtroom defense
tactics.
ACCIDENT STUDIES & ACCIDENT RECONSTR UCTION
➢ Project engineer involved with the investigation and reconstruction of over 100 accidents for use in expert witness testimony.
Analyze accident dynamics through hand calculations, graphical analysis, and the utilization of accident reconstruction computer
programs such as EDVAP. Investigate potential deficiencies in roadway designs and traffic control, Research accident histories
and conduct cost -benefit analysis for potential improvements at high accident risk locations. Work with attorneys and engineer
acting as expert witness to help formulate final opinions and courtroom defense tactics.
EXPERT WITNESS
➢ Served as expert witness providing analysis, establishment of expert opinions, deposition testimony, and ultimately expert
witness testimony at trial for an accident case between a vehicle and bicycle within the vicinity of a roadway construction project.
Opinions considered the circumstances of the accident; applicable vehicle codes; and applicable federal, state, county, and city
standards for traffic control and construction zones.
OFFICER USINESS MANAGEMENT
➢ Owner of Larry Wymer & Associates Traffic Engineering (2009 -present).
➢ Developed and managed Transportation Engineering Department at Gene E. Thorne & Associates in Cameron Park (2006-2009).
➢ Managed newly established Transportation Engineering Department of David Evans & Associates' Roseville office (2000-2002).
➢ Served as interim office manager of CCS Planning and Engineering's Sacramento office during the summer of 1997.
➢ Former licensed irrigator in Texas - Owner and operator of Forever Green Lawn Irrigation (June 1986 - June 1989) and Co -
Operations Manager/Salesman at Sprinkler Engineering Corporation (Feb. 1982 -June 1986).
Qualifications - Lany ii'ymer & Associates Trac Engineering Page -6-
10-31
SELECTED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES
➢ Karuk Tribes Fee -to -Trust Residential Developments (Siskiyou County) — 18 single family residences.
➢ Shingle Springs Fee -to -Trust #2 Residential Development (El Dorado County) — ten single family residences.
➢ Coos Bay Casino TIS (City of Coos Bay, OR) —15,194 sq. ft. casino.
➢ Martin Ranch East Development TIS (City of Oroville, CA) — 71 acres with 267 single family residences, 795
apartment units, and 40,000 ft' of nixed use retail and professional offices.
➢ Harrington Business Park TIS (El Dorado County) — 65.55 acre site with 35 industrial parcels totaling 501,507
sq. ft., and 7 commercial parcels totaling 212,370 sq. ft.
➢ Oak Highlands Subdivision TIS (El Dorado County) — 52.09 acre site with 220 single family residences, and 48
condominiums.
➢ Penobscot Ranch Subdivision TIS (El Dorado County) — 331.54 acre site with 33 single family residences.
➢ Diamond Plaza TIS (El Dorado County) —1.80 acre site with 10,389 sq. ft. retail, 5,603 sq. ft. office, 3,644 sq. ft.
restaurant, and 7 single family residential lots.
➢ Wild Chaparral Offices TIS (El Dorado County) — 2.00 acre site with 18,000 sq. ft. office.
➢ Ervin Ranch Subdivision TIS (El Dorado County) — 1,781.45 acre site with 181 single family residences, and
523.27 acre regional park.
➢ Harrington Business Park TIS (El Dorado County) — 65.55 acre site with 35 industrial parcels totaling 501,507
sq. ft., and 7 commercial parcels totaling 212,370 sq. ft.
➢ Oak Highlands Subdivision TIS (El Dorado County) — 52.09 acre site with 220 single family residences, and 48
condominiums.
➢ Piedmont Oaks Subdivision TIS (El Dorado County) — 46.26 acre site with 221 single family residences, 60
condominiums, and 22,542 sq. ft. retail.
➢ Shingle Creek Village TIS (El. Dorado County) — 21.47 acre senior housing development with single and multi
family residences, an assisted living facility, low income housing residences, and mixed retail/medical offices.
➢ Lakeside Avenue Sub -division TIS (City of Redding) — 25.9 acre site with 40 single family residences.
➢ Willows Wal-Mart Expansion TIS (City of Willows) — Replacement of existing Wal-Mart store with 187,348 sq.
ft. Wal-Mart Supercenter, plus 3,206 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with drive through, and gas station.
➢ Sierra College Center TIS (City of Rocklin) — 9.83 acre site with 77,588 sq. ft. of retail/office development.
➢ West Ridge MP TIS (City of Redding) - 400 acre site with 296 single family residences.
➢ Chico Wal-Mart South TIS (City of Chico) — Expansion of existing 97,124 sq. ft. Wal-Mart store to a 223,013
sq. ft. Wal-Mart Superstore, plus a 5,000 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with drive through, and gas station.
➢ Woodcreek Terraces TIS (City of Roseville) —10 acre site with 30,420 sq. ft. of mixed retail, and 53 single family
dwelling units.
➢ Tierra Oaks TIS (City of Redding) — Expansion of subdivision to include an additional 57 single family
residences.
➢ Oroville Retail NW ofSR-70 & Nelson TIS (City of Oroville) —15.56 acres with 271,117 sq. ft. of retail/business.
➢ Martin Ranch TIS (City of Oroville) — 70 acres with 238 single family residences.
➢ Fiddler Green TIS (Placer County) - 18.5 acre site 116 single family residences.
➢ Butte Woods 2 TIS (City of Oroville) - 55 acre site with 169 single family residences.
➢ Bella Ceda TIS (City of Oroville) - 24.1 acre site with 22,000 sq. ft. medical -dental office, 7,000 sq. ft. restaurant,
and 87 single family residences.
➢ Javani Estates TIS (Sacramento County) - 7.67 acre site with 74,527 sq. ft. of grocery/retail.
➢ Oroville Los Olivos & Ceraolo TIS (City of Oroville) - 35 acre site 132 single family residences.
