HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 94-285 10/17/1994 ~es®IUtlOlrl N®. 94-28'5 NC.S.
1 of the City of Petaluma, California
2
3 APPROVING THE
4 RAINIER AVENUE EXTENSION AND INTERCHANGE PROJECT,
5 AIDOPTING SPECIFIC FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES,
6 MONITORING PROGRAM, AND
7 A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
8
...H~ 9
10 WHEREAS,. The Final EIR prepared for the proposed Rainier Avenue Extension and
11 Interchange project identified potentially significant effects on the environment which may
12 occur as a result of the project or project alternatives and specified mitigation measures to
13 reduce the potential adverse effects on the environment.
14
15 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on August 10, 1993 and
16 September 14, 1993 for consideration of the Draft EIR, Biological Mitigation Plan and
17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and reviewed the Final EIR documents
18 and recommended that the Final EIR documents be certified as adequate and the project
19 approved on March 22, 1994.
20
21 WHEREAS, the Final EIR documents consisting of the Draft EIR, Biological Mitigation
22 Plan, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Response to Comments/Final
23 EIR were presented to the City Council of the City of Petaluma and public hearings were
' ~ 24 held on August 1, 1994 and September 12, 1994 at which time all persons were provided an
. 25 opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and project.
' ~ 26
27 WHEREAS, after the public hearing was closed on September 12, 1994, the City Council
28 requested responses to comments on the Final EIR and additional information regarding
29 the possibility of phasing the construction and financing of the proposed project or
30 approving a connector only with no approval of an interchange at this time.
31
32 WHEREAS, a staff report was prepared which provided responses to comments on the
33 Final EIR and evaluated phasing the proposed project or the extension of Rainier Avenue
34 without an interchange. This report was presented to the City Council along with updated
35 cost estimates, financing plan and destination survey for E. Washington/McDowell
36 intersection at their regular meeting on October 3, 1994.
37
38 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Final EIR, the comments received and
39 incorporated the staff report as an addendum to the Final EIR and certified, adopted and
t. .
a~5. No..........~4._2.8.5:-:.~.cs.
1 approved the Final EIR as adequate for the purposes of decision-making and in
2 compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act by Resolution #94-284 N.C.S.
3 on October 17, 1994.
4
5 WHEREAS, the record of proceedings for the decision on the project, the Final EIR and
6 supporting or referenced documents are available for review at 'the City of Petaluma
7 Planning Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California 94952.
8
9 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED in accordance with Section 21081 of the
10 California Environmental Quality Act; Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines;
11 and, Section 13.0 of the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines, and based
12 upon substantial evidence presented in the record, that the City Council of the City of
13 Petaluma hereby adopts the following mitigation measures and monitoring program as
14 conditions of approval; hereby makes the following findings and sets forth the rationale
15 regarding significant environmental effects, mitigation measures, alternative designs and
16 project alternatives; and adopts a statement of overriding considerations for approval of
17 the Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange project.
18
19 NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the intent of the City
20 Council not to include developed residential properties or substantially developed
21 commercial properties in the anticipated assessment district to fund the new connector and
22 interchange project.
,,a
23
24 A. FINDINGS REGARDING GENERAL PLAN C®NSISTENCY
25
26 NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the City Council hereby
27 finds the Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange Project to be consistent with the
28 General Plan based. upon the following facts as presented in the project EIR, staff report
29 and record of proceedings:
30
31 1. Additional traffic capacity is needed in order to relieve congestion on existing
32 streets and achieve the orderly development and growth envisioned in the City's
33 General Plan and meet the transportation, land use, economic development,
34 housing and public safety goals, policies and objectives as stated in the General
35 Plan.
36
r:.
2 ~~®~~~®2~ 5NC~
i
'Q.
f'
r:'
1 2. The City's General Plan states that the construction of a new cross-town connector
2 and interchange is needed and desirable to improve traffic circulation within the
3 City of Petaluma.
4
5 3. The new cross-town connector and interchange will relieve congestion on existing
6 streets, reduce the extent of traffic improvements required throughout the study
7 area, and will provide additional traffic capacity for growth consistent with the City's
8 General Plan.
9
10 4. The City's General Plan designates the extension of Rainier Avenue from
11 McDowell. Boulevard North to Petaluma Boulevard North as a four-lane arterial
12 with a full freeway interchange as the appropriate site for the new cross-town
13 connector and interchange as discussed in the Transportation Element and shown
14 on the Circulation Map of the General Plan.
15
16 5. The traffic studies prepared for the Final EIR demonstrated that the City's level of
17 service standards could be met at full build-out of the General Plan with
18 implementation of the proposed project and the recommended traffic mitigation
19 measures, and in conjunction with other planned improvements committed to in the
20 General Plan and Capital Improvement Program.
21
22 6. In accordance with the City's General Plan policies, the project includes bicycle
23 lanes and transit facilities to connect major activity centers, link them with scenic
24 areas along the Petaluma River and provide for future park-and-ride and trail
25 facilities. The transit facilities incorporated into the project design will better
26 coordinate bus service to serve the commuting public and encourage alternative
X-"
27 modes of transportation.
28
.ry 29 7. In accordance with policies and objectives in the City's General Plan regarding
30 Community Health and Safety, the project would facilitate emergency services,
31 improve response times and provide an alternate access route that meets current
32 flood and seismic safety design standards. The proposed overcrossing and .road
33 extension will enhance the community's emergency preparedness by overcoming the
34 barriers between east and west Petaluma that are currently posed by the US 101
35 freeway, Petaluma River and Northwestern Pacific Railroad.
36
3 m 2 ~ 5N~S
1 8. The project design features and mitigation measures identified herein and further
2 discussed in the project EIR, Biological Mitigation Plan, and staff report will be
. 3 incorporated into the project as conditions of approval to minimize adverse effects
4 on the environment to the maximum extent feasible.
5
6 9. Based upon the data and evaluation presented in the Final EIR and incorporating
7 the mitigation measures identified herein as conditions of approval, the proposed
8 Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange will not constitute a nuisance, nor be
9 detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the people of the City of
10 Petaluma.
11
12 10. Based upon the analysis and data presented in the Final EIR, the proposed project
13 would further the City's transportation, land. use, safety and economic development
14 goals, objectives and policies as stated in the General Plan and is consistent with the
15 other goals, objectives, policies and programs contained in the General Plan with
16 incorporation of the following conditions.
17
` 18 11. Based upon the analysis and data presented in the 1985 Rainier Avenue Traffic
19 Study, the General Plan Circulation studies, the Corona/Ely Specific Plan studies
20 and re-evaluated in the staff report included as an Addendum to the Final EIR, a
21 partial project to extend Rainier Avenue as an overcrossing only could not meet the
22 objectives of this project without the interchange component and would not be
23 consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and objectives of the Transportation
24 and Land Use elements.
25
26 Conditions:
27
28 1. Establish deeper building setbacks, where feasible, in the development of the
29 Precise Plan Line and require special landscaping by adjacent developments along
30 Rainier Avenue as a condition of project approval.
. 31
32 2. Develop Landscape Improvement Plans and Specifications for the project to
gr, 33 incorporate arterial landscaping, screening vegetation, and canopy trees where
34 appropriate. Include replacement of bushes to be removed along Rainier Avenue
35 between McDowell and Prince Albert Court with higher canopy trees and low
36 ground covers that will not block sight distances.
4~~®.94-2~~NCS
1 3. The transit site designated in the City's General Plan shall be considered for
2 inclusion in the right-of-way acquisition for the project to provide an opportunity for
3 development of apark-and-ride facility, multi-modal transit facility and future trail
4 access.
5
6 4. Additional bus pads/stops shall be incorporated into the design of the extension of
.
7 Rainier Avenue on both sides of the interchange to facilitate interconnections
8 between local-city service and regional service. The City shall coordinate local bus
9 scheduling with regional bus service and to serve the major uses on both east and
10 west sides of the freeway (including, the new Santa Rosa Junior College Petaluma
11 Center) to the maximum extent feasible.
12
13 5. The intersection designs shall include bicycle through lanes at the new connections
14 of Rainier Avenue to connect with existing and planned bicycle lanes, subject to
15 review and approval of the City's Traffic Engineer.
16
17 B. FINDINGS IZEGAItDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND
18 IDENTIFIED MITIGATION MEASURES
19
20 NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the City Council
21 hereby makes the following findings regarding potentially significant effects and
22 adopts the following mitigation measures and monitoring program as conditions of
rv
23 approval and hereby sets forth the rationale based upon substantial evidence
24 presented in the Final EIR, including the Draft EIR, Biological Mitigation Plan,
25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Response to
2b Comments/Final EIR document.
27
28 1.0 LAND USE
29
30 1.1 Impact: The project EIR identified the potential to impede access to the
31 adjacent properties and displacement of land required for the proposed fill as a
32 potentially significant impact on land use.
33
34 Finding: The following mitigation measures to be incorporated as conditions of
35 approval will avoid or substantially reduce the potential for impact to land
Y~ 36 use/access to a level of insignificance as identified in the project EIR:
m ~ 2~ 5 N C S
5
~i~..
R,.
C'
1
2 Mitigations:
3
4 a. Appropriate locations of future access connections to Rainier Avenue shall
5 be identified in the development of a Precise Plan Line and Geometric
6 Plans.
7
8 b. Project design plans shall anticipate and include provisions for construction
9 of future access road connections to adjacent properties, including
10 acquisition of sufficient right-of-way to accommodate turn lanes at future
11 road connections as identified in the project EIR.
