Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 5.A 04/01/2012
Agentaa./Ite ni#5.A „Litt. zase DATE: April 2, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Heather Hines, Deputy Planning Manager Geoff I. Bradley, AICP, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report; Resolution Making Findings and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Proposed Deer Creek Village Project, located at North McDowell and Rainier Avenue; APNs 007-380-005 and 007-380-027 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutions for the Deer Creek Village:Project: 1. Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report; and 2. Resolution Making Findings and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations. It is also recommended that the City Council provide comments on the Site Plan and Architectural Review to be forwarded to the Planning Commission during future deliberation. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2012 the Council continued consideration of the Deer Creek Village Final EIR at the request of the applicant to April 2, 2012 in light of the voluminous comment letters that were submitted February 24 and February 27, 2012. This staff report incorporates the staff report from February 27`h and adds analysis of the late comments to assist the City Council in its deliberations. The primary issue,in the additional analysis involves the Rainier interchange and cross-town connector (collectively, "Rainier") and other long term traffic improvements contained in the City's General Plan, and their effect on the Deer Creek traffic analysis. The General Plan indicates that both Rainier and the Caulfield Extension/Southern Crossing ("Caulfield Agenda Review. City Attorney Finance Director City Manager Extension") will lessen the number of trips using East Washington/North McDowell as a cross- town connector. The amount of relief provided by Rainier would be greater, because it is closer to the East Washington/North McDowell intersection. The same is true for the intersection of Corona Road/Petaluma Boulevard North. Both intersections are projected to be at Level of Service ("LOS") D at General Plan citywide buildout because of this effect. The Rainier and Caulfield Extension improvements are relied on only to mitigate the Deer Creek project cumulative buildout traffic at East Washington/North McDowell and Corona Road/Petaluma Boulevard North. The Deer Creek EIR already concludes that significant and unavoidable traffic impacts will occur at these intersections in shorter term scenarios without the improvements. More than sixty comments were received during the 45-day public comment period on the Draft ER. All written and oral comments submitted prior to Council direction to prepare the Final EIR and responses to those comments are included in the Final EIR. An updated noise analysis was completed to provide additional information and is provided as Appendix G to the Final EIR. An additional site visit was also performed to verify that there had been no relevant change in conditions since the previous biology analysis was conducted. The updated letter report is provided as Appendix D to the Final EIR. The Planning Commission considered the. Final EIR for the project and began Site Plan and Architectural Review ("SPAR") at a noticed public hearing on January 10, 2012. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to find the Final EIR inadequate based on its "failure to reconsider for CEQA purposes whether the Rainier Interchange is a reasonably foreseeable future improvement" and "failure to study traffic impacts in the cumulative scenario with Rainier Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing only and no Rainier Interchange." Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-01 and the Planning Commission staff report are attached as Attachments 3 and 4, respectively. The issues relating to Rainier on which the Planning Commission based its decision are similar, but narrower, than issues raised in the comment letters received shortly before the February 27th scheduled hearing, and are discussed in depth in subsection "C" below. Staffs recommendation remains the ,same as in the February 27th staff report, based on the analysis of issues in the Final EIR and this report and the applicable CEQA standards outlined in subsection "D" of this report. The recommended actions conform to current Council policy contained in the adopted General Plan. Staff is subject to and guided by existing Council policy contained in the General Plan unless and until the Council directs changes to current City land use policies and actions committing funds and resources to completion of Rainer. Accordingly, the draft resolutions for certification, findings of fact, and statement of overriding considerations are substantively the same as presented in the packet materials for the February 27th agenda. Should the Council agree with the findings made by the Planning Commission and wish to establish new policy direction regarding the long term traffic infrastructure included in the General Plan, it may provide such direction to staff. Depending on the Council's direction, a modified resolution concerning the Deer Creek Final EIR could then be returned for the Council's consideration at the next available meeting. Council direction departing from current General Plan.policy could also require further Council legislative action, for which staff would draft necessary materials as needed. Page 2 of 19 No new impacts which required recirculation were identified as part of the responses to comments in the Final EIR. See Final EIR, Topical Response 3, "Recirculation of the FEIR," for additional discussion. Recirculation of the Final EIR was requested by the late commenters. However, if new information does not show a new„substantial impact, an increase in the severity of an impact, or a new and different feasible mitigation or alternative that would reduce environmental impacts but is not adopted, recirculation is not required. The commenters assert that information provided and cited in their submissions shows that Rainier will never be built. The City has provided substantial evidence to the contrary in the Final EIR and adds to and discusses that evidence in subsection C below. CEQA does not require that information of this type be incorporated into the body of the EIR and recirculated. DISCUSSION The Deer Creek Village EIR has been prepared as a tiered EIR which evaluates specific project- level impacts which were not fully evaluated in the General Plan EIR. As noted in the CEQA findings for General Plan 2025 adoption, Resolution 2008-084 N.C.S., the General Plan EIR was intended to provide cumulative analysis that would be used by future projects consistent with the General Plan, as has been done in this ER. A. Impacts Remaining Significant and Unavoidable The EIR identified areas in which the proposed project would cause significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant impact. They are air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, traffic and transportation, and cumulative traffic/rail noise at General Plan buildout. Several of the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR are cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan 2025. Even though a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for these impacts when the General Plan was adopted, court decisions interpreting CEQA require a separate statement of overriding considerations based on a balancing of the specific impacts and benefits of this project prior to project approval. Because the City's local Environmental Review Guidelines provide that only the City Council can certify an EIR, it follows that the Council is also the appropriate body to adopt a statement of overriding considerations, if it determines that the benefits of the project outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Certification of the EIR and adoption of a statement of overriding considerations are both required before the Planning Commission can approve Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR). 1. Noise Impact Noise-3 evaluates the project's contribution to cumulative effects and relies on the evaluation of noise effects in the EIR for General Plan 2025, which determined that significant and unavoidable impacts would result from traffic-related noise and future rail service at total General Plan buildout. The contribution of a project on this site was estimated at the permitted density and zoning in the General Plan, and almost any project on the site would be expected to contribute in a similar fashion based on that density and zoning. No feasible mitigation measures were identified that would result in the project making a less than considerable contribution to Page 3 of 19 this cumulative city-wide impact, and thus this significant and unavoidable impact remains applicable to the proposed project. 2. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions It should be noted that an Alameda Superior Court case recently invalidated the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") CEQA Guidelines because BAAQMD did not itself do a CEQA evaluation of the Guidelines before their adoption. The main thrust of the challenge by the Building Industry Association was that the thresholds would hinder development within 1,000 feet of major transportation corridors and push new development away from infill sites and further from the core of the Bay Area, contrary to the goal and intent of other laws, such as SB 375 and AB 32, both intended to promote infill development to mitigate air quality impacts from automobile use. However, because the court's decision did not challenge or invalidate the scientific underpinnings of BAAQMD's work, and in the absence of a different set of significance thresholds developed by the City, staff recommends continuing to use the BAAQMD thresholds in evaluation of the project's air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. An air quality impact was identified related to construction activities associated with the project which would result in dust and equipment exhaust emissions that could at times affect adjacent residential uses including the single-family residential homes to the northeast/east of McDowell Boulevard and/or the Petaluma.Valley Hospital to the east on Professional Drive, and that could contribute to deterioration of local air quality. Based on the analysis,during grading and the first year of construction, average daily emissions would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) thresholds. A mitigation measure outlining ways in which the project could reduce air pollutant emissions from grading and construction impact is discussed in the DEW. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce dust of PM10 emissions to a less-than-significant level. However NO„ emissions during grading would remain above the BAAQMD threshold and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable, although confined to the construction period. An additional air quality impact related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was identified in the EIR. Based on analysis, the project would cause an increase in GHG emissions of 8,707 metric tons of CO2e annually, which exceeds the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines "bright line" threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year. Therefore the significance is evaluated by assessing the GHG emissions of 13.5 metric tons per year of CO2e per capita, which exceeds the BAAQMD significance threshold of 4.6 metric tons per capita. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 outlines measures to reduce air pollutant emissions both from vehicle trips and area sources. Although implementation of the measures would reduce per capita CO2e emissions to 13.0 metric tons per year, it remains above the BAAQMD per capita significance threshold of 4.6 and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse gas emissions are by-nature cumulative impacts. The resulting impact determined by this DER is the same level of significance as determined in the General Plan EIR for greenhouse gas emissions, but based on using the more specific BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Page 4 of 19 • Guidelines methodology. The conclusion is that the project does make a considerable contribution (in CEQA terminology) to the significant and unavoidable impact determined to occur with General Plan buildout. 3. Traffic The significant traffic impacts identified in the EIR are discussed by intersection to account for the fact that an impact may occur over more than one time horizon. The scenarios evaluated include existing, existing plus project, existing plus pipeline plus project (including approved and reasonably foreseeable projects, which is in effect a shorter term cumulative growth scenario), and the long term cumulative scenario of complete General Plan buildout. (a) East Washington/North McDowell The intersection operations at East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard were found to exceed the threshold of significance under the existing plus project and existing plus pipeline plus project scenarios. This impact is reduced to an acceptable LOS D in the long term cumulative scenario because of traffic improvements envisioned in the General Plan which are projected to reduce the number of trips through this intersection because other cross-town connectors, Rainier and the Caulfield Extension are made available. Vehicle queuing on East Washington Street in the southbound right turn lane was also found to exceed thresholds of significance under the existing plus project, existing plus pipeline plus project, and cumulative scenarios. Although construction of additional lane storage length would reduce the project's contribution to significant impacts, additional right-of-way is not available for correction because of the built-out neighborhood along North McDowell. (b) Corona/North McDowell Intersection operations at Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard under existing plus pipeline plus project and cumulative conditions result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Construction of additional travel lanes at this intersection was determined by the Council in the General Plan process to conflict with General Plan policy to avoid wider, more automobile- oriented intersections in favor of more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly designs. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City for this intersection for the cumulative condition as part of the General Plan ER certification. Impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. (c) Corona/Petaluina Boulevard North Intersection operations at Corona Road and Petaluma Boulevard North under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions exceed thresholds of significance and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact,is reduced to an acceptable LOS D and less than significant in the long term 'cumulative scenario because of traffic improvements envisioned in the General Plan which are projected to reduce the number of trips through this intersection because other cross-town connectors,Rainier and the Caulfield Extension, are made available. (d) Highway 101 The proposed project is expected'to increase traffic volumes on Highway 101 segments (Pepper Road to Old Redwood Highway and from East Washington Street to Lakeville Highway) in the Page 5of19 existing plus pipeline plus project and longterm cumulative scenarios. Although these segments are expected to operate at LOS F without the project, traffic from the project is anticipated to increase the amount of traffic on freeway segments already exceeding capacity by more than one percent of the segments' design capacity in all scenarios with the project, and is therefore significant. No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to less-than-significant and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable. (e) Rainier/North McDowell Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and North McDowell Boulevard are anticipated to exceed thresholds of significance under the cumulative buildout condition, resulting in a significant LOS impact. No feasible mitigation was identified. Impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. (I) Rainier/Project Access Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and the project access would result in delay to right- turn egress movements exiting the proposed project in the cumulative scenario; however no vehicle delays on Rainier Avenue itself are anticipated. The construction of the Rainier Avenue cross-town connector and U.S. 101 and Rainier Avenue Interchange will limit access along the project's north frontage and a traffic signal is not feasible.in this location due to spacing with the intersection of Rainier/North McDowell and traffic entering and exiting the freeway. Access shall be limited to right-turn in and right-turn out when Rainier is extended (mitigation measure Traffic-8b). Despite this mitigation, impacts to the project access intersection remain significant and unavoidable. B. Planning Commission Discussion of Less than Significant Impacts In addition to the subject of Rainier, the Planning Commission's.deliberations focused on several issues raised in public comments, including: • Flooding • Hydrology and Drainage • Connectivity of Lynch Creek Way • Traffic Impacts on local streets None of these issues was a basis.for-rejection of the Final EIR by the Planning Commission,as indicated in its Resolution 2012-01. However, the Lynch Creek Way connectivity to Rainier Avenue may be considered further by the Commission in its final-SPAR. The project site is, not located in the flood zone as illustrated on the existing adopted FEMA panels. Additionally, the project site is not located in the flood zone as illustrated on the draft FEMA panels currently being processed for an update of the City's FEMA mapping. Photographs taken from a helicopter during the December 31, 2005 New Year's Eve flooding event demonstrate that the subject parcel did not flood at the height of that event. Based on available professional and technical documentation, it has been clearly demonstrated that the subject property is not located in the flood zone and does not have a history of flooding. Page 6 of 19 Hydrology and drainage were also discussed at length at the Planning Commission hearing on the Final EIR. As outlined in the Initial Study (Draft EIR, Technical Appendix A, pp. 36-40), initial hydrology analysis concluded that if on-site detention were required of the project, it could slow down the on-site peak and actually increase the peak flow rate to the Petaluma River. Consistent with these findings, on-site detention is not being proposed. However, as noted by the City Engineer at the hearing and consistent with the City's standard practice, detailed storm water runoff calculations based on final construction level drawings will be required for review by the City and Sonoma County Water Agency prior to approval of final drawings. Should the detailed storm water calculations at that time modify the initial hydrology analysis and indicate that onsite detention is necessary, then applicable drainage systems will be incorporated into the design for the site and required through the building permit process. On-site detention could be accommodated without significant modification to site design. The extension of Lynch Creek Way as it correlates to General Plan Policy 2-P-92 for the North McDowell Boulevard subareawas discussed by Commissioners. General Plan Policy 2-P-92. encourages greater accessibility to the Petaluma River and neighboring areas, while enhancing ecology and providing native planting through road extensions, bikeways, and trails. The policy specifically envisions "[e]xtending Lynch Creek Way northwest through new developments, connecting with the Rainier Avenue extension." Because of the adopted plan line for Rainier and anticipated traffic volumes as a result of Rainier improvements, Lynch Creek cannot be designed to extend to Rainier Avenue in a grid pattern, because an additional direct intersection of Lynch Creek Way with the Rainier Avenue extension would create safety issues and impede traffic circulation on Rainier Avenue. If a Lynch Creek Way extension were designed to connect with the main project access from Rainier Avenue closer to the intersection with McDowell, the configuration would cut off a portion of the property closest to the freeway, where it is more difficult to locate suitable uses. Because of these challenges, and in keeping with the intent of the policy to provide connectivity, the project includes a pathway that connects Lynch Creek Way and the creek buffer pathway for pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and also includes vehicle connectivity between Lynch Creek Way and Rainier Avenue by means of the primary vehicular route in front of the major tenant spaces, over the southern bridge and connecting with the Rainier Avenue access. As commenters noted at the Planning Commission hearing, the present plan does not create a parallel street grid system through the development that would serve as a traffic alternative to use of North McDowell along the project frontage. However, it is not clear that an alternative street grid is required by Policy 2-P-92. Cut-through traffic on a primary traffic alternative to North McDowell Boulevard may also be incompatible with the nature of the development as a shopping center. A related issue is that a 1980 recorded parcel map includes an irrevocable offer of dedication to allow Lynch Creek Way to turn east and connect with Professional Drive. The possibility of redirecting Lynch Creek 'Way in this manner was superseded by Policy 2-P-92 in the General Plan, and the project does not propose use of the parcel map easement. Although this offer of dedication was never accepted by the City, the Subdivision Map Act requires a formal process to Page 7 of 19 terminate the offer of dedication on the earlier map. If Deer Creek Village is ultimately approved, the Council would be asked at a later date to approve summary vacation of this unused easement. There were several concerns expressed that the EIR does not specifically address traffic impacts to local streets. This issue was discussed in Topical Response 9: Traffic Analysis of Additional Local Streets in the Final EIR. Additionally, at the Planning Commission hearing, the consulting traffic engineer for the project clarified that additional traffic analysis on local streets such as Rushmore Avenue and Prince Albert Street was not warranted because there was no impact at the correlating collector or arterial street intersection. If there is not a significant impact at the collector or arterial, then as the traffic spreads out farther from the project and disperses, the impact at the next level of local streets that feed into that collector or arterial would also be less than significant. Impacts on local streets are measured by traffic volume, street capacity and operational characteristics. Even if traffic increases on a local street, that is not necessarily a CEQA traffic impact, absent deterioration in the street's operating functions, safety or hazard effects. • C. Rainier and General Plan Long Term Traffic Improvements I. Planning Commission Consideration • The Planning Commission expressed concern that the Rainier project is not a reasonably foreseeable future improvement, based in part on the impact,on.Rainer funding caused by AB xl 26, which has dissolved redevelopment agencies. The funding plan for Rainier included a redevelopment commitment of$10 million, with the remainder of the funding primarily coming from the City's adopted traffic development impact fee and contributions from development projects which were projected to have direct impacts on portions of the Rainier project. The $10 million in redevelopment funding was committed for Rainier prior to the dissolution of the Petaluma Community Development Commission (PCDC) on February 1, 2012. Approximately $1.528 million in PCDC funds was expended on Rainier prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2009-2010. An additional $8,379;249 of former PCDC Rainier funds are committed as continuing obligations and included on the Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule ("EOPS") adopted on February 6, 2012 by the City as successor agency to the PCDC. These funds are part of former PCDC contractual obligations to third parties, including environmental and design consultants and the'Sonoma County Transportation Agency (SCTA). These commitments will not be confirmed until after action by a future oversight board to approve contractual obligations, which will come later this year, pursuant to AB xl 26. The City recently named its appointees to the oversight board, but the board is not yet reviewing EOPS commitments. The City-has adopted its EOPS in conformance with ABx126 and expects the provisions of that act to be followed appropriately by the oversight board. It would be speculation at this point to assume that thej third party funding commitments on the EOPS will not be confirmed. CEQA does not require speculation or analysis of future uncertain events. Page 8 of 19 The second finding contained in the resolution approved by the Planning Commission (Attachment 3) is related, and found the Final EIR inadequate because the traffic analysis did not study a cumulative scenario with the Rainier Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing ("CTC") but without the accompanying Rainier Interchange. Because the EIR tiers from the General Plan 2025 EIR and because the proposed,project is within the General Plan planning parameters for this site, the project level analysis relies onthe General Plan cumulative assumptions regarding traffic improvements, which include the full'Rainier project; as analyzed in this report. This approach is consistent with CEQA. 2. Additional Public Comments Relating to Rainier Comment letters submitted prior to the February 27, 2012 Council hearing posed a number of additional questions regarding the likelihood of the Rainier project being constructed as planned and the legality of tiering the Deer Creek Village traffic analysis from the cumulative traffic analysis in the General Plan EIR. (See Attachment #6a,'6b, 6c, comments from Shute-Mihaly and the Petaluma Neighborhood Association; from Brigit S. Barnes on behalf of Janice Cader- Thompson and the "Park Place Neighborhood"; and Pamela Torliatt, respectively.) They are referred to hereafter as "Shute-Mihaly;'"Barnes" and "Torliatt,"respectively. All three of these comments with submitted exhibits are also available on the City's website, as part of the agenda materials for the February 27, 2012 Council meeting:) The commenters mentioned a similar concern regarding the Caulfield Extension, without extensive discussion, presumably because that project is less advanced than Rainier. The comments contend primarily.,that (i) because cost estimates for the design and construction of Rainier have changed, and the entirety of funding for the- higher dollar estimates is not specifically identified, Rainier can not be relied on to mitigate traffic impacts at buildout, the Deer Creek Village EIR long term cumulative scenario; and (ii) the Caulfield Extension suffers from similar lack of funding and will not be ayailable as mitigation in the long term cumulative scenario. Therefore, commenters state, the City is precluded from relying on the improvements as CEQA mitigation in the long term cumulative scenario, and the General Plan must be amended. This is' an overstatement of CEQA requirements for fee-based mitigation. CEQA requires that the City rely only on mitigation which "is part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to funding." Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4`h 1173, 1.188. Analysis of the CEQA standard is discussed more fully in section "D" below. The comments/claims can be divided into several topic areas. (a) Alleged Abandonment of Rainier by the City and/or Caltrans requiring that the City abandon Rainier; effect of inactive PSRs The City Council certified the General Plan EIR and subsequently adopted the General Plan and a traffic development impact fee in May, 2008, based in part on planned construction of Rainier and the Caulfield Extension by the time of General Plan buildout. This time horizon was referred to in the General Plan as-2025 because that was the General Plan planning horizon. Page 9 of 19 The analysis throughout the General Plan is a cumulative analysis that includes development of every parcel of vacant and underutilized land in the City. The traffic impacts which necessitate Rainier and the other identified long term traffic improvements occur at General Plan buildout and not on a specific date. Due to the economic recession, anticipated development in Petaluma has slowed significantly and it is unlikely that the build out scenario will be achieved by 2025 as previously anticipated. The level of traffic impact fees collected to date does not represent a fatal flaw in project funding, but instead is indicative of a slower pace of development than envisioned in the General Plan preparation process. Slowing of development creates delay in the creation of traffic impacts associated with that development and similar delay in the need for the long term traffic improvements. Therefore, statements by the Barnes commenters that only 13 years remain to accumulate all necessary' funds for the General Plan traffic improvements are not correct. Slowing of the time frame in which the General Plan improvements are needed does not mean they have been abandoned. In January 2010, the City took further action to implement General Plan policies relating to Rainier when it adopted a practical means of dealing with Caltrans' then-proposed schedule for proceeding with design of the MSN-C, the Highway 101 HOV widening project through Petaluma. Resolution No. 2010-009 adopted on January 4, 2010, states that because it was not clear that the PSR for the entire Rainier project then under review at Caltrans could be completed in time to incorporate the full project into the MSN-C2 design, Caltrans, the City and SCTA agreed that proceeding with the cross-town connector and undercrossing (collectively, "CTC") first as an independent Rainier project element would allow the City to meet the Caltrans MSN- C design schedule and incorporate,the CTC into the Highway 101 project. Resolution 2010-009 therefore separated Rainier into two independent elements and suspended (but did not abandon) processing of the full Rainier project PSR. Resolution 2010-009 explicitly found that splitting the larger project into two independent elements continued to meet the intent. of the General Plan, i.e., to construct the interchange and the,undercrossing. Barnes Exhibits 9 and 10 also make clear that this was a "near term" focus of the City and not abandonment of the Rainier interchange. Caltrans' letter to the City dated December 28, 2009, states that "The • California Department of Transportation concur and support the City's approach..." including the City's decision to "suspend" development of a PSR for the interchange project. (Barnes Exhibit,11) Suspension is not abandonment, and this letter is not a Caltrans mandate that the City abandon the interchange. Resolution 2010-009 and the accompanying PCDC Resolution 2010-02 increased PCDC's finding commitment for Rainier to $3 million, to cover a budget which at that time included $1.3 million in previously "allocated and encumbered" PCDC funding, plus an additional $1.49 million for the then-anticipated project study report, environmental documentation and changes to the PS&E for MSN C-2 to accommodate the CTC. Design of the MSN C2 Highway 101 widening project will include an overpass at Rainier Avenue'to allow room for the CTC to pass underneath,it. The City will be responsible to fund the `delta' between a Highway 101 structure that will accommodate the CTC and the cost of the Page 10 of 19 same 101 highway segment without it. The engineering firm BKF is currently preparing a detailed cost estimate for this change to the MSN C2 constriction. PCDC and City approvals have committed an additional $7 million in PCDC funds since 2010 and prior to dissolution of the PCDC for actual construction of the Highway 101 overpass structure. This money is in hand and is committed in the Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule adopted on February 6, 2012 by the City as successor agency to the PCDC, as discussed above. The City has also entered into two co-operative agreements with SCTA for the $7 million in construction funding and $498,000 for the PS&E design work which SCTA is responsible for performing. (Barnes Exhibits 14 and 15) The 2008 traffic development impact fee funding plan for Rainier included $10 million in PCDC funding, which has all been accomplished. The EIR for the CTC is in process, with work contracted to M-Group and URS Corporation. The EIR Notice of Preparation has been published, and a public scoping meeting has been held. These actions substantiate progress on the Rainer project, not its abandonment or impossibility of completion. (b) Caltrans refusal of ardesign exception for a Rainier Interchange. These comments repeat comments made on the Draft EIR, and are answered in the Final EIR, Response D50-4. The Torliatt comments (Attachment 6c, pp. 1-2, and Torliatt Attachment 2) also contend that a September 30, 2009 letter from Lee Taubeneck at Caltrans commenting on the 2009 draft PSR on the full Rainier project must also be 'responded to in full now and evaluated in the Deer Creek EIR. As discussed below, the 2009 PSR has been suspended, and will be revived or replaced when the full Rainier project proceeds. The City Council has directed that City resources be concentrated first on the CTC, and not on the full Rainier project. The City has not to date prepared any formal response to the draft comments found in the referenced unsigned and unsent September 30, 2009 letter. (c) Status of Project Study Reports (PSR)for Caltrans review of Rainier. There is no merit to commenters' statements that lack of an active PSR for either the interchange or the CTC means that neither of these independent elements of the project will be constructed or that the CTC is still in conceptual stages. The progress on the CTC is detailed above, as is the segmenting of the Rainer project and suspension of the 2009 PSR on the full Rainier project to focus near term on the CTC. The City submitted a draft PSR for the Interchange/Crosstown Connector combined project in 2009. This PSR was placed on hold while its review was still ongoing at Caltrans because the City Council dedided in January, 2010, to segment the Rainier project and proceed first with the CTC, as discussed above. As noted above, there has been no.action by Caltrans or by the City that will preclude the City from re-filing this PSR or a revised PSR for the interchange portion of Page 11 of 19 the Rainier project when the City is in a position to proceed. Until such time as a PSR for the full Rainier project is re-instituted, it would be premature to undertake extensive work in response to Caltrans' draft comments on the earlier report. (Barnes Ex. 4) Resolution 2010-009 refers to a second PSR for the CTC because.at that time, it was anticipated that a PSR for the CTC would be needed. A first draft PSR for the CTC only was prepared by URS, a City consultant, and submitted to Caltrans in 2011. Caltrans has not provided any feedback on the PSR or its cost estimates. On May 11, 2011, after submittal of the PSR, Caltrans advised the City that the CTC did not require a PSR, because the CTC did not involve expenditures within the Caltrans right of way in excess of$1 million. (Barnes, Ex. 6.) A letter from Lee Taubeneck at Caltrans to the City was received on February 27, 2012 (Attachment 9). It restates the City's need for a design exception for the interchange project and refers in passing to a PSR for the CTC. Staff has since received clarification from Caltrans confirming that this letter does not mean that a PSR is required for the, CTC (Attachment 10). Should Caltrans reverse this conclusion, the City will resubmit the draft CTC PSR prepared in 2011. Therefore, the preliminary draft PSR for the CTC is not an active City\document and is not being pursued, again with Caltrans' concurrence. This does not mean that the project has been abandoned. (d) Funding Much of the argument made, in recent comment letters opposing certification of the Final EIR focuses on available funding for Rainier and variations in cost estimates prepared at various stages of the planning process.. The commenters refer to several different sets of cost estimates for Rainier and for the CTC component prepared at various times in the planning process for Rainier. The estimates at this phase of the project will typically change again as additional information is gained, for example information regarding environmental mitigation, design changes, cost of construction,,etc, The 2009 and 2011 PSRs reflect these types of increases but are still based on at best, a 25% design. As the project moves forward it is completely normal for cost estimates to change. The cost estimates for Rainier also vary depending on the design alternative ultimately chosen and approved by Caltrans for the interchange. In 2008; Resolution 2008-095 adopted a fee based on the higher cost projected for a "Caltrans-preferred" alternative configuration because Caltrans has not yet approved the lower cost "locally preferred" alternative. Fees being collected from new development are based on this design alternative. Although the cost estimates have increased as the project has been analyzed in greater detail and with the passage of time, this does not rescind the City's commitment to Rainier. The City has an adopted traffic mitigation fee for Rainier and the other traffic infrastructure improvements identified as long term mitigation in the General Plan EIR. The traffic impact development impact fee.is-based on cost estimates-created by qualified professionals, which by their nature are preliminary and subject to'refinement as the project moves forward. Even at the PSR stage, a project is at most 25% designed, and a worst case scenario is used to allow for future uncertainties in design, coristruction and environmental mitigation. Page 12 of 19 There is currently a balance of approximately $1:756 million in the City's traffic development impact fee account. An additional $1.564 million is;ondeposit and available for immediate City access in a Statewide Community Infrastructure Program ("SCIP") account from the Quarry Heights development. Another $1.438 million paid by the Chelsea development is available for the City's use to fund citywide traffic improvements. Estimated traffic impact fees to be collected from the approved East.Washington Place project are $7.264 million, and an additional $5.985'million in traffic impact fees is anticipated from Deer Creek Village, if approved based on preliminary design and square footages. These items currently total approximately$18.422 million. While this is not the entirety of funding for Rainier or for the CTC, CEQA does not require that the City have all funds guaranteed, much less in hand, in order to rely on a program of fee-based mitigation, as further discussed in subsection D below. As noted above, all costs discussed to date are estimates and preliminary. As such, in the event there are funding shortfalls for the final design of the'City's ClP projects, the City may need to identify additional sources of funding to make-up any difference. Such funding sources could include, but are not limited to grant funding, increased development impact fees, increased or special.'taxes, or state or federal highway improvement dollars. At this time, and based on the preliminary stages of final cost estimates, it is sufficient for the City to rely on its currently approved General Plan, CIP, and development impact fee program to plan for mitigation of future transportation improvements in the City. (e) Regional Transportation Plan The Rainier CTC is not included in the 2013 Regional Transportation Plan's Constrained Project List for Sonoma Cuonty as approved by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority ("SCTA") board and therefore the complete project will likely not be listed in the 2013 Regional Transportation Plan published by Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MCT). The 2013 RTP is not yet final. However, even if the CTC remains off the committed project list in the 2013 RTP, the Barnes comments'are:incorrect that such an exclusion would preclude consideration of any SCTA/MTP funding forRainier.or the.CTC until after 2040. The next revised RTP will be issued in 2017, and projects can be added in the preparation cycle for that RTP, as well as for subsequent RTPs (Attachment 11 email from Janet Spillman; Deputy Director, to Larry Zimmer dated March 8, 2012). The City!has submitted a written request-that the CTC be included on the 2013 RTP for its,Environmental Documentation phase. Additionally, exclusion of the CTC from the current,RTP does not reduce the City's ability to continue design and environmental review for the project. Even if'the CTC and/or Rainier remain off the committed projects list for the 2014 RTP, the.City will resubmit the project for later RTPs. The MSN C-2 project, which includes the creation of the undercrossing structure at Rainier is currently listed on the,2013 RTP. J) 2040 Horizon The prospective date'for General Plan citywide buildout.is discussed above and is not necessarily 2025, but rather depends when the City reaches full development of all undeveloped and underdeveloped property in the City. Page 13 of 19 The Barnes comments refer to the 2011 draft PSR and a staff report for the Sonoma County Transportation Authority staff report and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as evidence that the CTC can not be built until after 2040. (See Attachment 6b, pp. 12-13.) The 2011 draft PSR uses 2040 as a design year to comply with standard Caltrans traffic methodology. This methodology requires that the geometric design of new facilities normally be based on estimated traffic 20 years after completion of construction to ensure that the project components will still be operating at acceptable levels of service over the long term. The 2011 draft,PSR therefore used the year 2040 traffic analysis because it assumed that the CTC would be in operation by 2020 and have a design life that meets the Caltrans 20 year standard. The design year does not imply that the project Will not be constructed until after 2040, but rather that the project design is adequate to handle traffic demands in 2040, 20 years after the assumed date of construction. The Barnes comments also refer to the SCTA RTP in this regard, but do not explain why it is believed that the document attached as Barnes Exhibit 7 means' that the RTP precludes any funding for the CTC or larger Rainier project until after 2040. The next revised RTP will be issued in 2017, and projects can be added in the preparation cycle for that RTP, as well as for subsequent RTPs. (Attachment 11,) 'Even if the CTC and/or Rainier remain off the.committed projects list for the 2014 RTP, the Citywill resubmit the project for later RTPs. (g) The City is considering reducing development impact fees The City is studying possible fee reductions and modifications, but has not acted to reduce any development impact fee at this "time. The staff report for the December 19, 2011 impact fee discussion referred to in the.Shute-Mihaly and Barnes comments. actually recommends against removing the Caulfield Extension from the fee program and does not recommend eliminating the Rainier interchange component of the Rainer project. The CityCouncil will consider the General Plan traffic improvements and the':fee-based portion of the funding for those improvements prior to any modification of the traffic development impact fee. The City can, of course, adjust the traffic impact fee upward or modify it in other ways to reallocate amounts collected, in addition to considering reductions. (h) CPUC Application for Caulfield Rail Crossing On December 19; 2011, the City Council approved a.mitigated negative declaration and after review, authorized the City Manager to file an application with the California Public Utilities Commission:for'the re-authorization of the Caulfield Avenue rail crossing project. Resolution 2011-172. The application reviewed at that time was clearly marked "Draft" and has undergone changes since that time to both more accurately reflect City policy on the Caulfield Extension and to incorporate additional information and recommendations from a subsequent site visit with representatives of the City, SMART, the CPUC Rail Crossing Engineering Section and NCRA/NWP. The revised draft application was reviewed by the City Council on March 19, • 2012, and is expected to be filed by March 30, 2012 in final form. The statements in the December 19, 2011 draft relating to eventual construction of the Caulfield Extension do not mean that the City has abandoned the Caulfield Extension, nor do they constitute adopted City Page 14 of 19 policy which overrides the General Plan. They have been revised in the latest version of the application. (i) Attachment of informal "wildlife check list"for Anderson property on Cinnabar Lane west of Highway 101 The Barnes commenters appear to rely on this informal list as evidence that environmental impacts will complicate construction of the CTC. The Barnes commenters also state that many public agencies will have to comment on the CTC EIR, (Barnes Exhibit 18, letter, p. 14) The environmental impacts of the CTC will be thoroughly studied in the EIR presently being prepared and all potential responsible and trustee agencies will be consulted. a) Contention that General Plan is invalid because of Rainier Information relating to increased costs for traffic improvements assumed in the General Plan would not invalidate the General Plan circulation element, or the General Plan itself Invalidity only occurs when a general plan lacks a mandatory element or an element lacks a statutory requirement, for example, that the circulation element be consistent with the land use element. Gov't. Code 65302. Because the Deer Creek project is consistent with the existing General Plan, Deer Creek can not legally be charged with preparing and presenting an amendment to the General Plan that modifies the General Plan traffic element based on different information and policy direction about long term traffic improvements. As noted above, the-new information presented does not rise to the level of a defect which would invalidate the General Plan, or mean that no new development projects could be approved. (k) Feasibility of alternatives. The Barnes commenters request revision of the project to reflect Alternative B, "Reduced Project Alternative," which reduces commercial square footage by 25%. This alternative would have the same square footage for the home improvement store.and offices as the proposed project, but would reduce other retail, restaurant and fitness center uses from 174,170 to a total of 87,500 square feet, a.reduction of approximately 50%. The EIR's analysis of Alternative B concludes that this reduction would not,eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts but could reduce traffic trips by 25%, assuming that the reduction in vehicle trips was proportional to the reduction in square footage. Significant Air quality, GHQ and noise impacts were assumed to be reduced by a similar percentage, but not avoided. See Draft FIR, pp. VI-10 -VI-12. Alternative B would have a similarly reduced ability to meet project objectives of creating employment opportunities, providing General Fund revenue and decreasing retail leakage, because the reduced square footage is not replaced by retail, income-generating or jobs-generating uses. See draft resolution findings, Attachment 2. What is mentioned in the Draft EIR is that because the significant impacts identified for the project are largely tied to associated traffic, an alternative that would reduce the project-related Page 15 of 19 significant traffic impacts to less-than-significant would require an 80-90% decrease in total vehicle trips generated by the project. This would be roughly the equivalent of eliminating all proposed buildings except for the office buildings. An alternative with this level of reduction in square footage was not proposed for full evaluation because it seemed self evident that a commercial/mixed use project reduced to less than 10-20% of permitted General Plan density on a site zoned for commercial mixed use would not be economically feasible. This type of alternative, therefore, was not studied in depth in,the EIR. Because Alternative B reduces, but does not eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts, the same statement of overriding considerations would be needed for Alternative B as for the proposed project, but with lesser economic benefit to the City as part of the balancing equation. The discussion of alternatives in an EIR should focus on whether an alternative to the project is ....capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly." CEQA Guidelines, section I5126.6(b). A matrix of the effects of each of the three alternatives is included in the Draft E1R, at Table VI-1, meeting this requirement. The No Project alternative is the only one which would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts, although it should also be noted that if this project is rejected, there would likely be another proposal for development of the property, given its freeway-adjacent location, General Plan land use and density, and MU 1 B zoning. When the No Project alternative is the only one which eliminates significant impacts, CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. In this case, the EIR identifies the environmentally ;superior alternative as Alternative C, which keeps the home improvement major anchor and office buildings, but replaces 69,000 square feet of the remaining retail anchors Majors 2, 3 and 4 with a residential care,facility for the elderly. This conclusion is based on the comparison of effects listed in Table VI-1. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is informational, and its adoption is not mandated by CEQA. The City Council, not the EIR, is responsible for determining whether "specific economic, legal, technological or other considerations..." make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. Public, Resources Code section 21002.1(c); CEQA Guidelines section 15093(x)(3). Failure to meet most project objectives is one such consideration and is the basis for the recommended finding in Attachment 2, the draft CEQA findings resolution, for Alternatives Band C. The City Council may conclude that Alternative B or Alternative C is feasible despite those alternatives' lesserability to meet stated project objectives if the Council determines that one of these alternatives meets most project objectives and the Council considers the respective reduction in impacts from either Alternative B or C to be a substantial reduction in environmental 'impacts. :If that is the case, the Council may provide direction to staff to modify the CEQA findings on feasibility of alternatives and the statement of overriding considerations, to reflect a different determination on infeasibility and the lower level of economic benefit which would result. (Attachment 2, Ex. B and C.) It may be necessary for staff to return to the Council at a later meeting with such findings and related agenda materials, if that is the Council direction. Page 16 of 19 If the Council adopts the resolutions as recommended, the Planning Commission would be precluded from requiring the project to conform to. Alternative B or C on the basis of environmental impacts or perceived benefits of those alternatives that do not relate to the specific standards for SPAR review contained in Implementing Zoning Ordinance section 24.010. D. CEQA Standard. The ultimate question raised by the comments shortly before the February 27 scheduled hearing is whether or not the City's current adopted funding plan for Rainier (and the Caulfield Extension) meets the CEQA standard for acceptable:fee-based mitigation of cumulative impacts. The CEQA standard for adequate fee-based mitigation is whether the mitigation measures "...are part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing." (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 CA 4th 1173). Whether there is a reasonable plan of actual mitigation depends in part on whether sufficient funding is identified to construct the improvements. (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342.) It appears that Barnes primary contention is that there is new evidence that the cost estimates for the interchange improvements,used to calculate the City's development impact fees are too low, thus calling into question whether the City's mitigation fee program is a "reasonable plan of actual mitigation." However, no case has required that fee-based programs predict with absolute certainty the actual costs for future mitigation. Actual costs for mitigation cannot be known at preliminary stages such as the preparation of Caltrans PSRs, or even when design is complete and the project is ready forbid. Final improvement costs are not known until project acceptance. All costs discussed to date are estimates and preliminary. As such, in the event there are funding shortfalls for the final City Cif projects, the City may need to identify additional sources of funding to make-up any difference. Such funding sources could include, but are not limited to, grant funding, increased development impact fees;increased or special taxes, or state or federal highway improvement dollars. Because any funding increases over the 2008 traffic development fee estimates are preliminary, and the actual costs of the interchange improvements will not be known for some time, it is sufficient for the City to rely on its currently approved General Plan, CIP, and development impact fee program to plan for mitigation of future transportation improvements in the City. F. Agency Comments from BAAQMD and Caltrans On January 10, 2012 the City and EIR consultants had a conference call with Abby Young, Environmental Specialist with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regarding the City's response to comments submitted by BAAQMD during the circulation of the Draft EIR. Ms. Young indicated the District's satisfaction with the response included in the Final EIR, the incorporation of additional air quality mitigation measures, and the methodology used for calculating anticipated emissions. No further comments were submitted by the District in response to the Final EIR. Page 17 of 19 On February 13, 2012 city staff had a conference call with Caltrans to discuss comments received by Caltrans on January 3, 2012 on the Final EIR (Attachment 7). Caltrans staff included on the conference call included Lee Taubeneck, Jean Finney, Gary Arnold, and Connery Cepeda. All items noted in the January 3, 2012 letter were addressed to the satisfaction of Caltrans as outlined in the meeting summary drafted by Caltrans (Attachment 8). A subsequent letter was submitted by Lee Taubeneck and received by the City on February 27, 2012. The February 27 Taubeneck letter (Attachment 9) restates the City's need for design exception for the interchange;project and refers to a PSR for the CTC. Staff has since received clarification from Caltrans confirming that this letter does not mean that a.PSR is required for the CTC (Attachment 10). Should Caltrans reverse this conclusion, the City will resubmit the draft PSR prepared in 2011. G. Public Comment Staff continues to receive public comments'for the Deer Creek Village project and associated environmental review. All comment letters received for the February 27th hearing and up to the date of preparation of this report have been included as attachments and have been posted on the City's website. Any additional comments will be available for public review at the hearing. H. Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Section 15091 requires public agencies to make one or more written findings for each of the significant environmental effects identified in an EIR prior to project approval. The findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record and the agency must present a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Where potential environmental impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable, CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project against the unavoidable project-related environmental effects when deterfnining whether or not to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal,. social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, then those environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." Because the City's local Environmental Review Guidelines provide that only the City Council can certify an EIR, it follows that the Council is also the appropriate body to adopt a written. statement of overriding considerations if it determines that the benefits of the project outweigh. the project's significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Certification of the EIR and adoption of a statement of overriding considerations are both required before the Planning Commission can approve site design and architectural review (SPAR). The project does not require legislative enactments (map, rezoning, general plan amendment) and SPAR, as the only required entitlement, would not come before the City Council absent an appeal. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council also approve the attached Statement of Overriding Considerations at this time. Page 18 of 19 I. Noticing The project was re-noticed for the April 2, 2012 Council hearing. In addition to publication in the Argus Courier on March 22, 2012, public notices were mailed to all property owners and occupants located within a 1,000 foot radius of the site as well as anyone who has requested inclusion on the project mailing list. FINANCIAL IMPACTS This is a cost recovery project. The applicant will pay for the cost of processing the application. The project will also pay all City development impacufees and other fees including the public art fee and the commercial linkage fee which mitigates a commercial project's impact on local housing. The resulting annual net fiscal surplus to the General Fund as a result of this project is anticipated to be between $681,000, based on long term projections in the FEIA, and $373,077 based on the shorter term 2015 sales tax estimate in the EPS Study. Revenues from Development impact fees are expected to total approximately$9,200,000. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution Certifying a Final Impact Report 2. Draft Resolution Making Findings and Adopting.a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-01 4. Planning Commission Staff Report 5. Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Report (hand delivered separately) 6. Public comment letters 6a:.Shute-Mihaly, received 121.12 6b: Barnes, received 2.24.12 6c: Torliatt, received 2.27.12 6d. All Others 7. Caltrans Letter, received 1.0112 8. Caltrans Meeting summary,.received 2.27.12 9. Caltrans Letter, received 2.27.12 10. Email correspondence with Caltrans, 3.16.12 11, Email correspondence-with SCTA, 3.08.12 12. PBAC comments dated June 2010 13. Design Review.Plan Sets, 11x17 (previously delivered for 2.27 City Council meeting) Page 19 of 19 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT,REPORT FOR THE DEER,CREEK VILLAGE PROJECT, PURSUANT.TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project ("the Project") was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on March 5, 2010, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, ("CEQA Guidelines") Section 15082; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft ER") was prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Petaluma.Environmental Review Guidelines and circulated for public review between March 3, 2011 and April 18, 2011, after public notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087; and, WHEREAS, the Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified by City Council Resolution 2008-058 N.C.S. on April 7, 2008, for information and analysis relating to certain cumulative impacts and incorporates said analysis and conclusions to the extent applicable, as identified in the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the City has committed to implementing the mitigation measures contained in the Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the City as Exhibit B to Resolution 2008-084 N.C.S., Resolution of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Making Findings of Fact, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Adopting an Implementation and Mitigation Monitoring Program in Support of the General Plan 2025, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 22, 2011 to consider the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 18, 2011 to consider the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, responses to written and oral comments received the Draft ER have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("Final EIR"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public meeting on January 10, ' 2012, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public meeting on February 27, 2012 and April 2, 2012, at which time it considered the Final ER and accepted public testimony; and, I • WHEREAS, certain Project impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application of all feasible Project mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, including: a) contribution to the cumulative city-wide traffic noise impacts; b)NO„ emissions during grading; c) Greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the.level of emissions found acceptable by the City at the time of adoption of the General Plan; d) increased traffic resulting in intersection LOS impacts at Corona and McDowell, Corona and Petaluma Boulevard North, McDowell and East Washington, McDowell and Rainier; e) increased traffic resulting in queuing impacts at McDowell and East Washington and 1) continued LOS F operations on Highway 101 between Pepper Road and Old Redwood and East Washington and Lakeville. WHEREAS, the Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and presented with the Final EIR to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on to reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully implemented; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report and finds as follows: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines; 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council which reviewed and considered it prior to making a decision on the Project. 