➢ Mercy San Juan Medical Center TIS (Sacramento County) — Expansion of existing hospital with new 142,683
sq. ft. hospital tower, and a new 40,000 sq. ft. medical office building, as well as two new parking structures.
➢ Auburn Fitness TIS (Placer County) — 3.5 acre site with 35,000 sq. ft fitness center.
➢ West Tuolumne Rd Subdivision (City of Turlock) - 48 single family residences.
➢ California Waste Recovery & Transfer Station (City of Galt) — 5 acre waste/recycling transfer facility.
➢ Walnut Avenue Theater /Retail Project (City of Galt) — 15.5 acre site with 117,000 sq. ft. retail and 43,000 sq.
ft. (11 screen / 1,800 seat) movie theatre.
➢ Rocklin Pavilion (City of Rocklin) — 41.9 acre site with 415.1 sq. ft. of retail shopping center and 15,000 sq. ft.
Qualifications - Larry TYpner &-Associates Traffic Engineering Page -7-
10-32
office.
➢ Cache Creek Casino -Hotel (Yolo County) - 262,137 sq. ft. casino and 200 room hotel.
➢ Enterprise Rancheria Casino -Hotel (Yuba County) - 40 acre site including a 207,760 sq. ft. casino and 170 room
hotel.
➢ Auburn Rancheria School (Placer County) - 2.84 acre site including 19,354 sq. ft. facility with school,
administrative and tribal offices, health center, and assembly hall.
➢ Guenoc Winery (Lake and Napa County) - Expansion of irrigated winery vineyard, pasture, and forage cropland
from 1,819 acres to 6,847 acres.
➢ Lincoln Gateway Development (City of Lincoln) - Analysis of three alternatives for 18 acre site: (1) Proposed
Project: 52,500 sq. ft. retail, 5,000 sq, ft. restaurant, 12,500 sq. ft. fast food, 75,000 sq. ft. professional office,
25,000 sq. ft. medical office, and 150 affordable senior residences; (2) Reduced Commercial/Reduced Residential
Alternative: 39,375 sq. ft. retail, 12,500 sq. ft. fast food, 56,250 sq. ft. professional office, 18,750 sq. ft. medical
office, and 112 affordable senior residences; (3) Reduced Commercial/Increased Residential Alternative: 52,500
sq. ft. retail, 12,500 sq. ft. fast food, 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant, 44 single family residences, and 138 affordable senior
residences.
➢ Latrobe Self Storage (El Dorado County) - Rezone of 7.0 acre site from Research/Development to self -storage
facility containing 104,880 sq. ft. of enclosed storage space (containing up to 693 storage units), 121 RV parking
spaces, and a 4,052 sq. ft. manager office/residence.
➢ Horizon Church (San Joaquin County) - 10, 880 sq. ft. church.
➢ Timbisha Shoshone Casino Hotel (City of Hesperia) - 58.1 acres including 182,500 sq. ft. casino and 300 room
hotel.
➢ Ione Casino -Hotel (City of Plymouth) - 120,000 sq. ft. casino and 250 room hotel.
➢ Sacramento Mormon Temple (Sacramento County) - 47 acre site containing 17,500 sq. ft. the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter -Day Saints temple, a clothing and curriculum supply distribution center, and two caretakers'
residences.
➢ Evans Creek Storage (El Dorado County) - 122,000 sq. ft. of enclosed storage space consisting of up to 752
storage units.
➢ Travis Crossing Apartments (Solano County) - 9.52 acres with 181 apartments.
➢, All Outdoor Whitewater Rafting (El Dorado County) - Modification of existing 7.5 acre site to provide for
commercial whitewater rafting put -ins and take-outs at the site.
➢ Chapa De Indian Health Program Medical Center (City of Grass Valley) - 26,980 sq. ft. medical clinic.
➢ Shingle Springs Casino Hotel (El Dorado County) - 238,500 sq. ft. casino complex and 250 room hotel.
➢ Shingle Springs Clinic and Residential Development (El Dorado County) - 14,335 sq. ft. health clinic and six
single family residences.
➢ Paskenta (Rolling Hills) Reservation Casino (Tehama County) - 50 acres including 60,000 sq. ft. casino.
➢ Santa Rosa Rancheria Fire Station (King County) - Relocation of Kings County Fire Station #7 to Santa Rosa
Rancheria adjacent to The Palace Casino.
➢ Greenville Rancheria Casino (Tehama County) -Analysis of alternatives: (1) 120,000 sq. ft. casino; (2) 122,250
sq. ft. commercial development.
➢ MechoopdalChico Rancheria Casino (Butte County) - 7.58 acres with 41,600 sq. ft. casino.
➢ Sienna Vista PCD Development (City of Phoenix, Arizona) - 260.6 acre mixed use development including 805
single family residences, elementary school, convenience market/gas station, and 13.5 acre park.
➢ North Coast Business Park (Clatsop County, Oregon) - Master plan of 270 acre community with analysis of 2
alternatives: (1) 59.4 acres light industrial, 80 bed youth correctional facility and county animal shelter; (2) 59.4
acres light industrial, 326,700 sq. ft. shopping center, 170 county jail, 80 bed youth correctional facility county
animal shelter, and 2,100 student junior college.
➢ San Jose Continuation High School (City of San Jose)
➢ Coachella Augustine Rancheria Casino (Riverside County) - Two studies: (1) 162,500 sq. ft. Casino, 200,000
sq. ft. Retail, 400 room hotel, and an 18 hole golf course; (2) scaled down development with a 31,200 sq. ft. casino.
➢ Sybil Women's Prison (Los Angeles County) - renovation of 900 bed Sybil Brand Institute and Correction
Facility.
➢ 5 -Star Storage (El Dorado County) - 3.34 acres with 295 storage units.
Qualifications - Lany Wymer & Associates Traffic Engineering Page -8-
10-33
➢ Cameron Park Storage (El Dorado County) — 5.9 acres with 90,790 sq. ft. of enclosed storage and 105 RV parking
spaces.