12
13 c. The area of proposed fill shall be reduced in the project design plans to
14 provide for future access beneath the extension of Rainier Avenue to the site
15 designated as a future transit site in the City's General Plan.
16
17 Monitoring: Implementation of these measures shall be the responsibility of the
18 Engineering Department. The Precise Plan Line, Project Report and Plans and
19 Specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department for
20 conformance prior to adoption or advertising for bids.
21
22 1.2 Impact: The project EIR identified the potential loss of open space as a result
23 of future anticipated development as potentially significant cumulative impact
24 related to the wildlife habitat along the Corona Reach of the Petaluma River.
25
26 Finding: The following mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project as
~ 27 conditions of approval will substantially reduce the potential loss of open space to a
28 level of insignificance as identified in the project EIR.
~a
29
30 Mitigation:
31
32 a. The adoption of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan will
33 mitigate potential for cumulative impacts related to the loss of open space by
34 establishment of an open space corridor along the Petaluma River through
35 the Corona Reach and along the tributary streams. The River Plan will
36 include policies for additional protection and setbacks from sensitive habitats
~~~®.~~f~ 28 5NCS
6
1 such as wetlands, riparian and oak woodlands. The River Plan is proposed
2 for adoption as an Area Plan and amendment to the General Plan and the
3 policies will apply to subsequent development.
4
5 b. Development of a Preliminary Master Plan for the area within the Corona
6 Reach of the Petaluma River will require further environmental review to
7 establish mitigation requirements for future development within the Corona
8 Reach that would apply to subsequent development.
9
10 Monitoring: A River Access and Enhancement Plan has been developed, subject to
11 further review, revision and recommendation by the Citizen's Committee and
12 Planning Commission to be ultimately adopted by the City Council. The
13 development of a Preliminary Master Plan is already committed to by the City as a
14 condition of approval for the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Planned
15 Community Development rezoning approval. The Planning Director shall be
16 responsible for the development, implementation and enforcement of policies
~ 17 adopted through both comprehensive planning efforts (i.e Master Plan and
18 Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan) that would apply to subsequent
19 development.
20
21 1.3 Impact: The project EIR identified the potential for speculation on the
22 conversion of land in the vicinity of the interchange to more intensive commercial
23 use.
24
25 Findang: The following mitigation measure herein adopted by the City Council will
26 substantially reduce the potential impacts of any proposed conversion of land use to
27 a level of insignificance as identified in the project EIR.
28
29 Mitigation: The City shall incorporate the 35-acre site at the southwest corner of
30 Rainier Avenue and McDowell Boulevard otherwise known as the Friedman/Gray
31 parcel which is designated for Industrial/Office Park use in the City's General Plan
32 to be included in the Master Plan for the Corona Reach. The Master Plan will
x ~ 33 evaluate appropriate land use designations for this parcel in relation to the
34 surrounding undeveloped lands.
35
7 ~~~®.~4~2~5NCS
1 Monitoring: The Planning Department shall verify initiation of the Master Plan
2 studies including the 3S-acre parcel, prior to consideration of any general plan
3 amendments, rezoning, or development proposals for the site.
4
S 2.0 TRAFFIC
6
~ 7 2.1 Impact: Potential traffic impacts identified in the project EIR as a direct result
8 of the project include congestion at the intersections of Rainier Avenue/McDowell
9 Boulevard, Maria Drive/Rainier Avenue and at the extension of Rainier
10 Avenue/northbound freeway ramps. Additional traffic conflicts at Rainier
11 Avenue/Petaluma Boulevard may arise from the presence of existing driveways at
12 the new connection.
13
14 Finding: The following mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project as
1S conditions of approval will substantially reduce the potential traffic impacts to a
16 level of insignificance as identified in the project EIR.
17
18 1Vlitigations:
19
20 a. Incorporate a westbound right-turn lane, a second northbound left turn lane,
21 and a southbound right-turn lane on McDowell Boulevard North at Rainier
22 Avenue into the project design to provide approximately 300 feet of storage
23 (600-feet total capacity).
24
2S b. Incorporate into the project design dual westbound left turn lanes from
26 Rainier Avenue to the northbound freeway on-ramps and dual northbound
27 left turn lanes from the northbound freeway ramp onto Rainier as specified
28 in the project EIR.
29
30 c. Incorporate installation of a new signal at the intersection of Maria Drive
31 and Rainier Avenue into the project design plans.
32
33 d. The presence of existing driveways shall be accommodated in the design and
34 may need to be combined or relocated to align with the new intersection as
3S part of the project design plans. The City shall acquire construction
Y~: 36 easement(s) to complete any necessary modifications as part of the project.
vl•
k
R.
8 9 4- 2 8 5 .S
.
fir..
1
2 1Vlonitoring: Implementation of these mitigation measures shall be the
3 responsibility of the City Engineer and verified by the Planning Department upon
4 review of the Project Report, Precise Plan Line, and Plans and Specifications prior
5 to approval and advertising for bids.
6
7 2.2 Impact: The project EIR identified potential for cumulative traffic impacts without
8 the project as a result of anticipated future development. The cumulative traffic
9 impacts would be substantially reduced by implementation of the project. The
10 project has a beneficial impact on traffic. Remaining cumulative traffic impacts as a
t:, .
11 result of future development in conjunction with the proposed project include
12 congestion at one local street segment and two study area intersections:
13
14 Street Segments
15
16 (1) Old Redwood Highway overpass.
17
18 Intersections
19
20 (1) Corona Road/Petaluma Boulevard; and,
21 (2) E. Washington Street/Lakeville Street.
22
23 Finding: Cumulative traffic impacts identified in the project EIR as a result of
24 anticipated future development will be substantially reduced by implementation of
25 the project as identified in the project EIR and summarized below. The following
: 26 summarizes the general impact areas without the project. and benefits of the project.
SE .
~ 27
28 If the project is implemented widening along E. Washington Street corridor would
29 not be required and critical intersections at the northbound ramps to US 101,
30 Payran Street, and Petaluma Boulevard would operate at acceptable levels of
31 service at build-out of the General Plan without additional improvements.
32
33 Widening of Corona Road to four .lanes would also not be necessary and the
34 intersection at McDowell Boulevard would operate at acceptable standards without
35 additional improvements.
36
9 R~~.94 ®2~ 5NCS
` 1 Intersections on Old Redwood Highway at McDowell Boulevard and Industrial
r:: 2 Drive would operate at acceptable levels with the additional improvements already
G.
3 funded to be completed this year.
4
5 Other cumulative traffic impacts identified in the project EIR will be substantially
6 reduced to a level of insignificance by the following additional study area
7 improvements.
8
9 1Vlitigations:
10
11 Street Segments
12
13 (1) Widen from two to four lanes Old Redwood Highway overpass; and
14
15 Intersections
k
t,
16
' ~ 17 (1) Widen westbound and southbound approaches at Corona Road/Petaluma
18 Boulevard.
19
20 (2) Eliminate the need for northbound/southbound split phasing on Lakeville
21 Street at E. Washington Street by additional channelization at the
22 intersection.
23
24 1Vlonitoring: These study area improvements are committed to by the City in the
25 adopted Capital Improvement Program, Traffic Impact Fee Project List or as
26 condition of prior project approvals to be implemented as capacity thresholds are
27 reached and as prioritized by the City Council. The implementation of these
28 projects shall be the responsibility of the City Engineer.
' 29
30 2.3 Impact: The project EIR identified potential for cumulative traffic impacts
31 without the project from anticipated future development at the segment of E.
fn.
` 32 Washington Street between US 101 and McDowell Boulevard and at the
' 33 intersection of E. Washington Street/McDowell Boulevard.
34
35 The traffic analysis demonstrated the project will have a beneficial effect on the
36 potential for cumulative traffic impacts by improving the level of service on the
10 ~tE~•94- 2~ 5NCS
1 street segment and maintaining the existing level of service at the intersection
2 through build-out of the General Plan.
3
4 However, the level of service would still remain below acceptable standards.
5 Additional, improvements would be necessary to improve the level of service
~F.
.
. 6 further. Implementation of the project would substantially reduce the scope of
't`~ 7 recommended improvements at the intersection as defined below.
f
8
9 Findings: The project will have a beneficial impact on existing traffic congestion
10 and projected traffic conditions at the segment of E. Washington Street between
11 McDowell Boulevard and US 101 and at the intersection of McDowell Boulevard,
12 although the level of service will remain below acceptable standards.
13
14 Additional improvements on the segment of E. Washington between McDowell and
15 US 101 and at the intersection of McDowell are identified as potentially infeasible
16 because of existing land use constraints. A feasibility study of potential
17 improvements at the intersection and including the segment between the US 101
18 interchange ramps and McDowell is included in the City's 5-year Capital
19 Improvement Program.
"k ' 20
fu .
21 The identified traffic improvements needed at this intersection and street segment
.fX" 22 to address existing congestion are infeasible under the No Project Alternative and
4-
23 the feasibility is uncertain with the proposed project or project alternative because
24 of land use constraints as identified in the project EIR.
25
26 Alternative measures to reduce traffic demand could reduce some of the study area
27 improvements needed, but could not eliminate the need for a new connector and
28 interchange at build-out of the General Plan.