3. The Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential for environmental impacts of the Project ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS OF-FACT AND ADOPTINGA MITIGATION MONITORING,AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DEER CREEK VILLAGE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation_ofthe Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project ("the:Project") was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on March 5, 2010, pursuant, to Public. Resources Code Section 21080.4 and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, ("CEQA Guidelines") Section 15082; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the Project in accordance with the 'California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and circulated for public review between March 3, 2011 and April 18, 2011, after public notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in with.CEQA Guidelines Section 15087; and, WHEREAS, the Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified by City Council Resolution 2008-058 N.C.S. on April 7, 2008, for information and analysis relating to certain cumulative'impacts and incorporates'said analysis and conclusions to the extent applicable, as identified in the EIR; and, WHEREAS, the City has comThitted to implementing the mitigation measures contained in the Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Prograrn adopted by the City as Exhibit B to Resolution 2008-084 N.C.S., Resolution of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Making Findings of Fact, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Adopting an Implementation and Mitigation ,Monitoring Program in Support of the General Plan 2025, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the.Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, WHEREAS,. the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 22, 2011 to consider the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 18,.2011 to consider the DraftEIR;,and, WHEREAS,;responses to written and oral comments received the Draft EIR have been prepared ih the'form of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("Final EIR"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public meeting on January 10, 2012, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and, 2 WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public meetings on February 27, 2012 and April 2, 2012, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS, certain Project impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application of all feasible Project mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, including: a) contribution to the cumulative city-wide traffic noise impacts; b) NO„ emissions during grading; c) Greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the level of emissions found acceptable by the City at the time of adoption of the General Plan; d) increased traffic resulting in intersection LOS impacts at Corona and McDowell, Corona and Petaluma Boulevard North, McDowell and East Washington, McDowell and Rainier; e) increased traffic resulting in queuing impacts at McDowell and East Washington and 0 continued LOS F operations on Highway 101 between Pepper Road and Old Redwood and East Washington and Lakeville. WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that the City Council find that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations outweigh any significant environmental effects of the Project which cannot be fully mitigated; and WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations consisting of the City's findings and determination regarding the Project's significant and unavoidable effects is contained in Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared, as set forth in Exhibit D, which is incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the findings are fully implemented; and WHEREAS, some mitigation measures identified in Exhibit A may require action by, or cooperation from, other agencies. Similarly, mitigation measures requiring the applicant to contribute toward improvements planned by other agencies will require the relevant agencies to receive the funds and spend them appropriately. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The above Recitals are true and correct and adopted as findings of the City Council. 2. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the findings regarding significant effects of the project and mitigation contained in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference. 3. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the findings regarding alternatives to the Project contained in the attached Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. 4. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding significant and unavoidable effects of the Project contained in the attached Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by reference. 5. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in the attached Exhibit D, which is incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the findings are fully implemented. Compliance with the MMRP shall be a condition of any Project approval. 6. The City Council hereby finds that for each identified mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of another agency, adoption and implementation of each such mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the public agency identified, and the measures can and should be adopted and/or implemented by said agency. 7. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma, Planning Division, Petaluma City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952. 8. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and the City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA. EXHIBIT A FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts of the Deer Creek Village project ("the Project") and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather then set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Impact GEO-1: The site would be subject to strong to very strong shaking during a large earthquake event on one of the nearby faults. Additionally, the site has a potential for soil liquefaction and seismically induced ground settlement. Mitigation GEO-la: All construction activities shall meet the California Building Code regulations for seismic safety. Mitigation GEO-]b: A Final Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report prepared by a registered professional civil engineer shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official and shall address site-specific soil conditions and include recommendations for site preparation and grading, foundation and soil engineering design, pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges and structures. Mitigation GEO-1 c: The applicant shall submit a detailed schedule for field inspection of work in progress to ensure that all applicable codes, conditions and mitigation measures are being properly implemented through construction of the project. Mitigation GEO-Id: The project applicant shall implement the recommendations in the Kleinfelder investigation related to site preparation, foundation support, site seismic characterization, site preparation and grading, foundations, concrete slabs-on-grade, retaining walls, and surface and subsurface drainage control. Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact GEO-2: Near surface soil is highly expansive and without proper soil conditioning, site preparation, subsurface drainage, and foundation design, the structures and infrastructure at the project site could sustain substantial damage. Mitigation GEO-2a: The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations and structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The geotechnical engineer shall also 'inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications. Mitigation GEO-2b: Foundation and "structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the California Building Code, as well as state and local laws/ordinances. Mitigation GEO-2c: The applicant shall comply with all recommendations provided by Treadwell & Rollo, Environmental and Geotechnic al Consultants, in its letter report dated June 20, 2005, Draft EIR Technical.Appendix E-1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact GEO-3: Grading has the potential to cause water and erosion. Mitigation GEO-3a: All earthwork, grading, trenching; backfilling and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20, chapter 20-04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code; and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code. Mitigation GEO-3b: The applicant shall submit an Erosion.and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact GEO-4: The project has the potential to;exposepeople or structures to certain geological hazards including ground shaking and expansive soils. Mitigation GEO-4: Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3b. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EW. Impact AQ-1: Forseeable construction activities during grading, the first year of construction would create average'daily emissions that exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. Mitigation AQ-1; The project sponsor,shall require that practices be implemented to reduce air quality impacts during grading.and construction as contained in the Draft EIR pages IV.0-21 and as revised by the Final EIR. Finding: Additional mitigation measures described in the Final EIR further reduce dust and PMI0 emissions, which were already reduced to a less'than significant level, but NOx emissions would remain above the BAAQMD thresholds, and therefore this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact AQ-4: The project's greenhouse gas emissions are considered to make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact. Mitigation AQ-4: The applicant shall reduce air pollutant emissions from both vehicle trips and area sources by implementing the measures outlined in the Draft EIR pages IV.0-26 and IV.0-27 and as revised by the Final EIR. Finding: Despite reduction of greenhouse gas emissions front the identified mitigation measures, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact HYDRO-1: Storm water runoff from developed areas could carry potential non-point source pollutants into surface water where, without mitigation, they could cause a small but cumulative degradation of water-quality. Mitigation HYDRO-la: The project applicant shall prepare and submit an erosion control plan. Mitigation HYDRO—lb: In accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for implementation throughout project construction to control erosion on the project site and to provide guidelines for the storage, use and clean-up of fuels and hazardous materials. Mitigation HYDRO-1c: The project shall comply-with the,City of Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Management Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. Mitigation HYDRO-ld: The storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency: Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or.incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact BIO-I: The project has the potential to impact special status species. Mitigation BIO-la: Site grading, shall be conducted in accordance with the City's Storm Water/Grading and Erosion'Control Ordinance. Mitigation B10-1b: All construction activities in and immediately adjacent to trees or shrubs providing potential nesting habitat for raptors or other birds should be conducted outside the normal nesting season (generally February 15 to August 15). If project work would occur during nesting season, a qualified biologist shall survey the site no more than 14 days prior to construction. If active nests are found, exclusion zones of a distance appropriate for the species (typically 50 to 100 feet) shall be established. No work would occur within the.exclusion zones until all young have become independent of the nest. If no active nests are found, no work restrictions would apply. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact B1O-2: The project will impact protected wetlands identified as jurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers. Mitigation BIO-2: The applicant shall avoid impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Where impacts are unavoidable, the applicant shall apply to the Army Corps for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and comply with all mitigation measures contained therein. Evidence of ACOE and RWQCB permits shall be submitted to the City of Petaluma for review prior to issuance of building permits. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the.EIR. Impact NOISE-1: Project construction will result in a temporary increase in noise levels. Mitigation NOISE-la: All construction activities shall comply with applicable Performance Standards in the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. Mitigation NOISE-lb: All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. There would be no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 AM, Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 AM nor past 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday; no cleaning of machines nor equipment past 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday; and no servicing of equipment past 6:45 PM, Monday through Friday. The developer's phone number shall be conspicuously posted at the project site for noise complaints. Mitigation NOISE-Ic: The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise sources as far from existing sensitive receptors as possible. If stationary sources must be located near existing receptors, they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds or other structures. Mitigation NOISE-Id: The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. O - 1 Mitigation NOISE-le: Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g. Jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Mitigation NOISE-1f: The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures that include shutting off idling equipment and notifying adjacent residences in advance of construction work. Mitigation NOISE-1g: The construction contractor shall stage equipment no less than 150 feet away from North McDowell Boulevard. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact NOISE-3: The project's contribution to cumulative exposure of persons to excessive noise levels from traffic-related noise and future rail service. Finding: Certification of the General Plan 2025 EIR included a statement of overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable noise impacts as a result of traffic-related noise and future rail service. The project contributes to these impacts and therefore they remain significant and unavoidable impacts in the cumulative analysis. Impact TRAFFIC-2b: Intersection operational impacts at East Washington Street/North McDowell will exceed thresholds of significance under existing plus project conditions. Finding: No feasible mitigation for this impact in the existing plus project condition was identified to reduce the level of significance. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-3: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the existing plus project scenario. Finding: Although construction of additional lane storage length would reduce the project's contribution to significant impacts, additional right-of-way is not available for correction because of the built-out neighborhood along North McDowell. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-5a: Intersection operational impacts at Corona Road/North McDowell Boulevard will exceed threshold of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. Finding: Construction of additional travel lanes at this intersection conflicts with General Plan policy to avoid wider, more automobile-oriented intersections in favor of more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly designs. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City for this intersection for the cumulative condition as part of the General Plan EIR certification. Impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-5b: Intersection operational impacts at, Corona Road/Petaluma Boulevard North will exceed threshold of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. Finding: No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable under this scenario. Impact TRAFFIC-5d: Intersection operational impacts at East Washington Street/North McDowell will exceed thresholds of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. Finding: No feasible mitigation. for this impact in the existing plus project condition was identified to reduce the level of.significant. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-6: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the,existing plus pipeline plus project scenario. Finding: Although construction of'additional lane storage length would reduce the project's contribution to significant impacts,:additional right-of-way is not available for correction because of the built-out neighborhood along North'McDowell. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-7: The proposed project will increase traffic volumes on Highway 101 segments(Pepper Road to Old Redwood Highway and from East Washington Street to Lakeville Highway). These segments are expected to operate at LOS F without the project, but traffic volumes from the project are anticipated to increase the segment's theoretical capacity by more than one percent. Additionally, these same segments on Northbound U.S. 101 will continue to operate at LOS F and traffic volumes from the project will contribute to the capacity of the facility.. Finding: No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to less-than-significant and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-8a: Impact to Class I pathway and sidewalk along North McDowell Boulevard from right-only access points to the project site: Mitigation TRAFFIC-8a: Special measures•shall,be;taken;toravoid adverse impacts to the Class I path and sidewalk along the project frontage, particularly in locating monument signage, sight distance and curb radii (turning speed). Additionally, a raised median shall be placed along the new northbound left-turn lane access to the main driveways, thereby preventing left-turn access to the site at the second (southerly) driveway. The removal of the existing raised median on North McDowell Boulevard, between Professional Drive and Lynch Creek Way, to accommodate left-turn access shall be replaced with a narrow raised median along the project frontage to prevent other than right-turn only access. The total cost of design and installation shall be borne by the proposed project. Finding: Changes or alterations,have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-8b: Impact to Rainier Avenue Extension from access to the project site. Mitigation TRAFFIC-8b: At the time Rainier Avenue is extended to Petaluma Boulevard North, site access via Rainier Avenue shall be limited to right-turn ingress/egress only. Finding: Changes or alterations have,been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-8c: Project-generated truck trips could potentially damage Lynch Creek Way if the roadway has not been designed to accommodate such truck trips on a daily basis. Mitigation TRAFFIC-8c: The project applicant shall be responsible for investigating and providing a full roadway width structural section able to accommodate project-generated truck trips. The total costs of investigation and construction, if required based on the investigation, shall be borne by the project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact'TRAFFIC-8d: Inadequate turn lane length on the northbound left-turn lane at Professional Drive and North McDowell. Mitigation TRAFFIC-8d: The northbound left-turn Lane at Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard shall be designed to accommodate the expected queues. Finding: Changes or alterations.have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen'the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 9- - 1D Impact TRAFFIC-11 a: Sidewalks along the;project frontage of North McDowell Boulevard are in deteriorating condition and the project would contribute pedestrian trips to intersection with ADA deficiencies. Impact TRAFFIC-11b: If the Class I facility along:theiproject frontage of North McDowell Boulevard is improperly designed there could be conflicts with projects driveways on North McDowell Boulevard. Mitigation TRAFFIC-lla and 1lb: The project shall improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities on its frontage with North McDowell Boulevard and special care shall be taken to maintain sight distance and to clearly define right of way so as to reduce potential conflicts between the proposed Class I path and driveways. Finding: Changes or alterations.have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-12: Without preemption provided at the proposed signal at Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard, emergency access impacts Would be significant. Mitigation TRAFFIC-12: Emergency vehicle pre-emption shall be provided as part of the proposed project's addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard to prevent additional delay which would be experienced by emergency responders along this corridor without emergency vehicle pre-emption. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-15a: Intersection impacts at the Rainier Avenue/Maria Drive intersection in the cumulative plus project conditions exceed the threshold of significance. Mitigation TRAFFIC-15a: The proposed project shall contribute to the City Traffic Impact Mitigation fees for the installation of a traffic signal in the Cumulative plus Project condition at the intersection of Rainier Avenue/Maria Drive. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-15b: Exceedance of thresholds of significance at Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard in the cumulative plus project condition. Finding: No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to less than significant and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-15c: Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and the project access would result in delay to right-turn egress movements exiting the proposed project onto Rainier in the cumulative scenario; however no vehicle delays on'Rainier Avenue itself are anticipated. Finding: The construction of the Rainier.Avenue cross-town connector and U.S. 101 and Rainier Avenue Interchange will limit access along the project's north frontage and a traffic signal is not feasible in this location due to spacing with the intersection of Rainier/North McDowell and traffic entering and exiting the freeway_. Access shall be limited to right-turn in and right-turn out when Rainier is extended (mitigation measure Traffic-8b). Despite this mitigation, impacts to the project access intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-15e: Intersection operational impacts at Corona Road/North McDowell Boulevard will exceed threshold of significance under cumulative conditions. Finding: Construction of additional travel lanes at this intersection conflicts with General Plan policy to avoid wider, more automobile-oriented intersections in favor of more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly designs. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City for this intersection for the cumulative condition as part of the General Plan EIR certification. Impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-16: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane at the intersection of East Washington Street/North McDowell Boulevard was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the cumulative scenario. Finding: Although construction of additional lane storage length would reduce the project's contribution to significant impacts, additional right-of-way is not available for correction because of the built-out neighborhood along North McDowell. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-17: Northbound U.S. 101 for each of the study segments is expected to continue to operate at LOS F with project generated trips contributing to traffic impacts. Finding: No feasible mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the proposed project's impact to less-than-significant.. Therefore, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-18: Project generated trips are expected to result in the need for turn lane lengths greater than shown on plans. Inadequate,tum-lane lengths may increase hazards. Mitigation TRAFFIC-18: The proposed project shall contribute to the City Traffic Impact Mitigation fees for the installation of-intersection improvements, in the Cumulative plus Project 9- - 1'- condition, at the intersection of Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard. Further, the project shall conform to the precise plan line to accommodate the number of turn lanes and storage lengths identified in the EIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact PS-1: With the ability.of police vehicles to override traffic controls with lights, sirens, signal pre-emption and travel in opposing;travel lanes in congested conditions, police response times would not be significantly delayed because of additional traffic from the proposed project. However, without emergency vehicle pre-emption provided at the proposed signal at Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard, emergency access impacts would be significant. Mitigation PS-1: Emergency vehicle pre-emption shall be provided as part of the proposed project's addition of a traffic signal' at the intersection of Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard to prevent additional delay which would be experienced by emergency responders along this corridor without emergency vehicle pre-emption. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact PS-2: Project-generated truck trips could potentially damage Lynch Creek Way if the roadway has not been designed to accommodate such truck trips on a daily basis. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation PS-2: The project applicant shall be responsible for investigating and providing a full roadway width structural section able to accommodate project-generated truck trips. The total costs of investigation and construction, if required based on the investigation, shall be borne upon by project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact CULT-1: Given the, archaeological sensitivity of the project area, it is possible that unknown prehistoric archaeological resources and/or human burials,could be found on the site. Disturbance of these artifacts or remains during construction would constitute a significant impact. Mitigation CULT-la: Prior to excavation and construction on the proposed project site, the prime construction contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall be.cautioned at the preconstruction meeting with the City on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying cultural resources or removing artifacts, human remains, bottles, and other cultural materials from the project site. Mitigation CULT-lb: If during any phase of project construction, any paleontological resources are encountered, construction activities within a fifty-meter radius shall be halted immediately, and the project applicant shall notify the City. Mitigation CULT-1c: If during any phase of project construction, any cultural materials are encountered, construction activities within a fifty-meter radius shall be halted immediately, and the project applicant shall notify the.City. Mitigation CULT-1d: If human remains are discovered at the project site during construction, work at the specific construction site at which the remains have been uncovered shall be suspended, and the City of Petaluma and County coroner shall be immediately notified. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. • EXHIBIT B FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15126(a) states that an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or the location of the Project that would feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen any of the Project's significant impacts. The EIR evaluated the alternatives listed below. The City Council considered the alternatives but finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA Sec. 21081(a)(3). • NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and the site would remain in its existing condition. Finding — Infeasible. This alternative would avoid all of the Project's significant impacts. However, it would not achieve the Project's objectives and would not provide for the mix of retail, recreational, and office uses allowed under the City's applicable General Plan land use designation and zoning ordinance provisions. It would not generate the anticipated revenue beneficial to the City's long term fiscal health no provide a home improvement center which has been identified as being a primary source of leakage from the City to other market locations. REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Project Alternative was designed to reduce the potential traffic impacts by 25 percent. This alternative maintains the same square footage for the proposed major retail anchor and offices but reduces the additional retail, restaurant, and fitness center by approximately percent from the proposed 174,170 square feet to 87,500 square feet. The reduced square footage would be utilized for additional green space throughout the modified project. Short term air quality impacts during grading would be similar to the project because roughly the same amount of grading would be required. However, air quality impacts during construction would be slightly less because this alternative involves 25 percent less development. Long term operational air quality impacts would also be less under this alternative because it involves 25 percent less development, resulting in less natural gas and electricity consumption and 25 percent fewer vehicle trips per day. Despite these reductions in air quality impacts, the greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable under the Reduced Project Alternative. Noise impacts during construction would be slightly less than the proposed project, however, cumulative traffic noise impacts would remain signifiacnt and unavoidable. The Reduced Project Alternative consists of approximately 87,500 fewer square feet of commercial uses and as a result would generate fewer net average daily trips and peak hour trips when compared to the project. Overall, traffic impacts would be less under the Reduced Project Alternative. Finding — Infeasible. Although the Reduced Project Alternative would lessen some impacts, it would not eliminate any of the significant impacts of the project. The Draft EIR states that this alternative would generate 739 PM peak traffic trips, compared to 985 PM peak trips for the proposed project. Reductions in the project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts, air quality NOx emissions above BAAQMD thresholds during the first year of construction and GHG emissions generally proportionate to the 25% reduction in square footage would be expected. These reductions are not considered a substantial lessening of any of these significant and unavoidable impacts in the City's judgment. This alternative would not meet most project objectives relating to economic benefit to the City because square footage is eliminated without replacement by other employment or sales tax-generating uses and would therefore provide fewer employment opportunities for local workers and less net General Fund revenue for the • City. It would also fail to meet the project objective of satisfying the substantial demand for regional and neighborhood retail, fitness and dining facilities in the Petaluma trade area because it provides 87,500 fewer square feet of those uses. It would not meet the project objective of addressing the City's retail leakage because it would reduce general retail square footage by a substantial amount. COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL CARE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The Commercial and Residential Care Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, except for the No Project Alternative. Under this scenario none of the significant impacts of the project would be eliminated. This alternative would maintain the square footage for the home improvement store but would replace the other Major anchors with a 50-bed residential care facility for the elderly. Short term air quality impacts during grading and construction would be similar to those for the Project. Although operational air quality emissions for the Commercial and Residential Care Project Alternative would be reduced, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Overall traffic impacts associated with this alternative would be less than those for the Project, but no significant and unavoidable impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Finding— Infeasible. Although the Commercial and Residential Care Project Alternative would lessen the significant traffic and traffic-related noise impacts compared to the proposed project, it would not eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project. The Draft EIR states that this alternative would generate 702 PM peak traffic trips, compared to 985 for the proposed project and 739 for Alternative B. The project's net contribution air quality NOx emissions above BAAQMD thresholds during the first year of construction and GHG emissions would depend in part on the size and amenities of the replacement residential care facility but would be expected to be similar to the proposed project, although a slightly lower contribution to cumulative noise from this alternative would be expected because of the lower number of traffic trips. Taken,together, these changes in impacts are not considered a substantial lessening of any significant and unavoidable impact, in the City's judgment. This alternative would not meet most project objectives relating to economic benefit to the City because square footage is eliminated without replacement by other sales tax-generating uses and would therefore provide less net General Fund revenue for the City. This alternative would also fail to meet the project objective of satisfying the substantial demand for regional and neighborhood retail facilities in the Petaluma trade area. This alternative would not meet the project objective of addressing the City's retail leakage in the general retail category because it would replace Major anchors 2, 3 and 4, consisting of 69,000 square footage of general retail, with a residential care facility for the elderly. I(o EXHIBIT C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS I. Legal Basis and Background Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the.City Council of the City of Petaluma adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 2008-084 N.C.S., May 8, 2008.) Although the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan EIR, pursuant to the court decision in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, (2002),.the City must adopt specific overriding considerations for this Project. The City Council has considered the information contained in the EIR and has fully reviewed and considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The Council finds that each determination made in this Statement of Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial evidence set forth in the CEQA Findings and/or herein and/or in the record of proceedings. Many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the General Plan EIR that are applicable to the Project will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the General Plan and by mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. Even with mitigation, implementation of the Project carries with it certain unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The following unavoidable significant and unavoidable environmental impacts apply to the Project: • Impact AQ-1: Forseeable construction activities during grading, the first year of construction would create average daily emissions that exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. • Impact AQ-4: The project's greenhouse gas emissions are considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact. • Impact NOISE-3: The project's contribution to cumulative exposure of persons to excessive noise levels from traffic-related noise and future rail service. • Impact TRAFFIC-2b: Intersection operational impacts at East Washington Street/North McDowell will exceed thresholds of significance under existing plus project conditions. 2� ( 1 • Impact TRAFFIC-3: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the existing plus project scenario. • Impact TRAFFIC-5a: Intersection operational impacts at Corona Road/North McDowell Boulevard will exceed threshold of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. • Impact TRAFFIC-5b: Intersection operational impacts at Corona Road/Petaluma Boulevard North will exceed threshold of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. • Impact TRAFFIC-5d: Intersection operational impacts at East Washington Street/North McDowell will exceed thresholds of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. • Impact TRAFFIC-6: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the existing plus pipeline plus project scenario. • Impact TRAFFIC-7: The proposed project will increase traffic volumes on Highway 101 segments (Pepper Road to Old Redwood.Highway and from East Washington Street to Lakeville Highway). These segments are expected to operate at LOS F without the project, but traffic volumes from the project are anticipated to increase the segment's theoretical capacity by more than one percent. Additionally, these same segments on Northbound U.S. 101 will continue to operate at LOS F and traffic volumes from the project will contribute to the capacity of the facility. • Impact TRAFFIC-15b: Exceedance of thresholds of significance at Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard in the cumulative plus project condition. • Impact TRAFFIC-15c: Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and the project access would result in delay to right-turn egress movements exiting the proposed project in the cumulative scenario; however no vehicle delays on Rainier Avenue itself are anticipated. • Impact TRAFFIC-15e: Intersection operational impacts at Corona Road/North McDowell Boulevard will exceed threshold of significance under cumulative conditions. • Impact .TRAFFIC-16: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane at the • intersection of East Washington Street/North McDowell Boulevard was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the cumulative scenario. • Impact TRAFFIC-17: Northbound U.S. 101 for each of the study segments is expected to continue to operate at LOS F with project generated trips contributing to traffic impacts. All applicable project level General Plan policies, programs:and implementation measures which were adopted to reduce the significant and unavoidable cumulative effects relevant to the Project will be complied with, either by incorporation into the Project or through mitigation measures. All mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR to partially reduce significant and unavoidable impacts, even if not effective to reduce those impacts to a level of less than significant, will be imposed on the Project through conditions of approval. The City has balanced the significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment of the Project as described above against the benefits of the Project, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project set forth below. II. Benefits of the Project 1. The Project will contribute to the City's economy by providing both temporary and permanent jobs and a mixture of both?full-time and part-time permanent jobs. General Plan Policy 9-P-10 encourages economic development that will enhance job opportunities for existing City residents, including jobs that match the skills of unemployed or underemployed workers who live in'Petaluma, commit to first source hiring for workers who live in Petaluma, and pay wages that enable workers to live in Petaluma. The Project will provide both temporary and permanent jobs in the City of Petaluma, although the majority of the jobs will be permanent. According to the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (Bay Area Economics January, 2009) considered by the City Council on May 4,-2009, which is incorporated herein by reference ("FEIA"), the Project will provide.approximately 331 temporary construction jobs, and 510 permanent jobs, with 409 of those jobs in retail. This would be offset by the anticipated loss of 48 similar retail sector jobs as a result of the project.The new jobs would be a mix of full time and part time positions, consistent with the retail industry. It is estimated that more than two-thirds of the new jobs would be full time positions. The city's Living Wage,Policy is not applicable to the project. However, the average wages for most occupations;likely to be found at Deer Creek Village exceed the City's LivingWage standard for employees:without medical benefits Food preparation and serving-related occupations have average wages below the living wage level's, but foodeservers often earn tips that supplement their wage income. Many workers in the medical offices would be in occupations with relatively high wages. Starting wages for new retail hires could be below the living wage levels, but the proposed Project's employment structure would not necessarily provide lower wages than are normally found,for retail workers in the area. 2. The Project will pay development impact fees that will offset costs of City services and facilities attributable to the Project. I al According to the FEIA, the project will generate $9.2 million in development impact fees to the City. These fees will offset the Project's service demands on a wide range of City agencies and departments, including, but not limited to, the aquatic center, library, open space and park land, police, fire, public facilities such as city hall, city administration, community center facilities and traffic improvements, and water and wastewater infrastructure. These fees will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Since that is anticipated to fall within the 2013 calendar year, payment would provide the City with a significant amount of revenue to address pressing infrastructure and related needs which have the required nexus to the fees collected. 1. The Project will increase annual General Fund revenue to the City. General Plan Policy 9-P-19 encourages the long-term fiscal health of Petaluma as the City continues to develop, balancing fiscal concerns with economic, social, environmental, and cultural values. The policy calls for the expansion of the City's fiscal base, seeking economic benefits that yield net fiscal benefits to the City. According to the FEIA, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately$82.7 million in annual retail sales, 97 percent of which is taxable. Thus, the Project would generate $714,000 in sales tax revenue per year to the City's General Fund, based on long-term projections (The FEIA sales tax revenue estimate notes that it is a long-term estimate and may somewhat less in the short term. FEIA, p. 62.) The Deer Creek Village Urban Decay Analysis (EPS, September 2010, Draft EIR Technical Appendix C, "EPS Study") also contained an estimate of increased sales tax revenue attributable to the Project in the shorter term, estimating the Project's share of net new general fund revenue to the City in 2015 as $406,176. The EPS Study was performed to evaluate the potential for urban decay resulting from the Project for CEQA purposes and is not a full FEIA. It also used a different estimated trade area and included the effect of an approved E. Washington Place project, which the FEIA did not because East Washington Place had not yet been approved when the FEIA was done. In addition, the City is anticipated to receive $17,000 annually from projected property tax revenues based on using current assessed land value combined with new development costs to determine value. However, this estimate was based on allocation of property tax increment prior to the dissolution of the PCDC, which occurred on February 1, 2012, pursuant to AB xl 26. The $17,000 amount was calculated from the City's base allocation of tax increment after distribution of other portions of tax increment revenue to the former PCDC and statutory pass-through to other entities, all as required by former law. After AB xl 26, an oversight board will evaluate and confirm recognized obligations of the former PCDC. The redistribution of portions of the former PCDC share of property tax increment not needed for recognized obligations and other statutory purposes will then be determined. It is not possible to estimate at this time whether the City will receive additional property tax income as a result, and if so, how much. Other Project-generated revenue is projected by the FEIA to include additional annual property transfer tax of$6,300. The project is anticipated to generate $33,600 in annual 9- - W property tax in-lieu of Vehicle License-Fees (VLF) and fees from licenses and related project-generated revenue. The General Fund cost for the City to provide ongoing services to the Project would include $54,700 for police, $26,500 for fire, $14,500 for public works and smaller amounts for ancillary public services. Therefore, the net fiscal impact to the General Fund would amount to $103,200 annually. The resulting annual net fiscal surplus to the General Fund as a result of this project is anticipated to be between $681,000, based on the long term projection in the FEIA, and $373,077 based on the 2015 sales tax estimate in the EPS Study. Because of the effects of AB xl 26, redevelopment tax increment revenues are not included in these revenue benefits, other than as noted above or discussed in the record regarding payment of existing PCDC obligations to be confirmed by a future oversight board. 4. The Project will significantly address the long term negative economic impact of retail leakage, particularly in the home improvement segment. Although proposed with a Lowe's home improvement store, the applicant states that the Project currently has an executed lease for a Friedman's home improvement store with approximately 120,000 square feet, similar in size to the originally proposed Lowe's. The EPS Study shows Petaluma's retail leakage attributable to building materials and construction at $27,596,606 annually (Table 13, p. 31). The FEIA estimated a slightly larger number, $28,333,000 (Table 12). This figure does not include additional leakage from home furnishings and appliances, some of which would be available at Friedman's. Overall, the two reports show between $38.7 and $42.9 million in total annual Project sales capture from retail leakage (EPS Study, Table 13; FEIA, Table 12). 6. The Project will utilize local labor for both temporary and permanent employment to the maximum extent feasible The Project applicant and its successors will use good faith efforts to provide to persons and businesses that reside or have their main office in the City of Petaluma opportunities for employment on the project This will include local advertising including but not limited to local newspapers job boards and existing recruitment centers for the purposes of recruiting temporary construction and permanent project labor needs The applicant will submit to staff documentary proof of publication and outreach. 7. The Project will utilize local point of sale for Project construction and related materials to the extent feasible. The Project applicant and its successors will use good faith efforts to commercially identify responsible parties who are persons or businesses which have a place of business in the City of Petaluma that are capable of providing those goods and materials that the applicant needs to procure and construct the Project The applicant will also use good faith efforts to provide these parties opportunities to supply these goods and materials for the Project. 8. The Project will provide amenities and enhancements to the surrounding East Petaluma community. The project has been designed to provide enhancements for the East Petaluma community such as restoration of the Deer Creek Swale with a development buffer zone and native plantings along the delineated boundaries of the swale. The area will be further enhanced with pathways and public art installations on either side of the swale and outside of the development buffer zone. Additionally, the design of the shops and roadway in the eastern portion of the development provides a community;gathering area for activities such as farmers markets, festivals and other community events. This meets a need of the East Petaluma community for gathering space. Finally, the applicant has proposed pathways and a dog park as an interim use in the area within the adopted plan line for the Rainier Avenue Interchange. This allows beneficial use of the otherwise unused area in the time between development of the Deer Creek Village project and the future construction of the Rainier Avenue Interchange. II. Conclusion The City Council has considered the information contained in the Project EIR and has fully reviewed and considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The City Council finds that each determination made in this Statement of Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial evidence set forth herein and/or in the CEQA Findings and/or in the record of proceedings. Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits that the Project will produce, as described herein, outweigh the remaining significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts ofihe Project and render those impacts acceptable. The City Council further finds that any one of the overriding considerations set forth herein is sufficient to render the above described adverse environmental impacts acceptable. EXHIBIT D MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" (Mitigation Monitoring Program, Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines provides additional direction on mitigation monitoring or reporting). The City of Petaluma (the "City") is the Lead Agency for the Deer Creek Village project and is therefore responsible for enforcing and monitoring the mitigation measures in this Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate, this environmental document identified project design features or recommended mitigation measures to avoid or to mitigate potential impacts identified to a level where no significant impact on the environment would occur. This MMP is designed to monitor implementation of the required mitigation measures and conditions set forth for project approval for the proposed project as identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEW) and. the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The mitigation measures as well as the conditions set forth for project approval are listed and categorized by either Section and/or impact area, with an accompanying identification of the following: • Monitoring Phase, the phase of the project during which the mitigation measure shall be monitored: o Pre-Construction, including the design phase o Construction o Operation (post-construction) • Implementing Party, the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. • The Enforcement Agency, the agency with the power to enforce the mitigation measure. • The Monitoring Agency, the agency to which reports involving feasibility, compliance, implementation and development are made. The MMP for the proposed project will be in place throughout all phases of the project. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing all mitigation measures unless otherwise noted. The applicant shall also be obligated to provide certification, as identified below to the appropriate monitoring agency and the appropriate enforcement agency that compliance with the required mitigation measure has been implemented. The City will be used as the basic foundation for the MMP procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program. Generally, each certification report will be submitted to the City in a timely manner following completion/implementation of the applicable mitigation measure and shall include sufficient information to reasonably determine whether the intent of the measure has been satisfied. The City shall assure that project construction occurs in accordance with the MMP. Departments listed below are all departments of the City unless otherwise noted. GEOLOGY/SOILS Required Mitigation Measures CEO-I Strong Seismic Ground Shaking GEO-la All construction activities shall meet the California Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e. reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.). • GEO-lb Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of an improvement plan or Final Map, the applicant shall provide a Final Soils Investigation and Geoteclmical Report prepared by a registered professional civil engineer for review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. The soils report shall address site-specific soil conditions (i.e. highly expansive soils) and include recommendations for: site preparation and grading; foundation and soil engineering,design, pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges and structures. GEO-lc Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit a detailed schedule for field inspection of work in progress to ensure that all applicable codes, conditions and mitigation measures are being properly implemented through construction of the project. GEO-ld The project applicant shall implement the recommendations in the Kleinfelder investigation related to site preparation, foundation support, site seismic characterization, site preparation and grading, foundations, concrete slabs-on- grade, retaining walls, and surface and subsurface drainage control. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Geologist/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department GEO-2 Geologic and Soil Instability GEO-2a The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations and structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications. Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the geotechnical specifications by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or building permits and/or advertising for bids on public improvement projects. Additional soils information may be required by the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check of building plans in accordance with Title 17 and 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code. GEO-2b Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the California Building Code, as well as state and local laws/ordinances. Construction plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. All work shall be subject to inspection by the Building Division and must conform to all applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. GEO-2c The applicant shall follow the recommendations provided by Treadwell & Rollo: 1. Fill Placement and Compaction: Kleinfelder preliminarily recommends that the general and select engineered fill be placed in eight inch loose lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D1557. Parking and driveway subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Treadwell & Rollo concurs with Kleinfelder's preliminary recommendations, except that high-expansive, near-surface soil is sensitive to changes in moisture content; therefore, it should be moisture- conditioned to at least three to four percent above the optimum moisture content prior to compaction. The select fill need only be moisture-conditioned to near or slightly above the optimum moisture content prior to compaction. 0 ° � 2. Foundations: Kleinfelder preliminarily recommends the proposed buildings be supported on spread footings. The spread footings should be at least 12 inches wide, embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent compacted pad grade, and should rest on at least a 12 inch thick layer of properly compacted and approved fill. Spread footings should be designed based on allowable dead plus code live load and total load (including wind or seismic forces) bearing capacities of 2,500 and 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf), respectively. Resistance to lateral loads can be obtained using a passive pressure of 1,000 psf against the embedded face of the foundations, and a base friction of 0.30 times the net vertical dead load. Lateral resistance from the upper foot of soil should be neglected where the soil surface is not confined by slabs or pavements. Treadwell & Rollo concurs with Kleinfelder's preliminary foundation recommendations. However, a final geotechnical investigation should be performed to further evaluate the potential for soil liquefaction and liquefaction-induced ground settlement, and the affects of ground settlement on the proposed foundation system. 3. Concrete Slabs on Grade: Kleinfelder preliminarily recommends that interior slabs on grade be underlain by a water vapor retarder system consisting of at least a 4 inch thick layer of baserock ( 1 1/4. inch gradation) overlain by water vapor retarder membrane that is at least 10 mils thick. Treadwell & Rollo concurs that water vapor retarder system should be placed beneath slab on grade floors to reduce the potential for moisture migration through the slab. However, Treadwell & Rollo suggests using a 4 inch thick layer of drain rock or crushed rock (1/2 to % inch gradation) instead of"baserock" and using a vapor retarder membrane that meets the requirements for Class C vapor retarders as stated in ASTM E1745-97. Also, the vapor retarders should be placed in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E1643-98. 4. Retaining Walls: Kleinfelder preliminary recommends that retaining walls that are free to rotate be designed to resist lateral pressures resulting from active earth pressures, be designed to resist added surcharge loads, such as from building footings or vehicular traffic, and be properly backdrained. Treadwell & Rollo concurs with Kleinfelder's preliminary recommendations, with the exception that walls used to retain highly expansive soil may be subjected to high lateral pressures associated with the swelling of expansive soil. Typically, walls that retain expansive soil are designed to resist at-rest soil pressures or even higher lateral forces. Treadwell & Rollo suggests that Kleinfelder re-evaluate the wall design pressures or use an alternative backfill material that is not expansive. 5. Kleinfelder's preliminary geotechnical investigation is based on four borings that are more than 800 feet apart. Treadwell & Rollo recommends that a final geotechnical investigation be performed for this project to provide subsurface data and recommendations that are specific to each of the proposed building sites. Also, Kleinfelder's final investigation should further evaluate the potential for soil liquefaction and liquefaction-induced ground settlement at the proposed building locations, and re-evaluate the adequacy of the proposed foundation system to mitigate potential seismic hazards. 6. Due to the highly expansive nature of the on-site, near-surface soil, it is important to properly moisture-condition the highly expansive near-surface soil prior to compaction. Kleinfelder should provide recommendations for moisture- conditioning and compacting on-site and imported fill. 7. Treadwell & Rollo suggests that Kleinfelder clarify the terminology used for specifying the granular material beneath',the interior floor slabs. Treadwell & Roll suggests using "drain rock" or poorly graded crushed rock" to describe the granular layer•used as a capillary moisture break beneath the concrete slab-on- grade floors. Also, Treadwell & Rollo suggests Kleinfelder consider using the requirements and specifications provided in ASTM El 745-97 and ASTM E1643- 98 for vapor retarders. 