➢ Rios Labor Farm Camp (San Joaquin County) — existing 80 acre farm with 75 proposed housing units to
accommodate approximately 400 employees/labor camp residents.
➢ Delta Church (San Joaquin County) — 37,580 sq. ft. church including a 499 seat worship area, education, and
administration facilities, as well as outdoor recreational facilities.
➢ Central Valley Baptist Church (San Joaquin County) — 10,000 sq. ft. church and 2,400 sq. ft. multi-purpose
building.
➢ Granade Automotive (El Dorado County) — 4,000 sq. ft. automotive repair garage.
➢ March Industrial Park (City of Roseville) — 5.25 acres of light industrial development.
➢ Arbor View Development (City of Roseville) — 6.8 acres with 29, 909 sq. ft. retail, 7,477 sq. ft. office, and 4,500
sq. ft. restaurant.
➢ Lincoln Terrace Apartments (City of Lincoln) — 5.1 acres with 80 apartments.
➢ 6th Street Extension (City of Lincoln) — Impacts associated with abandomnent of proposed westward extension
of 6' Street to accommodate 190 dwelling unit apartment complex.
➢ Warmington Homes (City of Auburn) — 16.98 acre rezone from commercial to residential to accommodate 83
single family residences.
➢ Forest Hill Retirement Community (Placer County) — 1700 unit active retiree community.
➢ Peabody Green Residential Development (City of Fairfield) — 17.9 acres with 146 single family residences.
➢ Pleasant Valley Executive Homes (City of Vacaville) — 629 acre single family residential development with
planning level analysis of 500 units vs. 700 units vs. 900 units vs. 1,200 units.
➢ Pheasant Run (City of Dixon) — 37 acre rezone from light industrial to 132 single family residences and 4.71
acres of highway commercial development.
➢ Second Street Senior Apartments (City of Dixon) — 3.8 acres containing 81 affordable senior apartments.
➢ Vineyard Springs Comprehensive Plan Update (Sacramento County) — 2,560 acre community with analysis of 2
alternatives: (1) 5,409 single family residences, 1,160 multi -family residences, 100,000 sq. ft. medical/dental
office, 100,000 sq. ft. general office, 2 elementary schools, 18 -hole golf course, 10 neighborhood parks; (2) 5,399
single family residences, 1,170 multi -family residences, 14 acres shopping center, 5 acres limited commercial,
146,000 sq. ft. medical/dental office, 146,000 sq. ft. general office, 2 elementary schools, 18 -hole golf course, 10
neighborhood parks.
➢ Arcadian Village Community Plan Amendment Update (Sacramento County) — 268 acres including 883 single
family residences, 300 multi -family residences, 22 acres commercial, 11 acres office, 1 elementary school, 3
neighborhood parks, 1 community park.
➢ Riverwalk General Plan/Community Plan Amendment (Sacramento County) — 677 acres including 305 single
family residences, 18 -hole golf course, 35 acre equestrian center, swim/tennis club.
➢ Deer Creek Hills Community Plan (Sacramento County) — 1,892 acre seniors community including 2,224 single
family residences, 775 multi -family residences, 150 dwelling unit congregate care facility, 50 bed nursing home,
80,000 sq. ft. shopping center, 30,000 sq. ft. medical/dental office, 18 -hole golf course.
➢ EmbassV Suites Waterfront Hotel (Downtown City of Sacramento) — 248 room hotel with meeting rooms,
restaurant, bar, retail.
➢ Capitol East End Office Development (Downtown City of Sacramento) — 1.45 million sq. ft. state office park
immediately east of State Capitol.
Qualifications - Larry Tpner & Associates Trac Engineering Page -9-
10-34
➢ Capitol Area Plan Update (Downtown City of Sacramento) - Master plan for downtown Sacramento including
development of 2.8 million sq. ft. of new office, 4,211 new parking spaces, 90,000 sq. ft. of new commercial, and
725 new residential dwelling units.
➢ Neikhborhood Preservation Transportation Plan (NPTP) Alternative Analysis (Downtown City of Sacramento)
- Recirculation of traffic following implementation of complex network of traffic calming measures.
➢ Coral Business Park (City of Sacramento) - 18 acres including 360,000 sq. ft. office park, gas station/restaurant,
2 restaurants, 240 room hotel.
➢ Farmer's Market IV (City of Sacramento) - 90,000 sq. ft. office.
➢ Calvary Christian School (City of Sacramento) - 300 student elementary school/day care center.
➢ Citgo 7-11 Convenience Store (City of Sacramento)
➢ Taco Bell at Folsom/53rd (City of Sacramento)
➢ South Sacramento Streams (City of Sacramento) - Area wide levee improvement project.
➢ Arch Roadlndustrial Site (San Joaquin County) -103 acres including 2,700,000 sq. ft. light industrial/warehouse.
➢ Woodson Road Trucking Facility (San Joaquin County) - 15 acre agricultural trucking facility.
➢ Morada Ranch (City of Stockton) - 265 acre rezone including 107 single family residences, 413,000 sq. ft.
commercial.
➢ University of the Pacific Campus Plan (City of Stockton) - Reconfiguration of campus roadways and circulation.
➢ Sacramento Valley (Bill Graham Presents) Amphitheater (Yuba County) - 20,000 seat concert amphitheater.
➢ City of Dixon Multi Modal Station (City of Dixon) - Commuter Rail Station.
➢ San Joaquin River Conservancy EIR (Fresno and Madera Counties) - Development of recreational facilities
along 45 miles of San Joaquin River.
➢ Pleasant Grove/Foothills Commercial Center - Woodcreek Plaza (City of Roseville) - 14 acres including 12,300
sq. ft. shopping center, 16,800 sq. ft. quality restaurant, 2,000 sq. ft. fast food restaurant, 8,400 sq. ft. medical
office, 8,400 sq. ft. general office, 7,800 sq. ft. day care center.
