The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Bill 9.A-Attch06 06/21/2004Date: June 4, 20.04 To: Irene Borba ,'Senior Planner From: Marti Buxton Mission Valley Properties RE: Information requested by City Council Attached please find information on the topics requested by spPm e.of the City Councilmembers at the May 17'coun6il meeting, The topics include the following: e Traffic ® Badgers ® Drainage and Hydrology ® Maintenance If you require any further information, please let me know. '. 5000 Hopyard Road Suite 170 • Pleasanton • Califomia _94588 Tel 925.254 -1020 Fax 925-254-7954 mbuxton@us-buxton.com ATTACHMENT 6- Traffic In response to comments made during the May 17 City Council public hearing, Alan Tilton of W -Trans has prepared responses that are summarized below. His ,letter and `the proposed County of Sonoma Guidelines for Traffic Studies are attached. Evaluating the Paula Lane Traffic Impacts under County of Sonoma Significance Criteria. ® The County of Sonoma has'drafted new criteria thresholds for traffic impacts. The criteria used by the County have higher thresholds than those used by the City of Petaluma and therefore the more conservative City sigrnificance criteria was used. Subsequent to the May 17 meeting, the impacts ofthe Paula Lane project were evaluated using the County's new criteria and determined that-the increase in traffic volumes will not result in a finding of significant impacts. What the projected traffic volume from `the City Traff c Model for Paula Lane. between Bodega Avenue and West Street, and how does this compare to City Significance, Criteria? • The.average daily traffic (ADT) volume including current volumes .between and those, projected at project buildout on Paula Lane between West Street and Bodega Avenue: s 1,450 vehicle trips per -day. This projected volume is below' the City's accepted threshold of 2,000 ART for local streets and 6;000 ADT for collector.streeis under Existing.plus Project and Future plus. Project -Conditions. Paula Lane is designated as a collector street in. the current City General Plan. Safety "Concerns • A review of traffic collision records for the years 2000 through 2003 revealed no. reported traffic collisions on Paula Lane suggesting that motorists are driving responsibly. Speeding was raised as a safety concern. The 25 miles per hours, posted speed on Paula Lane is consistent with a residential setting- Other were conducted by W =Trans including a : Traffic - Impact Study dated, - November.2001 and a second study dated May 2002 because some of the traffic. counts in the, first study were; conducted on September 11,, 2001. Additional information was provided in response to questions from the DKS peer review. The key findings were that • Tlie proj eet will ,result in a slight incrementah increase in site= generated traffic • The project impacts together with street improvements that have been made on Bodega Avenue result in acceptable service levels at the studied intersections. • The additional proj ect related trips would, not lower service levels at any of the study intersections below thresholds established in the City of Petaluma General Plan • Residential capacity on adjacentastreets will not be exceeded with completion of the project as proposed • There have been no reported collisions on`Paula Lane in the past 4 years • Recommendations: to improve safety included pedestrian advisory signs, striping the pedestrian shoulders, stop signs at project streets A and B, painting curbs red where parking is prohibited. r Badgers: • ® The Ameri can Badger is a �Cal'ifornia Species of Special Concern and although it is not listed.under the Califomia,Endangered Species Act.-or-the Federal Endangered Species Act, it is given special attention by California Department of Fish and Game:(DFG).. ® DFG is identified as a'Trustee Agency with regard to wildlife species pursuant to CEQA and is responsible for the .conservation, protection and management,of the State's biological resource's. DFG is satisfied with the 3 -acre open space provided in the project for badger habitat. No studies have been published in California but in states where studies °have been conducted researchers found that the typical home range area for' a °badger is'between 3.00 and.3600 acres (0.5 -6 square miles.) with between 0.5 to 2 animals per square mile ( 64.0 acres). As noted in the May 10 letter from DFG, L- iam,Davis, DFG Environmental iScientist,. his opinion of the pr site is that `it is'. in an existin g s uburb an neighborhood. He stated during the site visit that based on thecurrent ro'ect development of the neighborhood, with or without the proposed project :badgers would -not be. present in the area within10 to 20 years due to theitrange requirements and the density of the existing neighborhood. ® Letters from DFG March 2002 and May 2004,express support of the amount of open space for