8. Treadwell & Rollo suggests that Kleinfelder re-evaluate the retaining wall design pressures or provide alternate backfilling specification for walls that would retain highly expansive soil. 9. Parking areas and driveways would comprise a significant portion of the proposed project site. As part of the final geotechnical investigation, Treadwell & Rollo suggests that Kleinfelder provide recommendations for new pavements for the proposed parking areas, driveways, and bicycle and pedestrian pathways. 10. As part of the final geotechnical investigation, Treadwell & Rollo suggests that Kleinfelder provide geotechnical recommendations for bridge foundations and abutments. 11. The proposed use of select fill to mitigate the adverse impacts associated with highly expansive fill could result in the need for imported fill. Alternatively, lime- treatment of the highly expansive fill can be used to modify the expansive characteristics of the soil without the need for importing select fill. Typically, lime treatment equipment can only mix lithe into the upper approximately 18 to 24 inches of the soil Therefore, Kleinfelder should describe a procedure for adequately lime-treating a 30 inch thick layer of soil beneath proposed building and concrete slab areas, if this option is to be used. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction/Operation Implementing Party Applicant//Geologist/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department GEO-3 Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil GEO-3a All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (#1046, Title 20, chapter 20-04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code. GEO-3b The applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineering and Community Development Department, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Plan shall include temporary erosion control measures to be used during construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for foundations, and other grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the drainage system. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include the following measures as applicable. 1. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be minimized and the existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent possible to reduce soil erosion. All construction and grading activities, including short term needs (equipment staging areas, storage areas, and field office locations) shall minimize the amount of land area disturbed. Whenever possible, existing disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes. 2. All drainage ways, wetland areas and creek channels shall be protected from silt and sediment in storm runoff through the use of silt fences, diversion berms, and check dams. All exposed surface areas shall be mulched and reseeded and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected with hay mulch and/or erosion control blankets as appropriate. 2- - Th 3. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures shall be on-site by October ls`. All grading activity shall be completed by October l51h, prior to the on-set of the rainy season, with all disturbed areas stabilized and revegetated by October 3151. Upon approval by the Petaluma City Engineer, extensions for short-term grading may be allowed. Special erosion control measures may be required by the City Engineer in conjunction with any specially permitted rainy season grading. 4. If required to prevent scour and erosion of channel banks, biotechnical erosion control and bank stabilization measures shall be incorporated into the grading and landscape plans as described in the "Restoration Design and Management Guidelines for the Petaluma River Watershed, Vol. II". Channel modifications shall be limited to specific problem areas. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing'Party Applicant/Geologist/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department GEO-4 Exposure to Geologic Hazards See Mitigation Measures GEO-1 —GEO-3 above. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Geologist/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Required Mitigation Measures AQ-1 Grading/Construction Impacts The project sponsors shall require that the following practices be implemented by requiring their inclusion in all contractor construction documents: 1. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 2. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 3. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 4. Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site. 5. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 6. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 7. During site grading, the developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet- average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARE fleet average for the year 2011. 8. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. compressors). 9. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. 10. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent..Moisture content,can.be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 11. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. 12. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. 13. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 14. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 15. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 16. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 17. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. 18. Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. 19. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use ollate model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. 20. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). 21. Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. 22. Require that all contractors use equipment that meets CARB's most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. 23. Encourage the use of alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline). 24. Encourage the use of add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. 9-7721 25. Phase construction of the project as proposed in the DEW project description at page III-34. 26. Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment. Monitoring Phase Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department/BAAQMD Monitoring Agency Community Development Department AQ-4 Operation Period GHG Emissions The applicant shall reduce air pollutant emissions from both vehicle trips and area sources by implementing the following measures: 1. Provide preferential parking near the office building entrance for carpool and vanpool vehicles. 2. Pedestrian facilities shall include easy access and signage to bus stops and roadways that serve the major site uses. 3. Project site employers shall be required to promote transit use by providing transit information and incentives, for example, transit subsidies or free transit passes to employees. 4. Provide exterior electrical outlets to encourage use of electrical landscape equipment at retail and office uses. 5. Prohibit idling of trucks at loading docks for more than 5 minutes per State law and include signage indicating such a prohibition. 6. Provide 110- and 220-volt electrical outlets at loading docks. 7. Provide battery-powered, electric, or other similar equipment that does not impact local air quality for project maintenance activities. 8. Incorporate passive solar building design and landscaping conducive to passive solar energy use (e.g., planting of deciduous trees on west sides of structures, landscaping with drought resistant species, and use of groundcovers rather than pavement in certain areas to reduce heat reflection). Provide solar hot water systems for the fitness center. 9. During final design, the applicant shall develop Green Building standards or equivalent that meet or exceed compliance with CalGreen Tier 1 requirements. The applicant shall present these to the City prior the issuance of a building permit; 10. As required by the General Plan, the applicant shall incorporate features to reduce energy related GHG emissions including, but not limited, to pedestrian linkages, connections to local transit, bike lanes, bike parking, and showers for employees. 11. In addition to providing trees for shading, provide drought tolerant • landscaping to reduce water usage that lead indirectly to electricity usage and GHG emissions. 12. Require a percentage of parking spaces in large parking lots or garages to provide electrical vehicle charging facilities. 13. Prohibit the use of incandescent light bulbs for interior lighting. 14. Reduce parking hardscape while still meeting City Code requirements for parking. 15. Require the use of"cool pavement" that reflects more solar energy. 16. Purchase "green electricity" from solar, geothermal, wind, or hydroelectric sources through green tags. 17. Provide prioritized parking for hybrid vehicles. Monitoring Phase Operation Implementing Party Applicant Enforcement Agency Community Development Department/BAAQMD Monitoring Agency Community Development Department HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Required Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 Storm Water Quality HYDRO—la The project applicant shall prepare and submit an erosion control plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of a grading permit for the proposed development. The erosion control plan shall include phasing of grading, limiting areas of disturbance, designation of restricted-entry zones, diversion of runoff away from disturbed areas, protective measures for sensitive areas, outlet protection and provision for revegetation or mulching. The plan shall also prescribe treatment measures to trap sediment, such as inlet protection, straw bale barriers, straw mulching, straw wattles, silt fencing, check dams, terracing, and siltation or sediment ponds. HYDRO—lb In accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the applicant shall prepare'a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for implementation throughout project construction to control erosion on the project site and to provide guidelines for the storage, use and clean-up of fuels and hazardous materials. To help reduce the long-term accumulation of non-point source pollutants from the project within downstream surface waters, the applicant shall incorporate long-term source control and pre-discharge treatment measures into the SWPPP, subject to approval by the City Engineer and in conformance with all applicable RWQCB design standards. HYDRO-lc The project shall comply with the City of Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Management Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. HYDRO-ld The storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department/RWQCB Monitoring.Agency Public Works/Community Development Department BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Required Mitigation Measures B1O-1 Special Status Species BIO-la Site grading shall be conducted in accordance with the City's Storm Water/Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. BIO-lb All construction activities in and immediately adjacent to trees or shrubs providing potential nesting habitat for raptors or other birds should be conducted outside the normal nesting season (generally February 15 to August 15). If project work would occur during nesting,season, a qualified biologist shall survey the site no more than 14 days prior to construction. If active nests are found, exclusion zones of a distance appropriate for the species (typically 50 to 100 feet) shall be established. No work would occur within the exclusion zones until all young have become independent of the nest. If no active nests are found, no work restrictions would apply. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor/Biologist Enforcement Agency Community Development Department/CDFG Monitoring Agency Community Development Department BIO-2 Jurisdictional Waters BIO-2 The applicant shall avoid impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Where impacts are unavoidable, the applicant shall apply to the Army Corps for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and comply with all mitigation measures contained therein.,Evidence of ACOE and RWQCB permits shall be submitted to the City of Petaluma for review prior to issuance of building permits. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department/RWQCB/ACOE Monitoring Agency Community Development Department NOISE Required Mitigation Measures NOISE-I Temporary Increases in Noise Levels NOISE-la All construction activities shall comply with applicable Performance Standards in the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. NOISE-lb All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. There would be no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 AM, Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 AM nor past 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday; no cleaning of machines nor equipment past 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday; and no servicing of equipment past 6:45 PM, Monday through Friday. The developer's phone number shall be conspicuously posted at the project site for noise complaints. NOISE-lc The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise sources as far from existing sensitive receptors as possible. If stationary sources must be located near existing receptors, they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds or other structures. NOISE-1d The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Feasible noise controls include improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds. NOISE-le Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g. Jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Where use of pneumatically-powered tools, is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. A muffler could lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to, about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of five dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used (such as drilling rather than impact equipment) wherever feasible. NOISE-lf The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures that include shutting off idling equipment and notifying adjacent residences (at least one time) in advance of construction work. NOISE-1g The construction contractor shall stage equipment no less than 150 feet away from North McDowell Boulevard. Monitoring Phase Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Community Development Department TRAFFIC Required Mitigation Measures TRAFFIC-I Temporary Sidewalk Blockage If temporary sidewalk blockages are unavoidable, the project sponsor shall be required to provide safe and accessible pedestrian facilities.along the project's frontage until the temporary blockage is removed. Monitoring Phase Pre-construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-8a North McDowell Boulevard Right-turn Access Driveways Special measures shall be to avoid adverse impacts to the Class I path and sidewalk along the project frontage, particularly in locating monument signage, sight distance and curb radii (turning speed). Additionally, a raised median shall be placed along the new northbound left- turn lane access to the main driveways, thereby preventing left-turn access to the site at the second (southerly) driveway. It is expected that the egress movements shall be stop controlled at both locations. The removal of the existing raised median on North McDowell Boulevard, between Professional Drive and Lynch Creek Way, to accommodate left-turn access shall be replaced with a narrow raised median along the project frontage to prevent other than right:turn only access. The total cost of design and installation shall be borne upon the proposed project. Monitoring Phase Pre-construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement-Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-8b Rainer Avenue Extension At the time Rainier Avenue is extended to Petaluma Boulevard North, site access via Rainier Avenue shall be limited to right-turn ingress/egress only. Monitoring Phase Operation Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-8c Lynch Creek Way The project applicant shall be responsible for investigating and providing a full roadway width structural section able to accommodate project-generated truck trips. The total costs of investigation and construction, if required based on the investigation, shall be borne upon the project. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-8d Professional Drive—Project Driveway The northbound left-turn Lane at Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard shall be designed to accommodate the expected queues. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing.Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-11a Pedestrian The project shall improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities on its frontage with North McDowell Boulevard, and special care shall be taken to maintain sight distance and to clearly define right- of-way as to reduce potential conflicts between the proposed Class I path and driveways. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-Ilb Bicycle The project shall improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities on its frontage with North McDowell Boulevard, and special care shall be taken to maintain sight distance and to clearly define right- of-way as to reduce potential conflicts between the proposed Class I path and driveways. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-12 Emergency Access Impacts With the proposed project's addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard, emergency vehicle pre-emption shall be provided to mitigate this additional delay experienced by emergency responders along this corridor. Monitoring Phase Construction/Operation Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-15a Rather A venue/Maria Drive The proposed project shall contribute to the City Traffic Impact Mitigation fees for the installation of a traffic signal in the Cumulative plus Project condition at the intersection of Rainier Avenue/Maria Drive. Monitoring Phase Operation Implementing Party Applicant Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Community Development Department TRAFFIC-18 Site Access - Various The proposed project shall contribute to the City Traffic Impact Mitigation fees for the installation of intersection improvements, in the Cumulative plus Project condition, at the • intersection of Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard. Further, the project shall conform to the precise plan line to accommodate the number of turn lanes and storage lengths identified below. • The eastbound left-turn lane at Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard requires 350 feet(Dual Left-turn Lanes) • The northbound left-turn lane at Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard requires 600 feet(Dual Left-turn Lanes) • The southbound left-turn lane at Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard requires 200 feet Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department PUBLIC SERVICES Required Mitigation Measures PS-1 Fire Protection With the proposed project's addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard, emergency vehicle pre-emption shall be provided to mitigate this additional delay experienced by emergency responders along this corridor. Monitoring Phase Construction/Operation Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department PS-2 Other Public Facilities The project applicant shall be responsible for investigating and providing a full roadway width structural section able to accommodate project-generated truck trips. The total costs of investigation and construction, if required based on the investigation, shall be borne upon the project. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department CULTURAL RESOURCES Required Mitigation Measures CULT-1 Archaeological Resources CULT-la Prior to excavation and construction on the proposed project site, the prime construction contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall be cautioned at the preconstruction meeting with the City on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying cultural resources or removing artifacts, human remains, bottles, and other cultural materials from the project site. CULT-lb If during any phase of project construction, any paleontological resources are encountered, construction activities within a fifty-meter radius shall be halted immediately, and the project applicant shall notify the City. A qualified paleontologist (or persons approved by the City) shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be allowed to conduct a more detailed inspection and examination of the exposed resources. During this time, excavation and construction would not be allowed in the immediate vicinity of the find. If any find were determined to be significant by the paleontologist, the City and the paleontologist would meet to determine the appropriate course of action. All paleontological resources recovered from the site would be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared according to current professional standards. CULT-lc If during any phase of project construction, any cultural materials are encountered, construction activities within a fifty-meter radius shall be halted immediately, and the project applicant shall notify the City. A qualified prehistoric archaeologist (as approved by the City) shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be allowed to conduct a more detailed inspection and examination of the exposed cultural materials. During this time, excavation and construction would not be allowed in the immediate vicinity of the find. If any find were determined to be significant by the archaeologist, the City and the archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate course of action. All cultural materials recovered from the site would be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared according to current professional standards. Additionally, should project-related ground disturbing activities take place as part of the proposed project within the State right-of-way (ROW) and there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery, in 12- 41 compliance with the California Department of Transportation's Standard Environmental Reference Volume 2, all construction within 50 feet of the find shall cease. The Department's District 4 Cultural Resource Study Office shall be immediately contacted at (510)286-5618. CULT-1d If human remains are discovered at the project site during construction, work at the specific construction site at which the remains have been uncovered shall be suspended, and the City of Petaluma and County coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the treatment and disposition of the remains shall adhere to the guidelines of the NAHC. Monitoring Phase Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor/Archaeologist Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Community Development Department • ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-01 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT'THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DEER CREEK VILLAGE PROJECT IS INADEQUATE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project ('the Project") was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on March 5, 2010, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the Plan in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between March 3, 2011 and April 18, 2011, with a notice inviting comments on the Draft BR given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085; and, WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested'persens and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; ana, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting and hearings an March 22, 2011 to consider the Draft.EIR; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting and hearing on April 18, 2011 to consider the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, written and oral comments to the Draft EIR have been received and responses to those comments have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact Report tor the Project ("Final EIR"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public meetings on.January 10, 2012, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony;and, WHEREAS, certain Project impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application of all feasible Project mitigation measures to lessen those_impacts; including:a) the proposed projects contribution to the cumulative city-wide traffic noise impacts; b) NOx emissions during'gradingrc),Greenhouse gas emissions,consistent with the level of emissions found acceptable by the City at the time of adoption of the Generol Plan d) increased traffic resulting;in.intersectlon,LOS:and queuing impacts at Corona and McDowell, Corona and Petaluma Boulevard North, McDowell and East Washington, McDowell and Rainier;and e) continued LOS F operatiens'on Highway 101 between Pepper Road and Old Redwood and East Washington and Lakeville. WHEREAS, the Project does not have the potential to have a significant adverse impact on wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and. Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, though itis•notexempt from Fish and Game filing fees; and, COPY Original Stored at The City of Petaluma Planning Commission Resolution No.2012-01. Page I s-I WHEREAS, the Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, because of the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project, The City'Council will determine pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) whether the benefits-of the Project cis proposed rnake.acceptable the remaining significant impacts in the form of Statement of Overriding Considerations, prior to any approval of the Project: and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the. Planning Commission finds that the Environmental Impact Report for Deer Creek Village is inadequate based on the following: 1. Failure to reconsider for CEQA purposes whether the Rainier Interchange is a reasonably foreseeable future improvement; and. 2. Failure to study traffic impacts in the cumulative scenario with Rainier Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing only and no Rainier Interchange. ADOPTED this 10th day of January, j012, by the following vote: -;Commftee*Member _ - Ayer ;No _ f bsent- Abstain-, Abercrombie X 2nd Vice Chair Elias X Herries X Chair Johansen X. Kearny X Vice Chair Pierre X Wolpert X Jennifer--Pie e, ce Ch'.ir ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Geoff Bradley, Commissio7 ecrefary Leslie Thomsen, Assistant City Attorney COPY - Orig nai Stored at The City of Petaluma Planning Commission Resolution No.2012-01 Page 2 3-2- ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF PETALUMA STAFF REPORT Community'Development Department,Planning Division,11 English Street,Petaluma,CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fax(707) 778-4498 E-mail:planning@ei.petaluma.ca.us DATE: January 10, 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 TO: Planning Commission PREPARED BY: Heather Hines, Deputy Planning Manager REVIEWED BY: Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DEER CREEK VILLAGE North McDowell and Rainier Avenue, APN 008-121-014 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW RECOMMENDATION° Environmental Review: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report based upon the following: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA and has been presented, reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission. 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the MMRP by the City Council. Project Considerations: Staff recommends the Planning Commission undertake preliminary Site. Plan and Architectural Review, pending final action on°the project EIR by the City Council. PROJECT SUMMARY Project: Deer Creek Village Intersection of North McDowell and Rainier APN: 007-380-005 and 007-380-027 Project File No: 09-SPC-0091 Project Planner: Heather Hines, Deputy Planning Manager Page 1 "! r Project Applicant: Merlone Geier Management Property Owner: Merlone Geier Management 3580 Carmel Mountain Rd., Suite #260 Nearest Cross Streets: North McDowell and Rainier Property Size: 36.55 acres (approx.) Site Characteristics: The project site is at the southwest corner of the intersection of North • McDowell and Rainier Avenue. The approximately 36.55 rectangular site is made up of two parcels, a 26.20 acre lot on the north and a 10.35 acre parcel on the south. The project site is relatively flat and is currently vacant. Existing vegetation on the site includes grasses, three oak trees, and several redwoods along the south/southwestern boundary. Approximately 0.81 acres of seasonal wetlands are located on the site in separate locations. A drainage swale runs through the north portion of the site from east to west (labeled as "Deer Creek" on project plans). Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Commercial/Office Current Zoning: MUIB Proposed Zoning: No change General Plan Land Use: Mixed Use Proposed GP Land Use: No.change Subsequent Actions after Planning Commission Review: • City Council consideration/action on the Final EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Planning Commission consideration on Site Plan and Architectural Review • PROJECT DESCRIPTION; , BACKGROUND Merlone Geier submitted an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review in March, 2009. Based on initial environmental analysis the City determined that a second tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required based on significant traffic impacts identified. A Notice of Preparation for that EIR was distributed by the City on March 5, 2010, and a Draft EIR was released for Ate 45-day agency and public review on March 3, 2011. Consistent with the requirements of Resolution No. 2008-189 N.C.S., a Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (FEIA) was prepared by the firm Bay Area Economic (BAE). This analysis was considered,and discussed'by the City Council at a public hearing on May 4, 2009. A lot line adjustment;was approved by the City of Petaluma on June 9, .2010. The Lot Line Adjustment modified property lines to ensure that the proposed building siting-would not cross any Page 2 Lf existing parcel line:-The final lot lines have not been recorded with the Sonoma County Recorder and will be a condition of approval for any entitlements for the..project: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Current Site and Surrounding Uses The project site is located on the southwestern side of the North McDowell/Rainier Avenue intersection. The approximately 36.55-acre site is rectangular in shape and consists of two parcels, a 26.20-acre lot(APN 007-380-027) on the north end, and a 10.35-acre lot(APN 007-380-005) on the south. The project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 20 feet in the western part of the site to 30 feet in the eastern part of the site. The site is currently vacant and sparsely vegetated with grasses, as well asahreeoak trees with 50", 30- and 20" diameters. There are also several redwood and other trees along,the site's south/southwestern boundary. A total of 0.81 acres of seasonal wetlands are located on the site in separate.locations. An ephemeral drainage swale runs through the northern portion of the site from east to west. Although described as "Deer Creek" on project plans, it is not designated as a "blue line" creek on the Cofati USGS 7.5 minute topographic map. The'current'plan'.alignment for the Rainier Avenue highway interchange is located at northwestern corner of the site. The project site is bounded by light industrial and offices uses, including the City of Petaluma Administrative Offices to the,northwest/west, single-family residential homes to the northeast/east, Petaluma Valley Hospital to the east, and office uses to the.southeast/south. Lucchesi Park, the Community Center, andthe..Lynch Creek trail are located south of Petaluma Valley Hospital. Roadways adjacent to the project site include North McDowell Boulevard to the northeast/east, Professional Drive to the east, and Highway 101 to the southwestlwestand Lynch Creek Way to the southeast/south. A portion of the'required right of way for the future Rainier.Avenue Extension exists immediately North of the site. Proposed Site Design and Project Uses The proposed project is to develop a vacant site with a mix of retail, recreational, and office uses. The proposed project includes the development of 343,998 square feet of commercial land uses consisting of 282,048 square feet of retail,44,450 square feet of fitness; and 17,500 square feet of services (bank and office uses); 1,267 vehicle parking spaces; 150'bicycle parking spaces, and on- site bicycle and pedestrian circulation,anienities. The proposed project would set aside approximately 5:44 acres for'the future Rainier Avenue interchange and approximately 2.66 acres for the Deer Creek swale enhancement area. The 5.44 acres set aside'would include openspace; wetlands, exercise stations and bike and jogging trails which wouldbe'considered temporary improvements. Eventual construction of the Rainier interchange would require removal of the amenities in the 5.44 acre area. The proposed development niix would include four major anchor retail stores, five smaller shops, along with restaurant,pharmacy, and grocery uses,for a total of 282,048 square feet of retail uses. The project also:proposes a44,450 square-foot fitness facility and 17,500 square feet of services, including a bank, medical office, and professional office.space. Proposed building heights range from'approximately'20 feet to 45 feet. Building materials would include plaster surfaces with decorative ornamentation,wood trellises, split face block, large panels of glass, cantilevered flat awnings, and projecting.cornices. Page 3 ACCESS, PARKING, & CIRCULATION Access to the project site is proposed via five driveways, which include three on North Mcdowell Boulevard, one on Rainier Avenue and one on Lynch Creek Way. The access point along North Mcdowell Boulevard at Professional Drive would be a signalized intersection. Vehicular parking on the project site is proposed in a parking area in the central portion of the site with smaller parking areas located adjacent to some of proposed shops and offices. A total of 1,267 parking spaces are proposed. A total of 150 bicycle parking spaces are proposed and would be located near each building. The proposed project includes both enclosed and uncovered bicycle parking. The existing transit stop-near the northeast corner of the site would be improved with a transit shelter and signage and landscaping. The transit stop provides on-site transit access to the proposed project, and will connect to pedestrian and bicycle pathways both within the project and along the North Mcdowell Boulevard project frontage. Deliveries The project has been designed to provide primary truck/delivery access.via Lynch Creek Drive to the rear of the project behind the major retail uses. A truck turnaround is proposed between buildings Major 1 and Major 2 to redirect truck/delivery traffic.back to.Lynch Creek Drive and out to North Mcdowell Boulevard. This turnaround is intended to serve the bulk of deliveries to the major anchors. Deliverytnick'traffic would be directed behind each of the buildings. PLAZAS & LANDSCAPING Five plazas are proposed as gathering places and would be located at the southeast corner of the fitness building, adjacent to the restaurant building, centered between Shops A and B, at the southeast corner of Shop C and centered between offices 1 and 2. Eachrof the plazas would contain special features (e.g. water:feature,or raised planter), special paving,benches and/or seat walls, and landscaping. Depending on the tenants around the particular plazas,.plaza space may also be used as an outdoor eating area fora proposed restaurant. Accent trees, including Crape Myrtle, Chinese Pistache, Flowering Cherry and Callery Pear, would be used to highlight the major site entrances, interior plazas and store entrances. Parking islands landscaped with evergreen or broad spreading deciduous trees, such as Southern Magnolia, Afghan Pine, Chinese Elm,and London Plane Tree, would be located'within the parking areas to.provide shade for vehicles and pedestrians. There are three mature valley oak trees at the west end of the drainage swale and approximately 15 valley oak "saplings. The mature trees-range in size from a trunk dianieter of four feet for the largest tree to 1.7 feet for the smallest tree and are approximately 30 feet tall. Although the trees would have to be removed in the future for the Rainier interchange,they are not proposed to be removed for the proposed project in the interim. Small flowering accent shrubs (Daylilies, Fortnight Lilies, Groundcovet Manzanita, and.Australian Bluebell Creeper) as well as medium-sized shrubs (Rosemary, Heavenly Bamboo,New Zealand Flax, Barberry and Chinese Fringe Flower) are proposed in the Various planters.aroundentries.and interior plazas. DEER CREEK DELINEATION The Deer Creek Village, project, proposes to preserve and enhance the Deer Creek swale by maintaining a 50 foot development buffer on each side of the drainage and planting the resulting Page 21-9- minimum 100-foot-corridor with native trees and shrubs designed to provide natural retention and minimize the rate of stonnwater run-off. Pedestrian walking paths, bicycle trails and exercise stations, as well as outdoor seating and dining areas'would be situated adjacent to the enhanced Deer Creek swale corridor. PHASING & SCHEDULE The first stage of the proposed'project:would include grading of the site, construction of underground improvements;.followed by development of the proposed drives, parking,buildings, landscaping,•site amenities and traffic signals in the southern portion of the site. Stage 2 of the project would include development of the underground improvements, drives,parking,buildings, and Deer Creek swale enhancements'that are proposed in the central portion of the site. Finally,the proposed site improvements in the northern portion of the site would be developed as part of Stage 3. Grading is expected to occur over.a three to four month period with the remaining Stage 1 activities and each additional stage occurring over three to four months as well, with the exception of approximately 12 months for building construction. The project would be operational 18 to 24 months after Site Plan and Architectural Review approval. • STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN 2025 The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Mixed-Use. The definition and intent of Mixed Use is as follows: This classification_requires arobust combination of uses, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/or offices. Development is oriented toward the pedestrian, with parking provided, to the extent possible, in larger common areas or garages. Maximum FAR including both residential and non-residential uses is 2.5, and maximum residential density is 30 DU/AC. General Plan 2025 policies and goals applicable to the project:and consistency findings for them are located within the EIR and discussed in each environmental area (i.e.: Traffic, Noise, Public Utilities, etc.). In addition, the Final EIR, at Topical Response 4, General Plan Consistency (pp. II-4 - 11-19), and Topical Response 1, Initial Study and Tiering from the General Plan EIR (pp. II-6 - II- 12), provides detailed information on General Plan consistency, which is summarized below. The project site lies within the North McDowell Boulevard Planning Subarea. The General Plan specifically mentions that 15 percent of the subarea is vacant, mostly adjacent to the proposed new Rainier Avenue interchange/underpass and that the-vacant lots provide opportunities for expansion of commercial, office, and light industrial uses along North McDowell Boulevard. The following Goals and Policies are applicable to the project site. Staff analysis is included in italics. 1-P-6 Encourage mixed-use development, which include opportunities for increased transit access. The proposed'project iiicludes a mix of uses and incorporates new transit facilities into the site design. The project would provide direct transit access,on the McDowell Boulevard project frontage. In addition, conditions of approval will require that the interim development of Rainier Page 5 7( 5 Avenue to theproject entrance include development of a cul-de sac to facilitate safe access to transit buses leaving.the City transit center and turning Onto North McDowel Boulevard. • 1-P-14 Require provision of street trees, landscaping, parking and access features to help integrate land uses and achieve an effective transition between uses of disparate intensities. The project will incorporate street trees along North.McDowell on both sides of the Class I path to provide buffer and transition. Additionally, native landscaping, pathways, and public art are proposed along the Deer Creek swale to provide an enjoyable pedestrian environment. 2-P-5 Strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of major arterial corridors. The proposed Deer Creek Village project will convert a vacant infill site containing no scenic resources and will strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of the North McDowell corridor through orientation of facades toward the street, landscape buffer from parking areas, construction of a 10 foot wide Class I pathway along the North McDowell frontage and installation of street trees and other landscaping. 2-P-87 Where applicable, provide a transition in scale along North McDowell Boulevard between the industrial uses on the west side of the boulevard and the residential developments to the east, while allowing new development at intensities reflective of enhanced connections provided by the new cross-town connector and interchange at Rainier Avenue. The commercial nature of the proposed Deer Creek Village will provide a transition between industrial uses to the north, office uses to the south, and residential uses to the east. The design of the project itself provides a transition between the larger major tenant buildings along the Highway 101 frontage and the smaller individual single story buildings closer to North McDowell. The project is also well suited'in-intensity to the future interchange and cross town connector and has been designed to respect these future enhanced connections. 2-P-88 Provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle network connections between the industrial, commercial, and residential clusters. • Significant enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections are incorporated into the project design, including a Class I path along-the McDowell frontage, pathway connection to Lynch Creek, a new signalized intersection and crosswalk at McDowell and Professional, and partial development of Rainier Avenue to city standards. The project's pedestrian connectivity through the site improves the network betweeti.connnercial, office, residential and medical uses in this area of the McDowell corridor. 2-P-89 Allow for a range of-uses, including commercial, office, and residential, in the mixed use area on the southwest corner-of North McDowell and Rainier Avenue. The range of uses incorporated into,the Deer Creek Village project include retail,financial service, fitness/health facility, building and landscape materials sales, minor medial services, groceries, professional office, and general retail. This range of uses is consistent with permitted uses in the MU1B zoning district, complies with General Plan Policy 2-P-8 specific to this site and complies with the range of uses as sought in the Mixed Use land use designation in the General Plan 2025. Page 6 �1.1f� 4-P-6 Improve air quality through.required planting of trees along streets and within park and urban separators, and retaining tree and plant resources along the river and creek:corridors. The Deer Creek Village project includes enhancement and preservation of the Deer Creek swale though native planting creation of development buffer on both side of the swale, and pedestrian and bicycle paths adjacent to either side of the 100 foot buffer. 4-P-9 Require a percentage of parking spaces in large parking lots or garages to provide electrical vehicle charging facilities. The FEIR for the Deer Creek Village project includes mitigation measureAQ-4 which requires that a percentage of parking spaces provide electrical vehicle charging facilities. Consistent with the standards applied to the East :Washington Place project and in keeping with recommended standards published in Ready, Set, Charge, California IA Guide toEV Ready Communities, Staff recommends that 1% of the on-site.parking spaces (approximately 12) provide electrical vehicle charging facilities and that these facilities be located at various locations within the larger development.. Ready, Set, Cliarge, California! provides public.agencies throughout California with guidance on how to advance community electric vehicle (EIS readiness, including standardized policies, ordinances and best-practices. The document was prepared by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Bay Area Climate Collaboration. 4-P-16 To reduce combustion emissions during construction and demolition phases, the contractor of future individual project shall encourage the inclusion in construction contract of specific requirements. All of the measures outlined;in 4-P-16 have been incorporated:it:to,Mitigation Measure AQ-1 for grading/construction impacts in the Deer Creek Village FEIR. Additionally, this mitigation measure includes complianceaVith relevant Bay Area Air Quality Management District construction standards. 5-P-11 Require proposed development to assist, in addition to seeking other funding sources, in the funding and construction of the following improvements: Rainier Avenue extension and interchange. The applicant will be required to pay all traffic impact fees, reserve plan line right-of-way as adopted bytheCity of Petaluma, and install improvements to Rainier Avenue between the proposed interchange, and North McDowell Boulevard in proportion to the project's direct impacts on Rainier Avenue 5-P-16 If Class II bike lanes are not possible on streets designated as such on the Bicycle Facilities Map, those streets, shall become enhanced Class III bike routes using such markings as edget striping, shared.lane markings, and signs. North-McDowell is indicated for proposed Class II on street, striped bicycle facilities. A Class I path is proposed instead to maintain consistency with the existing facility on the east side of McDowell. The:variation was presented' to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee and was found to be consisterit With f the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan and determined to be an enhanced amenity along the McDowell frontage. Page 7 5-P-23 Require the provision of pedestrian site access for all new developrent. The proposed project incorporates and enhances pedestrian access to and throughout the site through the use of differentiated paths, crosswalks,four sided architecture, landscaping public art, and the Deer Creek swale improvements. 5-P-31 Make bicycling and walking more desirable by providing or requiring development to provide necessary support facilities'throughout the city. The proposed project has incorporated support facilities into the site design.to make bicycling and walking more desireable: In addition to pathways and crosswalks, the Deer Creek Village project includes secure bicycle parking, public plazas/gathering spaces, drinking fountains, benches, and public art throughout the site. Additionally, shower facilities consistent with the requirements of the.IZO have been conditioned. 6-P-29 Integrate arts into the planning,process in the City and encourage'the•arts as an integral part of development proposals and capital improvement projects. The applicant has integrated public art into the planning and design process for the Deer Creek Village project. The applicant,has consulted with the Petaluma Public Art Committee (PPAC) to gain feedback on the conceptual art program for the development and is continuing to develop the overall proposal incorporating the input of the PPAC. 6-P-30 Place public art in area that are interactive and accessible to the public and at the City's gateways. Public art consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the 170 will be incorporated throughout the site, with larger pieces incorporated into public plazas and gathering spaces and an art walk along the deer creek swale to maximize interactivity and accessibility to the public. 7-P-19 Maintain a four minute travel time for a total of 6-minute response time for emergencies within the City. As discussed in detail in FEIR Topical Response 11: Emergency Access Impacts, the addition of project-generated trips is not expected to cause a reduction in travel speeds sufficient to cause significant delays in emergency vehicles. Additionally, Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-12 requires that emergency4vehicle preemption be provided at the proposed traffic signal at the interseciton of Professional Drive and`North.McDowell Boulevard.. The City of Petaluma'has also recently been awarded a Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant to coordinate and optimize traffic signals on North McDowell:Boulevard. That work is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2012. 8-P-36 Require developmenton sites greater than `7a acre in size to demonstrate no new increase in peak day storm water.runoff, to the extent deemed practical and feasible. The FEIR includes -in-depth hydrology analysis to ensure that all stormwater runoff meets the requiked'standards_. Page 8 8-P-38 All development activities shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with Phase 2 National.Pollutant'Discharge Elniination System permit requirements. The project will he conditioned to require that all sotrm water systems and calculations include detention and treatment,systems that meet the,reguirements of the NPDES, City of Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Regulations, and including Attachment 4 requirements for post construction storm water.runoff. 9-P-1 Retain and attract 'bas'ic' economic activities that bring dollars into the local economy by exporting products and services. The Deer Creek Village project,proposes a center providingg a variety of uses to meet commerical and service needs of East Petaluma;including local demands for goods and services. Additionally, the proposed addition of building and landscape-materials sales-meets a significant unmet need of the community. As discussed in the, City's retail leakage,study, the Deer Creek Village FEIA, and the Urban Decay Analysis included in the DEIR all identiifya significant leakage due to the absence of a home improvement store in Petaluma. This addition. to Petaluma's economic base will generate revenue for the city to sustain and expand city services. The project site is not within the Airport Influence.Area for Petaluma Municipal Airport The project site is not within the boundary of the Central'Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP). The project is not within the Petaluma Community Development Commission Redevelopment Area. IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE (IZO) The project site is within the MU l B zoning district. All of the proposed uses (general retail, building and landscape materials sales - indoor, restaurant; bank — financial services, medical services — minor, fitness/health facility, groceries/specialty foods, and office) are permitted uses within the MU1B. The project is a conforming project and SPAR is its only required land use entitlement. Parking Table 11.1 in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance outlines minimum on-site parking requirements for specific use types. Some of the specific uses included in the proposed Deer Creek Village project, such as pharmacy,building and landscape materials sales, and fitness/health facility are not clearly identified as separate uses for the purposes of parking requirements. Staff has grouped both of these use type under the general retail requirement of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. Consistent with IZO Section 11.030, when more than one use is located on a site the number of parking,spaces provided shall be equal to the sum of the parking requirements for.each use. The IZO does not have:specific parking requirements for shopping centers or specific allowances for combined shopping center parking facilities. The required number of parking spaces may be modified under specific circumstances, such as allowing compact spaces, retirement housing or when a common off-street parkng facility is located within 300-feet of the uses served. None of Page 9 6/ these circumstances'apply. Any other modification to reduce required parking requires approval of a variance and the'state required findings. As outlined in the following summary,table„ approximately 1,174. parking spaces are required to meet minimum parking requirements as outlined in the IZO. Staff has estimated 170 restaurant seats for an approximately 6;500 square foot restaurant, recognizing that this number could vary slightly depending on the.specific tenant for the pad. 'Uses 'r Q 7.12 i .1ZO Requirement ' 'Square Footage;' '' t' q i �_��r�t � �r: ,�� 1Re u�re'd .��mr General Retail 1 space/300 sq ft Shopes: 31,300 sq ft 104 spaces Major Tenants: 189,944 sq ft 633 spaces Garden Center: 31,384 sq ft 105 spaces Pharmacy: 14,820 sq ft 49 spaces Fitness Center: 44;450 sq ft 148 spaces Office 1 space/300 sq ft Prof Office: 7,500 sq ft 25 spaces Medical Srvc Minor I space/200 sq ft Medical: 5,000 sq ft 25 spaces Bank 1-space/300 sq ft Bank: 5,000 sq ft 17 spaces Restaurant 1 space/2.5 seats Restaurant: 6,500 sq ft 68 spaces (170 seats) TOTAL 335,898 sq ft >1,174 spaces As proposed, the Deer Creek Village project includes 1,268 parking spaces; which is approximately 94 spaces more than the minimum requirements. The IZO does not include maximum parking requirements. However, there is language in the General Plan (Policy 5-P-13) that encourages reduced parking for mixed use development. Consistent with this direction, Staff recommends reducing surface parking to the;spaces required by the IZO for the proposed breakdown of uses. Pedestrian and Bicycle Parking.and Circulaton The project has been designed to provide a network of pedestrian and bicycle paths to serve both the internal project area and to connect to existing facilities in the surrounding neighborhoods. Pedestrian walkways throughout the project include crosswalks and specialized paving. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the project site is emphasized along the front street within the project, connecting to major tenants at the rear of the site, along the deer creek buffer zone, and connecting with Lynch Creek Drive at the back of the project. Additionally,off site improvements to the larger pedestrian and bicycle circulation network include a ten foot Class I path along North McDowell and frontage',improvements along Rainier Avenue to the project entrance. Requirements for bicycle parking and shower facilities are called out in Chapter 11 of the IZO. The proposed project plans incorporate 150 bicycle racks, including 80 covered and 70 uncovered, which exceeds the requirement for the number of bicycle parking to be at least 10% of the required autombile parking spaces. The proposed project includes shower facilities; however the four proposed shower facilities do not meet the full requirement of the IZO. Table 11.2 of the IZO outlines employee shower requirements for new buildings based on the type of use and size of building. The following summary outlines the requirements for the Deer Creek Village Project. Staff recommends that the project be conditioned to provide employee showers consistent with the requirements of the IZO. Page 10 �f-10 a';p. t. ar,a:sr e.q iire i. �UseAType �n ��.�rSgdarerF,00fage ;i;� � �Sliowers�Required�,,w , Grocery Retail 8,100,sq ft. 0 Fitness Recreation 44;450 sq ft 0 (included) Shop D Retail 6,000 sq ft 0 Bank Financial Services 5;000sq ft 0 Restaurant A Eating Establishment 6;500 sq ft 0 Shop E Retail 10,000 sq ft 1 Shop A Retail 5,500 sq ft 0 Shop B Retail 5,500 sq ft 0 Pharmacy Retail 14,820 sq ft Shop C. Retail 4,300 sq ft 0 Professional Office Offices 7,500 sq ft 0 Medical/Office Medical/Office 5,000 sq ft 0 Major 4 Retail 18,500 sq ft 1 Major,3 Retail 25,250 sq ft 2 Major Retail 25;250 sq ft 2 Major 1 Retail. 120;944 sq ft 4 Total 11 showers required The proposed project was brought before the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) on July 2009, December 2009, January 2010 and May 2010 to discuss the project and incorporate feedback. On June 9, 2010 the PBAC finalized comments and proposed conditions of approval (Attachment 6), acknowledging the applicants' efforts to meet with the committee and commending the applicant team for listening to and,incorporating comments from the committee. Although most of the reconimended comments from the PBAC have been incorporated into the Draft Conditions, there are a couple conditions that necessitate discussion. Under"Class 11 Bicycle Facilities" the PBAC recommends that Class II bike lanes be striped on both sides of Lynch Creek Way. This would require elimination of on street parking on Lynch Creek Way. Neither the General Plan .2025 nor the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan include a proposal for defined bicycle facilities on Lynch Creek Way. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss whether the benefit of Class II bike lanes on Lynch Creek Way outweighs the benefit of on street parking in the business park neighborhood. The second item under the "Class II Bicycle Facilities" subheading recommends a condition that Class'Il bike lanes be.iminstalled along the entire project frontage on Rainier Avenue: As proposed and conditioned the applicant will be:responsible for installing Class II bike lanes on the south side of Rainier Avenue from North McDowell.Boulevard to the point of project access. This follows standard street frontage requirements associated the proposed project. When the full Rainier extension is completed,,Class II bike lane will be installed along both sides of Rainier consistent with the General Plan 2025'and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Most of the recommendations under the subheading "Incentives to Walk/Bicycle/Transit to Work" have already been incorporated as mitigation measures under AQ-4 of the FUR. This is consistent with state law that:allows imposition of measures on new development to reduce vehicle trips under CEQA to mitigate, impacts. These mitigation measures relate to transit/carpool/alternative fuel Page I1 • transportation and include preferential parking for carpool and vanpool vehicles, promotion of transit use through providing transit information and incentives to employees, installation of electrical vehicle charging facilities, and'prioritized parking for hybrid vehicles. There are however limits within state law-on imposition of employee transportation management programs. This is echoed in Petaluma Municipal Code Section 11.90.010 (Trip Reduction Ordinance Program) which states that"the passage of Senate Bill 437 in February 1996,prohibits any public agency from requiring employers to implement an employee trip reduction program unless required by the federal government. Participation in this program is voluntary". Based on these, Staff recommends modifying the language proposed by PBAC with regard to a transportation coordinator to read, "The applicant shall be encouraged to provide a documentto the city naming a designated transportation coordinator and describing specific incentives:for employees to walk, bicycle, or take transit,thereby encouraging alternatives to driving cars to this site. Examples include lending bicycles for short errands, monetary or other rewards for not driving, discounts for bicycling, formation of groups of employees who pledge to bicycle, walk, carpool, or ride transit at least once a week, etc. Applicant shall comply with Municipal Code.Chapter 11.90." Public Art The proposed project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18 bf the,IZO to either pay an in lieu fee or incorporate public art into the project at a value of 1% of the construction costs of the project. Consistent with these requirements, the,applicant has indicated their intention to incorporate public art into the Deer Creek Village Project. On June 22, 2011, the applicant met with the Petaluma Public Art Committee to present the conceptual art proposal, including introduction to work of the specific artist with whom Merlone Geier is consulting to develop a public art palette for the project. The PPAC provided feedback to the applicant, including their,desire to see a rotating local art walk incorporated into the pedestrian walkway along the Deer Creek swale. The applicant has indicated a willingness to explore this option and will continue their creation of a public art proposal to meet the requirements of the IZO. Staff recommends that the applicant consult with the PPAC in finalizing the public art proposal and receive feedback prior to Submitting as part of building permit application. Height Maximum building heights for the MU1B zoning district are 30 feet (label 4:10) with a foot note that allows`increased height up to 45 feet when a building is set back more than 30 feet from an abutting property line. This exception allows one additional foot of height with each additional foot of setback over 30 feet to a maximum 45 feet. All buildings.along-the North.McDowell Boulevard frontage are within the standard 30 foot hieght limitation, except for Shop D, which has a maximum height of 33 feet, but is setback approximately 37 feet from the front property line. The Major Tenant 1 building is the tallest proposed building with a building height of 45 feet to the top of the gable parapet detail. The other major tenant spaces are-proposed at,a maximum height of 35 feet to the tallest-roof detail. The major tenant spaces are at the 101 side of the project and set back more than 500 feet from North McDowell. Therefore the proposed heightsare consistent with the requirements for the MUIB zoning district. Page 12 Signs The applicant submitted a sign program that staff is reviewing for compliance with IZO requirements: Staff will include=sign program with recommendations with the final SPAR before the Planning Commission. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW GUIDELINES Prior to SPAR approval the Planning Commission must make'the following findings as outlined in Section 24.010 of the IZO. Initial staff analyis is shown in italics. The project includes the appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and propotion of the overall design. The proposed project uses a variety of exterior materials, including stone, wood, metal, glass, plaster, tile, and split face CMU to provide visual interest and differentiation within the large development. Detailing,through;the use of different roof features, awnings, trellises, and finishes and accents further develop the overall design intention for the shopping center. All buildings include four sided architecture to ensure that the development orients both towards frontages such as North McDowell and interior within the development and between individual buidings. The architectural style is appropriate for the project and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. The architectural style of the proposed project provides transition between existing industrial development to the north,,office%medical uses to the south, and residential development to the east. Additionally, the transstion of the architectural style and massing from the larger tenant buildings closest to Highway 101 to the smaller individual structures closer to the McDowell frontage provide transition within the development. The intensity of the proposed project and the architectual style and siting,has also been designed to enhance the future Rainier interchange and undercrossing connections. The siting of the structure(s) on the property is in harmony with siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. The siting of structures within the proposed Deer Creek project has been designed to transition from larger buildings closer to Highway 101 to smaller more pedestrian oriented buildings closer to McDowell mid Rainier. Additionally; structures have been sited so as not to overwhelm existing office development to the south by providing parking and landscaping buffers. The siting and grouping of buildings along the north/south spine'in the'eastern portion of the'site brings structures closer to the road to create more of a neighborhood street effect as opposed to a sprawling suburban shopping'center. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of all signs and outdoor structures are appropriate for the project's surroundings. A sign program,for the shopping center is being reviewed and will be included with the final SPAR review for Commission consideration. Landscaping shall be in keeping with the character or design of the site. Page 13 Landscaping has been appropriately used throughout the project to provide buffers, soften edges, break. up large parking areas, and enhance pathways and plazas/gathering space. Additionally, street trees along McDowell buffer the development from the busy arterial and enhance the.Clas .Ipath along the frontage. Native landscaping is focused within the 100 foot wide Deer Creek;buffer zone and enhances the experience along the pedestrian pathways along the edges of this linear open space. Existing trees along the Highway 101 corridor will not be removed as part of this project. The overall landscaping concept orients and connects the large development, and enhances the architectural design and siting. Ingress, egress, internal circulation-for bicycles and autombiles, off-street autombiles and parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be designed to promote safety and convenience and shall conform to City Standards. Plans pertaining to pedestiran, bicycle, or automobile circulation shall be routed to the PBAC for review and recommendation. The project has been designed to provide safe and convenient access to all modes of transportation, including bicycles, pedestrians, transit riders, and automobiles. New transit facilities are proposed to meet City standards. A Class I path,is proposed across the North McDowell frontage, consistent with existing facility on the east°side of McDowell. A pathway across;,the rear of the development connects with Lynch Creek.Way. Differentiated pathways, sidewalks, and crosswalks are located throughout the development,.to connect the project to off-site circulation. The project's pedestrian connectivity through the site improves'the network between commercial, office; residential and medical uses in this area of the McDowell corridor. Project plans were routed to the PBAC and the applicant engaged in dialogue with the committee at several meetings in 2009 and 2010. The PBAC issued the attached memo commending the applicant for working with the committee and recommending approval of the project with conditions of approval, most of which have.been included in draft conditions (Attachment 6). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to,CEQA Guidelines,Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising that an EIR was to be prepared for the,project was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution and posted with the County Clerk on.March 5, 2009. After receiving the NOP, all responsible or trustee agencies had 30 days'in which to comment on how, in terms of scope and content, the DEW should treat environmental information related to the agency's statutory responsibilities. The City also considered comments from individuals on the NOP. A Draft-EIR was then prepared, and made available for public comment on March 3, 2011. A notice of availability was;published in the Argus Courier on March 3rd and sent to residents:and property owners-within 1,000 feet of,the:subject property, as well as interested`parties, and individuals who submitted'comments on the NOP. More than sixty comments were received during the 45-day public comment period. Copies of all written comments,received on the Draft EIR, and a record of oral commentsmade°at the Planning Commission meeting on Match 22, 2011, and the City Council meeting on April 18, 2011 are contained within the Final EIR. Additionally, the FEIR includes responses to all comments received as well as 15 topical responses on issues that were repeated in multiple comments. Page 14 IF To provide additional information partly in response to comments, an updated noise analysis was completed and an updated"site visit performed to verify that there;had been no change in conditions since the previous biology analysis was conducted, These documents are included in the appendices of the FEIR. No new impacts which required recirculation were identified as part of the responses to comments See Topical-Response 3, Recirculation of the FEIR, for'additional detail. At a noticed public.meeting,:the City Council will consider whether to certify the Final EIR and take other CEQA related actions that would allow the Planning Commission to take action on the Site Plan and Architectural Review for the project. If the proposed project is approved, recommended mitigation measures'will be incorporated into the conditions of approval, unless the City Council identifies alternative mitigation measures or determines that mitigation is not feasible and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The EIR has identified several environmental impacts of the proposed project. An impact is a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected bathe project. Most of the impacts identified as potentially significant can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the incorporation of various mitigation measures. Several significant and unavoidable,impacts are cumulative impacts identified in General Plan 2025, and related General Plan EIR analysis is relied on for the project EIR. See,also, FEIR Topical Response 1, Initial Study and Tiering from the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR, will be incorporated into any project approval findings and will be implemented through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), if the project is approved. Impacts that are Significant`and Unavoidable The EIR also identified areas where the proposed project would cause significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant impact. These significant unavoidable impacts relate to air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, traffic and transportation, and cumulative traffic/rail noise at General Plan buildout. Several of the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR are cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan 2025. Even though a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for these impacts when the General Plan was adopted, a separate statement of overriding considerations based on benefits and contributions to impacts from this project would be required aspart of project approval. Impact Noise-3: The evaluation of the project's contribution to cumulative effects relies on the evaluation of noise effeets'in the EIR for General Plan 2025, which:determined that at General Plan buildout, significant and unavoidable impacts would result from traffic-related noise and future rail service. No feasible mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the proposed project's contribution to this cumulative city-wide impact to less than considerable, and thus this significant and unavoidable impact remains applicable to the proposed project. Impact-AQ-1:• Construction related activities associated with the project would result in dust and equipment exhaust emissions that could at times, affect adjacent residential uses including the single-family residential homes to the northeast/east of McDowell Boulevard and/or the Petaluma Valley Hospital to the east on Professional Drive, and could contribute to deterioration of local air Page 15 �_ /5 quality. Construction emission's for the proposed project Were calculated with the URBEMIS2007 model assuming the two separate phases for construction. During. grading, the first year of construction,average daily emissions would exceed the Bay'Area,Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)thresholds. The City's General Plan 2025 includes a chapter containing air quality policies and programs that seek to maintain'or improve Petaluma's air quality. After General Plan approval and certification of the General Plan EIR, which found certain cumulative air quality and GHG impacts to be significant and unavoidable, BAAQMD adopted new CEQA Guidelines establishing thresholds of significance which were used'to update the General Plan air quality and greenhouse gas emissions contributions from this project. A mitigation measure outlining:ways in which the project could reduce air pollutant emissions from grading and construction impact is,discussed in the DEIR. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce dust of PMio emissions to a less-than-significant level. However NO emissions during grading would remain above the BAAQMD threshold and therefore' the impact remains significant and unavoidable, although confined to the construction period: Impact AQ-4: The project would cause an increase in GHG emissions of 8,707 metric tons of CO2e annually, which exceeds the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines "bright line" threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year. Therefore the,significance is evaluated,by assessing the GHG emissions of 13.5.metric tons per year ofCO2e pet capita, which exceeds the BAAQMD significance threshold of 4.6 metric tons per capita. Anticipated operational emissions for,theproject were calculated using URBEMIS2007 to provide CO2e:emissions in metric tons per year. The calculation included missions from transportation, area sources, electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, electricity usage associated with water usage and wastewater discharge, and solid waste land filling and transport. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 outlines measures to reduce air pollutant:emissions both from vehicle trips and area sources. Although.itnplementation of the following measures would reduce per capita CO2e emissions to 13,0 metric tons per year, it remains above the BAAQMD per capita significance threshold of 4.6 and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse:gas emissions are by nature cumulative impacts. The resulting impact determined by this DEIR is the same level of significance as determined in'the.General Plan EIR for greenhouse gas emissions, but resulted from using the more specific BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines methodology. The conclusion is that the project does make a considerable contribution (in CEQA terminology) to .the significant and unavoidable impact determined to occur with General Plan buildouf. Impact Traffic-2b: Intersection operations at East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard'were found to exceed the threshold of significance under existing plus project conditions. No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to less-than-significant. The impact remains significant:and unavoidable. This impact goes away in the cumulative scenario. Impact Traffic-3b: Vehicle queuing at the intersection of East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard in the southbound right-turn lane was found to exceed the thresholds of significance under existing plus project conditions. Although construction of additional lane Page 16 storage length would reduce the-projects'contributionito significant impacts, available right-of-way is not available for correction, because of the built out neighborhood along North McDowell Boulevard. Therefore, no feasible mitigation was identified and the impact to this intersection remains significant'and unavoidable. Impact Traffic-5a: Intersection:,operations at Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Impact Traffic-5b: Intersection operations at Corona Road and Petaluma Boulevard North under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions exceed thresholds of significance and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact goes away in the cumulative scenario. Impact Traffic-5d: Intersection operations at East Washington and North McDowell Boulevard exceed thresholds of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Impact Traffic-6: Vehicle queuing at the East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard southbound right-turn lane would exceed storage capacity under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. This impact remains significant and unavoidable with no feasible mitigation identified. Impact Traffic-7: The proposed project is expected to increase traffic volumes on Highway 101 segments (Pepper Road to Old Redwood Highway and from East Washington Street to Lakeville Highway)that are expected to operate at LOS F without the project by more than one percent of the segment's theoretical capacity. No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to less- than-significant and therefore the impact remains significant and-unavoidable. Impact Traffic-15b: Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and:North.McDowell Boulevard will exceed thresholds of significance under cumulative plus project conditions, resulting in a significant LOS impact. No feasible mitigation was identified. Impacts'to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact Traffic-15c: Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and project access would result in delay to right-turn egress movements from the proposed project.. No vehicle delays on Rainier Avenue under the cumulative project scenario are anticipated. The construction of the Rainier Avenue cross-town connector.and.U.S. 101 and Rainier Avenue Interchange will limit access along the project;frontage and therefore a traffic signal is not feasible mitigation for the:impact: Access shall be limited to right-turn in and right-turn out when Rainier is extended (mitigation measure Traffic-8b). Impacts to the intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact-Traffic-ISc: Intersection operations at Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard are anticipated to continue to :exceed thresholds of significance under the cumulative plus project conditions: Construction of additional travel lanes at this intersection conflicts with the General Plan policy to avoid wider, more automobile-oriented intersections in favor of more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly designs. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City for'this.:intersection for-the cumulative condition as part of the General Plan EIR certification. Impacts'to.this;intersection.remain`significant and unavoidable. Impact Traffic-16: Asdescribed above under existing plus project conditions, vehicle queuing at the intersection of East-Washington:Street-and North McDowell Boulevard (southbound right-turn lane) Page 17 1-1-1 exceeds thresholds of significance and remains significant and under cumulative plus project conditions. Impact Traffic-17: Northbound U.S. 101 at previously discussed segments (Pepper to Old Redwood Highway and East Washington to Lakeville Highway) will continue to operate at LOS F with volumes in excess of 10 percent of the operating capacity: No feasible mitigation measures were identified and therefore the impact would be significant unavoidable under cumulative conditions. Overriding Considerations CEQA Section 15091 requires public agencies..to make one or more written findings for each of the significant environmental effects identified in an EIR prior to project approval. The findings must be supported by substantial evidence in-the-record and the agency must present a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Where potential environmental impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable, CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project against the unavoidable project-related environmental,effects when determining whether or not to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, then those environmental effects may be considered"acceptable". In order to approve a project that will result in significant adverse environmental effects identified in the E1R that cannot be reduced to a''level of less than significant, the City Council, must state in writing the specific reasons to support the.projectapproval based on a balancing of project benefits against impacts remaining:significant ad identified in the Final.EIR and/o"r other information in the record. This is formally known as a"Statement of OverridingConsiderations" and is made pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. If findings of overriding consideration are not adopted, the City cannot approve the proposed project. Planning Commission Hearing oh the FEIR Per the City's CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission requested'that the FEIR return to the commission for consideration: The commission's discussion is expected to focus on the changes in the DEIR and the responses-to public comments on the DEW, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b). The Planning Commission will comment on the adequacy of the document and decide whether or not to:recommend the document to the City Council for certification. PUBLIC COMMENTS On December 21, 2011 a Notice of Availability of the FEIR and public hearing before the Planning Commission was sent to.residents.and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, as well as interested parties who requested notification, and all individuals who commented on the Notice of Preparation. The public notice was published in the Argus Courier on December 28, 2011. Copies of the FEIR'have been made available at the Petaluma Library, the Community Center, City Hall, and on the City's website. Additionally, copies of the documents have been made available for purchase by the;public for the cost of printing. Page 18 On Saturday, August 6, 2011 a neighborhood workshop was hosted by the California Infill Builders Association, Sonoma County Conservation.Action, and Greenbelt Alliance without City sponsorship or staff participation. The workshop sponsors submitted, presumably as a comment on the FEIR, a workshop Summary Report that proposes a different project for the site that would require amendments to the General Plan and IZO (Attachment 7). Written comment from Caltrans was received on January 3, 2012 in response to the distribution of the FEIR(Attachment 8). For clarification, although the EIR used.traffic counts from 2007 to more realistically estimate traffic volumes despite the economic downturn, the pipeline scenario also included anticipated traffic volumes from projects approved/built between 2007 and the date of the DEIR, including East Washington Place. Staff is in the process of further dialogue with Caltrans to discuss the items in their letter and will be prepared to discuss in more detail at the Planning Commission hearing. RECOMMENDATION, Environmental Review: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report based upon the following: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA and has been presented, reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission. 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff also recommends that the.Planning Commission recommend approval of the MMRP by the City Council. Project Considerations: Staff recommends the Planning Commission undertake preliminary Site Plan and Architectural Review, pending final action on the project EIR by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS I. Findingsfor Site Plan and Architectural Review 2. DRAFT Conditions of Approval for Site Plan and Architectural Review 3. Draft Resolution recommending to the City Council for Certification of the Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program 4. Final Environmental Impact Report(previously delivered to Planning Commissioners) 5. Mitigation Montinoring and Reporting Program (previously delivered to Planning Commissioners) 6. PBAC Comments, dated June 2010 7. Summary Report: Deer Creek Neighborhood Workshop, August 6, 2011 8. California:Department of Transportation comment letter, January 3, 2011 9. I i"x 17".Site, Architectural, and Landscape Plan Set 10. Full sized plan sets Page 19 Lr/g ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR SITE PLAN,AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 1. The Planning Commission authorizes the construction of the site improvements for the proposed Deer Creek Village project and the architectural plans for its buildings and related structures. 2. The project as conditioned will conform to the intent, goals and policies of the Petaluma General Plan 2025. 3. The construction, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community because it will be operated in conformance with the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the project in compliance with CEQA and is recommended for certification by the City Council. 5. The'proposed architecture and site plan, as conditioned, conform to the requirements of Site Plan and Architectural Review provisions of Chapter 24.010 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance as: a. The proposed project uses a variety of exterior materials, including stone, wood, metal, glass, plaster, tile, and split face CMU to provide visual interest and differentiation within the large development. Detailing through the use of different roof features, awnings, trellises, and finishes and accents further develop_ the overall design intention for the shopping center. All buildings include four-sided architecture to ensure that the development orients both towards frontages such as North McDowell and interior within the development and between individual buildings. b. The architectural style of the proposed project provides transition between existing industrial development to the north, office/medical uses to the south, and residential development to the east. Additionally, the transition of the architectural style and massing from the larger tenant buildings closest to Highway 101 to the smaller indhidual structures closer to the McDowell frontage provide transition within the development. The intensity of the proposed project and the architectural style and siting has also been designed to enhance the future Rainier interchange and undercrossing connections. c. The siting.of within the proposed Deer Creek project has been designed to transition'from larger buildings closer to Highway 101 to smaller more pedestrian oriented`buildings closer to McDowell and Rainier. Additionally,.structures have been sited so as not to overwhelm existing office development to the south by providing parking and 'landscaping buffers. The siting and grouping of buildings along the north/south spine in the,eastern portion of the site brings structures closer to the road to create more of 'a' neighborhood street effect as opposed to a sprawling suburban shopping center. Page 20 d: A sign program for,*shopping center is beingreviewed and will be included with the final SPAR review for'Cominission consideration. e. Landscaping has been appropriately used throughout the project to provide buffers, soften edges; breakup large parking areas, and enhance pathways and plazas/gathering space. Additionally, street trees along McDowell buffer the development from the busy arterial and enhance the Class I path along the frontage. Native landscaping is focused within the 100 foot wide Deer Creek buffer zone and enhances the experience along the pedestrian pathways along the edges of this linear open space. Existing trees along the Highway 101 corridor will not be removed as part of this project. The overall landscaping concept orients and connects the large development, and enhances the architectural design and siting. f The project has been designed to provide safe and convenient access to all modes of transportation, including bicycles, pedestrians, transit, riders, and automobiles. New transit facilities are proposed to meet City standards. A Class I path is proposed across the North McDowell frontage, consistent with existing facility on the east side of McDowell. A pathway across the rear of the development connects with Lynch Creek Way. Differentiated.pathways, sidewalks, and crosswalks are located throughout the development to connect the project to off-site circulation. The project's pedestrian connectivity through the site improves the network between commercial, office, residential and medical uses in this area of the McDowell corridor. Project plans were routed to the PBAC and the applicant engaged in dialogue with the committee at several meetings in 2009 and 2010: The PBAC issued the attached memo commending the+applicant for working with the committee:and recommending approval of the project with conditions of approval, most ofvvhich have been included in draft conditions (Attachment 5). Page 21 ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW"CONDITIONStOF;APPROVAL From Planning: 1. Before issuance of any development permit, the applicant shall revise the site plan or other first sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building Permit plans to list these Conditions of Approval and.the Mitigation. Measures from the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR) as notes. 2. The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance with the design review set date and full size plans stamped October 24, 2011, unless amended per City direction. 3. All Mitigation Measures adopted in conjunction with'the FEIR (SCH NO. 2004092,093) for the project are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 4. Upon certification by the City Council of the FEIR, the applicant shall pay the Notice of Determination fee to the.Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the Sonoma County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk's office within five (5) days of receiving Council approval. The State Department of Fish and Game has eliminated the fee exemption for projects determined that have a de minimis effect on fish and wildlife and requires that an environmental filing fee be paid, (as required under Fish and Game Code Section 711.4d) to the Sonoma County Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of Determination. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, revised plans shall show surface parking reduced to the required parking for the proposed uses in compliance with Chapter 11 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading plans, improvement plans shall show bicycle racks and employee showers consistent with the requirements of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance for the final project. 7. All rooftop mechanical equipment, with the exception of alternative energy mechanical equipment, shall be screened from view to the highest point of the mechanical equipment in materials and color consistent with the project architecture. 8. Prior to building or grading permit issuance, the applicant shall provide.a Construction Phase Recycling, Plan that would address the reuse and recycling of major waste materials (soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal scraps, cardboard, packing, etc., generated by any demolition activities and construction of the project, in compliance with General Plan Policy 2-P-122 for review by the planning staff. 9. Prior to submittal,of a building permit application the applicant shall present a revised public art proposal to the PPAC for feedback. The final public art proposal submitted with building permit application shall meet all requirements of Chapter 18 of the IZO. Page 22 10. Prior, to building permit approval, the plans shall note the installation of high efficiency heating`equipment',(90%0 or higher heating/furnaces) and low NOx water heaters (40 NOx or less) in compliance with policy 4-P-15D (reducing,emissions). 11. Prior to building or grading permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a Construction Phase Recycling Plan that would address the reuse ard recycling of major waste materials (soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal scraps, cardboard, packing, etc., generated by any demolition activities and construction of the project,.in compliance with General Plan Policy 2-P-122 for review by the planning staff. 12. Plans submitted for building permit shall include pre=wiring for.solar for each of new structure subject to staff review and approval. 13. The applicant shall be encouraged to provide a document to the city naming a designated transportation coordinator and describing specific incentives for employees to walk, bicycle, or take transit, thereby encouraging alternatives to driving,cars to this site Examples include lending bicycles for short errands, monetary or other rewards for not driving, discounts for bicycling, formation of groups of employees who pledge to bicycle, walk, carpool, or ride transit at least once a week,etc. Applicant shall comply with Municipal Code Chapter 11.90 14. The proposed project will be built in accordance with Green Building standards that would reduce energy-related GHG emissions by at least 20 percent from those that would occur under current Title 24.Building Code requirements. The applicant shall present these to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Prior to issuance of a grading/ building permit, the applicant shall provide a lighting and photometrics plan for planning staff reviewing and approval. Said lighting plan shall include exterior light locations and details.of the proposed fixture type and the luminens. All lighting shall be glare-free, hooded and downcast in order to prevent glare. 16. The applicant shall be subject to all applicable Special development fees, including but not limited to: Sewer and Water Connection, Community Facilities, Storm Drain, Public Art, School Facilities and Traffic Mitigation fees. Said fees are due at time of issuance of building permit at which"time, other pertinent fees that may be applicable to the proposed project may be required. 17. All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00.a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00.a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. There will be no start up of machines or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials or equipment past 6::00 p.m., Monday through.Friday; and no servicing of machines or equipment past 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. The developer's phone number shall be conspicuously posted at the project site for noise complaints. Plan submitted for City permit shall include the language above. 18. All signs shall be consistent with the sign program approved by the Planning Commission as part of the SPAR approval. A building permit and sign permit is required for each sign prior to installation. Page 23 ��-a3 19. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action.. The:local Native.American community shall also be notified and consulted in the event anyarchaeological remains are uncovered. 20. As recommended by the arborist the final project design shall incorporate appropriate tree protection ,procedures for exisitng trees in the western portion of the site as part of the iniprovement plans to provide tree protection consistent with General Plan policies and all applicable City regulations. 21. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees ("Indemnitees") from any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the approvals of the project to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9. To the extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9, the applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless: in accordance with this condition shall apply to any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought concerning the project, not just such claims, actions or proceedings brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding concerning the subdivision. The City shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, and if the City chooses to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the City to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9. From Public Works Engineering Street and Frontage Improvements 22. Street and frontage improvements shall be constructed as proposed on the application plans, according to City standards and as directed by these conditions of approval. Improvements shall include but not be limited to pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, traffic islands, traffic signals, traffic signs, pavement striping and markers, pedestrian ramps, bike lanes, street lights, etc. Improvements shall meet accessible standards. Pavement conforms shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: The decorative crosswalks at the project access points shall be constructed on private property, maintained by the property owner and designed to support vehicle traffic loads. 23. Modifications to intersections, traffic signals and traffic lanes shall be subject to the project traffic study, environmental impact report and the direction of the City Engineer. 24. The minimum pavement section shall be 6-inches of asphalt concrete over 21-inches of class 2 aggregate base for McDowell Boulevard North and Rainier Avenue. 25. "No Parking" signs shall be placed along McDowell Boulevard North and Rainier Avenue. 26. Street lights shall be installed and/or relocated along McDowell Boulevard North and Rainier Avenue.Ann option and at the discretion of the City Engineer, the City may require LED streetlights. Page 24 l/Id 4 27. Traffic control plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of street and frontage improvements. 28. Remove and replace any broken or displaced curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire North McDowell Boulevard frontage. 29. Any proposed Monument Signs for the Deer Creek Village shall be located such that they are out of the required sight distance triangle. The applicant's engineer shall provide sight distance calculations, per Caltrans standards, with the.improvement plan and building permit submittals. No monument signs shall be located in the area earmarked for future widening of the intersection of N. McDowell and Rainier for Route 101/ Rainier Interchange or Undercrossing Project. 30. A Class I Bike/Pedestrians path (10 feet wide) shall be constructed along the N. McDowell frontage of the project. 31. A traffic signal shall be installed at N. McDowell and Professional Drive for mitigating the traffic impacts of the proposed project. 32. Raised median islands shall be installed between Rainier Avenue and Professional Drive and Professional Drive and Lynch Creek Road to prohibit left turns out of the two proposed right in/right out driveways for Deer Creek Plaza on N. McDowell. 33. Rainier Avenue extension on the west side of N. McDowell shall be constructed up to the proposed driveway to the Deer Creek Village. The west end of this extension shall be constructed as a cul-de-sac (50 feet radius) based on City of Petaluma standards to facilitate Petaluma Transit Buses to make U turns coming out of the Transit Yard. No parking signs and red curb shall be installed within the cul-de-sac area. The traffic signal at N. McDowell and Rainier intersection shall be modified to accommodate this extension. 34. No utility vaults or trees shall be installed on the northeast corner of the Deer Creek Village project since the intersection of N. McDowell and Rainier shall be widened for the Rainier Avenue Interchange/ Undercrossing. Grading 35. Grading, excavation and compaction shall conform"to the soils report prepared for this site. 36. All above-ground or below-ground structures (buildings, fences, pipes, conduits, etc.) that are not necessary or not longer needed, shall be removed. 37. The applicant shall submit erosion and sediment control plans, a storm water pollution prevention plan SWPPP) and provide a copy of the signed Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. A Notice of Termination (NOT) shall be submitted to the SWRCB upon completion of the project. 38. The applicant is required to fund erosion control and storm water quality inspections by City public works inspectors throughout the life of the construction project, as part of the cost recovery application. Page 25 gC • Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems 39. Dedicate-to the City, an approximate`'50'_x 50' future well site in a location acceptable to the City to be finalized duringreview of the construction drawings. The parcel shall have an all weather 15' wide access and utility easement with a driveway cut. The developer shall stub in a 10" water main to the well parcel. The developer shall stub in a 480 volt three phase 400 amp electric service to the parcel. The PG&E wiring to the parcel shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the additional load. The future well site shall be located in the southwest comer of the site, behind Major 1, exact location to be determined and approved by the Water Resources and Conservation Department during review of the construction drawings. 40. Dedicate to the City a future 10' sewer easement out of any future freeway ramp areas in the US101 and Rainier area. The exact location of the easement:shall be determined during review of the construction drawings and shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of Petaluma Water Resources and Conservation Department. 41. Relocate the existing sanitary sewer main as proposed on the site plans and dedicate .a new public sewer'easement_prior to issuance of any building permits. The applicant shall submit an application for abandonment of the portion of the existing public sewer easement that is no longer needed prior to issuance of any building permits. The abandonment, which is a City Council approval process, shall be recorded prior to any final,building inspections. 42. All on-site sewer systems except the existing and relocated City trunk main shall be privately owned and maintained and labeled as such on the construction drawings. 43. The trash enclosures'with sanitary sewer drains shall be covered and not allow rain water to enter the sanitary sewer system.. 44. The on-site water system shall be public and constructed as proposed on the application plan per City standards. 45. Provide signed grant deeds; legal descriptions and plats for all`public easements to the City of Petaluma for the water main system, including ,fire hydrants, meters and services prior to issuance of a buildingperrnit. The easements will be recorded by the City after construction of the utility,is completer 46. The water system shall be capable of delivering a continuous fire flow as designated by the fire marshal. Provide final fire flow calculations for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 47. Show gate valve locations and profiles on new City'maintained facilities (water and trunk sewer). 48. All landscaping shall Meet City Standards for low water use. Storm Drain System 49. The,on-site storm drain system shall be privately owned and maintained. Page 26 50. The applicant shall submit detailed, construction plan level hydraulic and hydrology calculations for the on-site storm drain system,for review and approval by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and City of Petaluma. The calculations shall include the two new proposed bridges/culverts over Deer Creek. The preliminary storm water calculations submitted as part of the environmental review process concluded that storm water detention should probably be avoided because detention may slow on-site peak runoff and increase downstream peak flow in the Petaluma River. The calculations shall assess the need for on- site storm water detention,subject to the review and approval by the City of Petaluma. Should the calculations determine that on-site detention is necessary, the developer shall install a storm water detention system designed.to detain the 100-year event. 51. All storm water systems and calculations shall include detention and treatment systems that meet the requirements of the NPDES, City of Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Regulations including Attachment 4 requirements for post construction storm water runoff, as well as City standards. 52. All on-site storm drain systems are to be privately maintained.including Deer Creek. The City shall have the right to continue to discharge storm Water through this water course. Miscellaneous 53. Existing overhead utilities along the street frontages and/or traversing the site shall be placed underground. 54. Dedicate the required public street right-of-way to construct-the proposed street and sidewalk improvements on North McDowell Boulevard and Rainer Avenue. 55. Dedicate the required public easements for the proposed traffic signal infrastructure and loops at the project entrance on Professional Drive. 56. Dedicate as public right-of-way, Parcel B per the existing plan line for the future Rainier interchange and roadway:project as well as Parcel C for North McDowell Boulevard, per the City of Petaluma Ordinance 1991 N.C.S. 57. "A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) shall be dedicated adjacent to and along all public street right-of-ways. 58. Merge the-two:existing properties (APN 007-380-005 & 027) prior to issuance of any building permits. 59. Utility trenching in any new street construction and/or pavement overlay shall require pavement grinding and repaving as described by City Ordinance No.2266 NCS. 60. Maintenance of the water quality treatment'system and any required storm drain detention system shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s). A financial and operation plan for maintenance, inspection, reporting, etc., shall be submitted for review and approval by the 'City of Petaluma, and recorded, prior to issuance of a building permit. 61. Public improvement plans, shall be prepared for the construction of improvements in the public right-of-way and City utilities on private property. All improvements shall be designed Page 27 in accordance with City Standards, and .Specifications. Joint trench plans shall also be submitted. A public improvement'agreement, 'bonds, insurance and fees shall be required. Provide scanned record drawings prior to the release of the performance bond. The public improvements shall be complete and accepted prior to any final inspection or the issuance of any certificate of occupancy. From Fire Marshal Access 62. Overall site access looks adequate; however, the Rainier.Avenue width and termination point may need to be modified. This will need to be coordinated with the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal. Water Supply 63. Minimum fire flow for buildings shall be calculated as spec_ified in the 2010 California Fire Code Appendix B, "Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings". Pleasebe advised that if building fire flow calculations cannot be'made at the time of project submittal, the following fire flows shall apply: • Commercial, Industrial, and Multifamily Residential: 2,500 GPM at 20 psi residual (available for firefighting). When building:fire flows are submitted, these flows shall be adjusted in accordance with Appendix B; and • Proof of the required fire flow shall be provided to the fire Marshal's Office prior to the issuance of the building permit. The FMO. shall not accept less than minimum fire flow and pressure. It shall be the developer's responsibility to make private and/or public improvements to the system to meet the water flow demands of the project. Fire Hydrants 64. Fire hydrant locations for the project generally look acceptable; however, additional hydrants may be required along Rainier or other locations onsite and will require verification and coordination with the Fire Marshal's Office prior to submittal of the improvement plans. 65. Some fire department, connections (FDC) and post indicator valves (PIV) locations were depicted on the drawings. Please be advised, FDC and PIV locations shall be coordinated with the Fire Marshal's Office and shall be strategically placed near a fire hydrant prior to submittal of grading/site improvements plans and as mentioned, subject to the approval of the fire Marshal's office. From Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee 66. The number and type of bicycle racks as shown on plans reviewed by the PBAC shall be shown on final plans prior to issuance of building permit. A minimum of 150 bicycle racks shall be provided, including 80 covered and 70 uncovered. The bicycle racks shall be in generally the same locations as reviewed by the PBAC and:should be kept away from trash receptacles, dispersed throughout the larger development, and include separate racks to serve individual buildings. Post and loop bike racks shall be installed as shown on plans labeled M/SA-05, and meeting 'City standards. Applicant is encouraged to use a variety of rack Page 28 / l n models and styles with artistically interesting designs, showing creativity and reflecting the character of the City :arid complementing, the building deigns, while meeting city specifications. Whenever possible, the applicant shall locate racks near doors and with adequate lighting. 67. A-minimum 10-foot wide Class I shared path shall be constructed along the entire McDowell frontage as shown on plans. The PBAC commends the applicant's solution to create,a useable shared path appropriate for multiple users, offering some offset from McDowell, with some architectural interest while creating safe passage along the project's frontage. PBAC recommends signage at drive and street entrances to the project alerting vehicle traffic to Class I users. 68. A minimum 8-foot wide Class I shared use path shall be constructed along both sides of the Deer Creek swalè buffer and a loop path around the dog walk area shall be installed as an interim use of property within adopted plan line for:Rainier'interchange project. 69. A minimum 8-foot:decomposed granite pathway shall be constructed to the rear of the.Major tenant buildings, connecting with Lynch Creek Way. The pathway shall be elevated from the adjacent parking area by.6 inches. The PBAC recommends', signage at drive and street entrances to the project alerting-users to the existence of the.Class I.paths especially the route behind the Majors, to Lynch Creek Drive Class II facilities, which lead to the Lynch Creek cross town connecting;path, 70. Crosswalks interior to'the proJect shall be installed as shown on plans and including at south side of Major 1 and Lynch.Creek'Way, near the fitness center, across parking lots between Shops D and Grocery, and southern exit from project'turning';right onto McDowell. These crosswalks shall be differentiated through the use of colored or marked pavements. 71. To enhance safe pedestrian access to the project's McDowell frontage/village aspect of the project adjacent to "SliopiC and Medical Building 2", clearly defined crosswalks, signage and barricades shall be installed to guide pedestrians. 72. To the greatest extent feasible, all walkways within the project shall be a minimum of 6-feet wide. 73. The three separate, designated walkways located in the parking areas in-front of the Majors as shown on the plans shall be constructed with raised/colored pavement to provide safe convenient passage for shoppers/peds in the east/west directions from Major 1 to the Medical Office.building.and from Major I's•garden center to Shops B and Major 3 to Shops A. These Walkways shall have a minimum clearance width of 6-feet (after consideration of vehicle overhang) but ideally 8-feet if it can be 'accommodated, between parked cars to allow movement of shoppers with carts and ped/strollers. 74. The applicant shall install signs at the intersection of Rainier and McDowell alerting cyclists to use the Class I shared facility instead of riding in the street. 75. Signs indicating "employee and truck delivery passage only" shall be installed at Major Tenants 1, 2 and 4 to discourage public traffic on the west side of retail buildings. Page 29 trd- 76. Signs shall be installed at the.rear of project alerting through truck traffic to peds/bicyclists using the Class I pathway to Lynch Creek Drive. 77. Exterior lighting shall be high quality and specifically placed within the development to guide the way to and near exterior bike rack and bike locker locations, along the dog walking loop, along the Class I path to the rear of the major tenant spaces, and along the Deer Creek swale paths. 78. All exterior lighting shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall be hooded and directed downward with no direct glare. 79. Employee showers and lockers shall be incorporated into the project design to meet IZO requirements. All buildings within this project that are 10,000 square feet or greater, shall have at least one shower, per City standards. Buildings that are 10,000sq ft or more and then divided to accommodate more than one tenant, shall have shared showers accessible to all tenants to encourage employees to use their bicycles to get to work or allow them to shower after exercise to comply with the spirit of the city code. 80. Water fountains, accessible to people,and their dogs/service animals shall be installed at the dog walking loop, along, the Class I path along Deer Creek, in the plaza areas between Professional Building and Medical Office, Between Shops A and B, and near Restaurant A. 81. Public benches shall be installed along Deer Creek, at the dog-walking loop, and behind Major 3 and 4. 82. Outdoor seating shall be provided with benches or through other means at Professional Building and Medical Office, Between Shops A, B and C, and near.Restaurant A, and in areas expected to be used for farmer's markets. • • Page 30 LA-30 ATTACHMENT 6A S H UT E, M l H A LY RECEIVED Q�- WEINBERGERLLP FEB 212012 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94-102 CITY MANAGER T: 415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com February 17, 2012 Via FedEx Mayor David Glass and Members of the Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Deer Creek Village Project Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2004090293 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We submit this letter on behalf of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association to provide comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Deer Creek Village shopping center (the "Project"). After reviewing the FEIR, it is our position that the document fails to resolve the myriad legal deficiencies identified in our April 22, 2011 submission to the City, which is by this reference incorporated',herein. The FEIR therefore fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.; the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14 § 15000 et seg. ("CEQA Guidelines"). Each of the inadequacies that we identified in our April 22 letter remain in the FEIR. Of critical importance, the FEIR, like the DEIR, continues to assume that the Rainier Avenue Extension will be constructed. This inappropriate and unsupportable assumption undermines many of the,document's conclusionsxegarding the severity of the Project's traffic impacts. Significant new information—including the recent elimination of traditional redevelopment agencies by the state legislature and the California Supreme Court—shows that there will not be sufficient funding for the Extension project for the foreseeable future. Without established sources of funding, the likelihood of the Extension's construction is slim at best. Thus, as explained further below, the EIR must be revised to include analysis of traffic impacts, including cumulative impacts, without construction of the Extension. It must then be recirculated for public review and Petaluma City Council February 17, 2012 Page 2 comment. Unless and until the City undertakes such revision, any approvals made on the basis of its environmental analysis will be unlawful. The City's own Planning Commission recognized this flaw in the FEIR at its January 10, 2012 meeting, and prudently recommended that the Council require revised traffic analysis and recirculation before considering whether to certify the EIR for the Project. I. Funding Constraints and Lack of Concrete Plans Mean that Rainier Avenue Extension is Unlikely Ever to Be Constructed. According to the FEIR,.the traffic analysis conducted,for the Project assumed that the Rainier Avenue Extension would be built. FEIR at II-23.. The FEIR claims that since the Extension is included in the City's General Plan, which was adopted in 2008, it is a "reasonable assumption" that the Extension would be in place in the long-term. Id. However, all of the evidence in the record, including recent developments eliminating redevelopment funding, indicates that construction of the Extension is not likely to happen in the reasonably foreseeable future. A 2008 Petaluma report from Fehr and Peers estimated the cost of constructing the Extension at $75 million. See Fehr and Peers, City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update 2008 at p. 16, included as Attachment A. Of this total cost, approximately $50 million is slated to come from City coffers, and $10 million from the Petaluma Community Development Commission ("PCDC".), the City's redevelopment agency. See id.; FEIR at II-23., However, given the recent legislation eliminating redevelopment agencies (see California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal. 4th 231), this $10 million is no longer available to advance development of the Extension project. The City does not even have the resources to fund its share of the improvement, much less make up the $10 million that redevelopment was going to fund. The.City's recent draft application to the California Public Utilities Commission.("PUC") for the Caulfield Lane Extension, illustrates the City's severe fiscal constraints largely brought on by the economic downturn.. Draft.Application of the City of Petaluma for an Order Authorizing the Permanent Relocation of One At-Grade Crossing of the Tracks of the Sonoma-Marin Are Rail Transit District at 4-13 (approved by City Council on December 14, 2011), included as Attachment B. The City has implemented budget cuts for four consecutive years and faces increased costs of doing business. Id. at.4-14. In the Caulfield draft, the City states that"it is impossible to predict whether ... [the roadway improvement] ... anticipated in the 2025 General Plan will ever materialize." Id. Thus, it is clear that the General Plan's mention of a project is no guarantee of construction, contrary to the assertions of the FEIR. Here, the City faces equally costly and SHUTE MIHALY '�T-WEINBERGERLLP (PA-2- Petaluma City Council February 17, 2012 Page 3 challenging circumstances with the Rainier Avenue Extension, yet the FEIR ignores this reality. The FEIR also points to development impact fees as a source of funding for the Extension project. FEIR at 1I-23.. Yet, the City is considering reducing new development fees, including traffic impact fees. City of Petaluma Agenda Report Concerning Development Fees, December 19, 2011, included as Attachment C. According to the staff report for the aforementioned meeting; the City's current Traffic Impact Fee account balance is approximately 1.7 million.,dollars. Id., Attachment 2, p. 19. With the real prospect that the City will reduce traffic impact fees on future development projects, the City cannot expect to accumulate the money to construct the Extension in the foreseeable future. The FEIR further points to the City's commitment to fund a Project Study Report ("PSR") and continuing design work for the Extension project as evidence that the City is committed to future implementation of the project. FEIR at II-24. However, this commitment of funds amounts to less than 11 million dollars; a far cry from the total project cost. The Extension;is only in the very preliminary planning stages and its design is therefore unknown. As acknowledged in the FEIR, the Extension and related improvements are still "undergoing planning-level evaluation ... and are not hilly funded by the City or approved by Caltrans for design and construction." FEIR at II-23. Indeed, according to representatives of Caltrans,the City has not even submitted a PSR to Caltrans for its review. Personal Communication, Patrick Pang, February 7, 2012. The PSR is a necessary first step toward Caltrans approval, and is the document that actually describes the nature of the roadway improvement project. While the City had submitted a PSR to Caltrans in the past, that document was effectively withdrawn when Caltrans indicated that an interchange had been eliminated in favor of new design plans for an undercrossing or cut-through. Id; see also Letter from Eric Schen, Caltrans to Vincent Marengo, City of Petaluma, dated December 30, 2009, included as Attachment D. Thus, the Extension is still at the conceptual stages—indeed, the precise components of the Extension are still in flux. In sum, the FEIR contains no evidence that the Extension project will be constructed and operational by the date used for the FEIR's cumulative analysis. FEIR at 11-23. Indeed, all available evidence points in the opposite direction: the Extension is unlikely to be built on any time frame that can be even guessed at today. The FEIR's analysis thus relies on a project that will likely never be built, resulting in analysis that underestimates cumulative traffic conditions at several area intersections. SHUTE, MI.HALY WE IN BE RG ER up �J-�3 Petaluma City Council February 17, 2012 Page 4 II. The FEIR's Analysis Assumes the Rainier Avenue Extension, and Therefore Lacks Substantial Evidence. As we pointed out in our comments on the DEIR, this reliance on the unsupported assumption regarding the Rainier Avenue Extension is a fatal flaw in the analysis, because it undermines the accuracy of the baseline. Whether the traffic impacts of a project have been adequately analyzed in an EIR depends in part on whether the document relies on an appropriate baseline. Here, the FEIR assumes that the Extension will be in place, reducing congestion. Thus, the document starts with a baseline level of congestion that is lower than it would be without the Extension. As discussed above, this baseline is not supported by any evidence, let alone the substantial evidence that CEQA requires. The FEIR then adds the Project-generated traffic to this baseline. The result of that operation, which determines the significance of the Project's impact, is also artificially low. The FEIR thus understates the Project's cumulative traffic impact. CEQA does not allow this approach. Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Ass'n. v. City of Sunnyvale (2011) 1190 Cal.App,4th 1351. The FEIR is therefore inadequate, and will remain:so until its traffic analysis is revised to reflect a realistic scenario.in which the Extension is not built. At the very least, the FEIR must be revised,and recirculated to analyze traffic impacts if the Extension includes only an undercrossing, without an interchange. This is not a new problem: since at least 1992, the City has assumed that the Extension would be built in the near future and would mitigate traffic and air quality impacts of large-scale development projects approved along the way. See Petaluma River Council vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV 190492, Statement of Decision filed July 14, 1992, included as Attachment E. Twenty years later, the Extension remains a $75 million pipe dream, and the City can no longer assume its construction will solve the traffic woes of this and other projects that come before it. SHUTE, MIHALY 0----WE I N BE RGE R LLp Petaluma City Council February 17, 2012 Page 5 CONCLUSION For all the aforementioned reasons, this Project cannot be approved. We urge the City to rethink this Project and its environmental review, and to take no action until a legally adequate EIR is prepared and recirculated for public review and comment. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP I 410 Gabriel M.B. Ross Attachments: Attachment A - Fehr and Peers, City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update 2008 (excerpt) Attachment B — City of Petaluma Agenda Report Concerning Railroad Crossing on Caulfield Lane, December 19, 2011, with excerpts from Attachment 4 (PUC Application of the City of Petaluma for an Order Authorizing the Permanent Relocation of One At-Grade Crossing of the Tracks of the Sonoma-Marin Are Rail Transit District); Minutes of December 19, 2011 Petaluma City Council meeting Attachment C — City of Petaluma Agenda Report Concerning Development Fees, December 19, 2011 Attachment D - Letter from Vincent Marengo, City of Petaluma, to Eric Schen, Caltrans, dated December 28, 2009 and letter from Eric Schen, Caltrans, to Vincent Marengo, City of Petaluma, dated December 30, 2009 SHUTE} MIHALY Ch-WEINBERGERLLp Coq Petaluma City Council February 17, 2012 Page 6 Attachment E- Petaluma.River Council_vs. Ciryof Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV 190492, Statement of Decision filed July 14, 1992 (excerpts) 316320.2 SHUTE, MIHALY C2 —WEINBERGE.RLLP ATTACHMENT A y rn .tkiiVti tataktr2 City of Petaluma TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM UPDATE +p 1 �' d YLA ,, s . t w' t �. . y�`"4g +*�"a 4• { 't "^,a �C'1 �������iiyL �1 A 4 � `;`\ 45.. �: w am d«"'i5i +i ' I � ,.{ „S W. . / - ` ' y ones 'w. 'i Jk .11 ��f -0 e , `:i �.- 1 ,:11'7 e '. �y � 11 x$58 alZit'.,r,,,,, rri ,1T,tt , . } €., sR��Rs.,.,.,�,;f, ..0 {pq @� ,- , :, N •T '1.4 o i rtØ4I itIpAIL,DIA.:4: '4.( l ( "- .el� . .1 9 .j - i :; .v (t ,7` � i rnE �;r'd 1vi3� s� � ;t .a. t rift. i L lass %SN .S „-a Y+✓a. 4#:. f + `` .SLR 1 �.• / J *.g,.• r ii` ; e " c Il- ..il �' a �^ , ..a. tr 1 < Syr , i 'f �� �.,t o t ('� ���rrra•t 1 A:. r 4 Af IryN, S tg‘k 1 -{pay. H' 09;#1livosi l r ". • 01-tipla, A-14 Prepared by east damir.04,„thw,t24. SITAR* A FEHR. & PEERS moo y TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 332 Pine Street 4th Floor San Francisco, CA wirtsisphni SF06-0282 May 2008 41S14#44 04 4 Malaqq,'se a¢ .:n� fC. • �0° ep 6 �?y^'s,P m".:2‘:-Cc.;;;;";;;-31'.7 S i a r e % l W`f3! Vy +,"VY d t. i I /� �5 Ir !t '4- r���l u1 Jg:� fll - M NNY�: a City of Petaluma TrafficMitigation Fee Program Update e Rr, • I 'Sr ' � dle �M2 2008 T v �w�aa' • �,ef v.It"" v.ti ✓ I r l Y YM `t - ;4,21:;;' eal 'I a K(. .? 'e SL ix x a �.wY'vn Ig fvY,�vZ�ji TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Analysis Results 1 1. Introduction 4 Background 4 Purpose 4 Study Area 5 Fee Program Design 5 Study Process 5 2. Methodolody 7 Proposed Program 7 Signifigance Criteria 7 Technical Analysis 9 3.. Analysis Results 12 Step 1 —Capacity Needs to Accommodate Future Growth 12 Step 2—Needed Improvement Projects and Costs 14 Step 3— Existing Deficiencies on Local Network 17 Step 4—Amount of New Development Expected in the Petaluma Planning Area 17 Step 5— Project Costs Attributable to New Development 19 Step 6— Fee Amounts 20 4. Program Summary 22 Appendix A: Land Use Definitions Appendix B: Proposed New Development Appendix C: Annual Inflation Adjustment ffP • ` //� Ma 'f Pe g ,_x � ti anon Fee,Program�Update 4" {,° • o iCit of Petaluma Traffic Mi � • i a . LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Fee Program Study Area 6 Figure 2 Circulation Improvement Project Locations 15 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 City of Petaluma Existing Traffic Mitigation Fee Program 4 Table 2 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria 6 Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria 8 Table 5 City of Petaluma Circulation Improvements 16 Table 6 City of Petaluma Travel Demand Model Land use Projections 17 Table 7 City of Petaluma DUE Conversion Factors 18 Table 8 City of Petaluma Growth in DUEs 19 Table 9 City of Petaluma Circulation Improvements Fee Contributions 20 FEHR St PCL.RS (0 ., 11g t«7y.%in-ado 1' �n` .`'� `Tr izAZ At # �{' ��t8` � +A a 6"s ,Y'- `rsn - �µff°l7 efil i:. Cdy of Petaluma Traffic itigioon Fee Program Update +x 4 x �xy 3 -.e �r ✓`.9�T 1 .i 4r x�'S,I NA, 't' ,� r v '« `it �"I'.Xl` `R ^raayr2vo8 M. w 1 � �s bf , r I ivp z -ti'� i � � � P' '�v a � r� y,es_ ,, �y3��Q ' . 4 ; aLq'q1,„- %44g c: 4,:i. -i, 4r_.w..r4: "r}�x1`a.. 3'LM,tw"f iv i-�.i1 �, .sentlfi� Table 5 provides estimated costs provided by the City of Petaluma. At the time of this report, there were two - _ _alternatives_ for the_Rainier_Avenue...Extension and_Interchange_with_U.S.]0] with significantly different costs associated. Since the design has not been finalized, two estimates of the net City cost and traffic impact fee are calculated in this report. TABLE 5 • CITY OF PETALUMA CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS Estimated Costs Improvement • Total Project Other Funding Net City Cost Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange-locally isreferred alternative $75,000,000 1 $26,900,000 2 $48,100,000 Ca/trans preferred alternative supplement $34,062,0003 $2,700,000" $31,400,000 aulfield Lane Extension $60,656,000 $6258,000 5 $54,398,000 6 Copeland Street Extension $15,825,000 $7,119,000' $8,706,000 Old Redwood Highway Interchange Improvements $28,475,000 $20,000,000 9 $8,475,000 aulfield Lane/Payran Street Intersection Improvements $500,000 $0 $500,000 Petaluma Boulevard/Magnolia Avenue-Payran Street Intersection $500,000 $0 $500,000 (Construction of New Intersections Throughout the City $3,900,000 $0 $3,900,000 raffic Signal Upgrades Throughout the City $1,885,000 $0 $1,885,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements Throughout the City $25,523,000 $0 $25,523,000 ransit Improvements Throughout the City a $11,471,000 $0 $11,471,000 Subtotal with locally preferred Rainier Ave. alternative $223,735,000 $60,277,000 $163,458,000 I • Total with Caltrans Preferred Alternative Supplement $257,797,000 $62,977,000 $197,820,000 Source: City of Petaluma,2008. 'Covers modified diamond interchange_configuration altemative(Alternative 2 of Rainier Ave.Project Study Report),based on cost estimates of Jacob Carter.Burgess 2008. Funding includes$10M.in PCDC funds allocated by City Council and,$16.9M in local roadway construction costs covered by development adjacent to site For the segment of Rainier Avenue east of interchange it is anticipated that the developer will construct full cost of roadway improvements.For,the section of Rainier Ave west of the interchange and west of the Petaluma River,full costs to construct new roadways will be covered by the immediately adjacent new developments. 3 The incremental cost(over and above locally preferred alternative)of split interchange with parallel street system(Alternative 4 of Rainier Ave. Project Study Report),based on cost estimates of Jacob Carter Burgess 2008. Incremental cost of local roadway.construction(over and above locally preferred altemative)covered by development adjacent to the site. 5 Cost of local roadway construction covered by development adjacent to the site. 6 Covers bridge.only. 'Assumes that the cost of local roadway construction is covered by adjacent development,except for two agricultural support parcels where fronting improvements are included in the'net City Cost"portion. Local roadway construction costs were derived using unit costs provided by.Jacob Carter-Burgess 2008. 9 • Includes$IOM'.in Measure M.funds and$10M in PCDC funds. 9The City envisions a host of long range transit improvements,however,at the time of this study,there is not sufficient documentation on these projects to include in the fee.program. PP 16 FEHR. St_I 4 Ents / n1. - ATTACHMENT B l It-WV#6'• i • 4 ie r p .si 2 85 Q • DATE: December 19,2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM Geoff 1. Bradley; Planning Manager SUBJECT:. A Public Hearing•"on the:Environmental Review for.the Existing Conditionally • Approved Railroad Crossing on Caul field.Lane.and City Council Authorization to Submit for Final,Approval for the Railroad Crossing to the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). RECOMMENDATION It is:recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution;accepting the Initial Study, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring;and Reporting.Program i and authorizing the City Manager to Ole air application with the California Public Utilities Commission for the re.-authorization of the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing project located at Caulfield:Lane. BACKGROUND On June 21, 2004, the City ofPetaluma filed an application with;theiCalifomia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)'requesting authority,under Public Utility Code 1201-1205,to relocate an at-grad'e,mainline railroad.crossing from Hopper Street,just south,of Lakeville Highway, to Caulfield Lane. The intent of the•relocated railroad crossing was to improve vehicular.access, pedestrian and traffic safety, and•traffic circulation for the area in accordance With the approved 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan. on February 16;,2006; the CPUC issued Decision 06-02-036, conditionally authorizing the; relocation as requested, and•the City proceeded to implement the relocation.to Caulfield Lane and closure at Hopper..Streetlin2011. CPUC Decision;06-02-036 included'two conditions of approval: 1) the:Caiilfield Lane crossing would need to be.re-authorized at the timethat passenger'Tail service was initiated; and 2) that the City of Petaluma;would make'changes to the design or signalization of the intersection of Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane as required by the CPUC's regulations prior to-extending Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street. The conditions required'that any such apptication rielude:compliance with appropriate environmental review under CEQA. Agenda Review: City Attoniey Finance Director City Manage Although the actual date for initiation.of passenger rail service has not yet been finalized by SMART,.the filing deadline established`by the CPUC'for,requesting continued authorization of The existing crossing is December 31„12011, Construction was started on July 6, 2010 for the new'Caulfield Lane crossing, The new, now existing crossingwas•opened to traffic on.February 8,,;20) 1. The old crossing at Jefferson was closed to traffic on February 11, 2Q11. DISCUSSION The City has'conducted tliis environmental.review to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with pernianentauthorization of the relocated railroad crossing. The analysis takes into consideration the planned future•passenger rail service by SMART, as applicable. The project results in the continued operation of an existing at-grade rail road crossing and does not involve any physical change•in the environment. As asresult, almost every category of environmental analysis results:tu a finding of"No Impact'. However,in.the last section of the Initial Study,.Mandatory Findings ofSignificatice, cumulative1nipactsniust be considered. This requires consideration of known development projects'in processSand.loirgterm General Plan build out, in,addition to the:continued operation of the Caulfield`Lane crossing(the project). Under this:longer term scenario one potentially significant impactis identified and two related mitigation measures are proposed. The City's General Plan indicates that,Caulfield Lane.willbe extended past Hopper Street at a future date, when traffic volunies warrant. However, the General Plan anticipates that traffic volumes associated with the Caulfield Lane extension would occur only if a new southern crossing of the Petaluma River were constructed. Therefore, the extension of Caulfield Lane is not expected to occur for.many years and is not part of the application for grade crossing re- authorization. While the Caulfield Lane extension past Hopper Street is not part of the Project, it is evaluated in the Initial Study;as;parhof the General.Plan build out cumulative scenario in Section XVIII, Mandatory rindings of Significance In this cumulative section, one impact and two related mitigation measures were:ideutified: Less-then Signifieant Intp"act with.Mitigation Incorporated: Safety hazards at the Caulfield.Lane railroad crossing with a southern crossing,in'place could arise due to the substantial`increase:in traffic resulting in unacceptablepueuing lengths on Caulfield.Lane at Lakeville Highway and insufficient controls at the.Hopper Street,'and Caulfield Lane intersection. These impacts could:result inn significant cumulative impact op safety at;the Caulfield railroad crossing. Mitigation Measure HAZ-I. Reduce Queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway At such time that the southern crossing across the Petaluma River is constructed, the City shall ensure.that mitigation is regttired.sufficient to reduce the 95th percentile;queue:length on eastbound Caulfield.Lane at Lakeville Highway to 500 feet or less and/or ensure that.vehiiclequeuing doesnot extend onto the Caulfield Lane rail crossing by the following measures or by equally effective,alternative measure's adopted an.the:course of project-level CEQA review for the Caulfield Lane extension/southern crossing project: (i) add a 100-foot long eastbound right �� 32 tunrpockeb,'frbm Caulfield Lane onto Lakeville Highway; (ii) convert the current left left/through-rigt tlanes on'the westbound approach of Caulfield Lane to single left-through-right.lanes, (iii) convert the phasing on Caulfield Lane to protected phasing, and (iv) add right turn overlap;phases on southbound Lakeville Highway andeastbound Caulfield Lane. Mitigation Measure_HAZ.-2. Install Additional,Safety Measures at Hopper Streetand Caulfield Lane At such.tune as the Caulfield.Lane extension/southern crossing of the Petaluma River is constructed, the City shall require installation ofa traffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane or an equally effective alternative measure adopted in the course of project-level CEQA review for the.Caulfield Lane Extension/southem crossing:project. If the existing median on Caulfield Lane is removed to accommodate additional turn lanes or travel lanes; the City shall install an exit gate on eastbound`Caulfield Lane`to prevent cars from navigating around the entry gates. The implementation:of thesemitigation measures would.reduce'to a less than significant level the potential impact of traffic levels associated with a new southern crossing of the Petaluma River. The MND therefore anticipates that, with the mitigation measures, the at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks would continue to operate safely, even with the traffic expected as a result of anew southern crossing of the river. CPUC COMMENT LETTER. On December 12, 2011, the City received'a comment letter on the MND from the CPUC which raised several issues, bin-Which requires clarification on specific details. (Attachment 3). Staff and City legal counsel,are discussing the comment letter with CPUC staff, but in the meantime,have-added responsive materialto.the draft CPUC application(Attachment 4) in preliminary response. If needed,:modifications to the responsive material can be made after clarification from the CPUC. The CPUC issues and interim.City responses, pending Clarification, are: I. The current configuratibit;ofthe crossing may not beadeyuate for re- authorization. 2. The City needs to schedule an on-site diagnostic review of the crossing with the CPUC, SMART and NCRA prior to filing the application. 3. The diagnostic review May or may not recommend additional.treatments to the crossing that would lie needed for CPUC re-authorization. • 4. Development of the Riverfrontproject should include funds specifically set aside for mitigating future cuinn lative.:traffc impacts.at the crossing otherwise,'dhe City will be.responsible for futi re improvements. City response to #1-3: The City, CPUC,:SMART and NCRA performed a safety inspection of the crossing on November 29,.20:1,1,with Qavid.Stewart, the CPUC rail engineer and author of the December 12th letter, in attendance. If CPUC believes another inspection is required, it will belperfonned. If a second inspection reveals any necessarytmprovements other than what is alreadly provided for in;the MND (none were disclosed,by Mr Stewart on November 29"), the draft application proposes-that-they be made a condition of approval of.any CPUCte-authorization.togethef With a requirement that the City perform additional environmental review, if any needed. City response to #4: The Riverfront project is not partpf the application.for re-authorization, but the MND identifies Riverfront as.contributing to the need for additional improvements to and around'the rail crossing.in the cumulative condition with asouthern crossing of the Petaluma River via a Caulfield Lane extension. Standard City practice in reviewing . development applications.will be-followed, which is to condition the project to make its fair share contribution to impacts;directly caused by the project, in addition to paying traffic development impact:fees. TheRiverfront project impact is presently based on preliminary traffic studies,.and,relatesto the rail crossing and Caulfield Lane roadway. The City has included in the draft application a proposal that the CPUC condition its re- authorization on the City requiring Riverfront to make the appropriate-financial contribution for identified crossing improvements if a Riverfront project is approved. FINANCIAL IMPACTS All costs related to the reauthorization request for the Caulfield.Lane crossing:are being paid by Basin Street Properties through the cost recovery system. This includes planning and legal staff time as well as the environmental'review consultant. The total anticipated cost is $100,000. Basin Street has assisted financially with the at-grade relocation project in the past. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution accepting-the Initial Study and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and MMRP:and.authorizing the City Manager to filean application with the CPUC. 2. Initial Study/Proposed MitigatedNegative Declaration 3. December 12, 2011 letter from CPUC Utilities Engineer David Stewart 4. Draft.City application for''Caulfield Crossing Re-authorization • BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of the City.of Petaluma for an Order Authorizing the Perinanerit Relocation Applica ion I]-12- of One Ar-Grade Crossing-of the Tracks of c, the Sonoma-Darin Area Rail Transit District ' 417 Pr 5rT APPLICATION.OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF,ONE AT=GRADE CROSSING OF THE TRACKS OF THE SONOMA-MARIN1AREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT • • f,.li.t� .G ,��rt trY'�'• _ 4 ' ' %' Sky Woodruff,Esq. (SBN: 197204) Ed Geutztrracher.(SBN: 228649) Jessica Mullan (SBN: 263435) r' MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK SILVER & WILSON 555 12a' Street, Suite 1500 '-- Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 808-2000 Facsimile:(510) 444-1108 Email: swoodmff n,meversnay.e.com Dated: December h' , 2011 Attorneys for the CITY OF PETALUMAA (M` . BEFORE TUE R.U.BLICUTILITIES COMIvMISSION OF'THE STATE?OF CALIFORNIA • Application of the City oiEctalunna for an Order Permanently Authorizing the Relocation of One At-Grade Crossing blithe Tracks of Applica tion 19-12- the,Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Tiansit District APPLICATION OFTHE.CITY,OF PETALUMA FOR ANORDER.AUTHORI-LING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF ONE AT-GRRADEECROSSING OF THE TRACKS OF THE SONOMA.MARINAREA?_,RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT • . ��{ F4 Pursuant to Sections 120'1 through 120'5, X68 and 604 of the Calitfornia Public Utilities Code, General Orders 75-D and.88-B issued by tie,California,Public Utilities=Commission (the "Commission"),and in accordance with Rules 2.1,�3 kand 38'7S-tithe Commisston'"slRules of• q,. Practice and Procedure ("Coititnisstori)R_ules"), the City of Retaluma (the "Cie) hereby submits this Application requesting a Commission order,to permanenilytauthorize the City's relocation of an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks of the-Sonoma-Mann Area Rail Transit District ("SD-CART") from the intersection ofplopper Street and Lalieyiile'Street (milepost 5-33.3) to Hopper Street and C'aulf eld Lanei(milcpost 5 37=;8) (the "Caulfield Crossing") in the City of Petaluma, County of Sonomari Caulfield Crossing functioned successfully and safely since • its construct rmi Therefore, no operanonaPchanges"or additional:improvcments to the existing 1 , railroad crossing are pr posed as pax .of the request for continued authorization. • Int'addirlon, the City respectfullyrequests that theCommission (1) provide interim relief to continue.autheirization for the.Caulf•eld Crossing granted in Commission Decision 06-02-036 ("D.06;02-036") u bile this Application is pending; and (2) permanently authorize closure.of-the former at-grade crosatrifeoWSMART line at the intersection of Hopper Street and Lakeville Street (milepost.5-38.3); and (3) process its Application on an expedited basis,without a hearing. I. INTRODUCTION On June 21, 2004, the City filed an Application with the Conimission.for approval to close one=at-grade crbssing'of the railroad tracks at Hopper Street and Lakeville Street (milepost 5-38.3) and construct a new at-grade crossing to replace.itat Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane `Ef -17 and garbage collection trucks to enter the site.'.t' Chevron mighrelbse.access to the rear of the site entirely.47 In addition, the necessary vertical clearance for both the overpass or underpass design would force the City to either close off Hamburger Lane or completely reconfigure it. Any closure would present^significant feasibilitychallenges because it would conflict With the conditions of appro*al for die construction of the adjacent ImN-Out Burger Project.aa In addition,it would close off.future access to the Hammer M:arine,Site'r'as well as potentially land lock the McPhails property located between the railroad and Hamburger Lane.49 Lastly, to complete construction within the available footprint,thetgrade of ri>_e-overpass or underpass would need to be 1.2°/0, which exceeds Americans rlitti Disabilities Act'�li hits•. ;Construction of a grade separated underpass presents:separate challenges. For instance, it would be necessary to relocate:three forr5-eight inch storm drain adverts that cross Caulfield Lane.50 Raising the current invert grade affects the entire drainage basin upstream. An elevated aqueduct would be necessary io,replace the three cxupng storm drain culverts.52 =s Relocation of an existing drainage ditch parallel tojthe rad traclis<apd replacement with a conduit i in Lakeville Highway is not feasible because the requiie4depth for the storm drain would conflict with other uulipes ' The(:ity would ac`so be requited;to relocate a forty-eight inch sanitary sewer gravity taunt line in}Hopper Streetk To complete that relocation, the City would nced,toconduct a hydra iG study3-and Foss bly relocate other utilities (e:g. power, telephone)1.SS Under any circumsianc'es, the magnitude and technical challenges of an underpass or overpass oftfie,SiVIART lint a�,Caulfield'Lane would be difficult for the City to undertake. Indeed,.the Cit'sexisting fiscal constraints make it impossible.. The economic downturn has ,rtv er it LaFitincku, \sse;sme-f- 1-2 I 41 LaFiai chi Qssessirient ar 1-2. {w LaFraticlu Asse_aaii nt ar 1 72 ")LaFrariclii Asscssiiiciit at t. Lai ranch,.t.1* s'nieiit at'2-3: 51 Lairan chi Assscssmeiit-at 2-3. 52 LaFrsinchi Assessment att-3. LitErandu Assessineiit at72 3. 31 LaFraiichi Assessinent'at•2+3- i5 LaFranelti Assessment at 2-3. Cat --18 'forced the City to adopt four consecutive year of budget cuts,56 ':Ih.addition to the difficult economic climate; the City faces increased costs ofdoing business, particularly with respect to employee benefits.F The City reduced its General Fund spending from $48:9 million in 2007- 2008.to tess than $32 millibn ii5 2011/2012. 8 Since 2008, the City has taken a number of dramatic measures to address.declining.revenues and reduce spending including: eliminating funding for capital irnprovernert; deferring and reducing.facility maintenance;laving off, eliminating or freezing over-50 positions; eliminating part-time positions; reducing overtime and z standby costs; depleting City reseri-es to prevent further negative'•staffing level impacts; a' 'a eliminating all General Fund-financed vehicle replacement'and piniatizing current planning functions, janitorial services and aquatics center man_.agemene_59 In shot Apnprecedented financial challenges have forced-the City to cut back on essential sen-iccs•like'never before. In Fiscal Year 2011/2012 alone, the city's forecast projec d;a $2.3 million budget • r deficit°D To address the budget sh ottfall, the City was forced to.lay'off two corninunity services officers, one police records assistant, one public works inspector, and one office assistants' Iwo police captain positions•wereabolished approlu nateIy nine frill time equivalent A positions has been frozen r' The effect of,t3 ese extraordinary budgekuts and 1a}offs,has been that the City has had to struggle with existing•sfaihhours;or resources to`,carry out its existing workload. Given that the City's resources=depend or the economic chmate''availabilityof funding, and other factors • outside th'e City's conrroen is impossible to predict whether southern crossing and Caulfield Lane'E\tfnsion anticipated ighhe.2025`Generai Plan will ever materialize..The Riverfront Project does require.Or•mdude such an.estension Notable'-increases.in traEfe,over the Caulfield Crossing occur only in the event that the Caulfield 1ane:Extciis on is•.eonstrucied63 Although the Caulfield Lane Extension would 5''City ofPetaluma,California,Fiscal Ycaf 20i2 Budget,City Manager's Budget Message ("City Manager's Budget Message")aid-1. 57 City t,Ianciger' Budget Message at I-1. City Manager's,Budgci Message at.I1. Managers Bridget Message at I-1 to 1-2. to-Cin• Manager's'Budget Messiige at 1-3. Cut ManSiiger's Budget Message at 1-6. <li•Citc Managcr'sBudgefMes sage-at]:7. (n3\IND at 42. tallq :egular.:City Council/PCDC Meeting http://peial uma;granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1... Rp►Ltaa" a ,- , V City Of Petaluma, California ►.,e; ^,# � MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 1855 City Council/PCDC Minutes Monday, December 19, 2011 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER - CLOSED SESSION -5:30 RM. A. Roll Call Roll Call Present: Chris Albertson; Teresa Barrett; David Glass; Mike Healy;Gabe Kearney; Tiffany Renee Absent/Excused: Mike Harris CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Title: City Manager. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Title: City Attorney. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS: Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. Agency Designated Representatives: John Brown, Scott Brodhun, and Pamela Stephens. Employee Organizations: AFSCME Unit 1 - Confidential, Unit 2 - Maintenance, Unit 3 - Clerical/Technical, Petaluma Professional & Mid-Manager Association Unit 4 - Professional, Unit 9 - Mid-Managers, and Unit 11 - Confidential, Peace Officers' Association of Petaluma Unit 6 - Police, International Association of Firefighters Local, 1415 Unit 7 -Fire and Petaluma Public Safety Mid-Management Association Unit 10 -Public Safety Mid-Managers. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION: Subdivision (a) of California Government Code Section 54956;9: Baywood, LLC, vs. City of Petaluma, et al., Sonoma County Superior Court No. SCV 243426. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Prior to adjournment into Closed Session, the public may speak up.to 3 minutes on items to be addressed in Closed Session. None. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION CALL TO ORDER- EVENING SESSION-7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Roll Call Present: Chris Albertson;Teresa Barrett; David Glass; Mike Healy; Gabe Kearney; Tiffany Renee Absent/Excused: Mike Harris B. Pledge of Allegiance of 10 2/17/20U 1:56 PM egular City Council/PCDC Meeting htt p://petal uma:granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1... John Cheney, Petaluma C. Moment of Silence AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS (TO CURRENT AGENDA ONLY) Item 5.A was moved to follow the CONSENT CALENDAR; Item 4.A was moved below Item 4.B and Item 4.C. PRESENTATION Sonoma County Community Choice Aggregation(CCA) Feasibility Study. (Cordell Stillman, Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Cordell Stillman, Sonoma County Water Agency(SCWA) Mayor Glass Mr. Stillman Mayor Glass Mr. Stillman Council Member Renee - Vice Mayor Healy • Mr. Stillman Vice Mayor Healy Mayor Glass Vice Mayor Healy • Mayor Glass Vice Mayor Healy Mr. Stillman Vice Mayor Healy Mayor Glass Council Member Renee Mayor Glass • Council Member Kearney Mr. Stillman Mayor Glass • Mr. Stillman GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT During General Public Comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction and that are not listed on the current agenda. Public comments are limited to 3 minutes per person. Depending on the number of persons wishing to address the Council, time will be allocated in equal shares totaling no more than20 minutes. Please fill out a speaker card (available at the rear of the:Council Chambers) and submit it to the City Clerk. SPEAKER CARDS FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AFTER THE MEETING BEGINS (USUALLY 7:00 P.M.) The Mayor_will call on individuals whose names appear on the Speaker Cards. If more than three persons wish to address Council on the same topic, they are encouraged to select a.spokesperson. Please be ready to step forward to the microphone as soon as the previous speaker has concluded his/her comments. (Cal. Gov't. Code §54954.3(a), Petaluma City Council Rules, Policies and Procedures, III(A)) John Cheney, Petaluma, updated the Council on Occupy Petaluma's activity and thanked the Council for Df 10 2/17/20]2'1:56 PM egulaCity;CouncilfPCDC Meeting 1ittp://petal uma.g'anicus.comJ MinutesViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1...` their support. Katherine Bobrowski, Petaluma, spoke regarding problems at the mobile home park where she lives. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION°(ACTIONS TAKEN) None. COUNCIL COMMENT Council Member Albertson Council Member Barrett Mayor Glass Vice Mayor Healy Mayor Glass Council Member Renee Council Member Kearney Mayor Glass CITY MANAGER COMMENT None. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Minutes.of Regular City Council/PCDC Meeting of Monday, December 5,2011. I.A-December 5 M i n ut e s Motion: Approve A. Minutes of Regular City Council/PCDC Meeting of Monday, December 5, 2011, as presented. Moved by Teresa Barrett, seconded by Tiffany Renee. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. Yes: Chris Albertson; Tffany Renee; Mike Healy; David Glass;Teresa Barrett; Gabe Kearney Absent: Mike Harris 2. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA A. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Regular City Council/PCDC Meeting of Monday, January 9, 2012. 2.A-January92012TentativeAgenda Motion: Approve A. Proposed Agenda for Regular City Council/PCDC Meeting of Monday, January 9,2012, as amended to add confirmation of 2012 Council Liaison appointments;and to add an item for discussion and possible'adoption of resolution opposing corporate personhood and calling for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood. Moved by Teresa Barrett, seconded by Tiffany Renee. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. Yes: Chris Albertson;llffany Renee; Mike Healy; David Glass; Teresa Barrett;,Gabe Kearney Absent: Mike Harris Mayor Glass Council Member Barrett Mayor Glass • 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Resolution 2011-167 N.C.S. Approving the Fourth Amendment to Lease Agreement between the City of Petaluma and Rooster Run Golf Club, LLC. (Brown) of 10 2/17/2012`1:56.PM egutar City Council/PCDC Meeting http://petal uma:granicus.com/MinuresViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1... 3.A-RoosterRun B. Adoption (Second Reading),of Ordinance 2422 N.C.S. Amending,Chapters 4, 7, 8, and 24 of the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning'Ordinance to Promote Economic Development. (Brown/Duiven) - Removed for discussion. 3.B-AmendinglZO C. Resolution 2011-168 N.C.S. Accepting Completion of the Construction Contract for the Lynch Creek Trail Project. (Zimmer/Nguyen) _ 3.C-LynchCreekTrail D. Resolution 2011-169 N.C.S. Accepting the PCDC Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. (Mushallo) 3.D-Financial Statements E. Possible Letter from Mayor'to State Attorney General Regarding Enforcement of Laws Against Fraudulent Foreclosure Processes. (Brown) - Removed for discussion and public comment. 3.E-ForeclosureLetter Mayor Glass removed Item 3.B for discussion and Item 3.E for discussion and public comment. Motion: Approve CONSENT CALENDAR!Items 3.A, 3.C, and 3.D. Moved by Mike Healy, seconded by-Teresa Barrett. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. Yes: Chris Albertson; Tiffany Renee;,Mike Healy; David Glass; Teresa Barrett; Gabe Kearney Absent: Mike Harris Mayor Glass Motion:Approve B. Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance:2422 N.C.S. Amending Chapters 4, 7, 8, and 24 of the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance to Promote Economic Development. Moved by Mike Healy, seconded by Tiffany Renee. Vote: Motion carried 5-1. Yes: Chris Albertson; Tiffany Renee; Mike Healy; David Glass; Gabe Kearney No: Teresa Barrett Absent: Mike Harris Public Comment on Item 3.E Eva Cooper, Petaluma, spoke in support of the foreclosure letter. Jude Mion, Petaluma, spoke in support of the eviction letter and the holiday moratorium on foreclosure evictions. Amy Hanks, Occupy Petaluma, spoke about foreclosure evicitions and supported the letter against fraudulent foreclosure processes. She recommended the letter also be distributed to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the Mayors and City Council in the County. Mayor Glass Council Member Albertson Vice Mayor Healy . Mayor Glass Vice Mayor Healy Council Member Barrett Council Member Renee Vice Mayor Healy Council Member Renee Mayor Glass DI10 2/17/2012.1:56 PM egular City Council/PCDC Meeting http://petaluma.granicus.com/Minutesvewer.php?view_id=3&clili_id=1...' Vice Mayor Healy Council Member Renee Motion: Approve E. Letter from Mayor to.State.Attorney General Regarding Enforcement of Laws Against Fraudulent Foreclosure Processes, with minor text amendments. Moved by David Glass, seconded by Teresa Barrett. City Attorney Danly Council Member Barrett City Attorney Danly Vote: Motion carried 6-0. Yes: Chris Albertson; Tiffany Renee; Mike Healy; David Glass; Teresa Barrett; Gabe Kearney Absent: Mike Harris Item 5.A was heard next. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution 2011-170 N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to.Execute Loan Documents with Pacific Gas and Electric for the Oh-Bill'Financing Loan Agreement Program for Energy Efficiency Improvements at the Swim Center, Cavanagh Recreation Center, Soup Kitchen, Airport, Senior Center, Animal Shelter, Corporation Yard, and Fire Stations 1, 2, & 3. (Ramirez) 5.A-EnergyEff iciency I mproveme nts Mayor Glass Vice Mayor Healy Mayor Glass Council Member Renee Diane Ramirez, Capital Projects Project Manager Council Member Renee Ms. Ramirez Council Member Renee Mayor Glass Larry Zimmer, Capital Improvements Engineering Manager Mayor Glass • Vice Mayor Healy Motion: Approve A. Resolution 2011-170 N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Loan Documents with Pacific Gas and Electric for the On-Bill Financing Loan Agreement Program for Energy Efficiency Improvements at the Swim Center, Cavanagh Recreation Center, Soup Kitchen, Airport, Senior Center, Animal Shelter, Corporation Yard, and Fire Stations 1, 2, & 3. Moved by Mike Healy, seconded by Gabe Kearney. Council Member Barrett Mr. Zimmer • Council Member Renee Vote: Motion carried 6-0. Yes: Chris Albertson; Tiffany Renee; Mike Healy; David Glass; Teresa Barrett; Gabe Kearney Absent: Mike Harris 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS • B. Discussion Regarding the Existing Cost Recovery System for Development Projects. (Brown) of 10 2/17/2012 1:56 PM egular City Council/PCDC Meeting http,//petalunia.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1... 4.B-CostRecoveryPartl 4.B-CostRecoveryPart2 4.B-CostRecoveryPart3. City Manager Brown Mayor Glass Council Member Albertson Mayor Glass Council Member Barrett Council Member Renee Vice Mayor Healy Mayor Glass City Attorney Danly City Manager Brown Mayor Glass City Manager Brown C. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Updates to the City's,Development Related Fees. (Brown/Duiven) 4.C-DevelopmentFees Scott Duiven, Senior Planner Mayor Glass opened Public Comment on Item 4.C. Seeing no persons wishing to speak, Mayor Glass closed Public Comment on Item 4.C. Mayor Glass Council Member Barrett Mr. Duiven Council Member Barrett City Manager Brown Mayor Glass City Manager Brown City Attorney Danly Mayor Glass . City Attorney Danly Council Member Barrett City Attorney Danly Council Member Barrett City Attorney Danly Mayor Glass Vice Mayor Healy Mr. Duiven Vice Mayor Healy Mr. Duiven Vice Mayor Healy /n of 10 2/17/2012 1:56 PM egular City Council/PCDC Meeting http://petaluma.granicus.comIMinutesViewer.php?view_id=3&chp id=l Council MemberRenee Council Member Barrett Mayor Glass Vice MayorHealy Motion: Direct staff to prepare updated development and capacity fee study reports as a basis for restructuring and reducing development related fees. Moved by Mike Healy, seconded by Gabe Kearney. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. Yes: Chris Albertson; Tiffany Renee;.Mike Healy; David Glass; Teresa Barrett; Gabe Kearney Absent: Mike Harris A. Discussion and Possible Direction on Maintaining Current Medical Marijuana Dispensary Moratorium. (Fish) 4.A-MedicalMarijuanaPart t 4.A-M ed icalM arijuanaPart2 Police Chief Dan.Fish Public Comment on Item 4:A Craig Litwin, Sebastopol, spoke in support of medical marijuana.dispensaries. • Chet Jenkins, Santa Rosa, medical cannabis patient, representing Americans for Safe Access, spoke in support of medical marijuana dispensaries. Mayor Glass Mr..Jenkins Mayor Glass Council Member Renee Council Member Kearney Chief Fish • Council Member Kearney City Attorney Danly Council Member Kearney City Attorney Danly Council Member Kearney Chief Fish Vice Mayor Healy Chief.Fish Vice Mayor Healy Council Member Albertson Mayor Glass Chief Fish Council Member Barrett Council Member Renee City Attorney Danly Chief Fish City Attorney Danly 2(0 • of 10 2/17/2012 1:56 PM 'egular City Council/PCDC Meeting http://petaluma:granicus.com/Minutesvewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1... Mayor Glass Vice Mayor Healy Mayor Glass Council Member Kearney Mayor Glass • There was Council consensus-that the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries should remain in place. No other direction was given. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Resolution 2011-172.N.C.S. Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and.Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Authorizing Ihe City Manager to File an Application with the California Public Utilities Commission for the Re-Authorization of the Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Project Located at.Caulfield Lane. (Bradley) 6.A-Caulf ieldLanePart 1 6.A-Ca u l f i e ld La ne Pa rt 2 6.A-LateDocumentl Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager Mayor Glass opened the PUBLIC HEARING. There being no persons,wishing to speak, Mayor Glass closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Barrett City Attorney Danly Council Member Barrett City Attorney Danly Council Member Barrett City Attorney Danly Mr. Bradley Council Member Barrett Mr. Bradley Council Member Barrett Mr. Bradley Council Member Barrett Vice Mayor'Healy Mr. Bradley Council Member Barrett Mr. Bradley Council Member-Barrett City Attorney Danly Council Member Barrett Vice Mayor Healy Council Member Barrett • Leslie Thomsen, Assistant City Attorney Council Member Barrett Assistant City Attorney Thomsen (oA- a�J of 10 2117/2012 1:56 PM .egular.City Council/PCDC Meeting http://petaluma.granicus.comIMinutesViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1'...' Council Member Barrett Curt Bates, City Engineer Council Member Barrett Mr. Bates Council Member Barrett Mr. Bates City Attorney Danly Council Member Barrett Mr. Bates Assistant City Attorney Thomsen Mayor Glass Mr. Bates Mayor Glass Vice Mayor Healy Mr. Bates Mayor Glass City Attorney Danly Vice Mayor Healy Council Member Renee Mr. Bates Vice Mayor Healy Mayor Glass Assistant City Attorney Thomsen Council Member Renee Pat Collins, Winzler and Kelly Council Member Renee Mayor Glass City Attorney Danly Mr. Bates City Attorney Danly Motion: Approve A. Resolution 2011-172 N.C.S. Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Authorizing the City Manager to File an Application with the California Public;Utilities.Commission for the Re-Authorization of the Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Project Located at Caulfield Lane, with the addition of mitigation measure TRI. Moved by Mike Healy, seconded by David Glass. Assistant City Attorney Thomsen Vote: Motion carried 5-1. Yes: Chris Albertson; Tiffany Renee; Mike Healy; David Glass; Gabe Kearney No: Teresa Barrett Absent: Mike Harris ADJOURN (� Motion: adjourn the meeting. j --?j'p of 10 �1/ 2/17/2012 1:56 PM tgulai'Gity council/PCDC Meeting http://petaluma.granicus.con✓Minut esViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1::. Moved by Tiffany Renee, seconded by David Glass; Vote: Motion carried 6-0. Yes: Chris Albertson; Tiffany Renee; Mike Healy; David Glass,Teresa.Barrett;,Gabe Kearney Absent`: Mike Harris The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. David Glass, Mayor ATTEST: Claire Cooper, CMC, City Clerk Jot 10 2/17/2012 1:56 PM • ATTACHMENT C • • ;4g -a/Itev v#4.0 cc A L tr,� 4u$t JEan DATE: December 19, 201.1 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Scott Duiven, Senior PlannerrP . SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Updates to the City's Development Related Fees • RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council provide feedback. and adopt the attached resolution directing the preparation of revised development fee and capacity fee studies as a basis for updates to the City's development related fees. BACKGROUND For a discussion of the City's development and capacity fees;.how they were set and why; their relationship to the General Plan 2025 and EIR; and how Petaluma's fees compare to other fees within the region, please seethe attached September 12, 20.11 staff report. DISCUSSION At the September i e City Council meeting, staff presented several proposals aimed at reducing development fees and water capacity fees. A summary of the status of those efforts follows: Review of Cost Estimates? Public Works staff reviewed.the cost estimates for several of the larger public facility and roadway improvement projects to, detennine if based on new information, the estimated construction costs have changed. Staff found that the cost estimates.•were still;consistent with today's project costs and recommended no changes. At this point no savings can be anticipated from this proposal. Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Studies: The Department of Water Resources and Conservation has contracted with Bartle Wells Associates to review and update the Water and Wastewater Capacity Fees. This update will review the need for the recycled water distribution system and modifications to the•planned improvement schedule in the context of the recently completed 2010 Urban- Water Management Plan and the recently completed Financial Plan and Utility, Rate Study. The update,will also allow for the removal of already completed and funded projects from the long-term project improvement lists, such as the C Street Pump Station and completed Tenth Street water and sewer reconstruction. Agenda Review: n City Attorney Vv� Finance Director City Manager Open Space Acquisition Fee Review: Staff has reviewed the lands located within the River Plan Corridor and identified acreage that can be removed-froth the Open Space Acquisition fee program and lands that could be acquired through other revenue sources. Removing this acreage will reduce the acreage that must be acquired with fee proceeds and pennit a reduction of the fee. Staff recommends that this analysis and the accompanying fee update be conducted as part of the comprehensive fee update discussed further below in this memo. Traffic Impact Fee: The City Council provided direction for staff to look at the feasibility of removing the Copeland Street Extension and the Caltrans Preferred Alternative Supplement from the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program. Staff has not had an opportunity to initiate this proposal and given its complexity recommends that this be conducted as part of a comprehensive traffic mitigation fee program update that may evaluate other fee reduction opportunities including the removal of already completed and funded projects. Review annual adjustment.mechanism: Each of the individual fee resolutions allow for annual fee adjustments to reflect changes due to inflation and construction costs. The index and time of year on which these adjustments are based can have an effect on the rate at which fees adjust. For example, the water and wastewater capacity fees increased 4.1% this year while the other development related fees increased by 2.8%. Staff recommends that as part of the tee updates outlined below that the annual adjustment mechanism be reviewed and revised to provide consistency across all fees and to utilize an index and time that typically results in a lower rate of increase in an effort to keep the fees lower while still allowing for adjustment to reflect changes in project costs. Staff recommends updating the Mitigation Fee Report prepared by Sinclair & Associates in May 2008. Staff recommends that this effort include consolidation of the facility fees that lend themselves to consolidation, either because of the nature of the facilities, or of the lee calculation, or both. Staff recommends consolidating the following fees into a combined "public facilities" fee: • Aquatic Center Facilities-Impact Fee • Community Center Facilities Impact Fee • Fire Suppression Facilities Impact Fee • Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee • Library Facilities impact Fee • Public Facilities Impact Fee Combining these fees has the benefit of aggregating a greater amount of fee proceeds in a single restricted account, potentially resulting in the City's ability to fund and construct particular improvement projects sooner than otherwise could occur. Consolidation will also facilitate review of the need for particular improvements and facilities currently included in the individual fees. ,For example, several of the facility fees include vehicles and equipment based on future increases in City employees. Given that the City has decreased staff, some of these acquisitions may no longer be necessary, or no longer be necessary in the same quantities. Removing or 2 -3z reducing some of these planned acquisitions under the fee "program would result in fee reductions. An update of the Mitigation Fee:Report would also permit review of the Park Acquisition, Park Development, and Open Space Acquisition Fees with an eye toward fee reductions. Staff estimates that the recommended fee study updates will cost approximately $30,000 and be completed in March 2012. Prepare Revised/Updated Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Staff recommends updating the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program study prepared by Fehr & Peers in May 2008. In particular, staff recommends evaluating removal of certain improvements currently included in the Traffic Impact Fee program, such as the Copeland Street Extension, Rainier Caltrans Preferred Alternative Supplement, and any improvements already completed and funded since preparation of the previous Traffic Mitigation Fee Program study. Staff estimates the recommended fee study update will cost approximately$20,000 and be completed in March 2012. Prepare Revised/Updated Water Capacity Fee Study Based on direction from the'September 12ih City Council meeting, staff has already initiated an update of the Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Study prepared by Bartle Wells Associates in May 2008. This effort is estimated to be completed around April 2012 at a cost of approximately $5,000. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The above recommendations will require staff, legal, and consultant time for preparation of updated fee studies and drafting of implementing legislation if the Council directs updates to the City's fees based on the studies. These costs, if approved, would be borne by the development fee funds themselves as pad'of the ongoing administration of the fee program. Staff estimates total consultant costs for all of the recommended fee study updates would amount to approximately $55,000. As noted in the September it staff report, the potential reduction in the development fee program based on the above recommendations could be somewhere between 10-15% for residential uses and 15-20% for non-residential.uses. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution. 2. September 12, 2011 Staff-Report 3 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS TO. PREPARE UPDATED DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY FEE STUDY REPORTS AS A BASIS FOR RESTRUCTURING AND'REDUCING SPECIFIED'DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES WHEREAS, on May 19, 2008, pursuant to its General Plan 2025 and applicable State and local law, the City of Petaluma ("City") updated certain fees and charges applicable to new development in the City, including the Aquatic Center Facilities Impact Fee, Community Center Facilities Impact Fee,.Fire Suppression Facilities Impact.Fee, Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee, Library Facilities Impact Fee, Open Space Acquisition Impact Fee, Parkland Acquisition Fee for Non-Quimby Act Development Projects, Parkland Acquisition Fee for Quimby Act Development Projects, Parkland Development Impact Fee, Public Facilities Impact Fee, Traffic Impact Fee, Water Capacity Fee, and Wastewater Capacity Fee; and WHEREAS, the Resolutions for the above fees provide that the City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the fees should be revised and When additional information is available, the City Council may review the fees to determine that the fee amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of Petaluma; and - WHEREAS, the City Council during- its 2011 goal setting session expressed interest in reviewing the current development fee program to determine whether and how current fees could be reduced without jeopardizing implementation of the General Plan 2025, while ensuring that future development will pay its fair share to mitigate its impacts on the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council on September 12, 2011 discussed and provided feedback and direction to staff regarding fee reduction proposals; and WHEREAS. City staff has reviewed those proposals and based. on that review recommends that the City prepare updates to the Mitigation Fee Report, Traffic Mitigation Fee Program; and Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Study as a basis for possible later City Council action to restructure and reduce certain development related fees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: I) The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute professional services agreements for the preparation of revised development and capacity fee studies for the City's open space acquisition fee, traffic impact fee, public facilities impact fee, park related fee and water and wastewater capacity fee programs. 2) The City Manager is authorized and directed to return to the City Council with updated development fee studies and proposed implementing legislation so that the City Council may considerand.adopt'the studies, and adopt-updated development fee legislation based • on the studies to accomplish fee reductions without jeopardizing implementation of the General Plan, 2025 while ensuring that future development will pay its fair share to mitigate the impacts of new development on the community. 4 Lind- ✓34 . - 2 , Attachment��n . j:asa - DA;•GE: September 1:2;3011 TO: . . Honorable.Mayof and,Membei•s of the.Cit},Council through City Manager . FROM Scott DuiVen,.Senior Planner, SUBJECTS Review of DtV.el'oprnent Impact Fees I RECOMMENDAT ON. 1 It:is the City.Council,provide feedback;and;d irection regarding.the following , fee reduction: prroposals,, including any additional analyses; which may be necessary, and . implementing legislation.as:appropriate.: BACKGROUND The City of;Petaluma has had_development fees in effect fora number of years to ensure that future.development,pays its:fair share in,meeting the future•needs of the community created by • such development as identified in the City's General Plan 'The City collects development`".fees, • for acquisition and development of park and open :space lands; development and expansion of . . cm-pommy facilities such as..conunumty centers, police and :fire stations, libraries, and aquatic., • - facilities; to fund future traffic; water; and wastewater mfrastinicture; to'meet affordable housing needs; and to promote public art. The currentdevel'opment fee.schedule is attached to this report. . How Our Fees were:Set and¢Yhy ' The authority for establishingkdevelop."ment fees for residential-and•non=residential.development , projects is found. primarily in the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) also"known as' AD l600, as codified in the Califomia•G'oveinment..Code,beginning with`Section 66.000 Additional authority for development fees•exists iii.the Subdivision Map Act, as codifed''in California"Government Code section 664Y'0`and following, and:in.oiher'provisions'pilaw: . The Act permits local agencies to establish and.:collect a fee as. a,condition of-approval..of a development project:for the purpose:of defraying tKe,proportional cost of public facilities•needed i to serve new development. Public facilities are defined in the statute as public.improvements, public;iservices'and„com_munity amenitiesTh : e .fee'.may include costs attributable to increased , demand-:for public. facilities: by future development The fee:may also include the ,cost of improving existingfacilitiesrto maintain the existing level”of service or to achieve an adopted level of service that'.i's eonSistent with tneGeneral'Flan for new"re"sidents and workers-in the City. ca_e_er . Ada.Review: , th City Attorney Fi.uance Direct gen y Manager. 414-7-35 The public facrhties.must•be identified in a capital improvement plan, the ,General Plan; an • • .applicable'specifc pan or ohr publi `docuent : Te fee y nt•be usd topay for existng . deficiencies.inpublie•facilities. In May 2008''the City.Council adopted'12 individual resolutions to revise and increase the City?s development impact:fees and'water.and wastewater:capacity_fees The•updated.fees included;the . Aquatic•Center Facilities Impact Fee;,Community Center'Facilities Impact Fee, Fire•Suppression• Facilities impact Fee, Law.Enfoiceinent Facilities Impact Fee, Library Facilities Impact Fee, .Open Space Acquisition Fee,.Park.Land:Acquisition Fee (Non.Quimby Act Projects) Park Land •Development impact Fee Public Facilities;lmpact Fee, Traffic'lmpact;Fee, Wastewater Capacity • Fee, and Water Capacity Fee_ ' The Quimby park by Act fee for parland acquisition for residential • subdivision .projects was also updated The tees were based on nexus studies prepared to determine the appropriate and'applicable fees and charges ito:be.assessed,upon new development. ' to, ensure that new development payssj'its proportionate fair. :share tor'the future.infrastructure .needs of:the coinmunitycreated bysuch new development identified in the General Plan 2025 . . and its OR. For more mfgrmationsee the.foll'owing reports•tavailable.online): • • City of Petaluma MitigationT.ee Report, &. Sinclair Associates,May,2008. I . a City of Petaluma a Wate :and Wastewater Capacity'Fee;Study;, Bartle Wells Associates; May 2008. 1 : • . Traffic Mitigation Fee.Prograrn,Update, Fehr&..Peeps .Ma$ 2008'. T.he: current In-Lieu Housing.Fee:and•the Commercial. Linkage Fee were adopted, in 2003:to implement the previous•Housing Element: adopted in 2002, Because the 1-lousing• Element is updated on a state-mandated;timeli'ne,,the fees related totitsimplementation..were not revised at • • the time the General Plan 2025:was The In-Lieu Housing and'Commercial Linkage fees 'serve to implement the goals 'policiesand'programs"oftheGeneral Plan'sHousin'g Clement to • achieve an adequate supply of housing units and.progranTs'`for all income groups..The current , I-lousing Element was adopted: in 2004'.and the In-Lieu Housing,Fee,and Commercial Linkage . ' Fee were both felt to be•adequate.afthariime•and, noon need:ofrevisiom ' The Storm Drain.Impact:.Ftieewas last updated in 1986 and was established.to.address the impacts . of runoff from new development protects that drain into the Petaluma:River and'its tributaries: It was not updated-concurrently with the adoption'of-the General Plan 2025' :because•a-•regional - " solution-to surface water• management,had not yet been identified Following the completion,of '` ' '• the StormwaterProgram Funding�Evaluation Study,and di_rect•ton from the City!.Council,'',Staff can.initiate the analysis,needed:to?ipdate,the Storm: Drain'Impact Fee•along with consideration • of a separate .landing 'mechanis-m [for existing dev'etopmeht and; the long-term capital improvement 'needs Of addressing, the `City=s surface water assets and. ta'•tiieet water quality regulatory requirements. . . . • The Public Art.Fee .was..adepted ln•',2005' to. ensure that public:.art is .present throughout the community in the belief that.the•artsi'foster economic development, revitalize urban areas and improve the overall :busmess..climate ,The Public:Art.Fee is not a .mitigation measure.in the. I General Plan EIR, though..it:;implements'.General Plan policy. No changes•were made to the ,Public Art Fee as.pait df adoptionof•the General Kai-1.2025 and development fees in May,2008. .. .. , . . . . . . . . • . . . . , . .• • . • . •" ' • • • • ' , . . . . . , . . . Met deVelopnieht:feeglibf.inCluded in this memo ricii[.addreSsedJii 2008.-are the CPSP Specific . . . .. Warr"tee and the Incremental-fee which vary by project and for which staff is not currently • • . recommending changes as part of this effort, '' • • . .. . . . . , . . . 'Table.' summarizes the Cay's development fees in the fort of fee scenarios for a single-farnily residential unit •a:50,000 sqUare-6M:retail tise, and a A;OCIO.Sqbareloof office use. . „ . ., • tablel: PEta luma Residential.and flon7,Ridenti 41:Fee 5cenkros•:os'-pf.14y.1, 2011 Development Fee • • • • Single.,Kamihr`' OK Retail 50K office Aquatic Center FatilitiSIMPatt Fee • $ 356 5 • 9,4()0 $ - 3,250 Cdenrnefeial Linkage Fee- . . 04.3 -;$' • 179500 $ 107,500 Cnrnmunity Centel-Fatilitie.