➢ Lifescan 2 Corporate Expansion (City of Milpitas) - 85,000 sq. ft. add on of administrative office to corporate
park.
➢ Peery Arrillika Business Park (City of Milpitas) - 144 acres including 1,945,000 sq. ft. of research and
development center, 150,000 sq. ft. general office, 110,000 sq. ft. commercial.
➢ Treefarm Condominium/Office Development (City of Los Altos) - Includes 90 multi -family residences, 72,000
sq. ft. office, 28,000 sq. ft. retail.
➢ Phil Lewis Property (West Palm Beach, Florida) - 100,000 sq. ft. light industrial development.
➢ Parkway Center (Downtown City of Las Vegas, Nevada) - 250 acres including 3 hotel/casinos (5,404,000 sq. ft.),
1,642,000 sq. ft. office, 1,690,000 sq. ft. County Administration Center, 773,000 sq. ft. commercial, 78,000 sq. ft.
fast food, 65,000 sq. ft. quality restaurant, 65,000 sq. ft. high turnover restaurant.
➢ The Orchards Development (City of Las Vegas, Nevada) - 432 acres including 1,750 single family residences,
1,250 multi -family residences, 11.3 acres commercial, 600 student elementary school, 15,400 sq. ft. church, 13
acre city park.
➢ Meadow Valley Development - North & South (Clark County, Nevada) - 75 acres including 294 single family
residences, 376 multi -family residences, 3,700 sq. ft. bank, and 58,000 sq. ft. commercial.
➢ Greenway Gardens Development (City of Henderson, Nevada) - 89 single family residences.
➢ Foothills North Development (City of Henderson, Nevada) - 43 acres including 205 single family residences.
➢ Wilson Tower Development (City of San Gabriel) - 25,000 sq. ft. 3 -story commercial/office building.
➢ Hunting -ton Plaza Development (City of South Pasadena) - 23,000 sq. ft. 2 -story commercial/office building.
➢ Guasti Community (City of Ontario/Ontario International Airport) - 74 acres including 2,038,000 sq. ft. of office,
422,000 sq. ft. of office/industrial, 3 hotels with 1,100 rooms and commercial uses.
➢ Beach Blvd./La Mirada Blvd. Shopping Center (City of Buena Park) - 11 acres including 53,000 sq. ft.
supermarket and 78,000 sq. ft. commercial.
➢ Villages of Palm Springs (City of Palm Springs) - 348 single family residences.
➢ Duoc Su Buddhist Temple (City of Garden Grove)
➢ San Juan Meadows Development (City of San Juan Capistrano) - Residential development with 18 -hole golf
course and driving range.
➢ Bixby Old Ranch Development (City of Seal Beach) - 231 acres including 168 single family residences, 125
Qualifications - Lamy ffyiner &Associates Traffic Engineering Page -10-
10-35
multi -family residences, 15,000 sq. ft. restaurant, 180 room hotel.
➢ Santa Monica Colleze Satellite Campus - Madison School Site (City of Santa Monica) —Use of old elementary
school to accommodate 8 college classrooms and a day care center for 24 children.
➢ South Gate New Elementary and High Schools (City of South Gate) — 100 classroom (2,700 student) high school
and 21 classroom (600 student) elementary school.
Qualifications - Lamy JYpner & Associates Traffic Engineering Page -11-
10-36
1 *4615011061
10-37
0 1 I 9 • •
WWW
O] T, I NJ I I Z I ffiva
IN I M 094M.1 U
O I
April 2005
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Air Resources Board
20
10-38
Executive Summary
The Air Resources Board's (ARB) primary goal in developing this document is to
provide information that will help keep California's children and other vulnerable
populations out of harm's way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution.
Recent air pollution studies have shown an association between respiratory and
other non -cancer health effects and proximity to high traffic roadways. Other
studies have shown that diesel exhaust and other cancer-causing chemicals
emitted from cars and trucks are responsible for much of the overall cancer risk
from airborne toxics in California. Also, ARB community health risk assessments
and regulatory programs have produced important air quality information about
certain types of facilities that should be considered when siting new residences,
schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities (i.e., sensitive land
uses). Sensitive land uses deserve special attention because children, pregnant
women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially
vulnerable to the non -cancer effects of air pollution. There is also substantial
evidence that children are more sensitive to cancer-causing chemicals.
Focusing attention on these siting situations is an important preventative action.
ARB and local air districts have comprehensive efforts underway to address new
and existing air pollution sources under their respective jurisdictions. The issue of
siting is a local government function. As more data on the connection between
proximity and health risk from air pollution become available,• it is essential that air
agencies share what we know with land use agencies. We hope this document
will serve that purpose.
The first section provides ARB recommendations regarding the siting of new
sensitive land uses near freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries
chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities. This list
consists of the air pollution sources that we have evaluated from the standpoint of
the proximity issue. It is based on available information and reflects ARB's
primary areas of jurisdiction — mobile sources and toxic air.contaminants. A key
air pollutant common to many of these sources is particulate matter from diesel
engines. Diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) is a carcinogen identified by ARB
as a toxic air contaminant and contributes to particulate pollution statewide.
Reducing diesel particulate emissions is one of ARB's highest public health
priorities and the focus of a comprehensive statewide control program that is
reducing diesel PM emissions each year. ARB's long-term goal is to reduce diesel
PM emissions 85% by 2020. However, cleaning up diesel engines will take time
as new engine standards phase in and programs to accelerate fleet turnover or
retrofit existing engines are implemented. Also, these efforts are reducing diesel
particulate emissions on a statewide basis, but do not yet capture every site where
diesel vehicles and engines may congregate. Because living or going to school
too close to such air pollution sources may increase both cancer and non -cancer
health risks, we are recommending that proximity be considered in the siting of
new sensitive land uses.
ES -1 . 10-39
Table 1-1
Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses
Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical
Facilities*
Source
Category
Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway,
High -Traffic
urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000
Roads
vehicles/day.
o Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a
distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per
day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration
Distribution
units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300
Centers
hours per week).
• Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers
and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses
near entry and exit points.
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major
Rail Yards
service and maintenance rail yard.
• Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations
and mitigation approaches.
Y Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of
Ports
ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts
or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of
Refineries
petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local
a encies to determine an appropriate separation.
Chrome Platers
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome
plater.
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry
Dry Cleaners
cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines,
Using
provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult
Perchloro-
with the local air district.
ethylene
• Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc
dry cleaning operations.
Gasoline
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas
Dispensing
station (defined as a facility.with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons
Facilities
per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for
t pica) gas dispensing facilities.
*Notes:
These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance
other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic
development priorities, and other quality of life issues.
Page ii0-40
As mentioned above, air pollution levels in the immediate vicinity of large
gasoline dispensing facilities may be higher than the surrounding area (although
tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles dominates the health impacts). Very large
gasoline dispensing facilities located at large wholesale and discount centers
may dispense nine million gallons of gasoline per year or more. At nine million
gallons, the potential risk could be around 25 in one million at 50 feet, dropping to
about five in one million at 300 feet. Some facilities have throughputs as high as
19 million gallons.
Recommendation
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gasoline
dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons
per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas
dispensing facilities.
References
• Gasoline Service Station Industry -wide Risk Assessment Guidelines.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (December 1997 and
revised November 1, 2001)
• Staff Report on Enhanced Vapor Recovery. ARB (February 4, 2000)
• The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. ARB (2004)
• Staff Report on Enhanced Vapor Recovery Technology Review. ARB
(October 2002)
Other Facility Types that Emit Air Pollutants of Concern
In addition to source specific recommendations, Table 1-3 includes a list of other
industrial sources that could pose a significant health risk to nearby sensitive
individuals depending on a number of factors. These factors include the amount
of pollutant emitted and its toxicity, the distance to nearby individuals, and the
type of emission controls in place. Since these types of facilities are subject to
air permits from local air districts, facility specific information should be obtained
where there are questions about siting a sensitive land use close to an industrial
facility.
Potential Sources of Odor and Dust Complaints
Odors and dust from commercial activities are the most common sources of air
pollution complaints and concerns from the public. Land use planning and
permitting processes should consider the potential impacts of odor and dust on
surrounding land uses, and provide for adequate separation between odor and
dust sources. As with other types of air pollution, a number of factors need to be
considered when determining an adequate distance or mitigation to avoid odor or
Page 3?0.41
*4avq Mel I ally"m
10-42
Based on its review of the entire record herein, the City Council makes the following
findings:
1. A site plan architectural review ("SPAR") pursuant to Chapter 24 of the City's
Implementing Zoning Ordinance ("IZO") is a discretionary entitlement that
expressly includes the authority to "approve the project as applied for, approve the
project with modifications or disapprove the project." (IZO, § 24.010, subd. (G).)
2. The City maintains authority under the IZO to deny a SPAR based on broad
considerations including "the harmony of the development with its surroundings"
and the "siting of the structure on the property, as compared to the siting of other
structures in the immediate neighborhood." (IZO, § 24.010, subd. (G)(1).)
3. When the IZO authorizes the City to exercise discretion, "that discretion may be
exercised to impose more stringent requirements than set forth in [the] Zoning
Ordinance, as may be determined by the review authority to be necessary to
promote appropriate land use and development, environmental resource
protection, and other purposes of [the] Zoning Ordinance." .(IZO, § 1.040.)
4. Any discretionary action by the City, including approving a SPAR, must be
consistent with the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan provides that to
avoid potential health effects and citizen complaints, the City should "[1]ocate new
stationary sources of air pollutants ... at sufficient distances away from residential
areas and facilities that serve sensitive receptors to avoid significant impacts
caused by odors, dust, and toxic air contaminants." (General Plan Policy 4-P-17.)
5. The California Air Resources Board ("CARB") provides land use guidance to
local agencies in order to address human health risks in its Air Quality and Land
Use Handbook ("CARB Handbook"). CARB advises that local agencies should
"[a]void siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gasoline
dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons
per year or greater)." This guidance is cited with approval by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District and the California Air Pollution Control Officers'
Association.
6. The proposed project would be located merely 60 feet from the nearest sensitive
receptor, the 4CS Petaluma Child Development Center, at 401 S. McDowell
Boulevard. Additional sensitive receptors within 300 feet include the North Bay
Children's Center, McDowell Elementary School and several residential
dwellings.
10-43
7. A site-specific health risk analysis was prepared for the proposed project,
following current methodologies, which found that the project would result in
significant health risks to nearby sensitive receptors.
8. Siting the proposed project at the proposed location in relation to the siting of
other structures in the immediate neighborhood creates disharmony. (IZO, §
24.010) It is inconsistent with land use guidance advising at least 300 feet from
sensitive receptors.
9. The proposed project is contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare
by exposing residents to health risks from toxic air contaminants. (IZO § 1.040)
Multiple regulatory guidance documents, as well as a site-specific health risk
assessment, find that the proposed project is too close to existing sensitive
receptors and will therefore result in significant human health impacts.
10. The proposed project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy 4-P-17 because the
project is a new stationary source of air pollutants that is not a sufficient distance
away from sensitive receptors, and would cause detrimental health effects.
10-44
Oli/:l I.j Y 1� 1
10-45
9/13/2018
Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator I US EPA
Equivalency/ Results How are they calculated?
The sum of the greenhouse gas emissions you
entered above is of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent.