badger:habitat:and the other °uses within the open space including the detention basin, EVA road and.the pedestrian path, and the oak tree planting scheme. DFG proposes a 1 to 1 replacement. for oak trees that are removed-from the site. However, the. project proposes a greater replacement ratio of 4 oaks for every oak, tree removed., (March 13', 2002 and May 10, ,2004 letters attached) ® The project. will 'Jmplement all. of the.requireriments listed in. both of the above referenced letters. F6 ,purposes of protective measures, we have never focused on whether badgers arepresent on the site or not-, but have always agreed to implement everything that DFG requested as if badgers are present. m Wildlife biologist, Dr., Tom,.Kucera will. develop a badger exclusion plan that will protect any badgers that might be present during construction. Dr. Kucera is an expert on mammalian carnivores, and his work is highly:regarded by DFG. • Drainage and.Hyd "rology • Al, Cornwell of CSW Stuber- Stroeh provided. a Preliminary Drainage Study -in order-10, compare the existing and proposed drainage conditions. • Results of the hydrology study show that the proposed development will have virtually no impact on the peak flows through the drainage systems downstream from the project: site. • The proposed detention pond at the westerly,end of the property mitigates increases in flow due to: impervious surfaces_.. • During.the Planning Commission - meetings and at ,the May 17 City Council meeting, the neighbor to the west, Mr. Rollin Bruce, expressed,coneerns •about the detention,basiri and the amount of waterthatcurrently runs onto his property. • Mr: Bruce presented a video to both the Commission and Council, showing water funning-on to his'propery. during a storm. It should be noted that the vast majority ofthe water°was runoff from the paved road surface and the driveway directly across'from his driveway. ® In 'addition,, at the Council meeting,he presented a calculation packagelthar, implied that the CSW /Stuber- Stroeh calculations were reviewed by the office of Steven Lafranchi. The.attached memo from Mr. Lafranchi that was sent to Council and staff clarifies that that was not the case. o In a.January 1'5, 2004 email to Craig Spaulding. and .Irene Borba Mr. Bruce stated' i that Craig Spaulding 's idea to intercept the last dram inlet and send it to the retention basin would slow °the water to a tri'ckl'e." (January 15, 2004 email attached) ® As part of the project improvements, the Paula Lane development will intercept the last drain on Sunset Drive and connect it to the project storm drain system and, direct the runoff-to the project'detention basin. This; solution zis outlined in item. #2 in Spaulding's February 11, 2004 memorandum to the Planning Commission. (February 11, 2004 memo attached) • • Maintenance. • Maintenance Requirement Entity to Perform Maintenance Entity to Fund Maintenance Open Space; including EVA, fencing, landscaping, paths and detention basin Home Owners Association (HOA) will contract for services HOA Sewer pump station, sanitary sewer system in Sunset Drive, Streets "A" and "B" and 4 inch force main To be determined, Contractor or City ` HOA Sewer pipe in Paula Lane City of Petaluma City of Petaluma Air gap system for water pressure . Individual Homeowner Homeowner Water tank and water pipes City of Petaluma for tank/ p ipes in the public ROW City of Petaluma Public Streets City of Petaluma ' City of Petaluma Landscaping strip within the public right of way HOA or adjacent lot owner HOA or adjacent lot owner Street Lights City of Petaluma City of Petaluma Electrical and gas'lines PG &E PG &E • w -trany June. 4, 2004 Whitlock & Weinberger Transportdcion.Inc.. 509. Seventh'Street Suite 101 Santa'Rosa..CA 95401. Ms., Marti', Buxton voice - 707.542.9500 - - fax '707.542.9590 Mission Valley Properties web wvi transom 5000 Hopyard Road; Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Response 'to Comments — 'Traffic` Impact Analysis for the Paula Lane Subdivision Dear Ms.'Buxton; As regaestied, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc. (W- Trans) has; reviewed the comments presented at the hearing in front of the City of Petaluma City Council `regarding' the Paula 'Lane Subdivision. We have paraphrased the concerns raised (shown in italics), and followed 'each with our response. I .r Was Paula, Lane evaluated under 'County of Sonoma Signi ficance Criteria? The County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department has - .established new criteria thresholds for traffic impacts and a copy of the criteria is attached. The criteria .used by , the County ;of Sonoma has higher thresholds °ahan those. of the City of Petaluma -and therefore'the ,more conservative 'City significance criteria was used. The potential impacts of the Paula. Lane Subdivision were subsequently evaluated under the County's new criter.'ia and the increase