$).infahet ree, ,S 1.M§. : ;$; 14,250 $ 13,550 Fire Suppression Facilities IMpaet"Fee l • $ .89. - :$. - 1,850 $ 7,550 . . . Law Enforcement,Facilities Impact Fee. , 9 .1n2' • .s n.,800 $ 11,350 • • . ,.. $ Library Facilities Impact fee , ,- $ 63S . L . 5;030 $ 5,750 . , Open Space Acquisition Fee : - ' • $ 3;87$ • l5 36,700 $ 35,100 , . , • Park Land Acquisition Fee $ 2,089 5 19'806 $ 18,950 . Park Land Development impoct Feet . • $ 5,632 :$: 52,400 $ 50,100 Public Art Fee " •- N.A. .5. 40,000 $ 40,000 .. , . . . Public Facilities impact Fee - $ 1,426 i L5 - 13500 $ 12,900 Traffic Impact Fee fealitai "Preferredy .$ 20516 $ .956;150 $ . 984,900 Wastewater Capacity Fee, . . . $. '8•705 $. .. , 105:585 $ 105;585 ' Water Capacity-Fee • .. • ' $ 12,521 $., 50084 .•$ 50084 Storni Drain Impact F:ee,fty.pleal SFD)! $ 569 $ 27;000 ' S. , 27,000 ' TOTAL •' . ..59';',Etor, : .9 i;524,06.2 9 • ,473,559 . . In Lieu Housing Fee(thajoi•silISOCr only)l• $: '904, . ' N.A. .N.A.. . - • • • . - $ 68,823. i .. S. . The Relationship of PiTee Sti4ctilt&to-the GEfierat firm:goil6Mer-O,Eldn Ell? i - ; The development fee program, and in..particular, the needed improvements listed in the • development fee legislation that tlye program is intended to fund, and the fee proceeds required to 'help finance the improvements•needed to•iMprement.te-mittgaticin !Meksores:identified in the • ' :' General Plan's E:IR. Modifications to the Ctirreht:aevaciPniehilLke.firograni 1ieuici tie considered in terms:Of the -Ole of the development fee ,.program M. fthplementing. General; Pleb.. EIR iMtigatiOus t:.kleallii any thailgev to the program will avoid pegatiye bripaets:ordippleiriehtelion •-'• - , of mitigation measures needed for the General...Ptah SIR and/or projects i.09ing,on the General • .Plan mitigation measures for mitigatien,.0f-pojeet iMpaOSIVOdifidation of the fee . . program may require CEQA analysis to ensure that changes, to.the program do not make infeasible any mitigation measures.required for Me;Gerieral.Plari or partictilar projects; . • rflierefOre, proposed futtire:fee. rednotionS;;ShOuldh0;',6Valpated.:fOr.deneral Plan consistency and , - potential.CE0 impacts, If..cleyelOPMent-„ifee.rcdJMOTE0g.1 :-Mure projects from relying on mitigation.measures'it:hp/en-160/1'111)e,General li?laMaIR tli•ai could increase the cost of:CEQA . , . . . . . , . . . • . . ' • . ' . . . . ' • (P/1- 7 ' . - . . . . , . . .. . . . . . . . _ .. . . review and mitigation for future projects and impede future;pi-66er;appro.vals, impacting the • • • • ' Council's goal of'streamhning;the City's development appravaf process. How Petalumas Fees Currently Compare to Other,Citiesrin the Region Petaluma's'development impact:fees are higher than otherjurisdictions in the region (See Table 2). Given the recent economic:'downturn this may have the effect of making development pro. . .fonnas difficult to balance.as:well,as putting Petaluma at a competitive disadvantage with other jurisdictions in the region in attracting future residential and'employment growth. The planning division has had prospective:applicants turn away from fprojeciswhen the discussion.tumed to development fees,paiticularly•those involving single-familyhomesiThe recent economy"has not brought forward many new non-residential projects, but stafflhas.heard from some. applicants that'the current fee schedule is one of the.factors affecting',a.project's viability. While these comments are informal and.anecdotal,'there may be•some:merit`to.these claims in the context,of . the current economic-environment: The Majority of residential,projects that are currently under . construction received:their entiilemcnts,prior-to ihe'latest fee'updates taking effect. Table 2: Comparison of Development:Impact Fees for Single:-Family Dwelling Units ' Jurisdiction . , Facilities Water . Sewer Total Petaluma $. . 38,575 $ 12,521 • $ 8,705 $ 59,801 Novato $ '28,463 $ 23;275 $ 7,390 $ 59,128 . Windsor $ 25,933 $ ' 6,785 $ 14,195 $ 46,913 Santa Rosa :$ - 22;627 $ 5,856 $ 9,795 $ 38;278 Rohnert Park $ 21,632 $ 22i4 $ 14,421 $ 38,267 San Rafael :$ .r 13;392. , $ 14;142 '$ 6,200 $ 33;734 • Average $ 25;418 $ 10,717 $ 10,061 $ 46,196 'Note: In order to provide as direci.a comparison a 'possible, housing and school iinpaci tees have not been included in this table. A direct comparison.of.fees is challenging given the variety of'approaches for assessing and calculating development fees and t e.:f pes,of fees collected Also, the system improvements and infrastructure needs of each. local.,government vary making comparisons of individual fee components difftcult:;''rable 2 aggregates fees such.as traffic,parks, and public facilities into a single `facilities category while.keeping water and sewer/wastewater capacity fees separate to . allow a direct cotiiparsori between Jurisdictions..in an effort to provide as direct a'comparison to other communities;and•surveys as possible, housing in-lieu fees;,typically only assiigned'to major subdivisions and not;'individual units,.and school impact. fees, which are not subject to city control, have been excluded for each jurisdiction: The.'firm Duncan Associates conducts: a national impact fee survey, mostirecently for 2010_ The national average per single=family unit is • $.11,796. For the 37 cities suryeyeth in:,California the average,:for a single-family dwelling is $29,308: This survey data also omits' housing and`sch:ool.;fees; The complete survey can be accessed on=line at ww.w:impactfeescoin:-While a•;coi anson'to,the national average may not be applicable, as markets in other parts. of the eOCintr vary;dramatically from California, it is • indicative of the.importance:oltand reliatice on impact fees to fund.local infrastructure needs:in Califomia •. . . .. . &A--3S DISCUSSION ... in.fesponse to inietest expressed.by the City Council d'u'ririg;'4.21 1'I goal setting session, staff reviewed the current development impact fee program to determine whether and how current fees could-he-reduced without.jeopardizing•implementationofjtheGeneral Plan 2025, and while ensuring'that'future development will pay its fair share, to mitigate its impacts on the community: • This report'sumnarizes where:staff"beireve the most appropriate'fee reductions can be made, the rationale. supporting those conclusions and related policy considerations, and 'the process(es) . required to adjust the fee:eategotics:?involved, including an,estimate-of some of the resources needed and the time required_to make the changes_ Ail;fees have been examined,.but emphasis • was placed on those fees that have the:greatest.impact on development projects.. For example the . Traffic impact Fee accounts.-fot'_approximately 30% of the`development. fees applicable to a • Single-family unit and 60%u.ofihe fee's.applicableto non residential-projects. Separate of the work done by City staff, the Chamber bf Commerce (Chamber) has provided suggestions.for Modifying th'e ,Cty'Ss;development fee program in its letter dated April 4, 2011 (attached). Staff has reviewed the'Chatnber's<suggestions. This report indicates where:staffs recommendations are consistent with those of the Chamber, and'where The recommendations differ. Traffic lmpnct Fee: . The Traffic Mitigation Fee Program; Update (May 2008);,.provides the technical basis for updating the 'City of Petaluma' Traffic; Mitigation Fee (TMF) :Progratn.. The TMF program is intended to fund transportation 5niptdverrtents needed as,a;tesulhof growth in the City. As such, the fee program uses the City of Petaluma General •Plan FIR;,analysis of future transportation deficiencies and'identifies those that .are attributable.•to future development. The conclusion of the City,of Petaluma Generaf:Plai E lids that.existing traffic:eonditions:are genarally:acceptable with'the exception, of a few intersections 'that expcnence/peak Period. congestion. With the addition of the •traffic •projected with buildout. of the General; Plan, 'overall traffic conditions throughout the City will degrade::Even With the addition:of the.needed improvements identified • • . in the General Plan, overall traffic conditions, particularly on cross-town connectors, will be worse with General Plan buitdout thati,'current conditions.,As•a result, in 2008 when the City • Council established the current fee tfe Council.concluded that traffic growth resulting from new development anticipated.in the'General.,P.lan•would'.in turn;_resii(t in increasing•traffic congestion ' throughout the City, and that future development should',fund•the General Plan.transportation improvements required to serve 'such'new development Table 3 outlines the estimated'costs of• the needed traffic improvernent projects'identifie li in the=Geric(al .Plan (and,the TMF program • legislation). The four improvements with the highest: costs, the':Rainier. interchange, Caulfield 'crossing, • Copeland crossing, and Old;Redwood.Highway interchange,improve cross-town capacity 'by adding new crossings.or improving:the capacity of extsting.cross-town transportation facilities. Each of these .facilities crosses of one'or.'more of the Northwest 'Pacific/SMART Railroad, Petaluma River, and/or US 101 With'the addition'of these cross=town.connectors, both existing and future traffic as redistributed as the, new improvements;create new capacity and change current shortest-path routeselections.;f3ecause the•improveftietits..benefit new'developmentCity- ' U • ide; and. in keeping.wtth the:May 200 w 8• traffic study; the analyses .conducted for this update •fo CUSS'MI a umforin.eitywideiin pact fee; - ' ' „It.should be noted that In addition .to,paying the uniform, citywide impact fee, development - • • projects, such as those adjacent to major •new roadway ceimecttons (likes Rainier Avenue; Caulfield Lanc, '.and Copeland.Street'), may be required to,'filnd: and/or construct 'additional, . project specihc,traffc improvements, such e as by dedicatng ght f way or improving portions • • of public;roadwaysThat.travers :and/or arc adjacent to the siie to mitigate project;specific traffic i impacts not adilressed-•by•'the irrtprovem'ents to'be h7nded:'anil built'?pursu'anf`to the IMF. i - Table 3:•Es timat,ed'T•affi'cfVliti'gation;Fee Pcogiarn Costs.;, • . - . . New. .• Qevel'ogi %of . I ' • Net City:, _m,'ent. 'Potential Fee Program . i Improvement' - Prolect,Cost . East , • 'Snare: Contribution Cost Rainier Avenue Extension and'' . Interchange • 7.5,000,000: 48;100.i000 , 100:0 % 48 ;100,000 28.2%•Caltrans Preferred Alternative ., . , • . , Supplement. 34062'000. 3 ,'363;000 c 100,0%. . .31,362,000. 18.4% I Caulfield:Lane Extension ` ' ' 60656000 54,39, ;000 1000%` 54;398;000 . 31.9% • Copeland.Street Extension '. .:18.;82-8.,•,000. . 8;706;000 ;100 0% 8;706;000 5.1% • . 0104,edwoodHighway . . ... , . • • • Interchange'Improve.ments'. • 28;475;000. 8,475;000' •'100:0% 8,475;000• • '5.0% . Caulfield tape/Payran Street ' • Intersection Improve rents . 400;000.. 500,000 100.0% $00,000 0.3% . Petafuma.8ouleyard/Magnolia:, • , • , • • . Avenue•P:ayranStreet:' ' Intersection • ' ':3001000' 500,000 • 100:0% 500;000 '0.3%' . .'Construction of New: Intersections Threughoutthe • 'City 3,9005000:•. 3;900;000, : :100:0% 3,900;000 2.3% Traffic•Signal•Upgrades . Throughout'the City • :1,885000.. 1,885,000 . :109;9% 1.'885;000 '1.1%' . Pedestrian%Bicycle _ . . • -- . • Improyemeiits Throughput-OW:, , • • • . • • City - `15,523,000 • 25;523,00 ' 212% 5;412,000' 3;2%' - • ''Transitimprovements . .. _ Throughout:the City '11 471,000 11,471,000' 21:2%. 2,432;000 1.4% . Administrative Costs , . - .. .• .4;986;000 2.9% • '- 5ut$tofai With tocallyP[eferied" . , Rainier Avenue:Alternative ' 223;735,000 163;458000• : ..._ - 139;294,000 Total with Calirans(Preferred...... . Alternative Supplement • 257,797;000 194,820,000 . 170;656;000 100:0% . . • • j J " I. r h� • Copeland Street Extension . •• M"noted:by the'Chambet of'Commerce iii''its letter;the Copeland'S'treet Extension as currently planned conflicts with the recent construction of the spur line serving Dairyman's Feed, and May be considered for•.removal if it cannot be i_mplementcd,in,the.foreseeable future. however, prior .• 'to removing this ifnprovement'from'the program 'it will be necessary to conduct some level-of traffic and ' CEQA analysis;to• determine the potential impacts of its removal- on nearby • ' intersections to_make sure that removal does not result in an adverse negative impact on those intersections.or on traffic circulation in the long term The traffic analysis is estimated to cost . approximately$10,000 and"require a month from the time a contract is in place: Depending on • the resu.'lts-:ofthe traffic analysis and'direction from the City. Council, additional costs-may be necessary for any subsequent .general plan amendment and CEQA •analysis. Removal of this project from the Traffic Impact Fee;:program would result in a- 5% reduction in the TMF . 'program. . . Caulfield Lane Extension (S'outh'ern Ciossina) . Ithas been.suggested by sorrie,.including the Chamber•of Commerce; that the Caulfield Lane . ;Extension (Southern Crossing) component of the traffic impact'fee-program should be removed or deferred until'implementation of tile next general plan, The Southern Crossing project is critical to .development of the; Lower .Reach Of;the Central Petaluma Specific ,Plan, and, for reducing impacts on East Washington and East D Streets As such, staff does not recommend removing the project from feex,calculations• Should the CFty Council wish to investigate this l option the estintated:costko analyze•the'traffic irnpkis-Of its removal is estimated at$25;,000 or more depending on the scope,,o'f analysis;'and Will take approrimately.2-3 months to complete from •the.'time a contract is in place: Removal of'the,Southcrh .Crossing will almost certainly require a General Plan Amendment,:)significant CEQA+ analysis• and affect pending projects reliant upon the General Plan 2025 and EIR. Staff could investigate the feasibility of implementing .a modified to ,schedule that addresses improvements such as the Southern Crossing by developing a ?one of .benefit which apportions ,a• :higher.,proportion of the infrastructure improvement-costs to those properties that without the improvement have limited • or no additional development. potential This approach would.lrequire similar traffic modeling costs and time associated with updating`the"I rattic Mitigation Fee program. Rainier Avenue Extension and interthange, Another significant !change(could be to stop collecting the Caltrans Preferred Alternative - Supplement for the Rainier .Avenue"interchange. The Council has divided the ftar Rainier ,Interchange project into two,phases ro "an overpassicss town connector.;and an interchange 'The - . design and eny.i_ronmcntal. analysis -.both assume a future, interchange Updating the TNIE • improvements list •do substitute the City's preferred. alternative for the Caltrans Preferred Alternative-maintains'consrstency with the General Plan 2025 and its El'R.by continuing funding for the interchange (the locally preferred.'configuration) butrassumes.Mat:(he City•:will succeed . in receiving a design exception drum Caltrans Substituting the,:City's preferred alternative would result.ig an approximate20%•:reduction.in the IMP program. The Caltrans Preferred Alternative is a split interchange•with a,parallel Street system:. The proposed.design-'requires converting the existing loop ramptconfiguration on the east side of US 101 to.a tight diamond configuration:'hwo one-way ramp extensions that parallel US 101, one in J • the northbound direction and-Ode-in the ,southbound•direction, would..be constructed. In the • • northbound' •direction;• traffie.:destined for Rainier',A,venue :would take the off-ramp from northbound. US' 10`1 and proceed to the East Washington"Street ramp intersection, cross the intersection,•and enter the on-ramp„opposite of the off ramp,:to connect to the Rainier Avenue • Interchange' A similar type;of movement would occur in. the southbound direction as .well. Southbound US 1.0:1 traffic degtined'for.East Washington.Street; would take the off-ramp from US 101•and proceed to. the•,Raiiijer,Avenue ramp intersection, cross the intersection, and enter • the on,ramp•";oppesite:of the:off-ramp,:to connect to 'thecast Washington Street Interchange. The split.interchange:;alternative'would.change the scope of,the.current Fast Washington Street .. Interchange•Protect,{which,is:expecfedao bid and begin construction in`,2011-2012. The current . - East Washington Street InterchangeProjeet will construct a;new northbound.diagonal on-ramp, and realign the •existing northbound-'loop on-ramp and."northboiind offramp. The split interchange alternative would:;require demolition: of the .northbound loop: on-ramp and• realignment of the northbound<of'f ramp, The proposed freeway entrance area to the northbound. diagonal on-ramp -would 'need. to be modified to fit into the proposed split =interchange configuration. This configuration Would,;tequtre;right of-way dedication and demolition of the . soon to be constructed`Fast'Washington:improvements. • • Cost Estirnates • • Staff also recommends reviewing the •cost estimates for each, of''the roadway improvement projects to detemrine tf based'on new information; the estimated' costs have changed. The current project cost estimates;were developed in a high bid environment;=and may in the context of today's competiti'd..bidding 'environment have lower costs: However; The current bidding environment may:not Continue.'throtigh: later stages of. General ‘Plan buildout'or apply to .later stage projects. The cost estimates are currently being reviewed-b} Public Works staff for most projects. • . .• . ParklandAcqu'isition.Fee ' • The parkland acribiSitiGif fee is;adjusted'an"nually on July 1' liyilierpserecinage change in the five` year average purchase.pnce per,acre,of vacant.residential and:commercial land acreage within the-Urban'Growth Boundary A•significant reduction in d this year as the 2005 property purchases from the top' Of'the•market fell out of the average, coupled with,"fewer . property-sales arid'lower vnlues��in reeenG.years (see attached Galculahon)1,,:�The I�test'adtustment : 'reduced:.the; parkland acquisition .fee by 32%,, and was handled administratively; as•J101 City' . Council.action is required ,Staf[-doesnot recommend any fuither modifications to-ihe,Parkland, . • . Acquisition:Pee atithis,tinie. - . Open Space Acquisition Fee ' As with the Parkland:Acquisitiion Fee, the Open Space Acquisition 'Fce declined 32% effective July 'I, 2011 this:reduction was:handled administratively as well The,-Open.Space Acquisition Fee is intended to fundiacquisition of those porlions.ofproperties'within the River Plan Corridor overlay Andmato);tributaries as,depicted on the General Plan'2025 Land Use Map(Figure 1-1). this overlay` definesithaareas,required for implementation of tlie'adopted Petaluma River Access and,Enhancement:.Plan and.10 provide-for. future Yloodplaih management{projectsrHistorically, • open space-lands:needed to ithp(einent the River Access and Enhancement Plan have been• lf/r . . ' 1`G . . , . . .• • . . . . . . . .• . • . . . . . ,• ' . . . .. . . ' . . . . . . . • . . . . . , . . . . • • • . . . , ... . . .:.- •. • . . • . ' ... .....,_ . '' . ' .. . . .. . • - acquired•throtigh exactiCifigd..edieatiOnS•associated Witty pattletilatdevelOpment,ptojects, or-with ... . . grant funding .0iVeit:.sthecitrs!.'si„ecoSSItil track reebtd•of'acigt40gen.. Pace through means Other tharriripact,fedi,,a-fidthet teduCtithi of this fee may be enitSidered by the City Council to . . . the.extentacquisition.orpropertr,needed Muthe-plan:Can;be financed through means other than . development.fees. A recent,OXample‘isai-grantof S850A000 frofri the•S tate Departmen t of Water ResifitireeS–River Parkways three properties along Industrial Avenue The City had previously piiiihaSed,T6utprOperties hetween.indusirja144nue and the Petaluma River . . fotan earl entliticiid terracing_Piro,te.c.k • . • . . . . in several instances the area'subject to the River Plati•Chitidot overlay is part of a larger parcel with •ftitare development -potential, which -through. 'the •entitlement process could lead to • • . . • dedication of the land necessary to,implement the •sui face water management improvements • . . . • identified in the Rivet,Access and .Enhancement 'Plan without relying on development fee . .. . , . proceeds and permitting reduction of the Open Space AcquisitiptiEde,,ln other instances future .- . development potential is unlikely iaid•Acqnisition.would..tequite grant funding or:revenues from . . the Open Space Acetisition:•1!ee••StaffhaS identified fnilifs from non development fee sources • - . . that may be used to aetrire River Rlail:Cortido land itipi•::teClotitiWthe acreage that must be , . .. • • . • acquired with fee proceeds and permitting reduction of the fee :Staff is hopeful that dedications ,• related to particulardevelppmcnt:OrOjt.4.S:lo:the:Plan Corridor wiThallp.w further reduction of the • • - •• . Open.Space Aequisitioh.tee• Staff-has done.,aptelitainartail*sis.•:of•the acreage of River Plan. • • Corridor on properties with 'future development 'Potential atatein0Ced that acreage from the Open Space Acquisition Fee. $staffiestimaiesthiscotildiestaJn'ari additional 50-60% reduction • in the Open Space AcqUisition;;Fee:Legislative aCtibm•Woold)he required to update the Open l• Space AcqUishion fee reSOltitiottandlattaCtiments.. - • i . - . • , . . . .. ... -Kit&Ctipticity Fet: - •, . ' ' The Water.CapaeltY.,Fee is comprised of two majot elernefitS!,.ta, `134y-io' whereby new water . utility customers contribute their fair share for existing wafer.,:capital assets and distribution facilities • necessary to serVeY. new •customers, And a CompOrtePt, to fund future. capital improvements to preVideinereagedelpatity:•nceded to serve new'Utility customers. These . . capital ,improVenients'inaude,dieiteeyeled:Watet isy-stettri;miioi. tia •designed and intended to offset potable demand.(a04essobtially produtelhe'ef.fect qi..grahogl•Ficw.pota.ble supply).for the . • planning period of the Oenei•afilllariC29.25, The cost Of implementing the City's Conservation • Progratnia•alSO iheladedjallid:Watic fe tkealiSe tn.iii • at:•.;.ihe.".rieW7.Wattr supply . ' • t-L: needed to serve-new •developitierrbiltidipaied for General Plan .biiildoiit is obtained."ftOM. • ' • ' ' ...- . - . . — . .,• . • ,, tonservation:prograni•savitigson.Wateteonstimptroti. theieuipatilF lee does-nbr.include.nornal .maihtnance of etiStingeapital4sSets necessary ni ico*,e5i'sfniki#hter utility atStnnei& as they . • - are a.c.OrtmOnentioP,the monthly water billing(commodity) rates. .The•watep...eapacify toe:and ' • water.c.orpropdity.0:141;Sc.:prozrams,togcher ensure that all,•;raicpay.er ,.new.ancLexisting, share in .• ' proportion to then deManthrio:thecosi,..Of maintaining and expanding the•Water system:s capital. asSets, . .. – . . . . . . . • , . . . • • . .. The General PJan,.20):5•4d_Cutified. the use of fecyCled,•mater;as an offset for meeting potable demand for,future development and to allow the•commimityv,reduerthe use of potable water for non-potable•dethandSauelicat irrigation of golf courses open and pakklands. There are many factors thathagetcAlletriii a reduction of water deinand.'yolunteS to the point where • . . . . , . . ,.. . . . • . . , • i . • , . . ., .. • , • • . . . -. . • - . . , . „. . . • , . . . . . . . . . analysis undertaken:'for`tlie:coinpletion.of the 201.0 Urban'Water.`Management Plan (UWMP) indicates that the full General`Plan 2025 recycled water•System is not required to meet potable water demands through the current 'General Plan..planning Horizon: -However, other factors, ' including,the anticipated reduction orelimination of:permitted discharge of•treated effluent.into the Petaluma River .through the City's NPDES :permit, maintain ithc longer-term need for a recycled water distribution system Changes to the City's existing discharge permit, specifically to.disallow seasonal.discharge, will;require expansion.of the recycled•water distribution system to provide year,-round storage.and/or:reuse of recycled water ruvo'lumes significantly higher than the volume' currently distributed through the agricultural irrigation program. For example, elimination of•permitted seasonal'discharge will add approximately 7,230 acre feet of surplus recycled water annually Thi'sin!turn will require the City'to'inerease storage significantly, or ,eipand dispersal. . The changes to the anticipated need and schedule for recycled.water distribution allow the funding of the improvements•'comprising the.recycled system'`spine' to be phased over a•longer time frame. The early phases;(P.hases 2A,and 28.) of.the recycled system will.permit expansion . . • of the system to serve.paying:customers, thereby establishing;•needed. capital facilities for the . potable offset program and.creating a jcvenuc'stream to fund„,water system improvements and/or provide•.matching funds for grants Water Resources,and Conservation (WR&C) staff members are currently discussing poteptial';recycled water service.;use wtih,several large property owners ' just beyond the southeast edge of the,community. These discussions, to date, assume customer participation-in The cost of the.recycled water distribution system Review:of the water capacity • fee structure will allow the City"to reconsider the long-term .need for extending the -recycled water distribution system throughout:the City. Opportumtiesmay exist for potential of sale of recycled water to agricultural' _customers in addition to those: currently served, to the extent recycled water available torsaleas:.hbt heeded to offsetlong;terrn potable.detaand. Staff agrees with the Chamber. th'at':the findings in the 2010 Urban Water Management plan warrant a review of the.-need 'f'or thei.recycled water distribution system. Modifications to the ` planned improvement schedule.,included in the existing:fee;structure, eliminating tither all or a . . portion of the recycled system improvements equates to a capacity fee reduction of 44% (eliminates Areas E,and G`'in'the western half of the community)-to 74%.(eliminates all planned recycled system improvements`.including those to serve new•paying customers). Elimination of these portions of the, rccycled:.-water system only preserves.trio. major transmission/distribution • system improvements needed• to • serve new development and 'achieve '"the ongoing: . implementation of the: Water Conservation,Program, It is.important to again note,that.the 2008: .... Watenarid Wastewater•Capacity Study did not include•in the Calculation of the capacity fees the . , 'increased maintenance:costs related to recycled water distribution or the costs related to • expansion of the production well .system to meet the restructured' agreement local supply production goal of 40% average day demand, or the cost of rehabilitating and maintaining the existing wells 1,0i-increased production. WR&C staff is currently-assembling data and associated costs of increased',,mamtenance: work that •would need to be taken into account along with potential reductions in th"e`water capacity fee as a result ofreluction or elimination of recycled water improvements. • • • . .. .. (PA-- r • Wastewater Capacity,Fee• •The'Wastewater Capacity Fee is also comprised of two components: a `buy-in' whereby new water utility customers'contribute 'their fair share for existing wastewater capital assets and distribution facilities .needed to serve such new customers,and a component to fund new development's portion of the''significant improvements to the':systeni lift.stations and a portion of the recently completed Ellis Creek'Water,Recycling•Facility'(ECWRF), which•facilities provide increased.capacity needed to serve newcustomers, 'Iheie:is no.discretion:to reduce these costs at this time as.the capacity fee pi'oeeeds'are needed to meet the•tongrterin debt covenants applicable • to the-financing,agreements.tor.'the,ECWRF construction costs. Also, Proposition 218 limits costs charged to wastewater.:rate:payers to the cost of services provided to those ratepayers. The cost of expanded wastewal"ei''ii frastiucture: needed to serve new 'utility customers cannot be assessed to existing ratepayers; As with water, the wastewater' capacity fee does not include normal maintenance of existing capital assets, as they are a component'of the monthly wastewater billing'rates. This ensures that. all ratepayers share equally, in proportion to their demand, in the cost of maintaining the wastewater system's capital assets (consisting mainly of collection-:fines).. As with water, some maintenance work co?tinucs id:be deferred to preserve existing rate:structures,subject to existing debt covenants. • WR&C staff is in the process of retaining Bartle Wells Associates to update the 2008 Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Study at a: cost of approximately.48000.- Updating the report is estimated.to require 3 months and will.result in a revised study that;will be available as a basis for modifying the current utility capacity fees structure by the end of this calendar year Updating the fees will alga,;aliow the'_iemoval•of completed,projects from the long-term project improvement lists, such as the•mator;rehabilitation currently;,wrapping up on the C Street Pump Station and the completed Teeth.:Street water and sewer reconstruction. Commercial Linkage Fee: The Commercial Liinkage Fee was originally adopted in 2003 to increase funding for workforce housing through a fee linked.to the creation of jobs. The Commercial Linkage.Fee was amended by the City Council in May 201:'1 to limit..its applicability to.new, nonresidential square footage in an effort to help incentivize:re-tenanting of:existing buildings, while continuing to provide a Moderate,amount of revenue.tot future workforce dousing. The Chamber suggests reducing•the:. jobs-housing:linkage fee;and to make the fee dependent on the;number of low wage jobs that,a new development'will actually create:As discussed'in May, staff does;not'recommend•tyingtk e commercial linkage'feeAO actual job9 atid/orwages as that would make administration of the fee. • Other opportunities may exist; such as reducing the fee or modifying the payment schedule to permit the fee to be paid over!a period of time, or some•combination thereof However;deferral of fee collection adds risk,and/or..transaction costs for the City., Secured deferral entails additional cost from review orsecurity'•agreements,verifcat'ion.ofsecurity, etc: Deferral without security risks recovery 'of the fees where the project developer.'s finances worsen or developer compliance with deferral terms•.otherwise fails to occur Financial incentives provided by the City, such as loans'to:$rianee fees where repayment is contingent, or discounted fees, typically subject projects tocPre'Va'iling wage requirements'. In that case, the savings from fee deferrals • • . may l e exceeded,.;by ine.reased,.pro�cet,costs duet to prcvalling wage liability. Based on City Council ;pri.oritics for affordable housing, staff does not recommend .further changes to the Cornniercial Lirikage Fee'atdhis,;tiir e: • • • Public ArrFeef When the City Council.,adopted the.Public Art Ordinance in 2005 if included the following • provision: "The City'.Council:shall review:the provisions of this:ordinance and the effectiveness • of the'Public'Art program following.a peiiod of time deemed appropriate by the City Council, but not to excced.fVe years,after the:clTective date of this ordinance The Public Art committee j recently completed a draft Master Plan and.recommended antendments.to the enabling ordinance with respect to process ands implementation; These are undergoing,staff review; but will be I presented'to.the•Countil ut flie:riear fdtui . . • The.fcc'itself is set.at'I%of the estimated constructi'oncost of projects subject to the.fee and can be.satisfied with contributibniof,public'art, subject to defined criteria, or.by paying the fee; at an . 'applicant's election.-.A review of tityrecords OEMs-Mat a total.of$59;203 has been collected in fees by those who have chosen,the fee•option. Approximately..:$,10,000of this funding has been used:ao.support. the cost of,Master•P,ianriing,, S40;536 remains for public art projects to b.c installed consistent.with the Mastef..:Pliih. The City Council has the discretion to revise the :Public. Art.fee: Doin& so would. require amending Chapter'18 of the.Implementing,,Zoning Ordinance., "ffie Chamber of Commerce .. proposes.reducing the required- contribution for public art:From:1 a% of the cost of new i . construction to'0:5%•. Staff has':not•heard from the development community that the Public Art • ' ' ' -Fee.is onerous on projects and-.in•many.instances it has been•viewedias a.project benefit:As the • Public Art lee;is a relatively'minor component of•the,overall'inipact fee structure, and because • of the value that public• art adds to' the community;staff does not recommend changing the amount or application of slits dee.. , • . . Other Impdct_Fees: . . . . Similar to the approach for revieiuilig:the cost estimates.for each of'the roadway'improvement projects to determine if•.based' on new information, the esti'm'ated construction costs or fee ' coniporients::have changed the follovgipact.fees are being;analyied:in..more detail Public • ;dm Works staff: • . Aquatic,Center Facilities..Imppet Fee - • •Commyriiry Center.'Facilities,ImpactFee .. • .lire Suppression:Facilities Impact:Fee . • Law Cn(orcenieneFacilities'linpact Fee! • • l ibrary`racilities'Impact:Fee • Parkland.Development.Impact'Fee . • PublitFacilities.tinpactFee + in aggregate;'the above'lees..make up$1'1;532 of the.total impact fees for a single-family unit: Consequently a 10%reduction in costs could result•in:ineaningful savings. • • .. • • • • . . • ' - - • • ... • . • ' • • • • . . . _ . . -Pdiectitiiii:OweiWiTee;'64iiiiiitte'lliicifon: .. .: . . . . . . . . . . ...:_. If the development fee.:prograra, were modified baseil..t4On the above recommendations,..the potential feilitetconsi<cUld;:beiseimeWhere between 0;15% for residential uses and 15-20Wfor ' ' . -noi-kesidenlial.. iti§eal• TVS' ,Woald: put Petaluma in -thet.,.thiddle Of the., larger Nciii.h Bay •, : - - communities The reductions are only estimates.atthi.§.1inie and 'delude the lot loWing ! • atsurnOtion ..'' . , • • . , • . . . . O ' Aquatic.Cen ter Facilities Assume.10% reduction in Cost eStimates. .. • Cme oinrcial Iqinkage .Np Okange. . • . . . .. • • Ill Lleirkfousiugy.No Ounge :. . . . . • • • Community„Center Faeiiiks,;:poume 10%reduction-in cost estirnates. .. . •• • .Fire S600.YeSsiciti::IctlitieS.:Assume 10%reduction in cost estimates. . . . • • . La* Enforcement;Pailiitties.,Assume 10% reduction in cLisfestiniates. • Library Facilities Assume 106.4•Tedlittion in cost estlinj.tel: . • Open Space AeqUiSCtitinc"4iniiil Adjustment and 4Sstie: 0.%reduction CM grants,etC. • Park Laud ACcqukition:.'4nliu4Adjustinent, no additibtii(Ch4i1go: . Park Land:llevelopmen t:.Assumc 10%.reduclionAntOsteSiiinates• . • Public Art: No•dban•gc. - . . . . • •••...,, • • Public Facitities:;Asstupe.19Wreduction'in cost estimates:. •• . . .., . . • Traffic Impact: ASsurne'L.,ocalLy'Preferred. Rainier and eliMinationof Copeland Bridge, 1 . • WasteiVaMENUCfrange . • . • • Water Capacity Assume 44%reduction based mi•EliininUticin of Areas E and G. . .. .. . • Storm Drain:No ptiang`e . . . . . . , . • . . Table 4: Potential FyfurcAgiO.a.ctr..le.e.Seenario .. . Developmentimoact, 00 .- 1 • : Single Family •_ z 50K Retail • 50K Office, _ . Aquatic Center Facilities Impact Fee: $ . ,A20 $.. . 3;060 $ 2,925 • - . . . Comineecial Linkage fee:,.. ' . . N.A. : 179;$06 $ .107,500. . . . . . Community Center.,F,aeilitieS,IMPaet Fee $ 1,349 •5 • 12,825 $ 12,195 . Fire.SUppressitin FatilitiesiimpOt!Fee- $ ' '74.6: 5. 7;065 $ 6,795 • Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee $ 1127 . : 10,620 $ 10,215 .- . . Libran/Facilities•Impact:Fee. . . . $ 574 $ ' 5,445 $ 5,175 . • . Open Space AcquiSitiortfee, S .1,938 :$: 1%350 $ 18,350 , • • Park Land Acquisition:Fee. - . •.: 5 089 5 19,800 • $ , 18;950 . p . . ' • Paiktanet0eYekipiiierifinipact:Fee 5 4,95.7 5. ..4460 5 - ;45,050 *•*- . . PUbtic Art fee * . ' • NA. $ 40,000 $ .' 40,000 Publie'Paciliffe51rnpactfee 5 1 28 5 . 12,150_ $ 11;610 Traffic trnpael:Fee(Locally1Pre(etred) - $ 15,056 $ 70148.14 $ 722;917 • Watteukat4r`Pee ' - • ' $ 8,705 $ 115;585 $ .105,585 • • Water Capacity IS • $ 7,012 $ 28047 $ 28,047 . . .5toni-LOrainTrnpuct pee ,, , , . $ . , 503. ' S . 77;600 $ 77:000. . . :' • - - ' • $ 457741; 4: 1212,421 $ 1,162,354 . ..- . In lieu Sionsing,Fee(ma)or-Subtli:Msions only) $ 9,072 $ 54,763 • • . , • -• • . . . . • ... . • . , . . .• „ . • • • - • . . . . , . . . . . .. .. .i. , .. • ' • • . . . . .. ' . . . . . • . • • , • • , . . . . . . .. • • . .1 . . • . .. , . . .• ' • • . . . • . • • .. . . . • • . . . Ptiicegsfor Revisiokfees• . • As noted abdVe.,t:the adjustments to the Parkland and Open Spaee. Acquisition Fees were accornplished.:;adnyiniStrativeiY, in:LicdOrdance•Widrihefee:legl4aiiiin. The remaining proposals will requite;addittorial, staff time, potenlial. consultant.-timec legal review and updated fee the coundil:',Thearnoutit Of'fifne'Varies From a week or two of staff time- to a couple months of consultant tittle. to conduct the necessary analyses depending on City Council direction Some of the am ly bs may remit re-.additippal.direction from Counsel and require additional costs and time associated with.:a0. general plan amendments and ' CEQA analysis. In additroht&the,arialySeS..iS.the ti me associated•with preparing staff.teports and . ltgisiation.which typically requires a:feW weeks of staff timeinipreparation and a few weeks for routing reports for reView. Ideally any revisions would be presented to the Council as a-package. Assuming direction from the :City Council on September: "1. 11'.the time necessary to bring a package.of updated fee,teOlutionS:to the City Council for adoption could result in legislative action to update the fees cornineridnigatone of the tWomeeliagsin:Decentber. FINANCIAL IMPACTS , . . . . Most of the.recommendations aboiiewifl.require staffandlegal staff iirnein preparing legislation . as well as potential costs assOciptert.*ith..corisultants for sore of Me technical analyses required . . in support of the fee adfoStineritS ',these costs can he borne by the development fee funds themselves as part of ongoing.winitiation of fee program Staff estimates consultant costs ranging between $8,000 at434301)9,or more and related expenditure ol•stalt time and legal • service costs depending on City'Coun6iI.direetion. Table 5 edritains:the current balance for each impact fee.account. . '.. Table 5:turrent Develepmeti.F.eeAtcoifint 13.alances . . • . Development Fee Account ." • . •Balance as of 6/30/11 . • Aquatic Center Facilities thiliactfee $ 15-294 f, ' Commercial Linkage Fee. . $ 398630' • Community Center Facilities Impact Fee 1056 755- • Fire SUppression Facilities IMpac(Fee $ 189245' . - In Lieu Housing Fee $ 1750,269., . -. . . . Law Enforcement Facilitreirtropei Fee $ 236 747 , Library Facilitiesimpact Fee: $ 1-14896 • i , , .. • .. 0:pen,Space Acquisition re , $ - ParlaanelAarrnsition Tee, - • $ . . . . Park land-Development'irripacf Fee $ • Park Land AccfpOlcM/DOyeropment' . • • Impact Fee (iiiretzo0Fee.#rociorej- . 5 1,625;228 • ' . . . — 5T.36 Public Art Fee' . . $ 40 - . Public Facilities irnpact:Fee; $ 60519. ... Trafficimpact fee;(Calp:.arig,preferir.eca, $ 1,741,85D • Wastewater Fee ..., Watei Cap ciiy Fee:• . Storm Drain Impact'Feeitirpicat$FD) $ 'TOTAL •, , $ 10,998;816 . . • . • • . . ' • • .i . . . . • • . ., ., . . . • . . . . , ....- . • • AT I AC[3aVtFNTS•. • • F. FY 1 I/t2 Development Impact Pee Schedul'e' • 2: Lettet••frorn Petaluria,CfiambeYof Coinineree,• 3. Calculation of Open°Space and;Park•LandAcywsrtio.n;I ees • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . FYII/12.DEVFL.OPME T.4M ACT'FEnefiEDULE ('r'ev..8/1.1/I.1) . FEE,TYPE LA;NDUSE TYPE FEN', .1 1.31;4.11'0F MEASUREMENT • ;,.:r Aquatic,Center . Facilities Impact Fee Smgle:Family Residential $356 Unit _ . Mtil(ifatiiily Residential . $240 Unit ' • _ - .Accessor-p:Dwelling $'1.22 ' Unit • _ Cofnioei:c`ial'- - $68: 1.;000;q'ft of:building"space Office, $6'5 ' I;000 sq li'of building space i �y-r��t �r Industrial`,' $4;1. • I00y0.07 ssqq•ftof building�sppa•�cge • 5a 5.Y:S.'aY •A!..- :),.fi i{°'itcstX°+.iF4' '.',; fyl 1�i'�I`.ie tefiiF nYE'Tr,..sg •'-CoriMmercial Linkage .. i . • 3! . •' t^) ceinipertial $2.08 . .. .Square Foot. - .':Retail' $3:59 •-• Sgua[e;Foci : -.lndu'str,ial... • ' $2.13' . • .Square.F.00i yec '.tt` aY6: 71dF'4x'$.' . .ni'1.et. ` :sr`s,Oh 'ika &-' k • COM.mu IIit}'Center Facilities Impact Fee Single Family-Residential $1 499 , _: _:Unit Multifamily,Residential $;1,011. Unit Accessory Dwelling $5:14 Whit Commercial $285 10.00'sq'ft of building space Office $271 " 1;000.sq ft of-building space . . Indus§atrial; $173 1:000.sq°'ft of building space ... r7IIMitiArl 1 la_ H ;'.PI Y ,irW _. Fire Suppression Faciliticsimpact Fee •SiOgle.Faitiily Residential $829' • ' Unit . 'Mulvify amil ;Residential_ 5558 - Unit' _ . • ' Accessory Dwelling $2:85:• , :.Unit Mobiteiffome • . .$829 Unit Senior:I-lousing t $558 . , -_;Unit. _ . - -Assisted Living Units $'5* Unit • - Commercial Lodging $558. ,Unit Confinerctal $;157 .:1:,15-90.$§7.4.'-ft of building space - Retail Uses . $157 '.I,000 sg ft of building space I. Office;Uses $151 .`.t;0.00 sq''ft.ofbuildingspace - . •• Industrial'Uses' $96 -i 000 sg ft'•ofbtrilding space. . :S :g,f/ iA` $ £ i'••4.t..�`. .4c ''' %li 4�itt-.. > .:,:w y.1iu',U.S.1 a� a ' . . • • LawrEnforeement. - Facilities'Imp:ct Fee . Single Family Residential. ;$'d 252 _ Unit., . ..Multifamily-Residential . . $843 i Unit; . - - Accessory.D.welling $430, 'Unit _ _ Mobile `Home ' • $'1:;252 • -Unit' ' ' . '-Senior Housing , ' ,$843' •• `Unit - "Assisted hiving • _$843` Unit -;CQminercial:Lodging • $843' Unit, t"I, lf.property;is,witliin•'the Redevelo.pment':aren,tees-are 50% of the stated fees. , 'n:\Misc PlanningNmpAct:Fee Review\DF.VELOPMENf FEES'MATRIX',RcJ_isedO8'1 4nc.� h.'.. - - .., F,EE•TYPE 1 AND USE;TY.PE FEE.;,: ;. UNIT.'OF(VI OF . • • . I Law;Enforcement • Retail. $236. I,OOOsj ffgfbuild_in_ s.ace Commerc_ial $236'' .. f '.1 000 s- .fl'of.butldin_s.acei Office , $227 '1,000 s ftrof biiiidin. space Industrial 5144 .1,000.s, ftof 66Hr:1 i -space • i. • •L.,1;4 iVif, ''ali Wrii ",1.2 airiz kiEnfita-T., .1 ',r r . a t= .s e'S,' F3 . ?$t i.,W 3 , , i i Library'.Facilities ':)m act Fee , Sin•Ic'Faunl ;Residential $638. _: , Unit., . . ' 5.[Pile failiflii THiattaclied $638' Unit . Multifamily Residential $431 Uni . Accesso,"Dwellin . $219 " ' Unit ' . ... Nlobile•fldine $638. 'Wnit Coiiimercral'' $0;I :/:'1,066-,s. ft'of hhildluf spate. Office.' .. St 15'i : :.,,l 000:s ;ttofbuildin_space Industrial $74 i•.I000<s ,ftofbuddin_ s•ate Open',Space Ac uisiiion Fee Sut Ic ramll :Residential $3,875 Unit - 'Muliifamll It6ideential ' $2;60 ` Did Accesso Dwelliir_. . .:$1,329 Unit Commercial,• _$734 1.1000"s' ft orbuililin" Since • OCtice - $702; , • ' 1,000'•:'ft of buildin space• qq��,�=� Industrial .:$447 1 000$''.ft of buildin..s�f�ii,,ggqqace . . it'll' Y 1ss ?Ei«'4.t, p '�, 'aa i� z a 5 r(Sc t. S etch. 4,,S 6 t. 4 s*&i t Ai Park Lao . Acgt isition Fee(Non- . • `Qu)mb .Act,Pro'ects Sin,le'.Famll :Residential • $2,089 'Unit. Multifairill Residential $1415. -:•Unit;_ ' ' Aaesso IDwell iii•, 1717 -' ` •.Unit:' Commercial:. $396'. . . . .t;000_s..ftof.buiidin^s*ace . Office $379• , .1 00.0 s.:Ii of buildin_space r Industrial $244 1000 s. ft orauilldiintgysppaa_ce . i fift ig;ch (s'.:-/.$ 'e'7.1'r'tl :tis 's' •1-Y C ,fde :1_?'.'ririhkt'� �.>i,>±';4ye' �.f' NktiaF.40:i•'F45r'k , • Park Land' i . ••'' S' '•'• '*y_Acg11isition Fec . 1; ` J ,(QurmbyAct• , ;: , , _:;Pro ects!T.'_:._•_ - Sinjle;Fannl Resideritiat. .$2.,0.8 . . Unit - . Mullifamil Residential $1415 Unit - . • . - - ' - Accesso Dwells' $717 `'Uliit " Comiriereral " -$396 ' ' i,000's.'R•ofbinfdin_�siace, � , . .! Office $379 '1 000 s. ft_;of buildii_'s.ace 'Industrial $241 . - 1,000 s '4-16f.buitdin• space .I"I The;Quimby.Act;applies only:to�feesiandior'dediications imposed on certain subdivisions subjeetto.the Subdivision.Map Act.toifund land acquisition costs.for park,or recreational purposes. j • i ,,l , ;,N:1Miic Planninglbnpact,Fee RbNICS1DEVELOPMENT FEES MKFR(X.Reinied08 I I doe . .-5 LAND`USE`TYPE • FEF.' .. • F•EE+TYRE UNIT OF'MEASUREMEN I' Park Land . - . Elcvcrgpinent.'Impact •,.Fee Single,FamilyResidential. ,:$5}532: Unit Si ogle:Family•-.attached „ $5,532 Unit Multifamily residential "$3 72;4 Unit. Accessory Dwelling $'1 898 -Unit: Manufactured.Ilame $5,532 Unit . Gonimereiil ' $1;048 ' 1,000 sq fl.ottailding.space Office $.1;002: 1,000sg ft of building space Industriall, $638 • I000 • ' Public Facilities. : • Impact Fee Single:.Finny Residential S1,c426 1 Wit _ .. .Multifaihil'y.'Itesideritial $960 Unit _ • 1 Accessory()welling $489 •Unit • ! Comineraial. • .. • $2701 ' .11000`sq-f.of building-space _ • Offi'ee:. $ 58 ' 1t,000 set•ft•ofbui(ding.space Industrial $1641 : _I_,000 sq•ft:of buil iiijg space, '4' i Ck'.o- .te n rtt4:f '� !rs' r. t! k9 ' t Ti aflic lmpct Fee 4C) Singlei.Fain'ily'.R"esidcntial $20,516` ''Unit' _ (Caltrans Preferred) 1 Miiltifditi.0 Multifamily Residential ' $12;514: I Unit- _ Accessory.towelling $5,744 Uiit': ., Senior'Housing: $5;335: Unit " • Office .• $19,698 ' 1,300.0..4 11 orbuilding space _•kte.4e.Nceldi "" '$14;157.. „Room _ CoinnierciallShopping $1:4,123 "L 000:sq ftbfbuilding space Industrial/Warehouse' 1$1'2,309 11:1,000'sq ft;o f:building space _ ' Education $' 3,078:: :Student } Institution: S,8,821 " .;I;000.sqftrof'building'space W2*- il atq4Y '11:47; :?:' ° v % S a4/ ei vy .,.. 2q;;;;:X'.1."ataa'1L4a'ii`3412 Trat7ic,1'mpact°Eict`a Single-Family Residential $16;746 Unit _ (Locally Preferred) Multifatnll :Residential $10215"" T•Unit: Acce'sso'ry•Dwelling $4,689• r Unit _ Senior li'ousing. . . , $4;354 ..Unit. . .. Office: $16016 ••. I;000'sgiftofbuildingspace _ I lotel/Motel:. $11•;555: Room , Cominercial/Sliopping $15,574 '1,000 sq It ofbuilding space. Industrial%Warehouse $10;048: 1;000,sq ft of buildingspace 1 _ _ _ Lducaton -52,5:12, 'Student. 4�$� Institution �-. $7 201 1 000 sq,Ii.of building:space a .t x'4 'K:14,: f.�`5;c5';,,T'ti 5k '. 17::1 2;,::Tx; j:1` c4: :$1 t-v''`P'CM!;!3�•M 1T (c'The z eeihf ted traffic impact:fees:n.flect the cost:iiit7erenttnt between two design:alternatives for . the proposed-Rainier. Avenne-iCross-iuivu Connector and 1.iiigliWay 101" Interchange ("Caltrans Preferred", "Locally Preferred') Until a final determination is`made on a design alternative, the City will collect tli'e.higher (the "Caltrans Preferred")'of the 2-:t'raffic impact fees on all projects subject-,to that'fee:-Should the Local?y Preferred" design alternative ultimately be selected, the City will then charge.the `Locally Preferred"traffie..impaCt fee.amount and'refund the-tiicrernental difference between:the'two fees'to those projects that had already paid.the "Caltrans Preferred" traffic impact fee. . Ili\Mix.elanai nglin,pactlee:Revicw\DEVELOPMENT PEES'',MATRIX Revised081 I-.doc J , • • FEE TYPE LANDUSEITYPE FEE '` UNIT OF MEASUREMENT Wastewater( Single F,z ily'Residential $8,705 • 'Unit Muni faniilyRestdeilial • $5;804 U iiit Accessor-yD.weliing 51,394 'Unit Minimuin'Fee • ' $8;705 • Niih R'esideoiiahCulomets:. 'Per gallon daily flow: $ 25:97 Per dally•pound of'_60D: 52 576;33 - Perdaily'pound;ofTSS: $2,954.:19', .Non residennalt"l OthtitkaagiiC4i";f€" . h3:u;e1:¢:.4tc•te a .'k xx'P�u'"-�-�s " Water Capacity . METER SIZE . FEE • (per meter size). , . 5/S _ . . $ 2;521 $12071. 1"(residen[i:il) $0;511 1"(non'resfdential) $20,03:4': 550;084" - -3;; .$75,126' 4" S'E00 168 $250,420:._'• • i6 Case by Case basis 'tinThe wastewater capacity Tee.:for non-residentiuf'users is based on the daily, flow,. biological • oxygen demand and the total suspended solids of-the'wastewater:'being.discharged. Please contact Water Resobrces and Coaservalmn at17$-9546 for a quote.. • • • • • • HAM isc..manningllnwpO EeeatevicW PGVELOPMEhT PEES MA'rftl%Revised081.1.doc /vim/•• STORM DRAIN IMPACT FIE Calculation,of.Fee, Runof:coinputation: The increase'in. unoff created by.a:,given project-is calculated for a 1:00-year storm; utiliiing:rumoff cocffictents'basedyupon the portion of Vegetated area to impervious surfaces, and expressed`in acre-feet. ,Runoff coefficients'are based upon the type of use slope of the and and percent of vegetation;coverage. .. Cuginrercial/Industrial Pro�ects;pay a fee of$30,000 per acre foot of additional'nmofYI....The amount of incremental runoff created is din-ctly linked to the amount of Iandscapmg provided. 'Fbe inaxiiinim fee possible is $9;0,00'Per acre of land This would apply to a`project.Hith 20% or less landscaping. A project with 25% landscaping,can;erptet:a;fce of$6 750 per acre;r3�0%wouldrpay;$6,300 per acre,and so on. Residential: Projects pay a fee:,of$1$,000 per acre foot of additional :runoff. Incremental runoff is dependent upon the density of a project and:the,amount of landscaping:and open space provided. A high density projectrwith 20% or less area in landscaping could expect.to pay,.$4,500 per acre. A type detached single family subdivision would pay approximately$J_,500 per acre.. If you have any questions on how fo.calculafe:this fee please contact Cui3'l3ates at: 707-778-4474. • • • • H:\Mise.Plannin1ii sct Fee:Rcview DEv6COPMEN r FEES MA: RIX Re'vlsed0al f.dac • . . . . IN tag HOUSING FEES(5 units or iiloi:e-'based on`squart footage) see'Table"s below; $q Ft- ; Ike Sq Ft ,_Fee 1 Sg-;Nt, Fee. $q It Fee. . _• Sq. Ft Fee . r 640 . _ $2400 '3.-0-6.07).. $4224 1 1480 $6246 .1;9:00 . :$8465 2320•' $'10881 650 '..' $2441' ,]'070 ' $4270 `1490• • $6296' ,:1-9'1'0 • � $8520 2330 S]0941• '-''`'' " .$6347 :1.920.:"' .$8576 ,_2340',. silo())66,0 $2482 ;1'080 $43:15 1500 ''`676 .1'' 32524' ' "11'090 w '54362 151'0 $6398 1930 ' `88634 • 3 •0c' $11062 680.•••` $2565 ,',1100a ^'$4408:. "1520 't" $6449 1940 `$868e7 '23001.-' '$11.122 690 +$2607 1110. ` ¶4454 1500 $6500 • • 1.950 '$8742 270 :.'$11.182 700 ?1 '$2649 1.120. , ;;$4501 ))1):5:40-,..):-.1 $6551 1.960 , ..58798 2380 $1.1243 7110;1:, $2690. .1,130 ::;$4547 15•50 .. 1•$6602 1 ' . 1970.) ' ;:$35.4 . .2390. .' $11303 . 720 ; 7_ ¶2732 1140 x $45814 1560 .$6653 7)10)g.0.... $891 0 241-5.0:': $11364 • 730 $2714 I'150 $4641 -15.70,, ' $6705 090 • ;38966 241.0 • $11425 740' $28116 '1160 $4688" .1580 '- $6756 • ' 2000' '$9022" 2420 $1:1486 , 750 $2859 • •1"170 $4735 1590 ' $6808 • -241.0 $9.0• 9 2430 $11547• 7,00 .'2. 1"`r $2901 1,'1:80. ' $4782 . 16000, $6860 2020 30,13$ ,;',24:11,0:;', S 1160S• 770�'.'>` $2944 -T 190 ' '$4'829 • ',1,-610„ $6942' ' :2030 $9192 ?245.84- $1 1670 780!' ;'52986 . :1/4„.1;200'• "1$4876 1420 ' $6954 2040. 1 $9249 2460',=, $11731 790,, :l' $3029 :,1210 ,_. $4924 I630 • ,. $7016 1- _2050 : ,$9305 2470-., $.11792 •806 ,; : $3072 , 1.220 , :$4971 1:640 ,., $7068 .• 060 $9362 2480;- $11854 • 81;0.., . 51115 • 1:240.-.,.`_$50:19 165.0. $7120 '2070 I$9419 ',..2',00::' $11916 I 820 $3158 "I240 ;$5066 1669' $7173' 2080 • , $9476 2•60, $11978• •'830.'" ' $3201 '125-04."' 7$5;1;14 1670" ' $7225 .2090 $95.34 2510` $12040 840 'I.''...I $3244 •1260 t$5:162 '1680'•-, $7278' 2`1100• .; :$9591 2520` $12102 .860 ' E` $3287 ?12170 '$5210 '169,0:"• - $7331 21:10 • $9649 2530. ' $12164• ,860 ..:'`- $3331 -12804.0` 1/4$5259 4700 ,,`: $7384 . • 7120. " $9706 2540` $12226 870:=-'x- . $3374 1:290 , "". .$5307 1'7,.L0 1 $7437 2170 '`, $9769' 2550: $12289_ .880.,:. .., $3418 . 1300 ';$5355 .17'20 •- $7490 2,140 " $9822 "25601, : $12351 :890; . .' $3462 ,1310 .'.;$5404 1'730_2, 57543 2, ,21'-50 .$9880 2570..; $12414. .9"00";;._..4 $3506 .,-:1320 i ,$5452 1'740.:., , $7596. 21;60 $9938 2580' $12476• _ 17 .,$99.96 25.90: $12539.• 910 $3550 1330 $5501 1150 $7650 2170 I920 $3594 1340 ; $5550 1760' I $7703: 2180 $00054 2600"` $12602 930 . ' $3638 14$0....•••••• 15599 1770 $7751.• ,1190 $1.0.1.1`2 2610. $12665 ' '940 ;'i 53683 0360 ..¶ 4.g.): 'l780 • ¶781.] "g.21001:- $!1"0171 '2620; $12729 • .)95.0)• $3727 )150)::•'$5497 ,;'1790:4= • $1865 : 22'10 1:10229 ,%26.301" "$12792 _'9601,: $3772, _ ';1:380 `55747 isOlo $7919 • 2229 : _x$:10288 2640; $'12855_ ' 970" :$3817. 1'390 .$5'796 18Y0' $7973 .2230 •- ,$10347 _. 2650, ,.$:12919 _980`•-„".; :$3861_ _ .-140.0... :....$5.84:5:. 1 13200-. ,;$8027 2240 s1,0406....,26..60,.: :$12982 , • . -990 . :$3906 1410 $5895 1830. $8081 2250 $IQ405 2670 ` $13046_ . ,`1,0"0,0', ,.:$395,1 !3420 $5945 1 840 , ,$81'-36 22"60 '$10524 2680 ' S 13110 • 1.07,10:- .$8.00.7.• 1430 .. -$6-995 ,,850• I $81.90 22,70 " '$-10583 26904 $13'174_ 1020.;:4"7 $4042 `1440 $6045 1,860' 17; $8245°• ''7280 $.10,60 2700.•': $13238 01030,'-^ :$4087 '.11950 . 0 $6095 •18770. ' $8300' ,.2290,•• "$10702 2s7:.0'•, $13302 110,40!;,.}.: $4133 :4460.; ,, .$6.145• � .1;880,; ' "$8355 2.100 ¶$1.0,762 .2720.: • $13367:_ .1.0.5-0; : . $4178, a470 , '$64:95 1890 , ...884217 .23.1';0 8$10822 22_3,0.� $13431 ,- . • • H lMisc.Planning 1hnpaa"FccRcvicvADEVEL0PM ENT FEES MATRIX Revised9SJI due . (Lo 55 . , .• ,l. .. ... • , . . Sq Ft 1 - Fce Sq Ft Fee Sq.,Ft Fee Sq:,FA L. ,Fee. Sq. Ft Fee . . 2740, . $13496, ; 3180 $1!6446-_ ;3620 $;19613 _ . 2750 `$13560. '.-cfcsibfl 5:16515 $63 • -$119687 - ' " °`29604 • $13625 )-'3200 ' $16585 "'3640 •$1:9762 v - , I 27;7.0 -' $83690 "32°I0•• ' $:16655 :3650 $119837 .. . � 2780':' -$13155 .:•32201,' :$16725 26• 0 . •$1190:2 • • '217.90 $13820 ..3230.: ;;$r16795 •.3'670: : :$19986 .. .• . .,. , ` .280,1 113.885 ,3240 •..1;$1.16865 -:4680,., $20062 ' , 2810:7; ,,$13950 ..3250 . -$116935 3690 , $20'137 ' . :200. : $1'4016 _ 3260 ,1 •$11:7006 _ `3700 , $26214 1 283.0; .: S14081._. ..32,7,0_,:..;$,110,76 37:1!0_ $20287 : ' ' 2840 $14147 :`3280 , ;$117147 '3720. $20363 I.- - 2850 '$14213 ''32j.0 ":$11;7217 ''300' • $20438 "2860'' 1 ,$1 4279 `3300 $;11288 ..3:740 : $20514 • 2870 4 $14345' .`3310 ;$17359 37501 $20590 . . 2880.r' _$1441 F 3320 tt. ';$4;7430 `3.7_.60^ • $20666 4 . : - .. • 2890;7, $14.477 ;3330,: .$;17501 e 3s720r, $20742', . 29,00, 2 $14543; 3340 ., ;517572 ,:37801 $20818 ... .,-., 29,10:.: $14610 ,-)430.. . ,;$.17644 3790 $20895: . 2920 $14676 . .3360 .....„34311.5,. ,. 3800' $20971 , .1.,. w- 2930. $14743 :.370 $17;787 38;1,0 $21.047 ... ' 2940": $14810- '-3380 " -,$17859. ''3820.' $2;1124: - '2950- $14877 '3390'• "$17930 "3830' . $2:1201 ' -.1%0.-- $14944 -$,..3-4..6.0.n-:..$1800. :'3840/ '` $2.1278: 2970 $15011 '.x34110;: '$18074 '38=50•. $21;355. . • 2980,1.i $15078 ;:34201: 118)46:.,:3860 .,1. $2:1432 2990;,: $15145 • .-34_70-. .; _$18219 _387,0 .$211309 .. 3000. . $15213 ,:,3,440 i."$18291- 3880.•` $2.1586 1 3010:, $.15280. 3.45.0.. ;$18364 - .3,890 $21664. • • .',3020. 1.' $15348 :3460 . '°$18436 3,900 $21741 ` 3030'_' $15416 "3470" '$18509 ;'9 I0;", $21819 • 3040:1: 5.15484 ''1480'" '$18587, ..390 $21;896 'r' - . "'`3050. $15552 : r349Q" ' '$18655 -..3.9.30.1] .$21974 • . ,3060:: •$15620 ..)3500. ••,$18728 ;3940.' i $22052 .=: r• •• 30,70;', 415688 „3110, r;$18801 ,. ,3450 ,:: • $22130 . • 30801; . $15756 :,'3520, , -$:18874 3960',. $22209 . • 3090,:... .$15825 '.35307 . ,$1.8947' 3970 . $22287• ' 3100 ' '$15893 ','25401:.: -$,90211 3980 $22365 ' - . ,171.10,•°. $15962 ' ;35.50"-'$09095 :"399,0' $22444 : " ' '.• •• -. t• 3120'.' $16031 - •`,3560: 7$,19168 400- . $22:100 . 13130;. : .$161.00.:-.!3,570._:$1'9242, •, :41•. +• . • ,.::1146- ., $161:69:., •?3380.,. ,$ 93',6:. .,. . . . 3150,•,1 $16238',, 3590 $79390. , . .. . 3'I60,; $16307 ".3'6041' $19464 ' • 3126;' '•$163.76 '-'3.6 10 ; '81;959 - IiVdi'sc,Pleenii,g\Lnpuci'ECc kecjeyAIEVELOI:MENT FEES MATRIX ReviscdOSI I.Joc (/0//-t^��� • • • PUBLIC.ART IN LIEU FEES` Caleulatibn•of Fee the.following fee will, be required;for-all "new [non-residential] development, or the rehabilitation, renovation„remodeling-or iinpromement of an esisting.building, having a construction cost as defined,.. of$500;000.00 or More Compliance-with the provisions of tale ordinance will,be determined at the time of'building permit application. Those projects subject to the:ordinance must either provide proof' of a written contractual agreement:to'c:ommission-public art for the projectsite;:or pay an in-lieu fee equal to • fn%u:of the construction cost,. CENTRAL FETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN.FEES This fee will he charged to all applicahiii*requiring goveiiunen tal::apptovals:subject to the provisions of the Central Petaluma Specifi'c'Plan'and the adopted land use and:developntent regulations (the "Smart Code'). The fee will be asfollows? Pet' Acre of Land $2,125.00 CPSP IN LIEU PARKING FEE The parking in-lieu fee shall be setinitially{at$20;000 per parking;spaie Thereafter; thc.fee,schedulefor the City's parking in lieu fees shalt be reviewed and adjusted annually by the Director, with-adjustments to the fee schedule coining into force of each year. Cons deration:in'.setting,this fee schedule shall include (but not be limited d.`to)the'incremental cost to add additional parking spaces in the.area Surrounding the site. • • • • • • • t • H:\Mist.Pireinineilinpacl'[ee Re1'ieg4Di LOP,NI:N'r PEES MATRIX Rcv sedO8t i.doe . ( - .7. f xi ' •. • RECEIVED (e E.TUMfi - r. , (Pfi 18 ZOS}£pSIt4 w r-VIAMBER or COMM LHCE. • + y� YKr r� CITY MANAGER: �� y . . 'y0:"; .a April 15, 20[] • .* 5,e � Petaluma City Counc l • ' ."1;rk' 31 English Street• yn A+mkt E :‘Petaluma,CA 94952 cp-'. .:• Re Development'impact Fees � 4' Dear Maya Glass Councilmembers: 4, f The Chamber was pleased•to•hear that the City Council expressed a willingness,.to h ,trct u4 c examine whether there ale opportunities to revisit and revise certain specific '' �t� , o- components of Petalluna s development'impact fees 'ln our view,the current impact P`, _t f fees which are byzfar,the highest of any city it Sonoma County serve to fix't' Sip c '`re c k�r: discourage the develoopment our community has determined that'll wants to ,: encourage m its„General Plan:'We fully,support the concept that new development f `� should"a its fair shale and fully mitigate:its impacts:on the community. Within x PY �,,. t '��� -�' �,�'', that.framewark,ihoweuer,there are srgnificant.opporlunlU'es'ta revise the current wrvc v 4,t 't; `° 4n 5 impact fees ' 74. . Regarding impact fees that are not tied to the.General;Pla-n ElR,the Chamber 2fig., 4 .� supports the following actions-. 4 igAt-s v`.,• 1 The Chamber su orts the:proposal to:reduce the:obs housing_ linkage fee and to 3 �Ppe< . PP ] 'Sj NtI+ y § s! make that fee depend onrthenumber of love wage"jobs that anew development will • � sH� actually create 3i �3 u fs� : 2 The:Charnber supports r d'thetng the required contribution_Sor public art from 'au�+ ,N �Sii . o ,� �'���4,w„��� ,., 1 0%ofahe cost of new construction to 0:5% • ' 'r ,e., 4a '' Regarding impact fees that are tied to the General Elan we wguld suggest that g� ?' �' ..� ' ` deseloprrientsisihce the General Plan was adop,td indicate that several impact fees °' f 'it, ; can be reduced because of changed°cu etit istances. K� �� , 1 41 First it is!appeats thei Copeland Street E? ensron' is not gomg;to be built_and there . . i < �,: e : is notusiification to:collect money or set aside money for this$6 5 imlhon project 4.,, -! We already know that two involved agencies will not.permit•tt One hundred percent 3 "tel -3"srrl; r.; of the $6.5 million cost of this protect is currently embedded in,impact fees, an d this • • , fee component should be`dropped. r4 ` aze Next,:the Caulfield ane 1•actension component of the traffic impact fees,is $54.4 3�i4t 11 k million;'pro�ect,'100%of which is embcdd"ed in.traffic impact fees Although we ;zm �` acknowledge.that-this project *mild create a modest reduction 1n congestion on East I .e4.v-Iipt .,iii X ii ' -, ytiavA }>1ys a,i . F� • -:N, 7 ;.%: :.4 . h 5s . 'y, Z j -2, � s h • 2 Y 1' Iv...!it� 5'�1 :r_' 9 4 €11, D Street;early activity on thiis.ptuject is.,unreahstic. We believe that it be deferred a �,�,'pt <ry'a 4rs� untd:implementation of the;next general';plan so tbat,higher,priority traffic • •.iRr--; girt":9 w; Zl mitigation, specifically the Rainier project,can he IlnplehlenteCl.• (ice.,i .0 ii I ,.f� : Taken'togeth r,'he:Copelanii and Cavil 5eld extensions contribute a total of$609 = /t ,ergs- g 'e. mdlion;ofthe$165;.7 nullion:ofprojectsincluded-in the traffic'impact fees. tl"'1 SY}+NY��r s4 s'Xs£; tir z Deiet ingCopeland(and deferringCaulfield%ni hnpknientalioii of the next general r as -.y r� s plan:will create a_16 8:°L°percent reds ctiotrum the traffic mitigation impact tfees is fi § y y. ' with out comptornismg the'most:important projects.that will eieate traffic relief. . ci -��1ff' y }l^ffi a�i rf •a 1 r: t�fi' i Our current configuration of traffic impact fees serve primarily to discourage%that 4v ii1A- 'akt{i, p •development that would finance these projects,meaning that if we don taut soon, A �xY iaa t5%fir there May never beistgmfi Cant tra ffic'aiiitigattnn relief ui 1 etaluma. -i 0 f : Regarding the Water Capacity Impact Fees we note that 100%of the City's e�AFZj�,,-r? ":•41NiF proposed $44 1 million tertraty recycled wastewater distribution system'is allocated . y`'sT -C to' r ,;, 4. to impact fees The rationale supporting this allocation was.that new development t x,A-''' 'I.' " should':pay to create space in the constrained Peft lama• Aqueduct We assert that Srviza_ 'l�'� two profound changes demand that this program be';rccxammed 1 first,the SCWA's &� `u.r�;; w ability to meet rts;contractual.commitnients to Petaluma no longer appears to be x is rti i g tb - constrained by the:capacrty of the Petaluma Aqueduct Second and more important,, '- $"-" -ti --,, the old water ucmiu«i prujeclious etc wildl'y high' igher titan cun-ent prujccciuns,clue to � � rarf increased consumer conservation calling into question whether the tertiary recycled (44 "� 4} , -,:. Wasteii�ater distribution system still needs to he.rolled obi.in`the tiineframe originally tr 1, ai ti... envisioned Accordingly the.Cb'nnber suggests that the impact fee-she-modified modified to • C si n s i Tyr, only include the most cost effective eerily stages ofthe program, while removing the .nits;:`' '`:4;y f less cost effective laterstages.and eithei..deferring them until,later or identifying a ire' r ry, 4-, different funding source This deferral represents'$26 2 million,or 59%. of the total y� ��3'�^ .