This is equivalent to:
Greenhouse gas emissions from
165175
75,540 (Metric Tons V�
18551455833
landfilled
CO2 emissions from
895009000
gallons of
gasoline
consumed
Pounds of coal
burned
15000 89157
i
tanker trucks' �' c homes' energy
worth ofPSI-
use for one
gasoline -OY year
https://www. epa. gov/sites/prod uctio n/fiiles/widg ets/g hg_calc/calcul ator. html#results
-or-
-or-
-or-
10-46
1/3
9/13/2018
Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator I US EPA
19.1
119322
Wind turbines:
homes'
!
running for a
electricity use i
year -OY-
for one year -OY-
1
295289096
railcars' worth
Incandescent
of coal burnedlamps
-or-
x
switched
_or-
t0 LEDs
to
74 '890
390883033
MO
barrels of oil
consumed
propane
cylinders used
-or-
for home -Or-
barbeques
®1
coal-fired
power plants
in one year
Carbon sequestered by
i
1995703
88,975
https://www.epa. g ov/sites/prod uction/files/widgets/g hg_calc/calculator. html#results
10-47
2/3
Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator I US EPA
tree seedlings acres of U.S.
grown for 10 forests in one ;_or_
years µ year
RM
10-48
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/widgets/ghg_calc/calculator.html#results 3/3
acres of U.S.
forests
�.�
r K�
preserved from
conversion to
cropland in one
year
10-48
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/widgets/ghg_calc/calculator.html#results 3/3
10-49
6
Department of Transportation and Public Works & Permit and Resource
Management Department I County of Sonoma I May 2016 10-50
The preparer should consider the selection of the weighted average rate or the fitted curve
for the chosen ITE land use code when determining the project's trip generation. Selection
of either the weighted average rate or the fitted curve should be justified and submitted to
DTPW for review.
Local trip generation rates may be used in place of trip generation rates in the Trip
Generation Manual. This would apply to land uses not included in the Trip Generation
Manual. Wineries, wine tasting facilities, and distilleries are examples of land uses not
included in the Trip Generation Manual. Prior to use of local trip generation rates in a TIS, all
data and assumptions for local trip generation rates shall be submitted to PRMD and DTPW
staff for review and approval. Consult with DTPW staff regarding trip generation rates for
wineries with tasting room(s).
Pass -by trip reductions consider site trips drawn from the existing traffic stream on an
adjacent street, recognizing that trips drawn to a site would otherwise already traverse the
adjacent street regardless of existence of the site. Pass -by trip reductions allow a
percentage reduction in the forecast of trips otherwise added to the adjacent street from the
proposed development. The reduction applies only to volumes on adjacent streets, not to
ingress or egress volumes at entrances serving the proposed site. Unless otherwise
approved by DTPW, the pass -by rates utilized shall be those reported in the most recent
version of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Pass by rates shall only be used upon DTPW
approval.
Internal capture rates consider site trips "captured" within a mixed use development,
recognizing that trips from one land use can access another land use within a site
development without having to access the adjacent street system. Internal trip reductions
and modal split assumptions require analytical support and approval from DTPW.
Daily trips may be reduced by allowing for public transit when a transit stop is located within
one thousand (1,000) feet of the development. The maximum reduction allowed is five (5)
percent. Transit reductions do not apply to hotels, restaurants, retail, or financial uses.
Level,of Service & Operation Analysis
Methodologies from the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual shall be used
to determine operating conditions on roadway segments, and signalized and unsignalized
intersections. Alternatives to the Highway Capacity Manual methodologies shall be
approved by DTPW prior to use in a TIS. At intersections controlled by a traffic signal,
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies I County of Sonoma May 2016
10-51
existing traffic signal timing data shall be used for all analysis conditions and is available
from DTPW or Caltrans. For unsignalized intersections the study shall provide the overall
intersection operating condition as well as the operating condition for the worst movement.
Analysis of traffic conditions using a microsimulation model may be required by DPTW. A
minimum of ten (10) average model runs, excluding any outlying/anomalous results, shall be
required when microsimulation is used.
Calculations, assumptions, and supporting data for the conclusions presented shall be
submitted as part of the TIS. The calculations shall be comprehensive and easily
understood.
3. Future Roadway Improvements: All assumed circulation network improvements used in
the analysis shall be clearly stated in the report. Planned roadway improvements shall only
be assumed completed for use in the TIS if the improvement project is fully funded and
programmed for construction. The TIS must identify the specific improvements, funding
source, and time -frame for completion of any included roadway improvements.
4. Future Land Use: Projection of future land uses and development should be made in
consultation with planning staff at PRMD. A minimum 10 -year growth projection is required
for an interim evaluation (if necessary) and a long-term growth projection is required for
cumulative impact analysis consistent with the General Plan. Long-term projected traffic
volumes shall be developed using either the most recent version of the County wide
transportation forecasting model from SCTA, or a list of projects approved but not yet
constructed, projects that are pending approvals, as well as general projections of growth
within or affecting the study area.
Data on projects in the study area that have been approved but not yet constructed, projects
that are pending approvals, as well as general projections of growth within or affecting the
study area is available from PRMD. A tabulation of land uses by type and parcel number
with the respective trip generation rates must be identified.
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies I County of Sonoma May 2016
10-52
A project would have a significant traffic impact if it results in any of the following conditions:
1. Ora -site loads and Frontage I pr°ovetrrerrts: Proposed on-site circulation and street
frontage would not meet the County's minimum standards for roadway or driveway design,
or potentially result in safety hazards, as determined by the County in consultation with a
registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer.
2. Parking: Proposed on-site parking supply does not meet County standards and does not
adequately accommodate parking demand.
3. Etrrerency Access: The project site would have inadequate emergency access.
4. Alternative Transportation: The project provides inadequate facilities for alternative
transportation modes (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, pedestrian pathways) and/or the
project creates potential conflicts with the County's Complete Streets Policy, other adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.
5. Road Safety: Road design features that do not meet standards (e.g., sharp curves or
skewed intersections) or any perceived incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment, major
bicycle route, rail or pedestrian crossings).
6. Vehicle Queues: Project causes or exacerbates 95th percentile turning movement queues
exceeding available turn pocket capacity.2
7. SignalWarrants: The addition of the project's vehicle or pedestrian traffic causes an
intersection to meet or exceed Caltrans or CA-MUTCD signal warrant criteria.