29
30 Improvements at the intersection of E. Washington/McDowell and on the E.
31 Washington Street segment between US 101 and McDowell are identified as a
32 separate project in the General Plan needed to improve the existing level of service
33 and increasingly heavy turn volumes, not as an alternative to the cross-town
34 connector and interchange project.
35
4.~~;
t~E~Oe94-2~5NCS
11
1 The following facts and rationale support the finding that the project would have a
2 beneficial impact:
3
4 E. Washington Street segment between US 101 and McDowell
5
6 The traffic data contained in the project EIR demonstrates that the level of service
7 on the E. Washington Street segment between the US 101 ramps and the McDowell
8 intersection is currently deficient and would improve from LOS F to LOS E/F with
9 implementation of the project at build-out of the General Plan.
10
11 Additional improvements to widen this segment from 4 to 6 lanes is recommended
I%
' 12 to improve the level of service but is identified as potentially infeasible due to
13 existing development and land use constraints.
14
15 This street segment is included in the feasibility study to evaluate design options
16 committed to in the City's 5-year Capital Improvement Program.
17
18 E. Washington/McDowell Intersection
19
20 The traffic data contained in the project EIR demonstrates that the level of service
21 at the intersection at E. Washington/McDowell is currently deficient and will not
22 deteriorate further with the proposed project and anticipated future development as
23 envisioned at full build-out of the General Plan.
24
25 The traffic data demonstrates that the proposed project will minimize the
26 cumulative traffic impacts .from anticipated future development at E.
'r:.,
27 Washington/McDowell by providing substantial additional capacity to the
28 transportation system to meet projected demand and maintain the existing level of
29 service.
30
31 The traffic data demonstrates that the proposed project will reduce the traffic
32 mitigation measures required to improve the existing level of service at the E.
33 Washington Street/McDowell intersection to acceptable levels as identified in the
34 project EIR. At the E. Washington/McDowell intersection, the proposed project
35 reduces the needed improvements from the addition of 2 lanes for all approaches at
R~S®. 9 4- 2~ 5 N C S
12
a~
:E
.
1 the intersection to the followin recommended im rovements identified in the
g p
4; ' ~ 2 project EIR:
3
4 Add eastbound and westbound right turn lanes; an additional southbound left-turn
5 lane; and, southbound and northbound through lanes at E. Washington
6 Street/McDowell Boulevard North. The feasibility of implementing all of these
7 recommended improvements is uncertain because of existing land use constraints.
8
9 Without the project, land uses, economic development and growth in the vicinity of
10 E. Washington/McDowell Boulevard intersection would be constrained by severe
11 traffic congestion and General Plan policies which prohibit deterioration of the level
12 of service where deficiencies currently exist.
13
r~ 14 Mitigations: No additional mitigations are required -the impact of the project is
15 beneficial. The following measures are recommended to improve the level of
16 service further.
.
.
17
18 a. Evaluate the feasible design options for improvements at the intersection of
19 E. Washington/McDowell and including the interchange ramps and the
20 segment of E. Washington between the US 101 ramps and McDowell
21 Boulevard. If feasible, incorporate improvements into the City's Capital
22 Improvement Program.
23
24 b. Evaluate existing uses that contribute to peak-hour traffic volumes at the
25 congested intersection of E. Washington/McDowell and implement a Trip
26 Reduction/Traffic Demand Management program to reduce impacts during
27 the peak periods and further reduce required improvements. At a minimum,
28 trip reduction shall be implemented where appropriate as a condition of
29 approval of new development or expanded uses affecting the intersection and
4;
=.n, 30
shall include City-owned public facilities.
t
: 31
- 32 Monitoring: A feasibility study for the intersection of E. Washington
33 Street/McDowell Boulevard intersection is included in the City's adopted 5-Year
34 Capital Improvement Program. Expansion of this study to include the street
35 segment and interchange ramps is recommended and the predesign study is
36 currently underway to identify feasible design options.
13 RE5~.g4-2~5NC~`
1
2 Implementation of a trip reduction program/policy shall be the responsibility of the
3 City's Transit Coordinator. Project proposals for new development affecting the
eu : 4 intersection shall be reviewed for peak-hour traffic impacts and trip reduction
er 5 measures shall be re wired as a condition of ro ect a royal where a ro riate.
q P j PP PP P
6
7 2.4 Impact: The project EIR identified potential for cumulative traffic impacts along
8 the E. Washington corridor without the project from anticipated future
9 development. The traffic data presented in the Draft EIR demonstrates the
10 proposed project will have a significant beneficial impact on the E. Washington
11 Street corridor, minimizing potential traffic impacts from anticipated future
12 development, and eliminating the need for additional traffic improvements.
13
14 Findang: The proposed project will substantially lessen the cumulative traffic
15 impacts on the E. Washington Street corridor from anticipated future development
16 as envisioned in the General Plan based on the following facts:
17
18 Implementation of the proposed project will reduce or eliminate the need for
19 additional improvements on E. Washington Street at the intersections of Petaluma
.
20 Boulevard, Payran Street and at the US 101 northbound ramps. Improvements at
21 these three intersections would be necessary under the No Project Alternative and
22 may not be feasible due to existing land use constraints as discussed in the project
23 EIR.
24
25 Widening of Corona Road overcrossing from two to four lanes would also not be
26 needed with implementation of the Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange.
27
28 Mitigations: No additional mitigation required -the impact is beneficial and
29 eliminates the need for widening of the E. Washington Street corridor (except as
30 noted above under Impact 2.3 for segment between US 101 and McDowell).
31
32 2.5 Impact: The project EIR identified a potential cumulative traffic .impact from on
33 the US 101 freeway from anticipated future local and regional development with or
. 34 without the project requiring widening of the freeway from four to six lanes.
35
f~.
~94-285NCS
14
~y::
~t .
1 Finding: The widening of the US 101 freeway from four to six lanes is within the
2 jurisdiction and responsibility of the State Department of Caltrans (Caltrans) and
3 not the City of Petaluma. Widening from four to six lanes has been included in the
4 Project Study Report for US 101 adopted by Caltrans and is identified as a priority
5 for funding by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority.
6
7 Mitigations: No other mitigation measures have been identified. The City shall
8 review status of needed freeway improvements as part of development project
r~ ; ; 9 reviews and the General Plan review to determine implications for future
10 development.
z
11
:;r: .
3 12 2.6 Impact: Potential traffic impacts to the US 101 freeway from the proposed project
13 were identified in the project EIR as not significant because of features included in
14 the proposed design and project description.
15
16 Finding: The following mitigation measures identified in the project EIR, the
17 1986 Project Study Report prepared by Caltrans for this project, and included in the
18 project description and conceptual plan as part of the proposed project will
19 substantially reduce potential impacts to the freeway below a level of significance.
20
21 Mitigation: The provision of auxiliary freeway merge lanes, ramp metering, HOV
22 ramp lanes, and design of the structural overcrossing to accommodate future
23 widening is included in the project description to substantially reduce or minimize
24 potential impacts to the freeway arising from the project.
25
_ 26 Monitoring: Implementation of these measures shall be verified by the City
' 27 Engineer and Caltrans in the review and approval of the Project Report and the
28 Plans and Specifications for the project prior to advertising for bids.
29
30 2.7 Impact: Traffic generated by anticipated future development with or without
31 the project could affect pedestrian safety along Rainier Avenue and was identified
32 as a potentially significant cumulative impact.
33 Finding: The following mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project
34 as conditions of approval will substantially reduce the potential traffic impacts to a
35 level of insignificance as identified in the Final EIR.
36
~i:~S(D. 9 4° 2~ 5 N C S
a.;.
15
yy .F .
`t~.;::
1 The Alternate Project or No Project Alternative would generate comparable traffic
2 volumes and is not considered a feasible alternative to mitigation measures
3 described below. With the proposed project, projected traffic volumes on Rainier
4 Avenue would increase by 10 percent over the No Project or Alternate Project
5 scenario which is not significant.
6
7 Sight distances identified as areas of potential concern have been surveyed and meet
8 current safety standards as recommended in the "Traffic and Transportation
9 Engineering Handbook" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
10
11 Mitigations:
12
13 a. Removal of additional bushes within the right-of-way to increase the sight
14 distance at Prince Albert Court to 330-feet or the maximum feasible extent.
. 15
"'c
16 b. Prohibit truck traffic, except for local deliveries on the segment of Rainier
17 between McDowell and Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
18
19 c. Maintain an enforceable speed limit on Rainier Avenue by coordinating
20 signals at Sonoma Mountain Parkway, Maria Drive and McDowell to
21 maintain traffic flows in the 25-30 mph range.
22
23 d. Provide additional pavement legends on Rainier Avenue to identify the
24 speed zone.
25
26 e. Emphasize speed enforcement on Rainier Avenue, especially during school
27 hours.
28
29 f. Installation of apedestrian-activated signal at Maria Drive.
30
~ 31 g. Coordinate with the Old Adobe School District to provide an adult crossing
32 guard, when criteria for school pedestrians and traffic volumes are met.
33
34 Monitoring: Measures a, b, c, d, and f shall be incorporated into the plans and
35 specifications for the project and verified by the Planning Department prior
RE~.94 - 28 5NC~
16
1 advertising for bids. Measure e shall be the responsibility of the Police Department
2 with ongoing implementation.
ef.