$44.1 million cost Of the recycled wastewater drstc butrgn:system.. j` wit.”arc,:, k We also.note that-the Pmkland Acquisition and Open Space Acqursrtron components y � �6#^g of ih impact fees'are Updated'annuaily abased on e:'tive year rolling average of I F ¢k: property sales Based on current trends, both of these fees can be expected to be, . ai aiS„Jte e .? teducediabout20%when they are revised after 30. • �mml �h ^. w,r sr ��' ThuiJFyou,for'your attention to these riratters I:he Chiinber ispreparedao work % w Y"T fisS - wuh•thecity to'facilitate this much-needed met iew•of,impact fees. k�< ,--� Sincerely; ' `t ri st '' ii, lYk rS r i •• , r ` 4 s `., _ _/ fit' N . . 's, us, , r: OnitaPcllgrrnt.CEO . r� 5s, x�A � €',. Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce vl t + 4 4 'irs t... Y y 1 c- R xt r cry ®f Petaluma } � TRAFFIC- . MITIGATION F x " ``., PROG=RAM UPDATE 1 5 . �� rat T 6^. ,au tr t 4- ,'b, vCx `* •'K* mac.fiJ w ,e,..0.'4,.aA a ,aa't '-v4 Av. ��{'�eelkf t'`C.aRSU'a 'e c Y '?.� x p t•„7,3—' ,,44.. '"N'1t]L":4 NN• `i5 r x."`fi'r.1' '`S. � 4, tSs 11 j3, 4 C P.i'U • sx�.3' ` -,4,4• yi A s-,..� # ,R3 � , 'h-�''si '�S +3 ! v 4 'may 4 ut ".'�" y i 4r Uff 5 '541.t5'x`� $. .. i.-, r � efp .,Zy, S "3iits ti.4x: t o `'Ili': 2r}r 7•i ,..,2__„2„:-._::+ s y • X f. .} 4 t 1 -, k^ :Teti::: tr'tac ttw 4.N;d1j.) `..,, 4 i � `11'61,' cr ata r, u!1�yP' I a s i -1 f,s5 tL-74-'^ $bf ,yam r t 10:`Will:—.?..)10::1 ' ! i' Fill' y , IL,r 7- •x'E'+' � � .x'- t < 1 I'1,I 1! c14� r 1 t I w �. N.. J' f4 . i } r! P. t M3 P1., --4:4 At i( ]y. t^+n �.�.—kb ,.t`�'.Yr Nis r` `G�!N 7.1 i ,-i .t(S-n : .,.-Vx�A.. F K =� : �{ ! ' .�, e ; !1 !4tl� 4iAtxt FSj 1111 1 t e- E.! r+txe�y'`,.T :./�t1 r.—=i -u,t �' s i w,� s- y� i 1 '' ?f 'ty r'.1 `9u C�4 k^�.� i J t 1..,' , !',.y. - r'9 JN 'k r,,. Y x1r y i Nu�l ~Y, .,, f-J t sy £;� 1 1,4�t '`zr Af.- qtr w t�r- 4 '` "+ -< 4 t' V-'745 ii do .. 'GN a,'m7 ���e� d5 t k• r o-° ::i* c� t S��r S Z ,�. 1 F v 4.9 . > 4`+�3C.+t(ti cd'p# ��c .a,d ;,.. �.y 4Y#y i h r. N� ut Ytny 4 .Y y[y4 1 A -, {�J 4S t�� +•xp,� rex �ita[,r�y4 9f )tkk�� N Ni�f;S.���f4!/�'GSn�2fR°Tr ✓^ryy4 y(�V�����{}�ae.�lgs- ` �� %.,-,.. 95R ' 4.i � A' � �t .fix y 1i Sis�J'�'� S .. 1;14,‘S,t, ~'S'.�i 1'°.r ,t�,llr i % a cF 3.2•fir,. �r� 21 .I" n.r�a" t l sax !� $ t Lott i ` .v^ d I1.= � t t r G c , 1r' R;,} "'' -, t c.••- its � kd .W.,• ,fi f cy r j}- 4t a� -i i S 4.7. t' 4'.A y -,..p...2,1 ! S 1� tiFSr�u.•� ?a . i ,re""--;' A. !JJl •SCR!! it ,�Lmot++++�.� 1 x t y t , 6 iix; •. i1 Iv;S ri a ii p °. r' i viIg t z° [ i� };r s ti R Vtl fir‘ ii ^Q^= ! v,-. ZJP'I 1t1 1 �f Y � � � r LI, 3 Y' k4N� -'-anS al'a. �f�11 tllli....1i v} Y Aa_ FaF3 �. S YA } 2 J+S „ ± PreparedbY . . -74%441 ,tr •2T • za F EH}� & PEE f2 S ,: •§ .n a 3TSJaA 2 n N PFS irFnaO e nR cSTiAre sIcone;C4CtA Oh U FSlUoLoTr A NT$ }" :l rzt3y s ; -"2'14 ` 4 ..1 'rYY 1 ,;n, i:^ SF06.0282 • • k, a:s fit.,>: May 2008 • • L, 1'";� Y s'j 4.. , :- &4---(e- o • . . . . . . . . . . . . .. • . -..v ::-It;: -;" --•:, ' ‘'. ., ' ' • . . . . . . . . . . . „ . . .. . . , , • • . . . , . ' •. . . . . . . . . . • • . "• '• . . :- :,'F.:fl-fej...1&;11.41:74t11. .„;:flet■"..31-:.:'[6---ti:Asz1-4:'S?%4,lii'SitCPS:'4,10.•:4.1:tV:1%.-Z:.AFat5t-=?..tlisr:;;ISVS.Itcci:PrlAr:V:::7'2X;-;I:l'i''.1&;-;''?3---frg;.$t"-:: -1.01;21,10.1,401.):4..ikaliggignig0401,17,05ret-'0-4A1C34NIV;:ilf-;tc:Clirt:M.:3,1":;;-"Itt:tt:fAS':',IJW.„"-gjCLC* . . . ' -. •2&-)Y,10g4-11.0.Id$11-V35' ;-?,;i1.--4'&S:1C75"iffit?"--2!4I-q..gillirgil...?;::-:;;:fig.c- n;qt.-4,)741:::1")V-;1. 4-tC--1-51.=.1:;",-.1-&-1?4LYlVQ:-.!4',A: . -lig.r.af,:c4.:trcrp?....E;:;:-4.y1th„:1:1*„:;,.-:1',4„-.4.4".OV.,;,F;E:glni„1.W?„.,C7.,=yvy,;;412-16:'..1:1„..4:.1.44.14y.';.3s,- ,vs-te::t5+.4-4,,l'ONt-ts.:;21. 441-8,P;g4:!:‘,,;•'--- -.4-„,v;0-„ . niXi.,5Z;s:;■...„-‘.- ' .. _. . . .. . . . , . i . . - • . . . . . .. ..... r . . . i . . _ - I • TABLES •_ • CitYb18Ef-ALLINIA:-CIRCULATION-IMi>PPVEtyiEPTETEE:60NTRIBUTIONS • .. . . . .. . , . - - - •Estimated.Coits . • . . Pew Impiovement • •Pet City. Potential:roe ''!fCen(a.ge Dev.eignment • CI . • Contribution . . • . . • Ral!-If Avenue Extension and intaidhange Hocally.preferred. • • alternative $48,10q:90b, lootio% •$.48,l00t000 28,4%• I , . . Ce.lfrens pre. ferred aftenetle-supPre.m..en. i lg sz Sib 100 00% t31.,.. 62;OOO 16.5% . I: Caulfield Lena Extension -:-.- -:.---.11 -. . . ... $54 395000 -'iog.00A 954-;899,000' 32'..2%. • . -rcopeland'&freetExtegetei1: :1 ::....: I: : , ti§:4i-ick0 10400% • $8;647,000• 3.).01.?__I . • Otcl..9*IYA5od Hi6tiv01191Pt49ibetti?tOritir. rits '$8'475'00d • 1C-a 30% . 4pAis.poo 50% 1 . ... . _ ._ . _ . Caulfield Lane/Peyran Street intersection Improvements • $500 000 1Daoem, $506,000. 0.3% _..... . .... .. . .. • Petaluma Beulevard/Magnolia.kienue ..keyien:91reetinterse.Ctio .9500,000, . lop.pb% 5500 000 aow • . Construotion ot New Intersections throiligilouflfieCiiy :81.`900 020 Thu 00% $3 soo obb ' 23% ' TraffieSigeal Upgrades --. : 15.11,885 000 , lOtiOif.4 • 41,605,00. 1.1°4 Fiedest1Rii6!e)itipy ?.frAgi1 s'f.hth:61:10.t.the City $25'5Z3 000 : 514Oc.i71:'. . .$5,412.0W -. 3•:5%-.: Transit Improvements Throughout the Qilj, . $11 471 ODD-.- .24,20,t,' 82,432 000 1j% . • AdmInietratlan Costs? • $4 986 : '.2:9% • uhinialwatioiOgi-pyen9140406/Ave.n004,fivo 1161458000 5139:294 — • 4.000, 31.5%. . - Total with'62Terfr■skiersvi.;4;:Ayipm.../A4= 6,606171ebt i197 820 oid.: $170:666600 : 100% . . • ' -. • Efoksted GrOwth in DUEs 90683' . (F.pe,fier•pU DUE witti;Icpetlytereferted Rainier-Avenue.eiternitIve. 516S70 Eno per pruE with Oattiatis,preferied altethatlyttsuppktnent 510;1119 : .. . . 1 Sgurpe:.bury of PetOlursa,2068. ' '' ' •'- • . , .• See-rspie 7 . . z'A.strnbs 34.of"Nei-City Cost with.calfrimi•AltamaStie SupplementotiRsinioriwel Ifitercharigt-• .! , . . • . • • . . ?TER,6.-..F.EE.Apl OUNTS, - • • . r • . The.totOlOspto.b4on013141.e,CI py, .ew.pleSielopirientr(tter,5)vinStihe.0 divided Py the tdtal.number of new DUEs . (Step 4)to detenpfriktial.00tOPnale..tOtalleeemount,to be.generoteday each DUE; as shown in Table lb. The new'pbteht.Olkfee'amdools•reOreserit a Change.frOm the:current fee schectle; for avail*of reasons,including: • • theinCiiiSiOn iit'additionalicapitalirnprovernents, . 19creasies.in.lhe cosk'of c.onstruction.and right-of.WaiadtjuisitiOn . . 1 • • . . . . . . . . , • ' . a TP . • 20 I:fru: 6; Pki-O • . - . .• • - - ' . . . . . ,... . • ., - - • City of Peta•lurna • Water and Wastewater r , CaPatitY FGeStIuiy • VINAL • • May 2008. • • 1 • • SITLES K9S.,OCI:Att.S Z-..,0;I l'uu.ncE A nvlsoas 1 1.889 Alcatraz Avenue ileticCIOYCA 94703-2714' TeL 54016.5 .,-3399 • • 571.6/0 . 3:761 Ii ri:/f.%QkwbarUet%CILS.COfl1 • . - . . . •.' , . . .. • • , , • . . • , • •,..... '. . • • . ' . .. , . , . . , I. . • • , . 4,. : , - I. ' • • Table,3 • ' CitY'Of PetalUma . ' . . • . Water Capital Improvemen.t Prooram-Water Supply - , I ',,' • - . -- . . , . . . . -. . Recycled Water Prefects• LXistinP ' ' Futtre Total cost Afea A • .. . . . . . .. Land 0% 100% $105,000 • I Reabeveirs — 0% - ,'100% 5,040,000 - Pipes and,ValveS, , 0%, 100% 371,000 • . . Pipes and-valves 0% ' 100% 3,188,000 •' ' 0 Area C 0 i . • Tertiary expansion . Cir.-%. 100% 2073,000 Tertiary,pump station O.% 100% 560,000 Pipes and valves 0%. 100% =6.633.000 • . - 0 Area E . a . . Tertiary expansion • . • ', 0% 100% 2 072E000 , , ' Pipes,aPd valyes ' 9%. 100% 23.702000 , • . - 0 ,- Area G . • . • 0 . . Area G pump station, • 0% 100% 0 • Pipes and valves • :• •• .. • cr6. ;10-3% 392000 i,•",Satitotallrecyctedmatenplefecter:i„JE;..:•.;,:„.:,;,.;-..... .,.1,,.,of,,_:•-; ,• .:.$0,,,.;:,$.4;:vitassop;., 444036;009' . .. . . . . • Water Consefvation,1376aCts(fl:i • - . „ Total cooltal oreeiant cos( - , . 0% 103% $7 126000 i • i'.•;tableihtQfeet-thrigei'aiiiii-Aeibiel-iciitTi: ',::::*::::-..:::-;:.:-.:ZN'F.C-i.',362.1.:,::-.0:1W,6iiiii... i-t ;i2ofcia . . 9 riHetihot • -, future Cfr5f.:;::,,.,•::.:IPtatviAtc2%1IPPli,RT9IP.Gt CSiltPfL'?...?2.;•",Y...k.;::.W1.-4"(' _..,..._ i.......1 , ..,- 'L.: ... , .. . .. . . - . (1)lii year presentlWert cot of Water conservation program Source Water Demand and fRupply./.1nalysis.:Reportand Wetea:CpnCeryatien;Pfograre , . . • . . . • . , • • . . • ' . • . • • • 2aSs... , • . - .. . . - To•detetplipt kfakEasiOTeLluttable method for apportioning the exietiog,en4:fututecapit0 Osset s of-theke0-..• k eyecenipWA:.fiesi developed an analysitoflktuthber of existing onieP_Cns51dtC41q:§YstPr IT.UtI.21 4 details the current*fel-inventory:1p'service in thO.c-j.ry.;.-;If 41e-V.0.12illetAelfie,ntrrntigof.'3/4"tyteiefteqpiSrAlentsr usiiig.AWWA-- • .• • ' , ..lipprOyed.rdet-er,±eirins: Dne.hreterreqtuvalefitsis:assunied to.1361D/8"; 3/4" or I" . • -. - fresicienfiat.olily)hitter: - . . - . • . . . . , . . . . . , . . .• -• . . , I . . • . . • • - - . . .. ' . . - . • . .•. . . . . . . .. • • .- • . „.• - - . , , t-J,,-,4•4•,., . . ..,. .... .... . • . . .. f -•• . . - . . , , 1-0 I::2.• '--r2.--,?:,;•",": , - - - . I i g• ;:-.7•;•!'•;.:r.;: ; . . t,'''''k • ',•,g•,'•,,•:;.,:z .1. . • ,_,• . • ''''-0 •,-;,2,-;,,,•, E5 ••••,:?i,is'',;,' 1 • , . • • • , , • • - •,; . , , •-;,, ,?,_:::::-.•-•- 1. ', ; • ,. .• -,.• -E,Jil _ I -: 4 -2 i a _ , ,,•:...,.,,.. ,;• , . • °151.7 .,2,:,:•••::::.,;.: 1 ,... . . - . , I fi h..=.:•,-,:„1- ••• r- , - --) • ,. .8, 1:.:.,:,::?•-;.;', , v..., •- ;.,c- -.. I.,...•?7;,;,:-..-: F, - • --':-.'",'1•:'•••-,,,; i ni2l.i.,t,-•,-,-i.--_-;., 6 z La -,s;;;:?.•..t. : e Th , is:,.f!,A,i.t. . ,,,....‘:;;,4-.;; • .:':•:"... I:- cl- 1112?-•••,•71'. ; ...., 'fr2r.-7,1Ftir,,,;`.2-';....-"A`?' fr.d•viS:.-TZ''• • 7,pr., „„f.r;:r.,,F g -•;;;;f,r;;',,:::: ?„ 1 , . . ; • :. .e.::;:?4,,,,,:- ":;41-,,,--,145,77,1".,,• '....- ,t,- ..,_•••;::: •-;:-.•,.4,,;- .,•4 ,-. --4,i,„,••••„.• - „...,... . ... . ,. . ....1-.3,:,-;„--F,...Kyr.-"-,--.,,,,,,,;-.., ,=•,,,,,,•• .51,•,•,..i. -..,,•..g....,•„,-,,,,-,, . a . . .„.. . ...; _ , ii,r,4,,,-. ±•,-Tift, ,;;;;.,;?....,--„,--1.,:•-,,„„4.10,,, :-,‘,4,./..,.:,,,,-; i,. .1-r4;,:•••• t' ,,i • : f.,.../k;gfil"..w.N'te'rj.k .g.igv,".- -,i,,I.4,;;f4 : -,-. --..g2F1 .: . . ' ' ' ' .2 I...'' ' ..' • 1:::.41:M4C:• i . 5..X‘:,,,,,,,: ‘1,'', . 2.....'. ..:1',. 64 1.'.... :,2t• , Fc, -•,,,,,;:„.i,.;:)14,-,T4-,Je,i4-4,1,11, 7,..ei: :,; ;;;;:::::!..,,,f...,.....:,. ... -...:',,-.;;,; -;•.:,,,:i.,-.•.:,.'-,..-.:V4,,:;- ---..- ,:::::,,,,,i,',4- 1 : • 'is- .•,if:i. .'..i.. .27,4d‘st; f ray,;-..p .p.; .,:.,-„A,. .. .t 0.,,..,,,....:.,;...; :!. .....,...,..::::,:?t: --, •,:i4c. - 9.-2.,-,V:611: itt&t.,,,,,== .-J,§A..):!..... E..- v . ,i.ic:A:-...,., -,..7.-4-..;,..c.,-,. .! -• . ..,..,,,. - :..4,-.6,,, f.•.:..7.,:..,....^.1 I . " :.;,,,,,,- rerpip.+ .t.,,,i '. .,,,,,i.v.•-!--1, ,64.,tir,•,,,,-.,/,;,,..,;•• ,../ r.i.,‘, . , .-,,,,,,,-, •-„,. ,,, ,••••- •,- . Nt- -r,f,;;;:•,-,8-_•' , ,,./ ! .:3,:.• • .c.,;:iki-.4.4.414.;;;;.;Tkii:;;I;i1,11114-scicvisya :, a--...e.‘ A::-.:::.:Air.,. .,,, ..i,., •.. i .::-..-I .t.,-.. i . : 1:.. ,,itkEit.,i,i;),e. 3,, . ."(...:1: ,:i?Q.,, . 1:12.;:".1- .. • Pil• : • ..!! if-•,•;-)fif•S•i;AW,.9-K‘ii4,ef,-24,5v-:#0.1.-i• -• .-: ... ,, ,•.••,-,T. ?,:.v:',:c.@-•;:,:::::.--••••YP::, ''',!-••:- " ' . . •,74. N'El4,.:2-rri. .%-Plit,,,'-, 91;1,1el,:,,,51'.:;6..,...,,,...,,..:. -7. ; =!,-.(.. .E6.r.:::.....;:•:-..'..,,:,, ,..-:.4.:, ; 07;?;;; ; tiV;,.-..-,;:i1-.,;;;.:415:t'.1t1-4'...- T.;-....fc7:1'..., :'.';v' 1.rliz.:%.7::1"..- -,q€:":;r:::.;;:::: ' .:-...'• : i• .L;k:;:,•.-.N.- . . .. . ty.:: , f-1.9/•trit-filgi\,:i.g.d;t,t;4;",..; :::.:,...c :%.',1iiifl ;:.Jr•::-:;-:.s. ::,..: :., 1. '' 2:1-".,4::‘:::=:.;!2;.,;'.;.';'54.'...,;1:„2;--;.'V..fL2i1dAt..k:E-:.o:741-1,.,.t„fy,5'.,11:1;'4,...-4):11,z,:,%;;31.z.it”.4i cici,1,;-;‘1::-4‘:.:,!,!`.t,.::4.:.;:;;',;'r.;.V";t•;•..c-!0;,,:,;L•"';...:,• L.,-•. -.r:.;;,;,::f,fr1rjrr•.i!- ) lr'r1-z1q7-4 a-;- 4f:5.N.::.•a (i..•-7•4yc7r.:t•:r;$.;,:•1,;::iTl;,,-€.a.y;'-,::,:;--,..•,z..t;•; , ;;;•::.;I;:;Yc6:..if.-,,?1.,. ; . • 5::.4.-. .EP:1;11:'„,11.e.r.;•. --.HitAiiii,..i....;:iii7:',7i- •t, •.,- . ', al ifi?;.:'.? ...., . • /.4Y-::::.:,:^:'..P46,..AW-:,4%fiEtt.4ist-z.v.,•?:-g ;:-..147,..:;:TI.,:-..:..1:-,r. ,-4.,i .i.74'.'".:,;?..r. ir;•:: .-.iktitc.;-.Y..,-;,..,.;-.' .. -. • .5...f2.::.z,0„.. vil,...7.4(0.16..",,..,:i•:,..-.7.: ,,,,,Tp..k::?,I e •.„..,i4,7i.i-•„,.,,••t•-,-;',.,,,:i-'„,,b;.:;:c.•••.,;;;,;„;',,,: ' , .. . ---- i ,:.?:•,,..:;•.••,,-,, . . .... -M ;'-;--2,.-5-1.4-4:-.1::::1 ±,,,•51.?„ii , ,l-r- .-",;:.•,, li-.1.• '.4.;•••:::.k:.:',:p.:.,i F.,Y,,,••:. ..,•-„aii:-.::: "..:'• , . .,... „, „.. .,, r• ;. ' e :r1..‘.! 7# 7i1"--;i,C...4:4,..t,.. .11 ..'.. ,%, 1:. 4.......-- -..‘..'4‘7,;:',- (i.,1:,...,":4,. •---- :. .:: . . 4. ,..4„.„.. . • ::----4;,..../..,:, : . : P7,..:.-0 "=.1, -,,',.-.7712-',:•&:r4it` 1' - '': .. . ::;•'`.', '4.-:'(4c:....,..,.:1-0,*-,, ,e.-..:'..-., - .....6.4,4.6.;;.-t-,76:5',.f::1-z.:;,•;.-5.4.,,'..,.. --,;-7-- :;.,...)-i-..! ' ;,,..f. u.:..:,. -( .!:.:., ,•„.: ,..,,,...:. *:::: . ... ... . . . ; -ik.,.'ii,...i.2t. ..,....:._. .,y,;:;•:::..,:: . , .v-_ r ):,,: 1 'r.r7t:stS.rri'rf::'„-.:er,•?: , : ,. . .•:::C?..•41:1-•,:rtrc..•„..-.:--:• ,:••,;•5:: ::r.:-, .„,... . • . ,.; :0 ,:4 i4L.,.,, -;c:-.'t, p, ••,- .,.:-;:. - n."e.J,.J1.4''.i,,g"•;'" i':::"',/. .., -,. ...., .• _,.. , . ,,..,....,:.... * ::',-5.4t•cchilin ;./P 1: : :• ef„-:' : 10,'•"!-";?"6"..ir: • ,•-;,:.::,. ‘.....c,*•,.?.... All h--,-.3.., fq•;:rft:-.L . : -lr.F:•,.:::lZsf,2-,411.* 'fi ''‘.:• ' T • . ..,, . ' . .• .?'!::ii..;, '''':/-:4'.4ti.f..?.. :',i lir-".../f • . :: -74 -i! '.:: • - • , . • - . :•;-:/i.. ..-.:::. 41 ,:u: • i ,...,..„, 44-1„ ,..,.i..1....f a :•... .4 it,;-... ,...,. 4.. . r, € . ..._ . '1 ..„,. ..•!i ..,,..... .,.,.t: . . . . a 1; :LE'• 1 I . r..:..:;.,....,,.,;„,:....,..., , . • •gr .4( r r, , - - , . .._ n • . ..-A-- • • , ; 1 , , . u . . . . • •• I . • . , . - - . , . _ .. - H ' ' . • ___ • - . ., .. , .-. .. . . . . . • . . . , . ..... .: .. " . • • . /1/7frfaiitecir 3 . .. . . - . • . . .. . . . . . . . . - .. . . Calculation of OPeri.SPiaceiandisaikLand'AcquisitionTees,Arev:A8/10/11-1 ' .. , . . - ., • • These lees are adjusted annOalfyhy'the.pe-rtentage thange in:the five-year average purchase price per • acre of vacant resident ial andeottrrnercial:la hd.aereage Within Mel:liter,'GrdWili:Bounda ry. • . . The list of property sales is ribtaineg for 0..fee/ffem:in tappraisal company: Staff reviews the list and identifies those lotibeatedwithin:the klitiantrowth Boundary, that:theetlhe f011owing criteria: • Vacant - • . . . , • Greater than 1.jaCre:in site 4 . • • No su bstantial.in'.elinprovements-or receiMPrOtectentifierrients . . . These properties are added to the spreadsheet prepared the prior yeactb.Calculate the average . purchase price.Of vacant reside-filia:5M commercial land. The olcieStyear in:the spreadsheet is 1 . removed and new five.yearav'efage!pilreitasepfice per acre it.cal4itated. The new price is compared to the prior year's average purchase price and the corresponding rate of change is applied to the Open Space and Park Land accitiisitibn,feeg., • i • Petaluma Land Sales • . . 7/1/06-6/30/11 Parcel . . . Purchase • , Number SHus Addies's . ' oath, ,, _ Acres kurchaieir?rtrei trice/acre 0480527020 310 Fair Ave ' 1417/2006 :2 65b,050. 325,000 • 019-193-035 614 Sunnyslope!Ave -3112/2007 2.06 ' .500:000 442,718 • 048-.105-041 2991 Braylon In -7- •6/6/2007 05:00 175,926 • . 008‘490-027 Hayes Ln • 7/1/2008 2.31 1,750060 .755,576 • G07-431003 4902 Old,Redwoo0 HwyN "::.• 7/26/2008 2.78 1225.000- 44,964 007.431-03 4902 Old Bedvood H.yy.N .2/7/2010 2.78 20,000 7;194 048-1417029 240 lessie.Lane , 7/.20/2010, 3.99. •• 130.023 75,620 18.62L 31821,723 205,248 • . previous 5 year.ayerage 57.45 47,252500 300;305 .cha.nge -3165% . ' • . . • . . .„. , • in 2016 th'efiiieTyeae rate deeitnedhy 413%, This year the:Ole:et Change is mfurther decline of 31,65%. I . The use a.five,yearaverageis meant smooth out thecalctilated•PUIChaSe-PkiC'ePek.acre. The . dwindlingmumhecofyacantland:sales twrecent yea rs:along.with the.cohtinuingi distress in.the real . • estate-and lending Ma rkets,has Caused the rate of change to vary considerablyfrom ye.acto year. . . . • . ., . . . . . • • : . . • . . . • •. . . . , , . . . Cr/(Le ATTACHMENT D a J' CITY OF PETALU1VIA ' x! POST OFFICEBOX 61 PETALUMA,CA 94953-0061 Pamela Tartiatt Mayor December 28,2009 Teresa Barrett David Blur ' MiaeHarris Eric.Schen, Senior Transportation Engineer Mike Beaty Caltrans-District 4.. David Rabbit/ Tiffany Renee Project-Management North Coundlmembers P.O.Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Dear Mr. Schen: Subject: Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector and Undercrossing of US 101 This letter is a follow-up to our meeting with Caltrans,SCTA,and the City on November 3`d. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss including the undercrossing structure for the future extension'of Rainier Ave. as part of the Marin Sonoma Narrows C-2(MSN C-2)-HOV widening project through Petaluma. Currently,the extension of Rainier Avenue, or the Cross-Town Public Works Connector..(which includes the undercrossing,structure), and the future US Administration I 01/Rainier rnterchangearebeingprocessedunder a:single Project Study Report. 11 English Snell Peraluma,CA 94952 At this meeting,Caltransand SCTA were receptive to the City's proposal to Phone(707)778.4474 include the undercrossing structure for the future extension of Rainier Ave. into Fmt(707)776.3602 the MSN C-2 design, as-long as the schedule could be maintained and the City E•Alall:prb8 a nvorka dpetalamam.as were willing tOpay the design cost. SCTA plans to request approval from their Board to execute a contract with a design consultant for MSN C-2 in January Airport 2010. Subsequently,design of MSN C-2 is expected to take 18 to 24 months. 601 SAp Ranch Drive Funding.for the'construction of MSN C-2 has not been programmed Petahnna,CA 94974 - - -- - - - - Phone(707)778-4404 Far(707)778-1405 It was the group's consensus that inclusion of the Rainier Avenue undercrossing • structure in the MSN C-2 design,and construction with the MSN C-2 Project,is nuenlermnce it Openaionr prudent. The group defined an approach b which the structure can be co/porn/hut raid P P Y -... 840 Hopper St Fxt incorporated into the MSN C 2,Project To be included,the undercrossing,which Petaluma,CA 94952 is part of the Cross-Town Connector,needs& eparateenvironmental document, Phone(707)7784303 P Pas(707)7734437 and an approved Caltrans Project Study Report. Paris&Landscape TheTransportation and-Circulation Element of the;City of Petaluma's General AlnOaenence Plan,includes anextensionofRainier Avenue-from McDowell Boulevard that 840 Hopper Sr.Ext. Petainma CA 94952 crosses'Higltway:101 and connects to Petaluma Boulevard(the east-west arterial phone(7D7)77s;321 referred to as the Cross-Town Connector,first independent element). The City's Fax(707)7784335 General Plan also,includes a new connection on Highway 101 at Rainier Avenue, Transit between CoronaRoad and the Er Washington Street Interchange(second '' • 555 N.A4cornitl Bart indeperiderit element), ' Petaluma,C494954 y'\CU'i)ivislon\Projetis\Crass ram Connector Rainier C50 2C4\Undererussing unlyUvleelingeaCily's Phone(707)77S.4421 response lotters\final tatters NCCPA-Callnms-City 1Aucpled el edits in'City in Ci re City's intent JM sl- Far(707)776-3799 aaltrnns.iic Over the years,the City has been seeking approdt from't e;State'io develdp'a new connection On US 101 at Rainier Avenue. However,the CrosseTown Connector demerit'of that protect has independent utility. At this juncture, after muchspnpfderation„the_Cltyj,s talang steps to focus is resources on the Cross Town-Connectorltcurrently alternative 5 of of the Rainier Avenue Interchange PSR);which is a project the City may fund in the near term. In focusing on the,Cross-Town Connector Project,the City would suspend the development of a PSR for the US 101/Rainier Interchange Project. As a result of the above-referenced meeting held on November 3,2009,the City proposes to proceed with the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town'Connector,including an undercrossing at US 101,as follows: 1) To suspend the development of a PSR for the Rainier Avenue Interchange Project until the City devilops a'fu`ndingplan. (At such time as this project is pursued'in the future,the City acknowledges that a PSR'specifically for the interchange will be required.) 2) To proceed with a Project Study Report for the Rainier.Avenue Cross-Town Connector, which includes an undercrossing on US 101 for the extension of Rainier Avenue. 3) To allocate funding and proceed with preparation of the environmental document for the . Rainier Cross-Town Connector,which includes an undercrossing of US 101. The City estimates 12-18 months:to secure environmental approval for the Cri ss=Town Connector. It is the City's intent to design the Cross-Town Connector in a manner that would not preclude a future interchange'on US_101,at Rainier Avenue. SCTA has been advised that the City is willing to cover the differential cost to the MSN C-2 project and is willing to enter into a cooperative agreement to cover,the cost of designing the undercrossing structure as part of the MSN C 2yproject. • We request your,written approval th'City's approach earate the Rainier Avenue Interchange project int��two separate rirojefatCo prepare a Protect Study Report for the Rainier Avenue Cross- Town Connecoi;whish-include's an undercrossing at US 101 for the extension of Rainier Avenue, and to suspend the development of a PSR for the Rainier:Avenue,Interchange Project. Upon receipt of your concurrence;City staff will request authorization from the City Council for items 1 through 3,above, at its January 4th meeting. Please call me or if you have any questions. cdre a c , 'o , 1.; i r,}r�t '' Department of Public Works cc: Suzanne Smith,Sonoma County Transportation Authority Lee Taubeneck,Caltrans,Deputy District Director Planning Kai Chan,Jacobs Doahn Nguyen,Callum,District Division Chief Brian Kreclic,Jacobs Patrick Pang,Caltrans,Chief Advance Planning Terry Bowen,Gray Bowen Susan Lackie,City of Petaluma John Maitland,SCTA Deputy Director S:1CIP Division II'rgjecls1Cms�Town Cnnnccior Rainier C5012041Undcrcrncsing onlyNeetings\City's response letters\final Idlers SCTA-Ctdtruns-Ciiy\Accepted CI edits to City to Cl're City's inlenhJM-sl-crdtrans.due ATTACHMENT E ENDORSE )" HON. LAURENCE K. SAWYER ,1 ,L ,. 2 '' Superior Court, Department Five " 600 Administration Drive, Room 223-J $ONOMA COUNTY CLERK 3 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 k Telephone: (707) 527-1141 4 1; 5 6 7 I. i1 B y SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 ;I PETALUMA RIVER COUNCIL, et al . , No. SCV 190492 11 Petitioners , 12 1: vs . STATEMENT OF DECISION 13 CITY OF PETALUMA, CITY COUNCIL, ET AL. , 14 Respondents. 15 I / 16 ; In this action, the Petitioners challenge the adequacy of an 17 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared under the California IS Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City of Petaluma (City) for 19 a project known as River Oaks/Petaluma Outlet Village. The project 20 consists of threw parcels: Parcel A, consisting of a 200,000 square 21 foot, '90 store f;.ctory outlet mall on a 25-acre site, and Parcels B 22 and C, an additional 40 acres on either side of Parcel A which was . . 23 • rezoned from special industrial/office park to special commercial. 24 Petitioners also allege the City approval of the General Plan 25 : Amendment and rezoning for the project conf_`cts with the City' s 26 General Plan. • I . biological resources before development of any project (AR 436) . 2 Petitioners also point out that there are inconsistent 3 findings relative to whether loss 'of agricultural land can be s ' mitigated to a level of insignificance. Compare AR 446 with AR 5 447 . While the inconsistency does exist in the City' s resolution, 6 the inconsistent finding is not a prejudicial abuse of discretion in 7 light of the fact that the City did adopt overriding considerations 8 upon finding that loss of agricultural land could not be ' 9 significantly alleviated by mitigation measures. AR 448. 10 Further, Petitioners argue that the finding relative to II mitigation of traffic and air quality impacts are not supported by 12 substantial evidence in the record. In particular, Petitioners 13 contend that a mitiaation measure that requires the developers to 4 pay a small percentage of the cost of building the Rainier 18 interchange on Highway 101 provides no assurance that it will be Is ;!' . built . However, a review of the record convinces this Court that 17 �1: there is substantial evidence in the record to support the City's 18 1' finding that long-term impacts will be adequately mitioated by 19 ' timely completion of. the Rainier interchange.j The record discloses 20 h that the Rainier interchange project has been iointly considered and 21 olanned by Cal-Trans and the City. Negotiations between these 22 i entities have contemplated phased construction of the interchange to i 23 spread the cost over a longer period of time (TR 540-544) ; the 24 ! g"eneral plan calls for the Rainier interchange and the City is - - I; 25 beginning an EIR and tentative plans to fund construction of the 26 , Rainier interchange with developmentfees, an assessment district 1 -11- I� { I / I ana/nr redevelopment fees (AR 1384) ; and the development fees for 2 0 the subject project will include $1.2 million from the project 1 3 1 applicants for development of Parcel A and future fees for 4 development of Parcels B cad C (AR 4688) . Thus, there is 5 1 substantial evidence in the record to support the City' s finding 6 that the Rainier interchange will be built in a timely manner to 7 I mitigate the air quality and traffic impacts derived from the 6 project. The case of .n - n-. � izee .f a .v-ra .. h v 9 Board of Supervisors (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 90, cited by Petitioners, i 10 was a challenge to the adequacy of a land use and circulation 11 I element of a General Plan, in which the Court held that it was 12 inadequate for the Plan to identify traffic problems and make no 13 plan proposal other than asking higher levels of government for 14 1 money to correct the problem. The facts in our case are certainly 15 I not analogous to the facts in the Calaveras .case. 16 I Finally, Petitioners argue that the vast bulk of the evidence 17 shows that even with all mitigation, including the Rainier 18 interchange, unacceptable congestion will occur at one or more i9 intersections. The question for the Court, however, is not whether 20 there is more evidence on one side of an issue or the other side, i. 21 but whether there is substantial evidence to support the City' s r . 22 . finding. Laurel Heights Improvement' Assn. v. Regents of University ' 23 I: of California, supra at 408. The record shows that with respect to. 24 the Petaluma Boulevard/Payran intersection, physical improvements 1 25 would mitigate impacts. TR 239-40, 245-46. The intersection would is 26 �. operate at a level of service (LOS) c even without the Rainier -12- I (a ---72 I interchange (TR 240'-246), and the i ntersection would operate ,at 2 only 3/loths of a second below LOS c. after :full build-out of Parcel 3 B and C (TR 256-257) . According to the City, the 4 Washington/McDowell intersection is already unacceptably congested 5 at a LOS F level and thus would not degrade further as a result of 6 the project. While this is certainly 'a questionable oosition in 7 light of Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 g Cal.App.3d 692, 719, it is important to point out that in the Kings 9 County case, the Court simply held that the City of Hanford could 10 not conclude that the air is already bad and thus even though II emissions from, the project make it worse, the impact to air quality 12 • is insignificant . Id. at 718. In out case, however, the City has 13 not made a finding that traffic/circulation impact from the project 14 is insignificant. On the contrary-, the City has found that there 15 will be significant impacts to the traffic/circulation as a result 16 - of the project and proposes to mitigate these impacts by imposing a 17 number of measures, including eventual construction of the Rainier 18 interchange . There is evidence in the record that this proposed 19 mitigation will improve congestion at the Washington/McDowell 20 intersection by upgrading the LOS classification from F to E. See 21 AR 5520, 55:2. _ 22 r In summary, the Court is of the opinion that there is 23 II substantial evidence in the record to support the findings that 24 traffic and air quality impact Will be mitigated to a level of 25 insignificance and that the City has made appropriate findings 26 . supported by substantial evidence. -13- 1 l0 - -73 ATTACHMENT 6B $ra'git'`S. Barnes & . February 23,.2012 a2t�26272ee9� Associates, ti�,ti a o,�� Via Email and Regular Mail �� FEB 2Q12 Inc. A Law Corporation City Council cn CITY CLERK a City of Petaluma PETALUMA 0) 11 English Street 9lhti F�d1 Ex \ Petaluma CA 94952 Sib bci?L t`Q\6 Hon. David Glass, Mayor, Email: daveglass(acomcast.net Hon. Tiffany Renee, Vice Mayor, Email: ti1f(atif'fanvrenee,com Brigit S. Barnes, Esq. Hon. Chris Albertson, Councilmember, Email: councilman.albertson'usimail.com Susan M. Vergne,Esq. Hon. Teresa Barrett,.Councilmember, Email: teresa4petaluma'a)comcast.net • Hon. Mike Harris, Councilmember, Email: mike4pet(q,aol:com • Hon. Mike Healy, Councilmember, Email: mthealyii4sbcglobal.net Hon. Gabe Kearney,•Councilmember, Email: councilmemberkeamev•k2me.com Claire Cooper, City Clerk • City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 4 Email: ccooper(k)ci.petaluma.ca.us Re: Our Client: JANICE CADER-THOMPSON, GERALD A. THOMPSON, and the PARK PLACE NEIGHBORHOOD City Council Hearing: February 27, 2012 - Time: 7:00 p.m. Item: Deer Creek Final EIR; Summary of Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects: Request for Denial, Alternatively, Request Continuance and Recirculation to Land Use and Cure Traffic and Circulation Impacts, and Consider Approval of Environmental Alternative B Paralegal • Jaenalyn Jarvis Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This office represents Janice Cader-Thompson, Gerald A. Thompson, and Park Place Neighborhood Association. By this letter this office asks this Council to support its Legal Assistants Planning Commission and vote to deny approval of the full scale Deer Creek Village project; Noreen Patrignani or alternatively, to table/postpone the•vote•untilthe project can be resubmitted as its Jenna Porter Alternative B [75% size] with,a recirculated traffic analysis to address the 9 LOS-E or worse unmitigated.traffic.impacts"and the lack-of technical, financial, and mitigation analysis support for the Rainier-Cross-Town Connector project. This letter replies to dismissive responses made by the City of Petaluma and its consultant in the FEIR to comments previously submitted by Mrs. Thompson March 21, 2011 and others,PJ and especially to provide evidence which establishes these citizens' prior assertions that the Deer Creek 3262 Penryn Road Suite 200 [1] See also letters and email from Pam Tomliatt dated April 25,2011;Abrams Associates dated April 22, Loomis; CA 95650 2011; Stegeman&Associates dated`April 24,2011; and Tiffany Renee dated April 25,2011. Phone'(916) 660-9555 &9X(916)660-9554, Websife.= Asset Preservation • Commercial Real Estate • Environmental dandlawbybarnes.com General Business • Real Estate Financing f Litigation City Council /City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 2 Village project approvals, contingent as they are upon significantly insufficient traffic mitigation, should either"'be denied or continued with instructions to City Planning staff to complete EIR proceedingsnecessary to confirm that Rainier Cross-Town Connector in any configuration is sufficiently detailed, studied, and complete to be relied upon to mitigate traffic impacts from North McDowell Blvd. to U.S.101/Rainier Cross-Town Connector [RCTC] and U.S. 101 Interchange. We have just this week obtained from SCTA a Conceptual PSR for the RCTC with Undercrossing, not from the City, despite multiple Public Record Act requests demanding all documents. Relevant portions of the Conceptual PSR dated February 2011 are attached as Exhibit 1.. A.formal protest against holding the hearing on February 27th, given the fact that the City:has.actively participated in its preparation, is not referenced in any project documents, and the Conceptual PSR contains substantial informationdifferent-from that referenced.iri the General Plan EIR and the DCV EIR which will be forthcoming. The"Interchange" design connecting to U.S.101 referred to in DCV EIR has never been accepted by California Department of Transportation, and staff now admits that no project study report is even pending. City documents, including financing documents referencing expenditure of funds for'studyof the unaccepted alternatives, cannot achieve their stated goals. The removal of the "interchange" aspect of analysis from the RCTC establishes a fatal defect in calculation of the anticipated funding of the Connector/Undererossing system, but also means that before the City can proceed to approve the present FEIR, which continues to incorporate Interchange analysis, it must first amend the General Plan EIR. The City adopted the GP EIR by Resolution 2008-084. The General Plan supports its statement of"Overrides," allowing these,intersections to show as LOS-E or worse because roadway improvements to be completed during the life of the 2025 plan, including the U.S.101 RCTC Interchange, would lessen traffic impacts to "D" or better. The GP EIR Statement of Overrides at D 9, pg. 67 states: "9. The Plan identifies roadway improvements to better integrate and connect the east. and west sides of Petaluma and overcome the barriers presented by the Petaluma River,the railroad tracks and Highway 101. Two major east west connections are identified and proposed, the Rainier underpass/interchange and the Caulfield Lane `southern crossing' to further this goal (Guiding;Principle #13)." Because Caltrans required removal of the U.S. 101 Interchange for any planning involving the RCTC in late'2009, and because the City has.no funding to study the "undercrossing plan" under MSN-C2, and because the City has not even submitted preliminary planning documents to,Caltrans for a revised undercrossing and RCTC,.and the RCTC project cannot even be considered for construction until 2040,the assumptions that the N. McDowell intersections would be benefited by such construction in the general plan and therefore are mitigated, no longer support the findings on the General Plan. The DCV FEIR, which relies 0 City Council [City;of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 'Unresolved.Significant Traffic Defects Page 3 • on the mitigations identified;in the General Plan as a basis for assuring the Council that it can vote to approve further,overrides involving cumulative traffic impacts, is materially flawed. It is only when the agency finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives which would reduce significant impacts that it can approve the project based on such findings, supported by substantial evidence in;the,record, and a statement of specific reasons that there are justifiable overriding considerations to approve the project even with its unmitigated adverse consequences. Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21081; Cal. Code Reg., tit. 14, §§ 15091, 15092, subd. (b)(2)(B), 15093; City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4`h 341; Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 438 (3d Dist. 1988); No Slo Transit, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 197 Cal.App.3d 241, 257 (2d Dist. 1987). Burden of proof. The agency has the burden to show affirmatively that it has considered each of the factors applicable to each identified adverse impact, and all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures; and it must explain its conclusions with express findings supported by substantial evidence. Pub. Resources Code, § 21081,; Cal. Code Reg., tit. 14, § 15091. If the project is approved based on mitigation, the mitigation measures must be adopted and become binding on the agency. Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442:(3d,Dist. 1988); see Cal. Code Reg., tit. 14, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2); Federation of Hillside,and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles, 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261-1262 (2d Dist. 2000). [Relevant sections of GeneralPlan Resolution 2008-084, including policies and Statement of Overriding Considerations (pp. 11-13) are attached as Exhibit 2]. As part of a corrected:review of the DCV project, we propose specific re-consideration of the Deer Creek Village DEIR 75%Alternative B. The City's FEIR confirms that such alternative meets all the City's criterion as an interim measure, and could allow construction of a home improvement anchor, but defer all other improvements until the traffic analysis inconsistencies are properly analyzed and mitigated. However, this lesser alternative still requires the proponent to directly address mitigation to the 9 significantly deficient traffic receptors, and correct itsLcumulatives analysis relying on the non-existent Interchange, and to recirculate a transportation section which proposes mitigation to these intersections, addresses the defects to the cross-town connector design;and the inconsistency defects between the traffic assumptions contained`in the General Plan EIR and these project documents. The City cannot avoid consideration.of lessor impacting alternatives merely because it adopted mitigation. Laurel Heights.Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 399-403, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278, 50 Ed. Law Rep. 203, 19 Envtl. L. Rep.,20427 (1988), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Jan. 26, 1989). The approving agency has a duty to avoid or minimize environmental damage whenever "feasible," which means that a modification is capable of being accomplished within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and City Council /City o€,Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23,2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 4 technological factors. Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21002.1, 21061.1. When these conditions make alternatives or mitigation measures infeasible, the agency has the discretion to approve the project despite its significant effects. Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1, subd. (c). The agency must balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks.(Cal. Code Reg.,tit. 14, § 15093, subd. (a)), but its decision to approve the project must be supported by a rationale and findings on each significant effect. Cal. Code Reg., tit. 14, §§ I5091, 15093, subd. (b). _ I. CITY'S ACCEPTANCE OF 9 LOS-E OR WORSE DESIGNATIONS WITHOUT MITIGATION IS UNSUPPORTABLE Without project reduction-or redesign, however, the essential problem is that Deer Creek Village is projected to increase, based upon quantifiable,geometrics, and utilizing Alternative 2, the City's-preferred design alternativeqin example, an average of 34% increased traffic volumes to adjacent local streets and roadways, already designated in the General Plan Update. The City's traffic consultant, Jacobs Carter Burgess, identified a.m. peak hour volume increases for East Washington from 6,356 to 9,050 in 2040; and p.m. peak volumes per hour from existing of 7,508 to 10,740; the Old.Redwood Highway a.m. existing peak hour volume of 5,694 is expected to increase to 8,650 in 2040, and p.m. peaks are expected to increase from 7;508 to 10,740 in 2040. This means a substantial, discernible, negative change for existing conditions: The GP EIR identifies Existing Plus Pipeline Plus Project Impacts for 2025 which are significant and unavoidable in proximity to U.S. 101 at East Washington Street/North McDowell Blvd.—Southbound Right-turn lane TRAFFIC-6; Northbound 101 traffic at:LOS-Fand Southbound LOS E/F; and admits: the proposed project is expected to increase the traffic volumes on,study freeway segments by .1% at Railroad Avenue between Pepper Road to Old Redwood Highway and East Washington Street to Lakeville Highway TRAFFIC-7. All those LOS changes are unacceptable under the City's General Plan. GP Policy 5-P-10, Program A assumes construction of multi-modal interconnection systems to reduce LOS-E to D or better. Specifically, this FEIR, which anticipates allowing the N. McDowell '` Blvd./Corona Road and N. McDowell Blvd./Rainier intersections to remain at E, violates GP Policy 5-P-1, which assured the public-that the development of the interconnection systems would reduce the level of impacts to D or better by 2025. [See Resolution 2008-084 Ex. 2 pp. 11-12.] Deer Creek proponents propose that the City accept these 9 LOS-E or worse designations to remain unmitigated, and to mitigate against'cumulative impacts from their center by only paying their square footage ratio of an overall required Development Component. Total costs [2] City Council Project Update for Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector and U.S. 101kRainier Avenue Interchange.Project,May 5,2008 [hereafter"May 5,2008 Project Update"] . 013-4 City Council/`Cityof Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February23, 2012. Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 5 assumed by Jacobs Carter Burgess are $13.2 million. But, as will be shown in greater detail below, the total costs assumed for the RCTC in CIP-29, adopted by the City of Petaluma by ordinance in FYI 1/12 being,$16.9 million to $19..6 million, is only about 40% of what the actual Connector will cost to complete design and environmental compliance, acquire the necessary rights of way, and design and construct the Cross-Town Connector, according to some of the City analyses. Currently, all major traffic infrastructure projects are calculated to have future development pay for 100% of the costs. But the net City costs for the Interchange are shown as $48.1 million or $49.1 million, depending on the source document. The May 5,.2008 City Council Project Update [attached as Exhibit 3] showed Alternative 2 [City preferred full interchange,access Alternative Partial Clover] at $75 million; Alternative 3 [Tight,Diamond] at $78 million; Alternate 4 [Split Diamond] at $109 million; and Alternative 5 [Undercrossing only] at $38 million. When there are adverse environmental effects, a mere statement that alternatives are "economically infeasible" is not sufficient without a statement of facts and evidence that supports the agency's conclusion. Uphold Our,Heritage v. Town of Woodside, 147 Cal.App.4`h 587 (1st Dist. 2007), review denied, (Apr. 25, 2007); City of Santee v. County of San Diego, 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1450 (4th Dist. 1989), reh'g denied and opinion modified, (Nov.21, 1989); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of University of California • (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 404-407, as modified on denial of reh'g, (Jan. 26, 1989); Environmental Council v. Board of Supervisors, 135 Cal.App.3d 428, 439, 440(3d Dist.. 1982); Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1034 (4th Dist. 1982). Based on receipt from SCTA of the Conceptual RCTC with Undercrossing PSR draft this week, and without the ability to;substantially-review it, it appears that the $49.1 million number for the entirety of the project -- which should include the U.S. 101 undercrossing, the extension of roadways from Petaluma Blvd.North along Rainier over the SMART railroad bridge, and the bridge across the Petaluma River, and to N. McDowell Blvd. -- in itself is substantially under-estimated, and I will address the underestimation in §§4, 5, and 6; however, for this,purpose there is no funding source to cover the delta. Because of what appears to be substantial connection combinations of various portions of the connector, attributionto.Merlone Geier Partners of some percentage of these different calculations does not meet the mandatory enforceable mitigation requirements of the First Anderson case. To the contrary, our research and review confirms that: 1. The failure to provide mitigation, assuming that the Cross-Town Connector cannot be designed or built within the General,Plan horizon year 2025, means that conservatively, the following intersections' impacts will show increases as follows: City Council / City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of • February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 6 (A) The Cross-Town Connector as presently described cannot be reasonably designed or built in any achievable time. The City of Petaluma has known since October 30, 2008 that Caltrans, which must approve all designs within the U.S. 101 "Mainline" corridor, could only support either the Split Diamond Alternative No. 4, the Undercrossing Alternative No 5, or the No Project Alternative [see letters from Caltrans to V. Marengo dated September 30, 2008 and October 30, 2008, attached as Exhibits 4 aud_5]. At the present the design efforts will only consider the Undercrossing Alternative No: 5 showing for horizon year 2040 [Conceptual PSR Ex: 1]. For all the reasons stated in§§2-and following, reliance on the connector construction as partial cumulative mitigation is not supportable. Grey v. County of Madera.(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099. The public understands traffic is extremely congested NOW along N. McDowell Blvd. and East Washington Street,•before this project is built: The public has a right, as a matter of law, to expect that at the least, new retail projects generating significant additional impacts of 20,000 trips will be mitigated as part of the project, yet the developer expects this City to approve its project where the developer avoids mitigation to 9 LOS-E or worse designations because of"infeasibility". On this score, such a decision—where the 25% reduction is rejected even though it meets the City's goals—without explanation, violates CEQA's requirement that an EIR must identify mitigation measures'and.evaluate alternatives that could minimize significant adverse impacts. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002, 21002.1 subd. (a)(b), 21100 subd. (b)(3)(4). This is because, in order to make a finding to override these significant and unmitigated impacts, the finding must,be based on evidence. Just a statement that the alternative is infeasible will not do. (B) But the,systematic defect is worse. Because the DCV FEIR bases it acceptance of these E's and F's on the General Plan EIR [Ex. 2], the combined failures of the City to design, fund and construct either of the traffic improvements identified in the General Plan (Caufield and RCTC) condemn the Deer Creek Village project until corrected. The General Plan EIR didn't just cavalierly adopt overrides for all the "Es" in Petaluma. (i) The General Plan Overridesare;adopted based on assumptions of traffic improvements for N. McDowell by 2025, including the Rainier CTC Interchange, which will never be built [see Resolution 2008-084 Ex.!2 pp. 12-13]. (ii) The DCV FEIR builds on thisdefect, and seeks further findings of override to approve existing traffic study, which continues to rely on an Interchange and RCTC. (C) A project with significant environmental effects identified, such as Deer Creek Village, cannot be approved without mitigation;if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. Pub. Res. Code §21081. See especially, Watsonville Pilots Ass'n v. City Council / City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 7 City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4h'1059;CEQA Guideline §15126.6(a); Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 866; City of Marina v. Bd of Trustees (2006) 39 Ca1.4th 341; Endangered Habitats.League Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App.4th 777. Petaluma cannot avoid consideration of alternatives merely because it has adopted some mitigation measures. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 404-407, and especially as here, where anticipated General Plan mitigation died aborning. It is only when the City finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives which would reduce significant impacts that it can approve the project based on such findings, supported by substantial evidence in the record, and a statement of specific reasons that there are justifiable overriding considerations to approve the project even with its unmitigated adverse consequences. See.especially Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433,438. (D)Burden of proof. The agency has the burden to show affirmatively that it has considered each of the factors applicable to each identified adverse impact, and all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures, and it must explain its conclusions with express findings supported by substantial evidence. Pub. Res..Code §21081; CEQA Guideline 15091. What would justify overriding considerations in this case, where the General Plan assumed construction of improvements to both Rainier CTC/Interchange and Caufield, and both of these improvements have been shelved because ofa combination of design defects and failure of funding mechanisms ? The evidence in support of the DCV FEIR has been shown to be inconsistent and fatally defective. (E) Consideration of the economic feasibility of alternatives. When there are adverse environmental effects, a mere statement that alternatives are "economically infeasible" is not sufficient without a statement of facts and evidence that-supports the agency's conclusion. Although it may be infeasible to the developer, there is no discussion of the 25%project reduction which mitigates some of the adverse impact is not feasible. Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Ca1.App.4`h'587. The mere fact that an alternative to the project as proposed may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to establish that the alternative is not financially feasible. Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336. But we can't even find a discussion about why that 25% reduction in size was rejected. It must be shown that the additional cost or reduced profitability of the alternative is:so severe as to render it impracticable to proceed with the project. Uphold Our Heritage; Preservation'Action•Council; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford 0990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736. City Council/ City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 8 The DEIR and FEIR expect that Deer Creek-Village contributions to the cumulative traffic problems constitute;realistic mitigation. However, the City's incorrect and improper assumptions about the likelihood of completion and the cost of the Cross-Town Connector have allowed both the initial and updated traffic analyses to avoid addressing what practical mitigation should be incorporated now, to ensure that traffic resulting from the Deer Creek Village project does notoverwhelm the existing residences and businesses located along McDowell Blvd. A project analysis which avoids mitigation by ignoring impacts, claiming mistakenly that such mitigation was incorporated in the General Plan or will be addressed later at a mythical future:date,;by some other undefined and un-reviewed plan, is completely contrary to CEQA and.fails-the people of Petaluma:1i3) If a project is approved based on mitigation, the mitigation measures must be sufficiently detailed and enforceable to be binding on the Applicant and the City. Where proposed mitigation measures are non- existent [the Interchange], ineffective, infeasible, improperly analyzed and, as in the present case, such lack of precision in design financing or construction makes the likelihood of Rainier legally and financially impractical, such reliance must be set aside. Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; Citizens for Quality Growth, at 442; CEQA Guideline 15126.4(a)(2); Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 825, 841, 843. The Deer Creek Village.FEIR identifies Plus Project traffic as Significant and Unavoidable at: East Washington Street/North McDowell Blvd. generally TRAFFIC-2b; and Southbound East Washington,Street/North McDowell Blvd. queuing TRAFFIC-3b; and Pipeline Plus Project Operations Impacts at Corona Road/North McDowell Blvd. TRAFFIC- 5a; Corona Road/Petaluma.Blvd. North TRAFFIC-5b; East Washington Street/North McDowell Blvd. TRAFFIC 5-d; and Existing Plus Pipeline Plus Project Impacts which are significant and unavoidable in proximity to U.S. 101 at,East Washington Street/North McDowell Blvd. — Southbound Right-turn lane TRAFFIC-6; Northbound 101 traffic at LOS-F and Southbound:LOS E/F; and admits: the proposed project is expected to increase the traffic volumes on study freeway segments by .1% at Railroad Avenue between Pepper Road to Old Redwood Highway and East WashingtonStreet to Lakeville.Highway TRAFFIC-7. No mitigation is proposed for any of these significant impacts because the City has deemed it infeasible. The question should be, inescapably, why? The FEIR states that mitigation for all these unavoidable impacts is infeasible because removal of project related traffic impacts along McDowell Blvd., which is already unacceptably impacted, would require reduction of the design by 85-90%. VI-5 claims that because the site is identified as mixed use in the General Plan, the statement of overriding considerations for the General Plan EIR is sufficient to justify failure to mitigate these additional impacts. Given all the factors discussed above, such a statement is a tautology [31 The Conceptual PSR(Ex. ll prepared by URS was hidden from the Planning Commission,community and City.Council. City Council /City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEU?: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 9 without evidentiary support. The General Plan EIR must itself be revised and the Traffic aspects restudied. Another more reasonable reduction, described as Alternative B in the DCV DEIR, reduced commercial use by 25% and generated approximately that reduction in trip numbers [10,000 down to approximately 7,626 daily trips]. Component B was rejected without explanation, although admittedly meeting most of the project objectives and preserving the primary home improvement anchor.tenant,.and net fiscal revenues to the City's General fund. We can find no documentation showing the reason such a reduction was judged infeasible. The City is asked to extend its prior unsupportable decisions regarding traffic congestion in its General Plan EIR and_approve a project with 9 significant and unavoidable direct traffic impacts; to ignore the Alternative B reduced project alternative which would have contributed to reduction in traffic impacts; and to accept a completely inadequate financial contribution to a speculative CIP program to address long term traffic congestion projects. This decision is not supportable because the program identified throughout the project to reduce congestion—the Rainier Cross-Town Connecter with Interchange—is unbuilt and unbuildable, pursuant to the California State Contract Act and the many impediments already detailed above. 2. This Cross-Town Connector with Interchange has been relied upon since at least 1988 as the promised panacea for traffic diversion, and has undergone many alternatives and designs, but cannot receive preliminary approval from Caltrans. It is unjust, offensive, and misleading to continue to allow the public to believe that any theoretical or conceptual arterial road will relieve traffic congestion. In this regard, please see the letter from Lee Taubeneck, Deputy District Director of Transportation Planning\Caltrans, dated September 30, 2009 [copy attached as Exhibit 4], reconfirming that as of the 2009 meetings;with Caltrans, City staff was instructed to shelve the proposed interchange design and break in access plans. (A) Mr. Taubeneck's letter and the subsequent confirming communications only confirm the ephemeral nature of planning and design of the Rainier Cross-Town Connector with Interchange as presently discussed in the DCV DEIR/FEIR. Caltrans points out that assumptions dealing with the City's inability to complete either Caulfield Lane Extension (bridge over the river) or Old Redwood Highway improvements meant that even Alternatives 4 and 5 designs submitted at Rainier must be redesigned before resubmission, to account for the loss of these General Plan identified traffic reducing mechanisms. [See Taubeneck Letter dated September 30, 2009 Ex. 4 p. 3.][,2 [4] Subsequent.City/SCTA actions to fund and actualize the MSN-C2 project have partially resolved concerns contained in Mr. Taubeneck's letter. City Council / City,of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 10 The three elements of the Connector are (1)Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector; (2) Rainier Avenue Interchange; and (3) Rainier Avenue Undercrossing Structure (the newly discovered PSR combines 1 and 3); and Caltrans has dismissed the Interchange as untenable. Although Caltrans confirmed that the Cross-Town Connector.as a standalone could be reviewed as part of the MSN-C2 project, Caltrans,stated they will not reconsider opening and re-validating the recorded MSN-C2 EIR. The Undercrossing is now deemed a local standalone project, rrequiring an independent EIR/CEQA/NEPA process,T, and that portion of the Connector mustialso be completed before any funding analysis is supported. Before the Undercrossing design.Alternative No. 5, together with the balance of the RCTC, can be relied upon to provide the necessary traffic mitigation and conditions, it must comply and demonstrate adequacy with the City's 2025 horizon year, and MTC/ABAG 2040 RTP model year, respectively. The Rainier CTC.is documented as a constrained project[tl. planned for future RTPs AFTER 2040. The December 12, 2011 SCTA Staff Report Update is attached as Exhibit 7. Additionally,just like the hip, thigh, and knee;bone analogy, the Undercrossing has to be connected to City funded programs connecting the Undercrossing to Petaluma and N. McDowell Blvd.N. Otherwise, what we have is the Undercrossing "from nowhere to nowhere". (B) Caltrans will be unable to advertise•the Undercrossing project (AAA) unless it is complete and buildable under Caltrans' Standards.c ) A summary list of Process Approvals essential to obtaining Caltrans concurrence in the design of the project are: (a) conceptual approval from the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA]; (b) a superseding.freeway agreement; (c) proof that no other improvements on the local network will address the purpose and need for a connection at the Rainier Cross-Town Connector; (d) financing to support the capital improvements; (e) approved design exceptions for interchange spacing; [5] See 5/11/11 email from Eric Shen,.Project Manager Caltrans,to Melanie Brent, et al., attached as Exhibit 6. [6] Sonoma County-Transportation Authority[SCTA]tathe Board of.Directors.dated December 12,2011, Staff Report"Update on Regional Transportation Plan and the Sustainable Communities Strategy." [7] To provide incomplete projects is a violation of the California State Contract Act. Public Contract Code Section 10120 states: "Before entering into,any contract for a project,the Department shall prepare full, complete,and accurate plans and specificationsand estimates of cost,giving such directions as will enable any competent mechanic or other builder to catty them]dut; a district must develop and submit a complete PS&E for every project, advertised by the Office of Office Engineer(ESC-OE) in the Engineering Service Center (ESC[5]). This includes projects where the cost exceeds the cost as defined in Section 10105 of the Public Contract Code, and Section 10122." City Council/ City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 11 (f) an environmental document that satisfies the requirements of NEPA; (g) a Caltrans accepted Project Study Report [PSR]; (h) Plans, Specs and Estimate [PS&E]; and (i) California Transportation Commission [CTC] vote to approve a non-regulation break in access for Highway 101, which niust itself comply with traffic safety regulations mandated by the federal government and enforced by Caltrans and FHWA.