8. Turn Eames: The addition of project traffic causes an intersection to meet or exceed criteria
for provision of a right or left turn lane on an intersection approach.3
2Based upon HCS analysis methodology for signalized intersections and formula contained in November 2001 ITE Article
(Estimation of Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections) for side street stop sign controlled intersections, or its equivalent.
3Based upon Caltrans criteria for state highways and Intersection Channelization Design Guide (NCHRP Report 279,
Transportation Research Board, 1985) for County roadways.
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies I County of Sonoma May 2016
10-53
9. Sight Lines: The project constructs an unsignalized intersection (including driveways)
and/or adds traffic to an existing unsignalized intersection approach that does not have
adequate sight lines based upon Caltrans criteria for State highway intersections and
AASHTO criteria for County roadway intersections.
10. County Intersection Operations: The County level of service standard for County
intersection operations is to maintain a Level of Service D or better pursuant to General Plan
Policy CT -4.2. The project would have a significant traffic impact if the project's traffic would
cause an intersection currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better)
to operate at an unacceptable level (LOS E or worse).
If the intersection currently operates or is projected to operate below the County standard,
the project's impact is considered significant and cumulatively considerable if it causes the
average delay to increase by five seconds or more .4 The delay will be determined by
comparing intersection operations with and without the project's traffic for both the existing
baseline and projected future conditions.
The above criteria applies to all controlled intersections except for driveways and minor side
streets that have less than 30 vehicle trips per hour per approach or exclusive left turn
movement.
11. County Roadway Operations: The County level of service standard for County roadway
operations is to maintain a Level of Service C pursuant to General Plan Policy CT -4.1; or, for
specific roadway segments, the level of service standard adopted in the General Plan Figure
CT -3. The project would have a significant traffic impact if the project's traffic would cause a
road currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) to operate at an
unacceptable level (LOS D or worse).
If a road segment currently operates or is projected to operate below the County standard,
the project's impact is considered significant and cumulatively considerable if it causes the
average speed to decrease by the amounts shown in Table 1. The change will be
determined by comparing roadway conditions with and without the project's traffic for both
the existing baseline and projected future conditions.
4Average delay shall be used as defined in the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual for the signalized and all -
way stop intersections and delay for any approach or turning movement shall be used for side street stop sign controlled
intersections.
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies I County of Sonoma May 2016
10-54
TABLE 1: TRAFFIC IMPACT THRESHOLDS FOR
2 -LANE COUNTY HIGHWAYS AND RURAL CLASS 1 ROADWAYS
WITH LEVEL OF SERVICE BELOW LOS C
If the Existing or
Then the existing
The project impact is considered
Projected LOS
average travel speed is
significant if the decrease in average
without project is:
(miles per hour [mph])5:
travel speed associated with the
project is:
D
40-45 mph
2 mph
E
40 mph or less
1 mph
F
0.5 mph
These criteria apply to Rural Class 9 roadways. Other roadways will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
State Highways: 6 Caltrans' general level of service policy on State highways is to maintain
the level of service at the transition between LOS C and LOS D. However, level of service
goals for specific Caltrans facilities should be taken from transportation planning documents
for that facility. A project would have a significant impact if the project traffic would cause the
operation of a State highway to operate below LOS C. If a State highway currently operates
or is projected to operate below the standard, the project's impact is considered significant
and cumulatively considerable if it does not maintain the existing "measure of effectiveness".
Measures of effectiveness are: (a) control delay per vehicle for signalized intersections; (b)
average control delay per vehicle for unsignalized intersections; (c) average speed for two
lane highways, and (d) density for multi -lane highways.?
Miti atioii 1easui-es: In order to reduce project impacts to levels of insignificance, the
proposed mitigation measures must result in post -development affected intersections and
roadways that have an LOS that is no worse than the County General Plan LOS standard
5The year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual does not provide an average travel speed breakpoint between LOS E and LOS F
operation.
6State Highway thresholds are based on Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, State of California
Department of Transportation, December 2002. The most recent version of this handbook may be found on the internet.
(http:l/www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffopsn
Measures of effectiveness are defined in the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council.
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies I County of Sonoma May 2016
10-55
10-56
9/14/2018
After Petaluma highway funding, focus shifts to Rainier
A OR
ATIer Petaluma highwayi iRainier
MATT BROWN
ARGUS-COURIER STAFF I May 24, 2018
For decades, no single issue in Petaluma has been more controversial than the Rainier crosstown connector. The roadway, which is
planned to one day connect east and west Petaluma, has divided city councils, fired up political campaigns and appeared on at least two
ballot measures.
Depending on one's stance, Rainier is either a panacea for Petaluma's traffic woes and a way for often isolated east side residents to
access the city's downtown core, or it is an expensive boondoggle that will open up 100 acres of land to unwanted development.
Politicians on both sides have in the past laid out positions on the issue comfortable in the knowledge that the project, so far, has been
hypothetical, confined to an engineer's blue prints and heated discussions in the city council chambers,
That is, until now.
A decision by a state transportation agency last week thrust Rainier into reality. Rainier Avenue currently dead -ends at Highway 101 just
north of the Deer Creek shopping center, and the extension project has always been contingent on Caltrans constructing an underpass at
the spot in conjunction with its freeway widening work. The freeway project had been stalled due to a lack of funding.
Then, last Wednesday, the California Transportation Commission approved $85 million to complete the two -decade long Highway 101
widening project through Sonoma County, funding the final four -mile gap through the heart of Petaluma. The move opens up new hope
for advocates of building Rainier, and officials have taken a flurry of steps to advance the project recently.
But, the Rainier project faces a significant funding gap, and some feel other city transportation projects would be more effective at
relieving traffic and should be built first.
"Now, with the possibility of freeway funding, Rainier has taken on a reality it hasn't had to this point," City Manager john Brown said.