3
4 Measure g is the responsibility of the Old Adobe School District and the City's
S Traffic Engineer. Criteria for a crossing guard shall be evaluated in a letter report
~ 6 to the City's Traffic Committee and the Old Adobe School District after acceptance
7 of final improvements and opening for public use. If criteria for a crossing guard is
- 8 not met at that time, then another review shall be completed at the request of the
9 school district.
10
11 3.0 ENERGY
12
13 Impact: The EIR demonstrated that the proposed project would have a
14 beneficial effect on energy consumption by reducing the vehicle .miles travelled and
15 improving congestion over the No Project Alternative as identified in the project
16 EIR.
17
18 Finding: The project's effect on energy consumption is considered significant and
~ 19 beneficial.
~:.F
k ~ . 20
21 Mitigation: No mitigation is required.
.
22
23 4.0 VISITAL QUALITY
24
25 4.1 Impact: The project EIR identifies the construction of the Rainier Avenue
26 extension and interchange as a significant visual impact altering the semi-rural
27 character of the area, interrupting views to and from the Petaluma River corridor,
28 creating a large fill area and structure that will contrast with the existing low terrain
29 and block existing views, potentially eliminating existing natural visual features, and
30 increasing the urban character of the area.
31
32 Findings: The following mitigation measures incorporated into the project as
33 conditions of approval will lessen the visual. impact although not below a level of
34 significance. The project EIR identified the impact to be irreversible and
, ~ 35 unavoidable and remain significant even with implementation of the identified
36 mitigation measures.
x•94 ° 2~ 5NCS
17
1
2 Alternative traffic mitigation measures to avoid the visual impacts under the No
3 Project Alternative were determined to be infeasible because of existing land use
4 constraints as discussed in the project EIR. Alternative measures to reduce traffic
5 demand could reduce some of the study area improvements needed, but could not
6 eliminate the need for a new connector and interchange as discussed in the project
7 EIR. The Project Alternative to construct the interchange at Corona Road was
8 found to have significant visual impacts comparable to the Proposed Project - as the
' 9 overpass and extension of Rainier Avenue would still be required to meet the
~:k ~ ~ project's traffic objectives.
11
12 Mitigations:
13
14 a. Design bridge structures to avoid large I-beams from assuming visual
15 importance, screen all steel support work, and provide textured treatment
16 that is visually interesting and reduces the perceived scale and overall mass
17 of the structure, subject to Site Plan and Architectural Review.
18
19 b. Special attention in design shall be given to incorporating a smooth and
20 varied transition on all fill slopes to appear more natural in character
21 providing variations in slope and contours and shall be subject to Site Plan
22 and Architectural Review.
23
24 c. Acquire sufficient right-of-way to accommodate arterial landscaping along
25 cut and fill areas elevated structural sections and at the connections to
,
~~~4.;; 26
McDowell and Petaluma Boulevard.
27
28 d. Develop Landscape Improvement Plans incorporating canopy trees,
29 screening vegetation and tree replacement that compliments the existing
30 natural features. Landscape Plans and specifications shall specify plant
31 materials, irrigation components, maintenance requirements and schedule,
32 and provisions for plant replacement throughout the one year establishment
33 period.
34
35 e. Protect and retain existing trees to the maximum extent feasible including the
36 existing cluster of oaks between the proposed northbound interchange ramps.
-~~e- i8 Its. 9 4- 2~ 5 N C S
~'i~.~
tp;
`y
U
`T
~ 5
1
2 f. The design of the road extension and structure shall be subject to Site Plan
3 and Architectural Review prior to approval of the Plans and Specifications or
4 advertising for bids.
5
6 Monitoring: The Engineering Department shall be responsible for implementation
7 of these measures. The Planning Department shall review the Precise Plan Line for
8 verification of conformance with measure (c) prior to consideration and approval by
9 the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Department shall review
10 the Plans and Specifications for verification and conformance with measures. a, b, d,
11 e, and f prior to approval or advertising for bids.
12
13 Landscaping Improvement Plans and Specifications shall be subject to Site Plan and
.
' 14 Architectural Review for conformance with these requirements prior to approval or
15 advertising for bids.
16
17 The City shall require cone-year maintenance/establishment period from the
18 landscape contractor for needed maintenance and replacement plantings.
19
20 The Planning Department shall conduct periodic site inspections prior to final
21 acceptance and during the one year establishment. period after acceptance of the
22 improvements to ensure plant materials are fully established.
23
24 A letter report to the City Engineer shall be prepared as needed, describing field
25 observations, necessary replanting and or corrections relating to such items as weed
26 control, erosion protection, sprinkler system adjustments and other items of
27 landscape maintenance and establishment to ensure successful establishment of
28 landscape improvements.
~~x:
~ 29
~ ~ 30 4.2 Im act: The ro osed freewa auxilia mer e lanes would re uire removal of the
31 existing row of redwood trees lining the freeway between E. Washington Street
32 interchange and Lynch Creek and eliminate the visual screening of adjacent
33 residential and commercial uses. The removal of the redwood trees is identified as
34 a potentially significant visual impact.
35
RED®. 9 4 ®2 ~ 5 N C S
19
1 Finding: The visual impact of removing the redwood trees could be avoided by
2 the following mitigation measure incorporated into the project as a condition of
3 approval as identified in the project EIR.
4
w-~~~ 5 The mitigation measure is within the jurisdiction and authority of Caltrans as a
~;w~:r
6 permitting agency and not entirely within the authority of the City of Petaluma to
Ei"~ .
7 implement. Caltrans has indicated preliminary approval of this mitigation measure
8 in concept and can and should adopt this measure as part of the subsequent project
9 approval process. The mitigation measure may not be feasible depending upon
10 Caltrans requirements.
11
12 If this mitigation measure is determined infeasible, then removal of the redwood
13 trees would remain a significant and unavoidable visual impact that could be
14 partially .mitigated by the alternative measures described below but could not be
15 minimized to a level of insignificance.
16
17 Mitigation:
18 a. The visual impact of removing the redwood trees could be avoided by an
r: s 19
9 alternative project design to construct additional lanes within the existing
m~~:.
k:t..
~ 20 freeway median and converting the existing outside lanes to merge lanes
21 between Lynch Creek and the E. Washington Street interchange ramps. The
22 City shall obtain approval from Caltrans for this alternative design.
23
24 b. The City should obtain additional right-of-way to replant the additional
25 redwood trees to screen the commercial buildings and reduce potential visual
26 impacts of future interchange improvements or freeway widening as part of
27 the landscaping plan. This measure would not be feasible along the existing
28 residential properties west of the freeway, but may be feasible along the
29 commercial properties east of the freeway where additional right-of-way has
30 been reserved.
31
32 Monitoring: Implementation shall be responsibility of the City Engineer and
33 verified by the Planning Department in the review and approval of the Precise Plan
34 Line for ri ht-of-wa re wired to lant additional trees and in the Plans and
p p y
35 S ecifications. Landsca e Plans shall include a one- ear
36 maintenance/establishment period by the landscape contractor. The alternative of
RE~,g~-285NC~
20
1 providing median lanes shall be incorporated into the Project Report for Caltrans
2 approval and included in the plans and specifications for the project subject to
3 review and approval of Caltrans, prior to advertising for bids.
4
5 4.3 Impact: The soundwall proposed as part of the project and modified by
6 mitigation measures identified herein (Noise Section 10.0 herein) has potential for
'rt 7 significant visual impact by extending across Lynch Creek, potentially blocking views
8 and requiring removal or damage to the existing redwood trees that currently screen
m' i
9 the freeway.
10
''3 11 Finding: The potential visual impact from the proposed soundwall will be avoided
12 or substantially reduced below a level of significance by the following mitigation
13 measures incorporated .into the project design as conditions of approval.
14
15 Two of these mitigation measures fall within the permit authority and jurisdiction of
16 other agencies as identified below and can and should be adopted by such agencies
17 in subsequent permit approvals.
18
19 Mitigations:
20
21 a. An alternative project design (described above as mitigation for Impact 4.2)
22 to avoid removal of the redwood trees by constructing additional median
w.
~~~_,a,: 23 lanes and converting the existing outside lanes to merge lanes should be
24 a roved b Caltrans as art of the Pro ect A royal Re ort. The Cit shall
PP Y P j PP P Y
ti~ti°'= 25 obtain a royal from Caltrans for this alternative desi n
F ~=•°=Y~ PP g .
26
27 b. An alternative to extending the soundwall across Lynch Creek, is to wrap the
28 extended soundwall along the rear yards of residential properties up to
29 Burlington Drive, along the south side of the Lynch Creek channel.
30 Coordination and approval from the Sonoma County Water Agency which
31 owns the channel/right-of-way and from Caltrans which will take ownership
32 of the soundwall after construction is required. The City shall obtain
33 approvals from the Sonoma County Water Agency and Caltrans for this
34 alternative design.
35
RED®. 9 4- 2 8 5 N C S
ti 21
-
F~~
s
1 c. Measures to protect the existing redwood trees from damage during
2 construction of the soundwall shall be incorporated into the plans and
3 specifications. Replant damaged or removed trees after completion of the
4 soundwall as part of the landscape plan.
5
6 Monitoring: City Engineer shall be responsible for implementation to be verified by
7 the Planning Director upon review and approval of the plans and specifications
8 prior to advertising for bids.