in traffic volumes associated with the Paula Lane Subdivision to streets and intersections will not result in a finding of significant impacts under either criteria as the level of service on roadways and intersections will continue to operate at service levels better than LOS D. 2. HWhat.is the projected`trafc volume from the City Traffic Model for Paula Lane between Bodega Avenue and West Street;and'how does this compare to City Signi ficance Criteria? Paula Lane is designated as a `Collector Street' in the City of Petaluma General Plan and is included in the City Traffic, Model. The Traffic Model :outputs were reviewed to determine this projected future traffic volume on Paula Lane at General Plan buildout (Year 2025). Using the ratio of base year model volumes to "General Plan buildout.volumes multiplied by current volumes, the average daily traffic (ADT) volume projected on Paula Lane between' Bodega.Avenue and West Street is 1,450 vehicle trips per day. This projected traffic v,,ol'ume is 'below the accepted threshold of 2,0.00 ADT for local streets and 6,000 ADT for coliector streets under Existing plus Project and Future plus Project Conditions. Paula Lane is designated as a collector street in the current City General Plana 3. Safety - Concerns A review of traffic collision records for the: years 2000 through 2003 revealed .no reported traffic collisions on Paula Lane. The lack. of a traffic collision history suggests that motorists using Paula Lane are driving -responsibly: Speeding was also raised as a safety concern. The `posted speed on Paula Lane - is 25 miles er hour- and is consistent with a residential settin g '. • lvls_Mar i Buxton Page 2 If you have any further questions Please do not hesitate to me a call. Sincerely, MV ESS/ O G. z TROO, 1 21 5 Allan G. Tilton, P.E. Exp. 5/30/04 Senior Associate FF AGT/agt1PET047.RtoC2.wpd or CA� \� Enclosures June 4, 2004 n w -tra nss 10 Whlgock & Weinberger June 2 , 2004 Transporsaton.lnc. 509 Sgventfi.51r¢ll Sidra i0i Ms. Marti Buxton Sznra It 07. ¢9 a0� _. voce 707.5 Mission Valley Properties weti v tan, rorc: 5000 Hopyard Road; Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Response to Comments,— Traffic Impact Analysis for the Paula lLane:'Sub,division Dear Ms. Buxton; As requested, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W- Trans) has reviewed 'the comments, presented at the hearing in front of theCity of Petaluma City Council regarding -the Paula Lane, Subdivision.. We have paraphrased the concerns raised (shown in italics), and followed each with our response. Was Paula Lane evaluated under County of Sonoma Significance Criteria? The County of Sonoma'Permit_ and Resource Management Department has established new criteria thresholds for traffic impacts and a copy of the criteria is attached. The criteria used 'by the County of Sonoma has'higher threshol&than those of the City of Petaluma and therefore the more conservative:,City significance criteria was used. The potential impacts of the Paula Lane Subdivision were subsequently evaluated under the County's new criteria and the increase m traffic volumes associated with thePaula Lane Subdivision to.streets and intersections will not result in a of significant impacts under either-criteria as the level of on roadways and intersections will continue to operate at service- levels better than LOS D. 2. What is the.projected traffic volume from the City Traffic Model; for Paula Lane between Bodega Avenue and Sunset Drive and how does this compare to City Significance Criteria? Paula Lane is designated as.a; `Collector Street' in the City of Petaluma General Plan and is included in the City Traffc.Model The Traffic Model outputs were reviewed to determine the projected future traffic volume on Paula. Lane at General Plan buildout (Year 2025),, Using the ratio of base year model volumes to General Plan buildout volumes multiplied by current volumes; the "average daily traffic (ADT) volume projected on Paula Lane between Bodega Avenue and West Street. is 1,450 vehicle trips per day. This projected traffic volume i_s below the accepted threshold of 2,000; ADT for local streets and 6,000 ADT for collector streets under Existing; plus Project and Future plus Project Conditions, 3. Safety Concerns A review of "traffic collision records for the years •2000 through 2003 revealed no reported traffic collisions on Paula Lane. The lack of` a traffic collision history suggests, that motorists - using Paula Lane are driving responsibly. Speeding was also raised as a safety concern. The posted speed on Paula Lane;`is .25 miles per hour and is consistent a residential setting. ,J m ;. Ms. Marti Buxton . "'Page 2 If you have any further questions please do not hesitate!to give ime a call. Sincerely, - Q ROFESS /0 Allan G. Tilton, P. E. r TR00:121 5 Senior Associate , Exp. 9/46/p4 AGT /agt1PET047.RtoC2.wpd ` FF \ ' �Q> Of CAI�F��' Enclosures • June 2, 2004 • TRAFFIC- IMPACT'THRESHOLDS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA FOR PROJECT -LEVEL AND: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project would have a significant traffic impact if it results in any of the following conditions: 1, On -site roads,,and frontage improvements 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. 