Contentious past
The history of the Rainier project is as long as the proposed roadway is short. The .65 -mile four -lane extension, which will pass under
Highway 101 and over the SMART train tracks and Petaluma River to connect with Petaluma Boulevard North, was first identified in 1965.
Caltrans and the city planned for a freeway interchange at Rainier Avenue in the 1980s, and the city certified an environmental report for
the project in 1994. Then, in 1999, a city council opposed to development in the area removed Rainier from the city's General Plan, a
controversial move that was subsequently overturned in 2004. Also in 2004, 72 percent of voters backed an advisory ballot measure
supporting the construction of Rainier.
In 2006, Caltrans informed Petaluma officials that the Highway 101 interchange portion of the project did not meet minimum spacing
requirements because it was less than a mile from the interchange at East Washington Street and would need a special exemption.
The city council in January 2010 voted to separate Rainier into two projects — the crosstown connector and the interchange — in order to
work on the roadway extension first. In August 2015, the council voted 5-2 to approve the crosstown connector's environmental report,
with Mayor David Glass and Councilwoman Teresa Barrett dissenting.
The report says the Rainier crosstown connector is needed to offset traffic that is expected after planned developments are built. There
are currently five roads in Petaluma that cross Highway 101 — Old Redwood Highway, Corona Road, East Washington Street, Caulfield
Lane and Lakeville Street.
Developer funded
10-57
https://www.petaluma360.com/news/8338452-181 /after-petaluma-highway-funding-focus?artslide=0 114
9/14/2018
After Petaluma highway funding, focus shifts to Rainier
A 2014 city staff report lists the estimated cost of just the crosstown connector at $61 million. The city has anticipated that developers
would pay the cost of the project and the city council included a traffic impact fee in the General Plan in 2008. That fee has been altered by
various councils over the years, and is currently around $15,000 per single family home, $20,000 per 1,000 square feet of office space and
$30,000 per 1,000 square feet of commercial space.
The city's 2018-19 budget lists the total traffic impact fee fund at about $24 million, meaning a significant funding shortfall exists to
complete the Rainier project, which is likely to get more expensive with time. But, as hundreds of new housing units are built in the next
few years, the cit/,s traffic impact fund should increase, City Councilman Mike Healy said.
"We don't have the funding in hand," he said. "But over the next two to three years, as more developments come on line, we'll collect more
money."
In addition to traffic impact fees, about half of the funding for Rainier is anticipated to come from the owners of the properties that the
future roadway will traverse, Brown said. That land, the vacant parcels that abut Highway 101 just south of the Petaluma outlet mall, are
currently undevelopable because they lack street access. Connecting the future Rainier extension to the properties, which are zoned for
housing in the General Plan, makes the land more valuable, Brown said.
"That's a key component," he said. "It generates the missing piece."
The city is currently exploring the option of financing construction of Rainier, including potentially issuing bonds backed by future
developer fees Brown said, and the city council is expected to hold a public workshop on Rainier financing options this summer.
In the meantime, Brown has been negotiating access for the right of way of the future roadway with property owners, including Marin Sun
Farms founder David Evans, who owns 20 acres around the slaughterhouse and future western terminus of Rainier, and the j. Cyril
Johnson family trust, which owns 64 acres along the freeway.
"At this point, we have made contact with the property owners," Brown said.
Next steps
Barring an effort to repeal the state gas tax increase on the November ballot, which could negate the funding for the Highway 101
widening project, Caltrans is expected to break ground on the work next year and wrap up in 2022. This gives the city four years to finalize
the details of the Rainier project.
Petaluma contributed $7 million to the Caltrans freeway widening project to pay for the undercrossing for Rainier, money from the citys
former redevelopment agency. While negotiating for the right of way, the city is planning to begin a detailed survey of the land in order to
complete the engineering work for the roadway, Brown said.
"I don't see this process syncing up with the highway process," he said. 'The city needs to stay out of the way until Caltrans has done it's
part. We've got plenty to do in the meantime."
Brown said the project's environmental report might need to be revisited in the future before construction begins.
Contentious future?
Even as the city moves forward with plans for Rainier, the project will likely remain a political hot potato and a key issue in the November
mayoral race. The two declared candidates, Councilwoman Barrett and former Councilman Mike Harris, have staked out contrasting
positions on the issue in the past.
Barrett said she is pleased Caltrans has the money to widen Highway 101, but she is skeptical the city will have the funding in place to
build Rainier. She said past city councils went easy on developers and did not set traffic impact fees high enough to fund the project.
"I'm in favor of looking at the financing," she said. "I've never felt Rainier is cost effective. I'm not convinced that Rainier is the solution. I am
in favor of looking at increasing crosstown viability. Part of being feasible is being affordable."
She said she would not support a sales tax measure to fund Rainier. While a sales tax is not being considered as a current financing
option, Rainier was included in the ballot language for the failed Measure q one -cent sales tax in 2014, which Barrett and Glass opposed.
10-58
https://www. petaluma360.com/news/8338452-181 /after-petaluma-highway-funding-focus?artslide=0 2/4
9/14/2018
After Petaluma highway funding, focus shifts to Rainier
Barrett said she is also interested in looking at using the traffic impact fund for other crosstown road projects, like a new bridge over the
Petaluma River at Caulfield Lane connecting the new Riverfront development with Quarry Heights, or perhaps upgrading the Corona Road
overpass.
Harris said he took steps to advance the Rainier project as a council member, and he still supports the project 100 percent," He said all
funding options are on the table, but said that developers fees in Petaluma are already quite high.
If elected mayor, Harris said he would continue to advocate for the project.
"I've always been a staunch supporter of the Rainier crosstown connector," he said. "It is an important component of traffic relief. I'm glad
we can see a light at the end of the tunnel."
(Contact Matt Brown at matt.brown@arguscourier.com.)
10-59
https://w , w.petaluma360.com/news/8338452-181 /after-petaluma-highway-funding-focus?artslide=0 3/4