9
10 4.4 Impact: The connection of Rainier Avenue to Petaluma Boulevard would require
11 the removal of five existing Sycamore trees for a southbound left-turn lane and is
12 identified as a potentially significant visual impact in the project EIR.
~u ' 13
Y' =I 14 Finding: The following mitigation measures incorporated into the project as
~~"'u 15 conditions of approval will substantially reduce below a -level of significance the
rt 16 visual impact of tree removal as identified in the Final EIR.
17
18 Mitigation: Replacement of the Sycamore trees shall be incorporated into the
19 Landscape Plans and Monitoring Program described above (Impact 4.1).
20 Replacement trees shall be planted in the general area of tree removal with no less
21 than 24-inch box specimens at a ratio of 1:1 as part of the landscape plan.
22
23 Monitoring: Implementation shall be verified by the Planning Department through
24 Site Plan and Architectural Review of the Landscape Plan.
25
26 4.5 Impact: The point of connection of Rainier Avenue to Petaluma Boulevard North
27 would cause a potentially significant visual impact on the existing residence from
28 headlamps during nighttime hours.
,
29
w _-•r
,
30 Finding: The potential visual impact on the existing residence(s) will be
31 substantially reduced to a level of insignificance by incorporating the following
32 mitigation measure as a condition of approval.
33
34 Mitigation: Obtain a construction easement and incorporate a visual screen or
35 fence in the project design plans where feasible to reduce glare along the existing
36 residence located directly across the proposed connection of Rainier Avenue.
22 9 4 ®2 ~ 5 N C S
1
2 Monitoring: Implementation shall be verified by review and approval of the plans
?~w~ 3 and specifications by the Planning Department prior to advertising for bids.
J'~~' , 4
5 5.0 CULTUIIAL 1ZESOUItCES
.
4, ~s 6
7 5.1 Impact: Although no evidence of archaeological materials were noted during field
8 studies of the project area, the potential for buried archaeological materials subject
9 to construction damage cannot be entirely ruled out and is identified as a potentially
10 significant impact in the project EIR.
11
12 Finding: The potential for impact to unknown buried cultural resources will be
13 reduced below a level of significance by the following mitigation measures
14 incorporated into the project specifications as a condition of approval.
15
16 Mitigation: If possible archaeological site indicators as described in the project EIR
r, 17 are uncovered during construction activities, then construction work shall be halted
~ in the area of the find, the Planning Department shall be notified and an evaluation
18
19 and recommendations b a ualified erson shall be com leted.
Y q P P
~k. ~ 20
21 Monitoring: The Planning Director shall verify measures are adequately identified
22 in the project specifications prior to advertising for bids and shall be responsible for
23 contracting a qualified person to evaluate site and implement measures in the event
24 of an archaeological find.
25
26 6.0 GEOLOGY, SOILS, ANI) SEISMICITY
27
28 Potential impacts related to soils, geology and seismicity were identified in the
29 project EIR as follows:
30
31 6.1 Impact: Potential to create unstable slopes or aggravate unstable soil conditions
. 32 and possible damage to the road and structure resulting from seismic ground
33 shaking, corrosive and/or expansive soils.
34
S::
R~®.94 - 2~ SNC~
23
1 Finding: The potential impacts related to soils and geology, and seismicity will be
2 reduced to a level of insignificance by the following mitigation measures
3 incorporated into the project as conditions of approval.
4
5 Mitigation:
. 6
F 7 a. A detailed site specific geotechnical seismic and soils investigation shall be
8 conducted by aCalifornia-registered geotechnical and structural engineer
9 and recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, pavement, retaining
' 10 walls, backfill materials, fill slopes, and foundation design shall be
11 incorporated into the project design plans and specifications as identified in
12 the project EIR.
13
14 Monitoring: City Engineer and Building Department shall review and approve the
15 geotechnical reports and design plans prior to advertising for bids.
16
17
18
19 7.0 I-IYDROI.OGY AND WADER QI`TALITY
20
21 7.1 Impact: Potential impacts to water quality include: erosion, siltation and
. 22 sedimentation of drainageways during and after construction; hazardous materials
F,~:~-
.n
; 23 released from spills during construction; and, a remote possibility of encountering
x=, 24 hazardous materials in groundwater or soils from adjacent contaminated sites
~;J Y.,,
25 during construction.
26
27 Finding: The potential for impact to water quality will be minimized to a level of
28 insignificance by the following mitigation measures hereby adopted as conditions of
29 approval to be incorporated into the project design plans and specifications.
30
31 Mitigation:
32
33 a. Conduct field survey and soil tests within right-of-way near known
34 contaminated sites prior to acquisition to ascertain the presence of potential
35 contaminants.
36
~E~.94- 28 5NC~
~<<~
,3; 24
MS"~' ,9.
ys `~s C'
;r.~
ik
t
ti
~i
1 b. Check the Hazardous Waste Site List and identify all known contaminated
2 sites in the vicinity of the project on project plans. Monitor any excavation or
3 earthwork in the vicinity of contaminated sites during construction.
4
5 c. If potential hazardous substances are found within the project construction
6 area, a qualified Hazardous Materials Specialist shall be contracted by the
7 City to monitor conformance with local and state requirements for proper
8 handling and disposal.
9
10 d. A detailed Spill and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as required for
11 the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
`LL ~ 12 Permit administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be
13 incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project prior to
~ 14 issuance of a grading permit.
. 15
16 e. The City shall incorporate conditions of the required 1601 Streambed
17 Alteration Agreement (Dept. of Fish and Game) into the plans and
18 specifications for the project to minimize impacts to water quality from
19 erosion and sedimentation.
20
21 f. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is required pursuant to the City's
22 Municipal Code (Ordinance 1576) and shall incorporate erosion control
23 measures as specified in the project EIR, prior to issuance of a grading
24 permit.
25
26 g. Incorporate a slope maintenance program into the landscaping maintenance
g~ ~ 27 program and contract specifications required for the project.
w~ ,
28
p~ 29 Monitoring: The City Engineer shall be responsible for implementation and
r';;" , i,
S
30 obtaining permits. The plans and specifications shall be subject to review and
31 approval of the Planning Department, Building Department and Engineering
32 Department for conformance with these measures prior to advertising for bids.
33 Periodic inspections shall be conducted during construction by the City's
34 construction inspectors for conformance with these requirements.
35
~a~s~o 9 4- 2~ 5 N C$
2s
1 7.2 Impact: Additional paved surfaces and increased traffic from anticipated
2 future development. contribute to contaminants in urban runoff and could result in
_ ..r
-
3 the cumulative degradation of water quality.
d 4
5 Finding: Potential impacts to water quality will be reduced to a level of
6 insignificance by the following mitigation measures to be incorporated into the
7 project as a condition of approval.
8
9 Mitigations:
10
11 a. The drainage design prepared for the project shall avoid direct discharge of
12 runoff into the Petaluma River or tributary streams and incorporate the use
13 of detention basins, grasslined swales, retention/infiltration systems, and/or
14 extensive vegetation buffers between the road and drainage ways where
15 feasible to remove pollutants from road runoff.
16
a
~ ~ 17 b. To minimize pollutant loadings entering the runoff, the City shall maintain
SUS, 18 litter control along the roadside areas and reduce or avoid the use of
19 chemical weed and insect control along drainage areas.
.
20
F 21 Monitoring: Drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City
22 Engineer and the Planning Department prior to advertising for bids. City Parks and
23 Recreation Department shall be responsible for maintenance of roadside landscape
24 areas.
25
26 7.3 Impacts: Potential significant impacts related to hydrology and flood hazards
27 include: additional paved surfaces increase the amount of storm runoff generated
28 and could increase flood levels; installation of structural supports could create flow
29 obstructions within the floodway; and, additional fill within the floodplain could
30 reduce the flood storage capacity of the floodplain along the Petaluma River.
31
l_ `r,
32 Finding: Impacts related to flood hazards and hydrology shall be reduced to a level
,
~~:'~r, 33 of insignificance by incorporating the following mitigation measures into the project
,
34 design as conditions of approval.
35
36
.94-2~5NCS
26
1 Mitigation:
2
3 a. Pursuant to Section 16-503 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, a hydrologic
4 analysis prepared by a qualified engineer is required to demonstrate the
5 proposed design will not alter upstream or downstream flows, subject to
r... 6 .review and approval by the City Engineer and the Sonoma County Water
` ~ 7 Agency prior to issuance of a conditional use permit for the road/bridge
8 within the floodway.
9
;
10 b. The hydrologic analysis will include drainage calculations and drainage plans
11 shall be designed to accommodate any increased flows subject to review by
12 the City Engineer and the Sonoma County Water Agency.
13
14 c. In accordance with Section 16.703 of the City of Petaluma's Zoning
15 Ordinance there shall be no net fill within the floodplain of the Petaluma
16 River upstream of Payran Street. An engineering analysis shall be required
17 to demonstrate the balance of fill within the floodplain, subject to review and
18 approval of the City Engineer and incorporated into the plans and
19 specifications for the project prior to advertising for bids.
20
21
rs? 22
'rv„
a : ,
; 23 8.0 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
mss:: 24
.
25 8.1 Impact: Potential significant direct impacts to vegetation and wildlife include:
26
27 1. Unavoidable loss or damage to habitat including approximately 12 Valley
28 Oak trees (approximately 2.0 acres of oak woodlands) and .40 acres of
29 seasonal wetlands.