2. Parkins Proposed on- site ° parking supply would not be adequate . to accommodate parking demand. 3. Emergency Access The project site would have inadequate emergency access:, 4. Alternative. Transportation The project provides inadequate facilities for alfernative transportation modes (e.g-. bus turnouts, bicycle racks, pedestrian pathways) - andlor project creates potential conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Hazards are increased : ;due t6'b design feature (e.g., sharp,curves or 5 dangerous i Hers ct on) or incompatible use s. >(e '.b ,'.farm equipment, heavy pedestrian or truck traffic). 6. o exceed u L turn a st 0a pr jecHr �ffic causes the 95 percentile queue length Y 9 p y 7. Signal' Warrants The addition of the pro�ect's?vehicle or pedestrian traffic causes an intersection to meet =or exceed Caltrans'signal warrant criteria. 8. Turn 'Lanes The addition 'of project traffic causes an intersection to meet or exceed' .-criteria for proyjsion of a right or left turn lane on an intersection approach?. 9. Sight Lines 'The project;constructs an unsignalized intersection (including driveways) or adds traffic to anexisting unsignalized intersection approach that does' not have adequate sight lines:' upon Caltrans criteria ; for state highway intersections and County .criteria for C,ourity roadway intersections. 10 County` Intersections The County Level of Service standard for intersections is Level Hof Service D 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)tto operate below the standard (LOS E or F). If the intersection currently operates. or is projected to operate below the County. standard ("at LOS E or F), the project impact'is° significant and cumulatively considerable if it causes the delay for any =itical movement to increase by ;five seconds or more. 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 apply to all controlled or uncontrolled intersections with projected traffic volumes over 30 vehicles per hour per approach or per exclusive left turn I s movement. 11. County Roadway Operations The County 'Level of Service Standard for County roadway `operations into maintain a: Level of Service G, or for specific roadway segments, the level of service standard adopted in the General .Plan Figures CT2c - CT2d, 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 to operate at an unacceptable level. (i.e, LOS D, E or F). If a road segment ;currently operates or is projected to operate below the adopted standard referenced above, the proj;ect's impact would be significant and, cumulatively considerable if it causes'the average speed. to decrease by the ;amounts shown in Table 1 below. The change will be deterrnined.by comparing roadway, conditions with and without the project's traffic for ° both "the existing baseline projected future conditions. TABLE'l TRAFFIC IMPACT THRESHOLDS FQR 2 -LANE COUNTY HIGHWAYS AND RURAL;CLASS I ROADWAYS WITH LEVEL OF SERVICE BELO.WN'LOS C • If the Basel a l n . Then,the exstin 9 The t is projec t's impact Projected OS' average travel speed consitlered signifcant if the without project`:is: is (miles per hour • decrease in average travel [mph]): speed associated with the - ro'ect is D 4045m h r;' " 2m'h E 40 :rn h or les's ; , : ' ' 1 mph F 4 0.5 mph These criteria apply to Rural Class I roadways. Other roadways will be evaluated on a case by case basis;; 12. State Highw ays 5 Caltrars' level of'service standard on State highways is to maintain the level of service at the transition between LOS G and LOS D. '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 hiahwav currentWooerates or is oroiected to nnPrntP consiaeraDie ITA goes not''malntaln'the,existlnq: "measures of effectiveness ". Measures of effectiveness are: (a) control delay per vehicle for signalized intersections; b) average 9 f control. delay per::vehicle for unsignalized intersections; (c) average speed for two lane highways, and:(d) density for multi -lane highways s:, O,. Footnotes: 1. Based -upon HCS analysist methodology for signalized Jntersectibris and, formula contained in November 2001 ITE Article. (Estimation of Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections) for side streetstopsign controlled intersections. 2. Based upon Caltrans criteria for state highways and Intersection Channeliztion Design Guide . (NCHRP Report 279, Transportation'Research Board 1985) for county roadways. i County of Sonoma Guidelines for Traffic Studies May 11, "2004 N;b4A\ ASOX \PET \047P. E71PET047 Enclos ure.wpd Attachment C Traffc.Impact Thresholds •