30
31 2. Potential for damage from construction activities to an additional .62 acres of
32 seasonal wetlands in the project vicinity.
33
34 3. Potential for damage or disturbance to nesting habitat for raptorial birds.
35
~r- .
x~~. ,
~v
R®.94-2~5NCS
` 27
<<
W4r: ;~I
ugt .
.xr
J ~
1=: ,
1 4. Disturbance to wildlife use of the riparian area from roadway operations and
2 intrusion of human activities.
3
4 Finding: The loss of habitat will be compensated and the impacts reduced to a
5 level of insignificance by the following mitigation measures as further specified in
6 the Biological Mitigation Plan. Impacts to vegetation and wildlife resources in the
7 vicinity of the Petaluma River, are unavoidable, but will be compensated and
8 mitigated to a level of insignificance as set forth in the Final EIR and Biological
9 Mitigation Plan hereby adopted and incorporated as part of the project as a
10 condition of approval.
11
12 1Vlitigations:
`1 13
~..f' 14 a. Wetlands and oak woodlands damaged from the project shall be
A'
15 compensated at a ratio of 5:1 replacement by establishing Z.0 acres of
16 seasonal wetlands and 5.0 acres of oak woodlands along the Petaluma River
17 in the vicinity of the project, as set forth in the Biological Mitigation Plan,
18 subject to review and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers for issuance
19 of a fill permit. Any necessary construction and conservation easements shall
20 be included in the right-of-way requirements for the project.
21
22 b. Damage during construction shall be avoided by incorporating Best
23 Management Practices into the plans and specifications as set forth in the
24 Biological Mitigation Plan including: designating appropriate construction
25 staging areas and identifying sensitive areas to be avoided on the design
~ 26 plans; fencing sensitive areas prior to construction; holding a preconstruction
at
27 conference to discuss Best Management Practices; and, requiring bonding
~r
l~
28 and fines to ensure replacement of inadvertently damaged trees or wetlands
29 in the specifications.
30
31 c. Design plans shall avoid drainage that adversely impacts root zones of oak
32 trees. The City shall consult with a qualified tree specialist for recommended
33 measures to avoid or substantially reduce damage to trees from fill or other
34 construction practices, prior to approval of the plans and specifications or
35 advertising for bids.
36
RF.~®.94 ~ 2~ 5NCS
28
1 d. Prior to construction, all trees to be removed in the vicinity of construction
Y I;
2 activities shall be surveyed by qualified biologist to determine the presence
Y.'.,., 1..~ c
~::`Y~ 3 of raptor nests. If raptor nests are present in the project area, construction
LLB,
~-'~a 4 activities in the vicinity of the nests shall be prohibited during nesting season
,
5 between February through May.
` 6
7 e. As stated in the Biological Mitigation Plan, the mitigation design shall
8 incorporate a dense vegetated riparian planting in the vicinity of the river
9 crossing to buffer the riparian habitat from operational disturbances and
10 discourage human intrusion into the riparian habitat areas.
11
12 Monitoring: A detailed 10-year Mitigation Monitoring Program is included in the
13 Biological Mitigation Plan to be adopted as a condition of approval. The Mitigation
14 Monitoring Program establishes requirements for a preconstruction site evaluation,
15 ongoing maintenance program, annual inspection and reporting requirements, and
16 interim and final success criteria in accordance with guidelines of the federal
w~.:,
~ 17 resource agencies. Best Management Practices shall be incorporated into the Plans
;
~'w~~' 18 and Specifications for the project subject to review and approval of the Planning
19 Department for conformance with these mitigation measures prior to advertising for
a~
20 bids.
21
22 8.2 Impact: The project EIR identified potential for significant cumulative impacts to
23 vegetation and wildlife along the Petaluma River corridor as a result of anticipated
24 future development with or without the project. The project does not directly
25 enable development along the Petaluma River as no direct access to these lands is
26 provided. The project would provide additional traffic capacity throughout the
27 study area and removes a constraint to future development that would indirectly
28 foster development.
29
30 Finding: The following mitigation measures as specified in the Biological
et~*.;
~ 31 Mitigation Plan and hereby adopted as conditions of project approval will
32 substantially reduce the potential cumulative impacts to vegetation and wildlife to a
' 33 level of insignificance.
34
35
36
RE~O.g4~2~5NCS
29
1 Mitigation:
2
3 a. Adoption of comprehensive policies contained in the proposed Petaluma
4 River Access and Enhancement Plan will address cumulative effects of new
5 development along the Petaluma River by establishing appropriate setbacks
6 of sensitive habitats and an open space corridor or "greenway"; requiring
Y"~-h
; 7 screening of habitat areas and linuting public access within these areas; and,.
providing opportunities for additional mitigation and riparian restoration
=F ~ ~ 9 within the open space corridor as new development occurs.
10
11 The Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan is proposed to be
12 adopted as an Area Plan and amendment to the General Plan, subject to
13 further review, revision and recommendation by the Citizen's Committee and
14 Planning Commission, to be ultimately adopted by the City Council. Policies
15 adopted through this comprehensive planning effort will apply to subsequent
16 development.
17
18 b. A Preliminary Master Plan is required for the area within the Corona Reach
19 of the Petaluma River between Lynch Creek and Corona Road as a
20 condition of a prior rezoning approval. This comprehensive planning effort
21 will be subject to further environmental review and will provide an
~ 22 opportunity to address potential cumulative impacts of future development
~ .
' ~ 23 alon the Petaluma River at a reater level of detail.
g g
24
25 Monitoring: A River Access and Enhancement Plan has been developed and is
26 proposed for adoption as an Area Plan and amendment to the General Plan. The
27 development of a Preliminary Master Plan is already committed to by the City as a
28 condition of approval for the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet rezoning. The
29 Planning Director shall be responsible for the development, implementation and
30 enforcement of both comprehensive planning efforts.
31
32 9.0 AII~ QUALITY
33
34 9.1 Impact: The project EIR identified potential for short-term temporary adverse
35 impacts on air quality from emissions during construction.
~.-Sk `
REQ. 9 4- 2~ 5 N C S
.
' 30
~F
~ct~'~
4r:,.~'
f5~~eyly J-~,S .
;gip` ;'„tip..
.
,
1 Finding: The following mitigation measures incorporated into the project as
2 conditions of approval will substantially lessen the impact of dust emission on air
3 quality, but not below a level of significance. T'he project EIR identifies dust
4 emissions during construction as a significant unavoidable, but short-term impact.
5
6 Mitigations:
7
8 a. Watering exposed soils twice daily with complete site coverage and increase
9 frequency of watering if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Responsibility for
10 watering to include weekends and holidays.
~i 11
1ir.~r•. b
a , 12 b. Periodic sweeping of mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by
13 construction vehicles.
14
15 c. Covering trucks hauling soil with tarpaulins or other effective covers.
16
17 d. Post-construction revegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils
18 as soon as possible.
19
20 f. Require contractor to designate person with authority to require
21 implementation of these measures to monitor the dust and erosion control
22 program.
23
24 g. Maintaining construction equipment in good operating conditions and
R. 25 minimize equipment idling time.
26
'r7~' 27 1Vlonitoring: The specified measures shall be incorporated into the Project Plans
28 and S ecifications and the re wired Erosion Control Plan sub'ect to review and
29 approval by the Planning Department, prior to award of bid.
30
31 9.2 Impact: Implementation of the project will result in a general improvement of the
32 local and regional air quality. This is a beneficial impact.
33
34 Finding: The project will reduce the vehicle miles travelled, traffic
35 congestion/delay and associated emissions and will reduce and minimize impacts to
RES®. 9 4° 2~ 5~ C
31
',k
1 air quality below a level of significance as a result of future anticipated
2 development.
t:;
r.. 3
d.±-
~'c`:' 4 Mitigation: No additional mitigations required.
5
6 10.0 N®ISE
7
8 10.1 Impact: The project would cause a significant temporary short-term increase in
9 noise levels in the project area during construction activities.
10
11 Findang: The following mitigation measures incorporated into the project as
12 conditions of approval will reduce the noise impacts during construction to a level of
13 insignificance.
14
. 15 Mitigation:
g~,~- 16
17 a. Construction activities within 1600 feet of residents shall be limited to
°y 18 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and
19 6:00 p.m. on weekends. Work may only occur outside the designated hours
20 by special permit from the City stating the compelling reasons.
21
22 b. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained with mufflers and
23 noise-reduction devices to minimize noise.
24
25 c. Appropriate construction staging, parking, and loading areas shall be
26 identified on the plans to be located a minimum of 500-feet away from
27 residential and environmentally sensitive areas as identified in the Final EIR.
28
29 d. The contractor shall designate a responsible person with authority to
30 implement the above mitigation measures and provide the City with name,
.
31 address and phone number of said person.
,
32
~~~•s- 33 10.2 Impact: The soundwall included in the proposed project will have a significant
r ~ 34 beneficial impact by substantially reducing noise levels for existing residents along
35 the freeway (between Lynch Creek and E. Washington Street interchange). Noise
~~dVV'.94 w M V V~
32
1 levels along the freeway currently exceed acceptable standards for residential use
2 and are projected to increase slightly with anticipated future development.
3
4 Finding: The proposed sound wall included in the project description will
~ 5 substantially reduce existing noise levels affecting residents along the freeway. This
6 impact is beneficial and significant although noise levels may remain above
7 acceptable standards for residential use.
~f ~ 8
~~,y-y',
9 Mitigation: Beneficial impact, no additional mitigations required.
10
11 10.3 Impact: Noise levels along Rainier Avenue and McDowell Boulevard would increase
12 as a result of anticipated future development. The noise levels would increase less
13 than 3 dBA and would remain below the 65 dBA maximum level considered
14 acceptable for residential use.
15
16 Finding: Noise level increases along Rainier Avenue and McDowell Boulevard
17 that result from anticipated future development are not significant and remain
18 within acceptable standards for residential use.
19
20 1Vlitigation: No mitigation measures required.
.
21
,m
' 22 11.0 Growth-.Inducement
r~,._~ 23
24 11.1 Impact: The proposed project will extend a major roadway into an area that maybe
25 subsequently developed and will have agrowth-inducing impact. Without the
26 project, growth would be constrained, though not prohibited, by severe traffic
27 congestion and the full development potential as envisioned in the General Plan
28 may not be realized.
29
30 Finding: The growth-inducing impact is not significant because growth in these
31 areas is envisioned in the General Plan and could occur without the project. As
32 such, the project is considered growth-accommodating.
33
34 There is no potential for the project to induce growth beyond the City's established
~ 35 urban boundary as Rainier Avenue is a local serving street that does not extend to
~y~,.~ .
36 rural areas. There is very limited potential for an extension of Rainier Avenue west
,
~~ti
33 RCS®. g 4- 2 8 5 N C S
1 of Petaluma Boulevard, as this area is already developed with rural residential
2 properties and existing public facilities (i.e. cemeteries). The development potential
3 west of Petaluma Boulevard is limited by the hilly terrain, low densities and urban
4 boundary as designated in the General Plan.
5
6 The project is consistent with the development patterns and growth projections
7 envisioned in the General Plan. Potentially significant cumulative impacts related
8 to growth along the Petaluma River as identified in the project EIR will be
w~ , 9 substantially reduced to a level of insignificance by the mitigation measures
10 identified in Biological Mitigation Plan as discussed above in Vegetation and
n
11 Wildlife Section 8.0.
12
13 Mitigation: No additional mitigations are required.
14
15 C. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT, PROJECT
16 ALTERNATIVES, AND ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS FOR THE PROJECT
17
18 NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the following project alternatives,
19 alternatives to the project, alternative project locations and/or partial/phased projects
20 were considered and rejected as either not meeting the project objectives or as infeasible
21 for social, economic, environmental or other factors as presented in the project EIR, based
22 upon the following findings and rationale:
23
24 1.0 Corona Road Interchange/Rainier Avenue Extension Alternative - An alternative
,
w~~
25 location for the interchange at the existing overcrossing of Corona Road was
26 evaluated as a project alternative that could substantially meet the project
27 objectives, but was not recommended as the environmentally superior alternative
28 based on the following findings and facts as presented in the project EIR:
29
30 a. The Corona Alternative would have potentially greater impacts on land use
31 by requiring relocation of the auction yard building(s). Relocation of the
32 auction yard facilities on-site may not be feasible due to land requirements
33 and the availability of off-site locations cannot be readily determined. The
34 auction yard is considered an important agricultural support business and
35 displacement of this use could significantly impact the surrounding
36 agricultural community. Additional impacts involving relocation of the
34 RCS®. 9~- 2~ 5~ C S
;:~e
£.h
,.1W
f'yt
1 existing business at the southwest corner of the McDowell/Corona Road
fig;
E:
2 intersection would also result from identified traffic mitigation measures as
3 described below.
4
5 b. The Corona Alternative would require substantial additional traffic
6 mitigations beyond those currently planned and anticipated in the City's
7 Capital Improvement Program and Traffic Mitigation Fee List to meet
8 General Plan traffic level of service standards at buildout. The critical
9 locations include one road segment and three intersections:
10
11 Road Segment
12 1. E. Washington Street between Payran and US 101
13
,~7~1
r~,= ~ 14 Intersections
15 1. Corona/McDowell;
y, .
n~
` 16 2. E. Washington/Lakeville;
17 3. E. Washington/Petaluma Boulevard
18
19 The feasibility of identified mitigation measures is uncertain because of
20 existing land use constraints at these locations.
21
22 c. The Corona Alternative could have a potentially significant impact on
23 regional traffic patterns, increasing traffic on rural roads and through-traffic
24 on City streets that may exceed the available capacity or planned
25 improvements.
26
27 d. The Corona Alternative would involve additional unavoidable impacts to
s~
. 28 wetlands (approximately .5 acres) that could not be avoided and would
M; 29 increase mitigation requirements.
30
1~?t
e. The Corona Alternative would have a potentially significant growth-inducing
31
32 effect on lands lying beyond the City's urban boundary that would be
33 inconsistent with the City's General Plan.
34
~~5®.~4 - 2~ 5NCS
35
i
~~;i;:
s~:
E..C',,,~.' i
I
c3"`~~i~~.-
"a;' ; : 1 f. The Corona. Alternative would involve significant visual impacts and
2 temporary air quality impacts, comparable to the project as proposed, that
3 could not be avoided or substantially mitigated.
4
5 g. The Corona Alternative interchange design is less desirable because it
6 involves additional turning movements at the ramp connections; the close
7 spacing of intersections along Corona Road would be more congested; the
8 proximity of the southbound ramps to the Petaluma River would limit future
9 access road and trail connections as envisioned in the General Plan; and, the
10 hook-ramps would require high speed traffic to exit the freeway into a curve
11 at the off-ramps.
12
.r; 13 2.0 No Pro ect Alternative. The No Pro ect Alternative to maintain the existin
J j g
F ! 14 circulation system was determined to be infeasible and undesirable because of
N~~;~~ 15 substantial traffic impacts that would occur. Alternative traffic mitigation measures
16 were determined to be infeasible due to existing land use constraints. Alternative
17 measures to reduce traffic demand would not provide sufficient capacity for future
18 growth and could not eliminate the need for the project. Under the No Project
19 Alternative land use and development patterns would be constrained by increased
20 traffic congestion. The economic development, land use and traffic circulation
21 goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan could not be met. The City would
22 be at-risk of losing gas tax subventions under the Congestion Management Program.
23
24 3.0 Southern Alignment. Alternative alignments for the proposed Rainier Avenue
25 extension were determined to be infeasible because of existing businesses and uses
26 that would be displaced. A southern alignment of Rainier Avenue that avoided
27 existing uses was also dropped from further consideration because of substantially
ry
28 greater impacts to existing wetlands and oak woodlands.
.
29
,lac,, i
~~~t ,
3 ~y 30 4.0 Corona Road Interchange ®nly. An alternative of constructing an interchange only
t-
31 at Corona Road with no extension of Rainier Avenue was evaluated in the
32 Corona/Ely Specific Plan and determined not to meet the project objectives to
33 reduce congestion on E. Washington Street. Alternative traffic mitigation measures
34 to improve E. Washington Street are not feasible because of existing land use
35 constraints. Alternative measures to implement a Trip Reduction Program or
36 ~ °y4° 2ts 5~Cs
1 Transportation System Management Program could reduce traffic impacts at certain
~z.,~;~
2 locations but would not meet projected demand at build-out of the General Plan.
~~_~z
~ i 3
4 5.0 E. Washington Street Interchange Improvements. Interchange improvements at E.
5 Washington Street in conjunction with the extension of Rainier Avenue were
6 evaluated in a 1985 Traffic Study and. was determined not to meet the project
7 objectives to relieve congestion on the E. Washington Street corridor. Interchange
8 improvements at E. Washington interchange alone (without the extension of
9 Rainier Avenue) was evaluated in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan EIR. In both
10 studies, interchange improvements at E. Washington Street were demonstrated to
11 attract more traffic to the impacted corridor and would increase congestion and
12 decrease the level of service, particularly the McDowell Blvd./E. Washington Street
13 intersection. Improvements at E. Washington between US 101 and McDowell are
14 identified as a separate project in the General Plan and are needed in conjunction
15 with the proposed project to meet General Plan objectives.
`N 16
r`
17 6.0 Partial Freeway Interchanges. Partial freeway interchanges at both Corona Road
Y~ ~ ;
.M ,r;
` 18 and the extension of Rainier Avenue as originally envisioned in the General Plan
19 were determined not to be feasible or desirable because of Caltrans policies
20 regarding safety as discussed in the Draft and Final EIR.
21
22 7.0 Sunrise Parkway. Anew arterial street and interchange at Sunrise Parkway was
23 suggested and determined to be technically infeasible because of the proximity,
24 elevations and configurations of the railroad and freeway at that location.
25
26 8.0 Southpoint Boulevard. Anew interchange and connector at Southpoint Boulevard
27 was determined not to be feasible to meet traffic engineering standards for sight
28 distance and clearance because of the proximity of the railroad and freeway.
29
30 9.0 iJnder Freeway Connector. An alternative of connecting a new road under the
: ~ 31 freeway at the existing freeway railroad overcrossing was determined not feasible
s
~ 32 because of the existing land uses, road configuration and the design of the freeway
~~a
~~rr 33 bridge structure.
uA.
+
34
35 10.0 Caulfield Lane Extension. The extension of Caulfield Lane to Petaluma Boulevard
36 was rejected because it would not meet the objectives of the project. The Caulfield
37 RED®a 9 =1 - 2 8 5 N C S
1 Lane extension is identified as a separate project in the General Plan to serve the
3;~
2 South Petaluma Boulevard area.
` 3
F.~,Y,.~
y:'
4 11.0 Connector Only. Extending Rainier Avenue as an overcrossing only without an
.
a- ' S interchange was raised during the review of the Final EIR. A connector only was
6 previously evaluated in a 1985 Traffic Study which further defined the range of
7 alternatives for preparation of the EIR. An extension of Rainier Avenue as an
8 overcrossing only was evaluated in the Draft EIR in conjunction with an alternative
9 interchange location at Corona Road.
10
11 A staff report (made an addendum to the Final EIR) was prepared which further
12 demonstrated that a partial project could not meet the objectives of this project to
13 relieve congestion on E. Washington Street and provide better access to US 101 and
14 would not be consistent with the General Plan transportation and/or land use
15 policies and the economic development, housing and public safety goals. At the
16 Council meeting on October 3, 1994 to consider the staff report, the Council
17 reaffirmed the determination that a partial project should not be considered as a
~r~ i
18 project alternative because it would not meet the objectives of the project based on
~t~~:,
19 the following findings:
20
21 1. Previous Council determinations that an overcrossing only could not meet
22 the objectives of this project without an interchange are evidenced in the
23 "Traffic Study Rainier Avenue Overcrossing", May 1985 report and in the
24 Circulation studies prepared for the 1987 General Plan. The determination
25 that the partial project could not meet the objectives of the project to relieve
26 congestion on E. Washington Street are reaffirmed by the traffic information
27 presented in the Addendum to the Final EIR.
28
29 2. Substantial evidence is presented in the record during the public hearings
30 that a partial project would not be consistent with previous Council
31 determinations on the siting of the Petaluma Valley Hospital and Police
32 Station and the adoption of the Corona/Ely Specific Plan.. as well as
~`;l-1, 33 determinations on land use decisions made by other agencies (i.e the Junior
r',~ 34 Colle e
g
- 35
R]?o9 ~ - 2 ~ 5NC3
38
1 3. As evidenced by the information presented in the Addendum to the Final
2 EIR - a connector only would be inconsistent with adopted General Plan
0.4
. 3 policies regarding traffic level of service standards, and may require changes
i 4 in the General Plan with regard to transit/pedestrian and multimodal
4
5 interfaces, land use densities/intensities, city-centered growth policies,
,
.
~ 6 housing opportunities, and economic development.
7
8 4. As evidenced by the information presented in the Addendum to the Final
9 EIR, the connector only would require substantial additional traffic
10 mitigations beyond those currently planned and anticipated in the City's
11 Capital Improvement Program and Traffic Mitigation Fee List to meet
12 General Plan traffic level of service standards at buildout. The critical
13 locations include one road segment and three intersections:
14
15 Road Segment
16 1. E. Washington Street between Payran and US 101
17
~~~s~:
` 18 Intersections
19 1. Corona/McDowell;
•wk':..
s' ' 20 2. E. Washington/Lakeville;
`~`y' ~ 21 3. E. Washington/Petaluma Boulevard
.
22
23 The feasibility of identified mitigation measures is uncertain because of
24 existing land use constraints at these locations.
25
26 5. The traffic impacts of a Connector Only would be substantially the same as
27 the Corona Alternative evaluated in detail in the Draft EIR as noted above.
28 The amount of land required for right-of--way, the degree of land speculation,
29 and the amount of trees and wetlands adversely affected could be reduced
30 somewhat but would remain significant and require mitigation measures as
31 noted in the Draft EIR. No new significant effects related to the connector
w 32 only that were not previously evaluated in the Draft EIR as part of the
~ Corona Alternative were identified.
~µr.~:,; 33
",.a'~~' 34
~°:i
'~.~*s 35 12.0 Phasing the Proposed Project -The potential phasing of the proposed project in two
xt`' 36 components by deferring the construction of an interchange to a later date was
39 RD~J4 ° 2~ 5NCS
1 mentioned by the City Council during review of the Final EIR. Phasing the
2 proposed project in two components would ultimately have the same environmental
3 effects as constructing both the connector and interchange as one complete project.
4 Potential for increased carbon monoxide concentrations during the interim period
5 was evaluated in the Addendum to the EIR and it was determined that no new
6 significant effects would result from phasing the project. Potential for interim
a;l
~aa,vlI
~ 7 traffic impacts could be mitigated by linking master planning of future land
~~J
8 development in the vicinity of the project to the second phase of constructing the
~`4 ~
9 interchange as noted in Section B. Land Use 1.3 above (page 5). Phasing the
10 project would be more costly than constructing both the interchange and connector
11 as a single project.
12
13 D. FINDINGS IZEGAItDING UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
14
15 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA
16 Guidelines, the following findings are hereby made by the City Council, with respect to the
17 significant unavoidable adverse impacts as identified in the Final EIR:
18
19 1. Air Quality -Potential impacts to air quality from emissions during construction will
~ 20 remain potentially significant unavoidable effects that cannot be fully alleviated by
v.~
21 the mitigation measures. These effects will be short-term and temporary during the
~fk
f., 22 period of construction.
,
~ 23
.
.
24 2. Visual Impacts -Construction of the road extension, overcrossing, interchange,
25 auxiliary lanes, soundwall and bridge over the Petaluma River will change the visual
26 character of the area and will remain a significant unavoidable and irreversible
27 impact that cannot be fully mitigated. If alternative designs for the freeway auxiliary
28 lanes and soundwall to be incorporated into the project are not approved by
29 Caltrans as a responsible agency, then the removal of the redwood trees lining the
30 freeway would remain an unavoidable visual impact that could not be fully mitigated
31 by the alternative mitigation measures adopted herein.
32
33
34
r~. 35
~3~' 36
, 40 .9 4 ®2 ~ 5 N C S
Y~.
'Rt ~
7':.- ~
yy__ F v
~„~ip...~~`,
~t"
Vie:.
1 E. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
2
3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, in accordance with Section 15093(b) of the
4 CEQA Guidelines, the adverse impacts identified above are hereby found acceptable
5 based on the following overriding considerations:
6 The project would provide substantial traffic benefits, improve the level of service and
7 reduce required traffic improvements from anticipated future development (as envisioned
8 in the General Plan). The proposed project will provide a convenient, efficient
9 transportation circulation system that interfaces with transit, pedestrian, bicycle and
10 recreational facilities as envisioned in the General Plan. The proposed project is needed to
ti j~Y
11 support the land use and development envisioned in the General Plan and maintain
12 acceptable levels of service in the City's transportation system. The proposed project
w_,~;
,4;~ ' 13 improves the City's emergency preparedness and emergency response times. The proposed
.r
14 project is consistent with the General Plan and would further the City's General Plan
15 transportation, community safety, economic development, and land use goals, policies and
16 objectives.
17
18 NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the City Council hereby
19 approves the project to extend Rainier Avenue from McDowell Boulevard North to
20 Petaluma Boulevard North with a full freeway interchange with U.S. 101 as described in
21 the project EIR, adopting the above referenced mitigation measures and monitoring
22 program as conditions of approval.
23
24 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the City Council hereby authorizes the City
25 Manager to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans for design, construction and
y~', 26 right-of-way activities and to negotiate contract agreements for professional services to
s.,
w:`t 27 complete the project engineering and design, landscape, and mitigation design plans, right-
28 of-wa ac uisition activities and ermit a royals.
Y q P PP
29
30 rain\exhibtBVb-24
41 ~ - ~ 5`ia~
1 E. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
2
3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, in accordance with Section 15093(b) of the
- 4 CEQA Guidelines, the adverse impacts identified above are hereby found acceptable
5 based on the following overriding considerations:
6 The project would provide substantial traffic benefits, improve the level of service and
z.
7 reduce required traffic improvements from anticipated future development (as envisioned
8 in the General Plan). The proposed project will provide a convenient, efficient
9 transportation circulation system that interfaces with. transit, pedestrian, bicycle and
10 recreational facilities as envisioned in the General Plan. The proposed project is needed to
11 support the land use and development envisioned in the General Plan and maintain
12 acceptable levels of service in the City's transportation system. The proposed project
13 improves the City's emergency preparedness and emergency response times. The proposed
14 project is consistent with the General Plan and would further the City's General Plan
15 transportation, community safety, economic development, and land use goals, policies and
16 objectives.
17
18 NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the City Council hereby
19 approves the project to extend Rainier Avenue from McDowell Boulevard North to
20 Petaluma Boulevard North with a full freeway interchange with U.S. 101 as described in
21 the project EIR, adopting the above referenced mitigation measures and monitoring
22 program as conditions of approval.
23
24 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the City Council hereby authorizes the City
25 Manager to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans for design, construction and
26 right-of-way activities and to negotiate contract agreements for professional services to
27 complete the project engineering and design, landscape, and mitigation design plans, right-
28 of-way acquisition activities and permit approvals.
29 Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
3'REFE~'T~tB~b-24 I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) (Special) meeting form
f...
on the ...~7.tXl day of .............QC.~.S?~2T'..-------...................-, 19.~~., by the
following vote: .
ity Attorne
AYES: Parkerson, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss
NOES: Hamilton, Barl
ABSENT: None/~ `
ATTEST: - • C~.~1J
City Clerk Mayor
Council File
CA 10-55 Res. No.........~.~.~85...-. N.C.S.