[ ], (C) City staff;in preparation of this DEIR, have ignored the adverse comments from Caltrans related to incorporation of the Interchange as part of the Cross-Town Connector project since 2009. The "Conceptual" PSR [Ex. 1] shows that there is no interchange design at this time. What-is obvious from the total record presently available is that negotiations with Caltrans and SCTA following September 2009 confirmed that the MSN-C1 Old Redwood Highway project could not be compromised by design or submission of the Interchange or Cross-Town Connector, and that the Undercrossing itself, but not the Cross- Town Connector, could be designed and submitted as a stand-alone when funding for the Connector was available;that funding for the Connector must be supplied wholly from the City; and that the City suspended the U.S. 101 interchange project at Rainer until the City can develop a viable funding plan.11 Heather Hines wrote to John Brown and Larry Zimmer on January 5, 2012 [copy attached as Exhibit 13]: "staff is not technically.pursuing the approval of the PSR for the Interchange at this time based on Caltrans' feedback that the Cityshould not pursue approval of the applicable PSR until funding sources'are in place. Based on:that feedback and the fact that there is no available funding, staff is not pursuing,the PSR for the Interchange." Thus, City staff admits as late as February 5 that not even preliminary approval for the interchange design has been received from Caltrans. THIS MEANS NO INTERCHANGE CONNECTING.RAINER TO U.S. 101 IS UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IS CAPABLE OF BEING CONSIDERED as part of the DCV EIR project reviews. This also means that the DCV FEIR is inconsistent with the [8] FNM 76 Budget Verification,Title 23, Section 109 ;AASHTO Geometric Design Standards, Locally Funded Projects, State Legal Service.Center;C&M Agreement to cross RR;Hydrology FHWA Appendix IA Checklist, DOT-DIB 77& 79, PDPM Chapter 27, S&H Code Section 250; Chapter 24 article.1, Sections 23.5/100.2/100.3. Any interchange or at-grade connection with a new city streetthat was not in existence at the time of the freeway adoption requires prior CTC approval of the.engineering and design feasibility,per Streets & Highways Code [S&H] Section 2590, Chapter 24,Article 1,specifically 23:5, 100.2,and 100.3. [9] See letters from Petaluma to Caltrans dated December 7 and 28,2009 [attached as Exhibits 8 and 9, respectively]; letter from.Petaluma:to SCTA dated December 7,2009 [attached as Exhibit 10]; letter from Caltrans to Vince Marengo, Petaluma Dept. of Public Works dated December 30,2009 [attached.as Exhibit II]; and Jacobs Meeting Minutes of November 3,2009 [attached as Exhibit 12]. g. 7 City Council /City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 12 General Plan EIR, which assumes reduction of.the N. McDowell intersection designations from E to D or better, because the RCTC Interchange would be constructed by 2025. (D) The February 20.11 Conceptual PSR shows that the Connector is now only being considered with the Undercrossing, and construction is assumed for the 2040 horizon [Ex.1]. (E) However, the 2011 Traffic Study [reflected in the DCV DEIR] assumes as part of its traffic mitigation.that tthe Cross-Town Connector will be built by 2025, but this assumption runs contrary to the reference to the Connector in the December 12, 2011 SCTA constrained projects list, which indicates that,the Rainier Cross'Town Connector won't even be constructed until after 2040 [Ex. 7]. We have found no evidence in City, SCTA or Caltrans files that such connector is planned before 2025, or can be feasibly completed until after 2040, and what evidence does exist shows that the RCTC is wholly constrained and is to be funded by developer fees . However, the Cross-Town Connector, which is a constrained project without funding and without a possible construction date until after 2040, was not studied in the General Plan EIR, or in the Deer Creek traffic documents, either draft or final. This is why Caltrans elicited from staff an agreement to prepare a DEIR for the Cross- Town Connector [Exs..4, 5, 6, 8, 9, & 10], which City records indicate will not be completed until FY 14-15. This means reliance, even on the RCTC design including the Undercrossing, without funding issues resolved, as possible mitigation for cumulative impacts from Deer Creek Village is a violation:of law, because the City's documents show that no funding presently exists for any portion of the-Cross-Town Connector project, except to study the "donut hole" for the Undercrossing Structure [see SCTA Cooperative Agreements#11012 dated March 31, 2011 attached;as Exhibitl4 and #11012 A-1 dated June 15, 2011 attached as Exhibit 15]. According to the City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update of May 2008,it states the "Net City Cost" for the Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange—locally preferred alternative is $48,100,000. The only funding source listed for the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector/Interchange is Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees. Even assuming that the Interchange segment is removed from the. funding requirements, the present estimate for the RCTC, including Undercrossing, is $38 million. On December 19, 2011, Petaluma City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accomplish fee reductions,but maintain commitments through 2025, a logistical impossibility.. Currently, all major traffic infrastructure projects are calculated to have future development pay for 100%of the costs. Thus, if one accepted the lower RCTC and Undercrossing cost as $38 million, such amount would have to be collected from Merlone Geier Partners and other developers in order for these projects to rely on RCTC as mitigation. How can the City ask for monies.for'a project that is on a 2040 list? Successful City Council / City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEN: Summary of February.23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 13 completion of redesign of the RCTC and Undercrossing may allow for some reductions, but there is no basis for this assumption.f;'o] As shown above, the RCTC is not identified to be constructed within the framework of the 2025 Plan. Tables to the Staff Report supporting the December 19, 2011 Resolution shows that the remaining balance of fees held by the City to support all projects is $1,741,850 [attached as Exhibit 16]. It beggars the imagination that the entire balance of this account will be applied to a planning project not intended to be built until RTP model year 2040. Therefore, will the City condition approval of the Deer Creek Village project to the funding of the entire cost of the RCTC, which current admittedly undervalued estimate amounts to $38 million? The 2008 F&P documents [attached as Exhibit 17] show developer contributions of$79 million; Jacobs shows $16-$19 million; 2011 PS-R shows $53, million. What is the cost attributed to developers, exactly, and how will the funds be collected? How much of these funds are to be collected from Merlone Geier Partners? Given the adoption of the December 19, 2011 resolution, under no circumstances will the fees be increased, yet all costs of these traffic improvements must be borne by development per General Plan Policy 5-P-1. This additional General Plan/current policy inconsistency makes any mitigation obligations on the part of Merlon Geier effectively unenforceable, and furthet`violates the strictures of Anderson First. (F) Even if studied,approvals from all the following agencies for the Cross-Town Connector design are required before Caltrans will accept design allowing the Connector to attach to the Undercrossing: California Public Utility Commission [CPUC]; US Coast Guard [Petaluma River]; US Army Corps of Engineers; Metropolitan Transportation Commission/ABAG RTP; Department of Fish& Game [DEG]; CA Coastal Commission; CA Regional Water Quality Control Board; State Lands Commission; The Reclamation Board; Sonoma County Water Agency Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Transit Districts; U.S. Forest Service; Indian Reservation Ordinances; Sonoma County Transportation Agency; Federal.Highways Administration; and Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD], before the Cross-Town Connector in any configuration can be adequately and environmentally cleared for CEQA/NEPA, or designed, funded, and constructed. Although some of these agencies have commented on impacts of the Deer Creek retail proposal, in isolation to whether or not Rainier connector is a realistic proposal, none of the agencies, to the best of our research, have even preliminarily reviewed and commented upon, much less approved, any aspect of a Rainier Cross-Town Connector under U.S. 101 with PUC essential approvals of an overcrossing for the SMART train, and crossing the Petaluma River flood plain. [101 But see February 2011 Conceptual PSR[Ex. 11. Based on preliminary review,the estimate for design and construction is $64.5 million,not$38 million. City Council /City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 14 (G) With reference to the flood plain, a substantial list of birds, reptiles, and mammals have been identified [see list attached as Exhibit 18]. This list only underscores the complexity of correlated environmental approvals described in §2(B) above.. (H) Moreover, the aspects of that connector project which require Caltrans approvals are internally defective, because that project assumes if is going to get around the Caltrans design rejections mentioned in Mr. Taubeneck's 2009 letter, which indicate that the only way across U.S. 101 is under it. But, as the City was advised by Caltrans during the May 11, 2011 meeting, as a result of Caltrans' rejection of the alternatives included in the original PSRs, the City of Petaluma,must clear environmentally:the entire Rainier Undercrossing footprint within their own right of way as a separate project. [See 5/11/11 email from Eric Shen, Project Manager Caltrans, to Melanie Brent, et all Our information from URS, the City's current environmental consultant on the connector, confirms that the first draft of an BIR is not expected to be available for public and agency comment until at least the end of this year. (I) None of these design.and.environmental approvals has been obtained; therefore, any estimate of financial contribution of impacts fees, developers' contributions, RDA into the CIP, cannot achieve the•strategy of relief of cumulative!traffic congestion or that added traffic directly related to the Deer Creek Village project. (J) Because these reviews have not occurred, and approvals have not been obtained, any estimate of timing of construction, total costs of construction, and resulting necessary financial contribution of impacts fees as developer contributions to mitigate cumulative impacts cannot realistically achieve the strategy of relief of traffic congestion or that traffic related to the Deer Creek Village project added to surface streets like North McDowell Blvd. and E. Washington Streetil Simply stated, the Deer Creek Village FEIR bases its traffic mitigation plan on unsupported assumptions that a cross-town connector at Rainier Avenue with interchange will be built on or before 2025, but the only design now on the table between the City and Caltrans is Jacobs Carter Burgess Alternative 5 [Ex. 1], a RCTC with undercrossing which was never studied in the General Plan EIR traffic analysis, and therefore must be studied in the DCV FEIR. Because the undercrosss Alternative 5 is a connector design not studied in the 2025 GP, with no fund balance beyond the FY-2012 CIP„approvals,or realistic chance of being constructed during the contemplated lifetime of the adopted 2025 Update, even if studied, the cross-town improvements cannot be identified as a construction measure which will [11] The Rainier Cross-Town configuration was already the source of litigation in 1992, and the court passed on another set of air-dreams then. But at least in 1992;a PSR had been accepted for review by Caltrans in 1988. Those design plans have also been shelved at Caltrans' direction, Nothing has taken its place. City Council./ City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 15 relieve cumulative congestion on N. McDowell, so as to,bring the DCV FEIR into conformance with the statement of mitigation in the General Plan EIR. 3. Essential engineering and design assumptions involved in the Cross-Town Connector have not been resolved. The Deer Creek Village FEIR, despite all the opposition previously received, continues to rely on traffic mitigation assumptions which cannot practically be achieved. The FEIR relies on traffic operations based on build out of the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025. The build out of the City of Petaluma's General Plan 2025 is based on infrastructure improvements, including construction of the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector&U.S. 101 Interchange. As of October 2008, the City still anticipated RCTC to include an interchange; but as is shown in Section 2 above, that plan has been shelved. Correspondence from Caltrans, together with minutes of meetings, confirm that the alternatives which Caltrans would consider are not the ones identified for construction by City staff, and that Caltrans has suggested to the City of Petaluma that only Alternatives I, 4, and 5 were potentially viable alternatives based on Caltrans standards. This impasse means that until these difficulties are resolved, no reliance on timing, money, or design for the Rainier Cross- Town Connector can be relied upon as part of the.DCV FEIR, and the costs attributed to Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange as shown in the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update of May 2008[Ex. 17] are illusory. With respect to Ex. 1, the Conceptual PSR, although the City's preparation of this document is the logical next step, it does not show on this year's SCTA priority list, there are no meeting minutes attached, no work-plan review or comments by Caltrans were received with this document, and it does not show for consideration by Caltrans this year. Further, as seen from the constrained list [Ex. 7],the project is not programmed. (A) Factual Issues. The Rainier Including Interchange [sometimes referred to as "undercrossing"] has been effectively abandoned by City staff because of Caltrans' objections and the inability of staff to obtain even preliminary approvals from Caltrans. City Manager John Brown and Heather Hines' email dated January 5, 2012 to Councilwoman Teresa Barrett [copy attached as Exhibit 13] confirms the City's inability to obtain Caltrans' consent: "Although not inconsistent with this intent, staff is not technically pursuing the approval of the PSR for the interchange at this time based on Caltrans' feedback that the City should not pursue approval of the applicable PSR until funding sources are in place. Based on that feedback and the fact:that there is,not available funding, staff is not currently pursuing the PSR for the interchange. This does not mean that this will not City Council/City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 16 happen in the future or that the policy direction for both the interchange AND the crosstown connector has changed." The Deer Creek FEIR is presented to this Council after the Planning Commission rejected it in the face of these admissions that the actual design for the Rainier Cross-Town Connector and Interchange no longer exists, and that either a supplemental EIR for transportation (at least) and an amendment to the General Plan should be required. Failure to study and address these concerns as they apply to traffic impacts renders the final environmental review fatally flawed as a matter of law. (B) The FEIR Misleads the Council: No Undercrossing or Interchange Plan is approved by Caltrans. Caltrans rejected the Connector with Interchange and has never approved the Undercrossing PS&E. Caltrans will not grant encroachment permits to access Caltrans R/W by way of crossing of Highway 101 at the Rainier location, until and including a fully executed application package, which in-turn grants Authorization To Proceed; the alternatives suggested by Caltrans haven't been accepted by the City. (C) FEIR is substantially misleading for the following reasons: (i) Impacts to East Washington Interchange and the intersection at East Washington and McDowell Blvd. will impact Highway 101 service when traffic is increased due to the inability of the City of Petaluma to construct and/or fund the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Project. The intersection back up further affects traffic going onto and off of U.S. 101. (ii) Ramifications of withholding completed and/or virtually completed work product from the public to adequately comment on the,Deer Creek Village FEIR. Based on our review of documents available to date via.Public.Records Act requests, the RCTC (to handle traffic from North McDowell Blvd. to North Petaluma Blvd.) is nothing more than a concept, and one that requires years of planning design, approvals, and financing to complete and construct. It may take 12 years before MSN-C2 is constructed, and the Connector will be delayed by funding issues and delays in completion of the MSN-C2 project. Any attempt to resurrect the subsequent Rainier Interchange as part of a Cross-Town Connector cannot proceed until or concurrently with CTC approval at that time. As this Council knows, the traffic designations along East Washington,and McDowell Blvd. are LOS -E at present, and any further traffic poured out onto these service streets will only exacerbate a very difficult situation "...as the EIR statute requires the impact of any proposed project to be evaluated against a baseline of existing environmental conditions, which is the only way to identify the environmental effects specific to the project alone." The City's General Plan policy Ge/f City Council /`City of Petaluma Deer Creek FElR: Summary of February 23,2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 17 establishes that any project that increases the traffic designation with a present LOS-D requires traffic improvements so as not to be found inconsistent. GP EIR Findings A Policies 5-P-1; 5-P-10. Thus; the only responsible governmental decision is to require that Deer Creek traffic assume no Interchange, and that the RCTC with Undercrossing is not available to reduce its traffic impacts until after 2040, and to redraft and circulate a supplemental EIR with adequate traffic mitigation measures which will address Deer Creek's direct impacts on the existing congested local streets and roads. (iii) These requests for reconsideration are based on what appear to be wholly insufficient design and evaluation of the Undercrossing; failure to obtain essential Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC concurrence in the overcrossing and/or Interchange, failure to obtain CPUC approval over the SMART railroad, failure to obtain Coast Guard authority to cross the river, failure to confirm adequate funding even for preliminary PS&E funding for the Undercrossing, and other jurisdictional authorities previously noted. 4. Substantial Miscounting of Costs in Financing Connector Assumed by Deer Creek Village DEIR/FEIR. The City, by treating Deer Creek Village traffic contribution as "cumulatively significant," is allowing that project to be treated as compliant with the City's policies of requiring 100% funding of project related mitigation by contributing a fair share to the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget CIP. The problems with allocation to.a budgeted number in the CIP are many. CIP- 29 is also identified as C00501204, "Rainier Avenue Cross-Town/ Interchange" [attached as Exhibit 19], and thus continues the fiction of the interchange as part of the RCTC project, and thus the CIP claims to fund "Rainier Cross-Town Connector; Rainier Interchange"; which, as is shown:amply above, no longer exists. An additional confusion exists because the bridge structurefor the SMART bridge is not included in the project title. The proposed developer contribution as enforceable mitigation is inadequate as a matter of law because Petaluma, as lead agency, must identify facts and analysis to support this conclusion, and the conflicting designs, budget and lack of City funding for its own contribution make enforcement a fiction. 14 Cal.Code Regs. §15130(a)(3); see also Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4`1' 1173, 1188 [the mitigation fee must be part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation]. In addition to the fact that not even preliminary design approvals have been obtained from essential agencies for the Cross-Town Connector, a big range of proposed design and construction costs exists in the City's documents: $97,000.000 showing in the PMFP is substantially more than identified in the CIP budget within FY-2012 City of Petaluma adopted budget ordinance of$13,200,000, and these numbers in turn do not match the previously identified $38 million identified in the DCV EIR as the City's share of costs, or e-r 1 City Council/ City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 18 the Alternative 5 Budget prepared April 30, 2009, which shows total costs including right- of-way at $50.8 million [attached as Exhibit 20]; or $64:5 million for Conceptual PSR Rainier Modified [Ex. 1]; and the costs identified in the:Conceptual Rainier Avenue Cross- Town Connector [Including Undercrossing] PSR dated February 2011, $64.5 million for design, environmental; and construction, which confirms that 100% of the project is to be funded by the City. This means that not only is the design of the.RCTC confused in the DCV EIR with the interchange evaluation, but even where the City has begun conceptual work on defining Alternative 5, the budgeting numbers do not match either the identified CIP or other budgeting numbers throughout the DCV EIR, or other funding documents in the City's possession. The conceptual nature of the proposed design means that no reasonable plan of actual mitigation from the unfunded and unplanned and unsigned and unapproved Cross-Town Connector currently exists which is properly budgeted for. Assuming that the detail in the 2011, Conceptual PSR [Ex. 1] is sufficiently complete; the 2008 Fehr& Peers analysis [Ex. 17] and any City budgeting and allocations based on that analysis must be corrected before approval of any proposed mitigation contributions can be considered. Failure to provide for traffic mitigation in this context cannot be supported by the facts before the City. The total cost assumed for construction of the Connector runs the gamut. In addition to the different calculations cited above, the City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update dated May 2008[attached as Exhibit 17] shows $79 million. However, the alternatives which Caltrans was willing to originally consider in 2009 range in price from $75 million to $109 million because they are based on the assumptions that all of the following were to occur: (a) conceptual approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); (b) a superseding freeway agreement; (c)proof that no other improvements on the local network will address the purpose and need for a connection at the Rainier Cross-Town Connector; (d) financing to support the capital improvements; (e) approved design exceptions for interchange spacing;.and (f) an environmental document that satisfies the requirements of NEPA [see Lee Taubeneck's letter.dated September 30, 2009, Ex. 4]. The 2011 Conceptual PSR [Ex. 1] includes slightly lower numbers of$64.5 million, but even this lower number has neither been incorporated into City budgeting numbers, nor has the CIP been amended; and therefore, anticipated calculations by City staff for purposes of obtaining developer approval not only violate the requirements of Anderson First, but violate the predicates of the Mitigation Fee Act [Govt. Code §§66000 et. seq.]. 5. The design and timing of the Undercrossing and Interchange in the Deer Creek FEIR do not comply with the General Plan,2025 Program Update, and therefore the FEIR.must be revised both as to traffic and financing impacts. llig °l: O City Council / City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 19 (A) The Sonoma County Voter Approved Measure M Quarter Cent Sales Tax did not include a cross-town connector or interchange at Rainier, and did not include a project at Rainier of any configuration [Measure M Exs. 14 and 15]. The only project approved under Measure M is the Phase C2—Petaluma Area HOV Lanes (design and construction) portion of MSN-C2 CEQA therein. The SCTA Board has only been authorized to proceed with the PS&E (design) of MSN-C2 [see Cooperative.Funding Agreement dated May 7, 2010, Contract No. SCTA 11012, attached as Exhibit 21], which incorporates the City "donated" $498K for such design alternative for the study of the Undercrossing. There are no additional funding agreements with SCTA applicable to the RCTC,L:;z' and SCTA will need Caltrans and the multiple agency consents described earlier in this letter to proceed toward any funding and design mechanism for RCTC. (B) Instead,the City is pursuing an alternative defined as"Rainier Avenue Undercrossing Structure" at Caltrans R/W edge of highway abutments, which is supported by the Cooperative Agreement with Sonoma County Transportation Agency dated December 13, 2010, for $498,000 [Exs. 14 and 15]. The $7 million shown.on Resolution 2011-046 [attached as Exhibit22] is for the construction phase of the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing structure only, in accordance with the MSN C-2 HOV Project, not the Rainier Cross-Town Connector or Interchange. Given the numerous alternative cost estimates found in the documents to date, until the City has formally authorized design of RCTC, any estimate is unsubstantiated. (C) RCTC would be a 2040 Regional Transportation Plan project. The City of Petaluma travel demand model of GP 2025 Horizon Year and Caltrans 2040 Model Year would require new inputs and growth assumptions of land use, and proposed infrastructure use, as projected, less residential and more employment growth than the current GP. Even considering a full 2025 GP Build-Out, the margin of growth will not achieve the RTP 2040 Model year. ABAG'(MTC) projects on a region-wide basis and does not align with the City's linear growth projections. See SCTA Agenda Item 5.2.1-- Update on Regional Transportation Plan and the Sustainable Communities Strategy, December 12, 2011 [Ex. 7]. 6. The Fiscal Analysis focuses on the initial cost of-Planning or Project Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), and Environmental Assessment of only the Cross-Town Connector, but no budget for construction can be formulated because the essential Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans will be,based on a complete and approved Caltrans PS&E. i1�1 SCTA Board has not been authorized to construct HOV Lanes on MSN-C2, as SCTA requires$80M to build MSN-C2 [2011 Measure M Strategic Plan]. C2 $85,913,000 $5,913,000 (still need) $80,000,000 0 0 City Councild-City ofP.etaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 20 Currently BKF's (design consultant for MSN-C2) plan-set effort is just at 65%,therefore an accurate construction budget is,not possible. Please note, the DEIR for only the Cross-Town Connector is estimated end of calendar year 2012, and FEIR end of calendar year 2013. Hence, the EIR effort has just begun, and there is no budget for design, R/W, construction, or direct-indirect costs for either the Cross-Town Connector OR Interchange except the Conceptual PSR budget of$64.5 million in Ex. 1. As is noted in 11012 A-1, all City funding is dedicated by Cooperative Agreement with SCTA for a "Rainier Avenue Undercrossing Structure." The Conceptual PSR is actually a third Rainier project, as the Coop's have no agreement to design or fund anything but the SCTA/Measure M Alternative "Undercrossing Structure." (A) The calculation of mitigation fees for transportation projects shown in City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update [Ex. 17] assumes that the Cross-Town Connector will not be built for 15 years. But even this delay is completely insufficient. The funding mechanism is materially defective in the following essentials: (a) City of Petaluma Traffic Fee Program Update; (b) City of Petaluma-CIP-29 Project C00501204; (c) MTC Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy; (d) City of Petaluma Development Fee Account Balances Adopted FY11-12; (e) City of Petaluma/ Petaluma Community Development Commission Fund 5400; and (f) City of Petaluma General Fund Adopted Fy11-12. (B) The City has breached the terms of its Cooperative Agreement with SCTA for Measure M, because its funding mechanism does not provide for the Cross-Town Connector or Interchange. As pointed out in SCTA Contract No. 1'1012 A-1 [Ex. 15], and the Petaluma City Council,Petaluma Community Development Commission Board, SCTA- Petaluma Cooperative Agreement dated March 31, 2011, Resolution No. 2011-046 N.C.S [Ex. 22], funds are shown as available for design of the Cross-Town Connector [Undercrossing] as part of the MSN-C2 bridge project exclusively, and actually benefit the Caltrans/SCTA "Petaluma Area HOV Lanes" approved by Measure M. Cooperative agreements and resolutions are in place for the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing Structure (bridge under U.S. Highway 101) which serves as an alternative to Measure M, and the SCTA Board has authorized the design of the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing Structure alternative at the cost of$498,000, to be paid for with PCDC funds. (C) However, and contrary to conclusory statements in the FEIR, no preliminary approvals with Caltrans or other essential agencies have been obtained for a RCTC with Undercrossing, or were made available to same by the City Attorney upon PRA submission. The conceptual PSR has, to the best of our knowledge, never even been presented to this City Council for preliminary concept review. In a game of hide-the-penny, no discussion of City Council / City of Petaluma Deer Creek FEIR: Summary of February 23, 2012 Unresolved Significant Traffic Defects Page 21 CPUC approvals over the SMART R/W (tracks) is even identified, nor any Coast Guard authority to over cross the river. 7. The Cross-Town Connector is confused with the Rainier Undercrossing Structure, at and within Caltrans R/W, U.S. 101 [City Project only], for purposes of claiming available funding. Additionally, because of the apparent failure of actual funding sources, even the $7,498,000 identified in the Petaluma Community Development Commission Board (PCDC) Component of 11012 A-1 [Exs. 15 and 22],may not be available based upon the California State Supreme Court ruling to dissolve all Redevelopment Agencies, and for the Successor Agency to solely consider projects currently already underway. Thus, the Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule [FOPS] misstates that construction of the MSN-C2 Undercrossing.Structure is underway. But even if the funding shown above to design and construct the Undercrossing Structure is still available, it must serve either the MSN-C2 Undercrossing Structure project, or the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector and/or Interchange. Your City FY-2012 Budget Ordinance (CIP-29) does not designate or specifically or adequately fund either of the 3 Rainier projects (the 3rd being the Undercrossing Structure). Since the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector/Interchange is simply not identified for funding in these previously approved Cooperative Agreements, any use of the funding for further studies or planning is illegal unless these agreements are revised, with the consent of SCTA. Thus, the assumptions contained in the traffic_analysis for Deer Creek are substantially defective; and alternative mitigation must be identified, evaluated, and provided. incerely C. , ip Bri . S.ti. Atachme s 1-22 cc: Clients Deer CreeINCT Opposition.L01 • 04- Son - 101 —PM 5.6 EA 4A430K February 2011 PROJECT STUDY REPORT To Request Conceptual Approval to Proceed with the Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase AND Authorize a Cooperative Agreement Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector IN SONOMA COUNTY IN PETALUMA CROSSING ROUTE 101 0.84 MILES NORTH OF THE EAST WASHINGTON STREET OVERCROSSING APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: ERIC SCHEN PROJECT MANAGER-PROJECT MANAGEMENT NORTH BAY ZIAD ABUBEKR DISTRICT OFFICE CHIEF-DESIGN NORTH COUNTIES APPROVED: BIJAN SARTIPI DATE DISTRICT DIRECTOR (e 13-- d-3 04 - Son - 101 —PM 5.6 EA 4A430K February 2011 This Project Study Report has been prepared under the direction of the following Registered Engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions,and decisions are based. DcuItct W DApi p 2/16/2011 REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER ,DATE 4,-t01e'R 51pN� 44 52 Q. a David Andrew Williams 7) No.C 58697 Exp. 12/31/2012 CIVIL STq�OF CAUFO��\P TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. BACKGROUND 2 3. PURPOSE AND NEED 4 4. DEFICIENCIES 6 5. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION 10 6. ALTERNATIVES 11 7. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 13 8. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENT 13 9. FUNDING 14 10. AGREEMENTS 15 11. SCHEDULE 15 12. FHWA COORDINATION 16 13. PROJECT PERSONNEL 16 14. PROJECT REVIEWS 16 15. ATTACHMENTS 17 04- Son- 101 -PM 5.6 EA 4A430K February 2011 ‘ . . :.t ,-----1 -.4 a3 zt ... --- -- - ---- i e...--- --"ff -- - -$.7. -- o --, tt h. LO u, A 1 o i NO SCALE . 1— t-BEGIN PROJECT ..-'L..a ,70 . m■ Tt 1:1 ..t> . 14 ' l't • 4.1 S. ,o- , 3 , 0 1,‘ 52 '1/4 --' I c COMMERCE.5TRERT IR' • t' .\,* : -.... -, L° - UNDERCROSSING 2- - . .... . , - --->_32300.poRtwAY..- . - r H-RAINJER AVE EXTENSION -Jot 30 . 40 45 U .._..... ... .. PROPOSED BRIDGE OVER - END PROJECT PETALUMA RIVER AND -VI 6 S.M.A.R:T, CORRIDOR LIMITS OF PROJECT •, - ' YI/ITHIN STATE R/W ,---,, • .. . .., 'Y- . 1.-- '- Aztt‘‘P • , iv' ' , • .. - --- . , -' A 8- • 6 , : 1 . ,.., '-' I ----- -, -- — ■- 1 C-41.--; ---,-- . _ ---= --- IN SONOMA COUNTY IN PETALUMA CROSSING ROUTE 101 0.84 MILES NORTH OF THE EAST WASHINGTON STREET OVERCROSSING 04 - Son - 101 — PM 5.6 EA 4A430K 1. INTRODUCTION The project proposes to construct a new local street cross-town connector (Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector) by extending Rainier Avenue from the existing intersection at N. McDowell Boulevard (east of Route 101) to a new intersection at Petaluma Boulevard North (west of Route 101) in the City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California, to accommodate planned growth in traffic in the northeast:area of the-City, The total length of the new local street connector is 0.65 miles and.will pass under a new undercrossing (UC) structure along the Route 101 mainline, 0.84 miles north of the East Washington.Street Overcrossing (PM 4.76). The new UC will be.constructed along the Route 101 mainline as part of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) US 101 Marin Sonoma Narrows High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Widening Segment C2 (MSN C2) Project,(EA 2640F_) currently in the design phase. A project Vicinity Map and Project Location Map are provided in Attachment A. Project improvements for the locaLstreet connector include a new four lane facility with raised center median, landscaping, Class 2 bicycle facilities and sidewalks from a new signalized intersection at Petaluma Boulevard North at the westerly project limit to the existing Rainier Avenue/N. McDowell Boulevard signalized intersection at the easterly project limit. Along the local street route, the connector elevates over the Petalunia River and the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) corridor on a new structure, and passes under Route 101 at the UC location. Project Limits 04, Son, 101,PM 5.6 (Dist., Co Rte.,PM) Programmed or Proposed Capital $29.7 million total project Construction Costs $0.9 million within State R/W T Programmed or Proposal Capital $23.8 million total project Right of Way Costs_ $0 within State R/W Funding Source Local funding Type of Facility (conventional, Local street connector expressway)freeway)._ Number of Structures: One crossing SMART Corridor and Petaluma River. New UC at Route 101 constructed by EA 2640F_ --------------- Anticipated Environmental CEQA: Determination/Document • EIR for entire connector route • CE within State R/W Legal Description: In Sonoma County in Petaluma on Route 101,0.84 miles north of East Washington Street Overcrossing The project sponsor/requestor is the City of Petaluma. The costs of the proposed local street connector improvements are estimated at $64.5 million (Year2015), which'includes costs for project development, engineering,.environmental documentation, right of way, construction and construction support. Within State right of way along Route 101, the construction costs of the proposed local street connector improvements are estimated at $0.9 million (Year 2015).- �]'f 1 08 -0 ( 04 - Son - 101 — PM 5.6 EA 4A430K Funding for the project will be from City of Petaluma local funding sources. This project has been assigned the Project Development Processing Category 4A because it does require substantial new right of way for construction of the new connector roadway. • 2. BACKGROUND The need for a Route 101/Rainier Avenue Interchange was identified as early as 1965 by Caltrans and the City of-Petaluma. Caltrans completed and approved a Supplemental Project Authorization Report in 1980 and a Project Study Report (PSR) in 1988. The interchange location was reviewed again in 1992 because of interchange spacing requirements as the distance between the East Washington Street Interchange and the proposed Rainier Avenue Interchange would be less than one mile. In a letter to the City of Petaluma dated March 17, 1992, Caltrans tentatively approved the Rainier Avenue Interchange location provided auxiliary • lanes were added in both directions of Route 101 between the proposed Rainier Avenue Interchange and the existing East Washington Street Interchange. Subsequent to Caltrans' completion of an approved PSR for this interchange, the City of Petaluma certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The modified diamond interchange with a loop ramp alternative was studied and approved in the original 1994 EIR. However, due to the political climate at that time, the design and construction phases for the interchange were put on hold. A Rainier Avenue Interchange has been identified in local plans and studies for many years and is consistent with local planning goals and policies according to the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 (2020 GP); the SCTA 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2009 CTP) approved by the SCTA Board on October 6, 2008, and the General Plan for the City of Petaluma. The Circulation and Transit Element of the Sonoma County 2020 GP lists Rainier Avenue under Policy CT=3g (3)to add new or improved interchanges or under/overpasses along Route 101. A "Petaluma crosstown connector and Rainier Interchange" is listed in Appendix A of the SCTA 2009 CTP. The interchange is also included in the City of Petaluma's General Plan 2025, as the numerous traffic analyses completed over many years concluded that improvements to the Route 101/East Washington Street Interchange alone would not be sufficient to address traffic,congestion at the East Washington Street Interchange. Constructing a new interchange at Rainier Avenue was found to be the preferred alternative to address traffic congestion at the adjacent interchanges. The City of Petaluma Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan dated May 2008 (an appendix to the City General Plan 2025) identifies proposed Class 2 bicycle facilities on the future extension of Rainier Avenue from the existing intersection at N. McDowell Boulevard (east of Route 101) to a new intersection at Petaluma Boulevard North (west of Route 101). The Transportation 2035 Plan for the San-Francisco Bay Area prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and adopted on April 22, 2009, includes construction of a Petaluma crosstown connector/interchange under'the'Strategic Expansion category for Sonoma County as Project Reference#21884. In November 2004, the City of Petaluma voters overwhelmingly passed Measure S urging the City Council to pursue the design, environmental studies,funding, and construction of a Rainier Avenue Interchange and cross-town connector that includes the extension of Rainer Avenue 2 04- Son- 101 —PM 5.6 EA 4A430K from N. McDowell Boulevard to Petaluma Boulevard North. The inclusion of a new interchange in all of these transportation plans demonstrates the importance of the Rainier Avenue Interchange as it relates to the local, county and regional transportation system; and the success of Measure S demonstrates strong public support for the Rainier Interchange. In 2005 and 2006, City of Petaluma staff met with Caltrans project management and headquarters design staff to discuss re-starting the interchange project using Caltrans' Project Development Procedures. Because the new interchange would be.located less than the required spacing of one mile from the East Washington Street Interchange, the City of Petaluma agreed to Caltrans' request to perform a traffic weaving analysis prior to initiating a PSR. The traffic weaving study was completed and provided to Caltrans. In addition to the various Rainier Avenue Interchange project studies, previous studies addressed the nonstandard 'spacing for an interchange at Rainier Avenue by evaluating alternative interchange locations at Sunrise Parkway and Southpoint Boulevard. Both of these alternatives would meet the interchange spacing requirement. However, due to significant right of way acquisition and impacts,these alternative locations were deemed infeasible. The Transportation and Circulation Element of the City of Petaluma's General Plan 2025 includes a new connection (interchange) on Route 101 at Rainier Avenue, between Corona Road and the East Washington'StreetInterchange (independent element 1). The City's General Plan also includes an extension of Rainier Avenue from N. McDowell Boulevard that crosses Route 101 and connects to Petaluma Boulevard North (the east-west arterial referred to as the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector, independent element 2). Previously, these two elements formed one project: the Rainier Avenue Interchange/Cross-Town Connector and Route 101 Undercrossing Project. Over the years, the City has been seeking approval from the State to develop a new access point, or connection, on Route 101 at Rainier Avenue. However, the Cross-Town Connector element has independent utility. After much consideration, the City decided to separate these two elements and focus its resources on the Rainier Avenue. Cross-Town Connector. In focusing on the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector, the City suspended the project development for the Route 101/Rainier Avenue Interchange. (independent element 1) at this time. City requested written approval from Caltrans of the City's approach. to separate the Rainier Avenue Interchange/Cross-Town Connector and Route 101 Undercrossing Project into two separate projects, to proceed with preparation of a.Project Study Report (PSR) for the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector (independent element 2), which includes a new undercrossing (UC) at Route 101 for the extension of Rainer Avenue, and to suspend project development for the Rainier Avenue Interchange. Caltrans concurred with the City's request on December 30, 2009 and requested that the City suspend the development of a PSR for the Route 101/ Rainier Avenue Interchange Project and proceed with a PSR for the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector Project including an UC structure on Route 101 and preparation of the environmental document. The City met with Caltrans and Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) on November 3, 2009 to discuss including the UC structure needed along Route 101 for the 3 • &6-N 04- Son - 101 —PM 5.6 EA 4A430K Rainier Avenue Cross Town-Connector Project as part of the MSN C2 project through Petaluma. Consensus was reached between the City, Caltrans and SCTA to include the UC structure component of the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector element into the MSN C2 design. The SCTA has initiated a request to Caltrans,to process environmental clearance for the UC structure where the extension of Rainier Avenue to the west will cross Route 101as part of the approved environmental document for the overall MSN project sponsored jointly by the SCTA and Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). 3. PURPOSE AND.NEED Need:. The northern and eastern areas of the City of Petaluma continue;to be developed in accordance with the City's General Plan creating heavy demand on the existing East Washington Street and Old Redwood Highway Interchanges on Route 101 as well as their local street networks. The Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector including a new uncrossing on Route 101will contribute to relieving congestion on the freeway and the local transportation system. The Route 101/East Washington Street Interchange, approximately 0.84 miles south of the proposed Rainier Avenue. Cross-Town Connector, is the primary freeway ingress and egress point for traffic traveling to and from the City of Petaluma. The East Washington Street Interchange is also the primary east and west connector for the City of Petaluma. Traffic operations on East Washington Street have continued to degrade during the past years due to traffic congestion during peak periods. The northbound off-ramp/East Washington Street intersection is spaced only 340 feet from the N. McDowell.Boulevard/East Washington Street intersection. This short intersection spacing distance causes considerable congestion and creates weaving conflicts for eastbound traffic on East Washington Street. Traffic exiting northbound Route 101 on the off-ramp that turn right at East Washington Street and want to head north on McDowell Boulevard must cross over two lanes of traffic to enter the eastbound left turn lanes on East Washington Street that are typically backed up during the peak periods. This in turn adversely impacts the off-ramp and causes traffic to back up along the ramp to the freeway mainline further impacting freeway operations. Without the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector, traffic volumes are expected to exceed capacity at some of the most critical streets and intersections in the City of Petaluma. Traffic congestion will be exacerbated at the following heavily traveled streets and intersections: • East Washington Street between N. McDowell Boulevard and Payran Street • Northbound off-ramp at the East Washington Street Interchange • Old Redwood Highway between Route 101 and N. McDowell Boulevard • Corona Road at N. McDowell Boulevard The Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector will improve the operations and provide benefits to the local transportation system by redistributing traffic from heavily congested facilities on the east side of the freeway to facilities on the west side. The Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector also provides an improved street network for law enforcement, emergency, and 4 6 P 04- Son - 101 — PM 5.6 EA 4A430K 4. DEFICIENCIES Traffic: Fehr & Peers prepared a Route 101/ Rainier Avenue Interchange Traffic Operations Report dated November 20, 2008, for five alternative connections where the proposed Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector crosses.Route 101. The Traffic Operations Report (TOR) reflects the new traffic forecasts and traffic operations analyses due to changes in design year (2040) and land use assumptions. A copy of the Executive Summary from the TOR is included in Attachment B. The peak hour traffic volumes for the existing condition, no build condition and the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector alternative (Alternative 5 with an UC only at Route 101 in the TOR) along the Route 101 mainline are summarized in the following table. Table 1—Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PeakHour Traffic Volulies AM(P + " { !s. LOCatlfOi,a " ':;K"-z `, t(*1)`' "i m` So " A-13 Y fExrstrngn 2040 No 2040 (Alt 5 n Northbound Lakeville to East Washington Street 2327(3570) 4030(5450) 4060(5500) East Washington to Rainier Avenue - - - Rainier Avenue to O1d'Redwood Highway - - - East Washington Street to Old Redwood 2448(3462) 4300(5530) 4280(5510) Highway Southbound Lakeville to East Washington Street 2131(2525) 4200(4580) 4180(4330) East Washington to Rainier Avenue - - - Rainier Avenue to Old Redwood Highway - - - East Washington Street to Old Redwood 2346(2346) 4060(4310) 4040(4570) Highway As noted in the Executive Summary from the TOR, there is no Route 101 freeway benefit with an UC only at Rainier Avenue (ie. the Route 101 mainline operations will not be improved). The Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector improves local street intersection operations and benefits to the local transportation system by redistributing local traffic from heavily congested adjacent facilities toa.new facility dedicated to servelocal traffic only as there is no connection with Route 101. Local traffic with destinations to/from Route 101 would still use the adjacent interchanges at East Washington Street and Old Redwood Highway. The Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector slightly reduces traffic volumes at both the East Washington Street and Old Redwood Highway Interchanges as summarized in the following table (extracted from Table E-1 in the TOR Executive Summary). 6 04 - Son- 101 — PM 5.6 EA 4A430K Table 2—Percentage Traffic Volume Reduction # ".+� " a!s- e' ^"""� �.r Td,.k�* ii v7,-t N '°"x."s., 'uaz s�°, " ` rcen 2t"?if" rafficr+e ra m"`�"ryg'':ft n Percent Peak Tratucl ume <�y4.X � "4 �„ "war 2ZsM' k. ^#. +�" ' r a : ,k`iw�rw yir c �''.x �a•LocatioR $° 3 ea . u 4 ylRed�netion AM(P `iei .. " " ,+. N } -' r .4x.1"' ..�< + y°.�vt,, fi«`�'"�'x1�� ka 5..+ 'rt �. F 'x` hn.*F ya ,a.nweS"` .��g x'r rx. ti n'a akagit ...v'p..A�.s2t`�I��... , i i..l Y: ...4+". `ki x l.,L� ?'fu: *X a.-,w'Tr-i's'..e Old Redwood Highway Interchange -7%(-11%) East Washington.Street Interchange -17%(-19%) This project will also provide an additional east-west route crossing Route 101 for pedestrians and bicyclists along the proposed Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector between McDowell Boulevard and Petaluma Boulevard North. The peak hour level of service results at key signalized intersections at the Old Redwood Highway and East Washington Street interchanges for the no build condition and the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector alternative (Alternative 5 with an TIC only at Route 101 in the TOR) are summarized in the following table (extracted from Table E-2 in the TOR Executive Summary). Table 3—Level of Service � ,>�� ,�rr,�x t n' s� _ "�Peak.HourLevelofServtceAM(PM) , LOeatlonn "� S 5. i ° t F sa.vc�,', � �7nn 4. vl r.t r Y 5 ,x..n uW.. C"S'iN r �'+�« ' t,."1 +- 'd>.a`+.. tk?S " ' ,A, ,7g2040 No Build 2040l(Alt 5 rn TOR);; al o•h. o,..': da .e ,. .i .N Cb`Y..7c m"ni7ero 76:tt..._ 2- <_.ie"m^d 3 .. Old Redwood Highway Interchange SB On-Ramp C(C) C(B) NB Off-Ramp B(B) _ B(B) N. McDowell Boulevard / Old Redwood C(F) C(F) Highway East Washington Street Interchange SB On-Ramp F(F) F(F) NB Off-Ramp A(D) A(B) N. McDowell Boulevard / East Washington F(F) E(F) Street N. McDowell Boulevard/Rainier Avenue* B(B) D(F) * The level of service at the existing McDowell Boulevard / Rainier Avenue intersection is anticipated to deteriorate during the PM peak hour as the cross-town connector draws additional traffic to this intersection. The City's General Plan has identified this intersection as operating at unacceptable service levels in the future due to the construction of the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector project. The General Plan concluded that installing additional lanes or expanding capacity at this intersection would conflict with the General Plan goals and policies regarding multi-modal circulation and preserving Petaluma's walking and bicycling environment and additional improvements to improve the level of service are not proposed. 04- Son - 101 — PM 5.6 EA 4A430K way. According to the MSN Project EIR/EIS, there are no known or unknown sensitive cultural or biological resources within the project limits. -However, the MSN EIR/EIS states that paleontologically sensitive Wilson Grove. Formation is exposed at the surface in Segment C. The MSN C2 project includes mitigation measures in.the event that paleontological resources are encountered. These measures include halting work until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the resource,preparation of a data recovery report and accession of any fossils to an accredited paleontological repository. The PEAR also notes. The UC would not require any environmental commitments beyond what has been proposed for the MSN C2 project and would not require a separate Environmental Commitment Record (ECR). Costs for the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector environmental mitigation/permits would be approximately$5.0 million. The City will be the lead agency for the project under CEQA and it is anticipated that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be the appropriate environmental document for the overall project between Petaluma Boulevard North and N. McDowell Boulevard. 9. FUNDING The total project costs (Year 2015) that includes capital and support costs are currently estimated as follows: • Cost (2015) Total Roadway Items $14.2 M Total Structures Items $15.5 M SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ("A") $29.7 M Environmental Mitigation/Permits $5.0 M Right of Way/ Utilities $18.8 M SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS ("B") $23.8 M PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS ("A" + "B") $53.5 M PA/ED Support (PSR & Environmental Document) $1.5 M PS&E Support $4.0 M Right of Way Support $1.0 M Construction Support $4.5 M SUPPORT COSTS ("C") $11.0 M TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ("A" + "B" + "C") $64.5 M Within State right of way along Route 101, the construction costs of the proposed local street connector improvements are estimated at$0.9 million (Year 2015). Preliminary project capital outlay cost estimates are provided in Attachment F for both the total project and the portion of the project within State R/W. An escalation factor of 3 % per year is assumed to derive the Year 2015 preliminary construction capital costs. 14 Attachment C: Schedule The following table outlines the current major milestone schedule for the project: PROJECT MILESTONE DATE. rBegin Environmental Studies !Preliminary Engineering July 2010 Approve PSR/PEAR June 2011 Begin PA&ED July 2011 _Approve Environmental Document/End PA&ED (Project Approval) December 2012 Begin PS&E January 2013 End PS&E (Estimate 15 months) March 2014 R/W Acquisition & Certification (Estimate 24 months) December 2014 RTL December 2014 Advertise Project January 2015 Begin Construction April 2015 End Construction (Estimate 30 months) October 2017 Resolution.No. 2008M84 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND ADOPTING AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF THE GENERAL PLAN 2025,PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 ("the Plan") was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on August 11, 2004, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the Plan in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between September 12, 2006 and May 7, 2007, with a notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085; and, WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public meetings and hearings on September 26, October 10 and 24, November 14 and 28, December 12, 2006; January 9 and 23, February 20 and 27, and, March 13 and 27, 2007 to hear testimony on the draft General Plan and Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held noticed informational meetings or hearings on the recommendations of the Planning Commission as well as on related General Plan matters brought to the Council's attention by the public, City staff and its own members on the following dates: October 2 and 16,November 6 and 20, December 4 and 18, 2006; January 22, February 5, 12 and 26, March 5 and 19, April 16 and 23, and May 7 and 21, 2007; and, WHEREAS, a Revised Draft EIR — Greenhouse Gas Emissions was prepared for the Plan in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between November 20, 2007 and January 7, 2008, with a notice inviting comments on the Revised Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085; and, WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Revised Draft EIR to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Plan and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, / g E. General Plan Programs and Policies as Mitigation. Because the CEQA project at issue is the adoption of a long range planning document, most of the measures which will mitigate environmental impacts of the Plan are contained in the Plan's goals, policies and programs. This is consistent with direction from the City Council at early stages in the Plan process to develop a general plan which self-mitigates its impacts, to the full extent feasible. The policies and programs which serve as mitigation are discussed throughout these Findings and identified in the Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached as Exhibit 13 ("IP/MMP") and adopted concurrently with the Findings. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, subsection (a), because the project at issue is the adoption of a general plan or other plan-level document, the IP/MMP applies to policies and other portions of the Plan that serve as mitigation measures. References to "mitigation" and/or "mitigation measures" throughout these Findings include Plan policies and programs which are relied on to reduce environmental impacts. F. Severability If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a • particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Plan, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS As set forth in Section IV hereof, almost all potentially significant impacts of the Plan will be reduced to less-than-significant levels by the Plan Policies which form the mitigation measures recommended in these Findings. The City Council finds that a small number of impacts cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance even with the incorporation of all mitigation in Plan Policies, and there are no feasible alternatives to the Plan which would mitigate or avoid these significant environmental impacts and still achieve Plan objectives. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable even if their impacts have been substantially lessened. The significant impacts of the Plan that cannot be mitigated to levels of insignificance are (i) deteriorated levels of service at six intersections within the City (Transportation Impact 3.2- 1); (ii) increased noise from traffic along certain roadways (Transportation Impact 3.9-1); (iii) the cumulative noise impact of possible future rail and trolley service combined with increased noise from traffic (Cumulative Impact, Draft EIR, p. 4-5); (iv) an air quality impact resulting from buildout population numbers that conflict with the Bay Area 2005/One (fC,6-3g Strategy (Impact 3.10-1); and (v) a possible air quality impact resulting from the city's inability to determine, based on current regulatory and technical uncertainty, whether or not implementation of the Plan will create a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to adverse global climate;change. A. Transportation Impact 3.2-1 Increased motor vehicle traffic would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at study intersections. Traffic at six intersections will operate at LOS E or worse at buildout, thus creating a significant impact at these intersections, under the revised LOS criteria called for by the Plan: • McDowell Boulevard North/Corona Road • Lakeville Street/ Caulfield Lane • Lakeville Street/East D Street • Petaluma Boulevard South/D Street • Sonoma Mountain Parkway/ Ely Boulevard South/East Washington Street • McDowell Boulevard North/Rainier Avenue Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which affect and/or substantially reduce this impact: Policy 5-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D and E. Provide for the development of a multi- modal interconnected system to greatly expand upon the opportunity of travel on multiple routes by multiple modes. Policy 5-P-2, Programs A, B, C, D and E. Ensure timely funding and completion of the identified mobility system to meet the needs of the community through buildout. Policy 5-P-3, Programs A and B. Provide for flexibility and innovation in the design, construction and maintenance of the mobility infrastructure. Policy 5-P-4. Ensures off-site improvements may be required of new development to complete appropriate links to'the existing multi-modal infrastructure. Policy 5-P-5. Draws in full multi-modal components into the evaluation of potential mobility impacts. Policy 5-P-8, Programs A and B. Identifies quality of life and community character as priorities in the task of designing the multi-modal components of the community's mobility infrastructure. Policy 5-P-10, Program A. Sets the Level of Service D (LOS D) or better for motor vehicles while recognizing a lower LOS may be acceptable,if improvements are found to conflict with Guiding.Principles. Policy 5-P-11, Program A. Sets forth the major components to the mobility infrastructure and requires new development'to assist in their funding. Policy 5-P-13, Program G. Not counted on for the mitigation of impacts, this program is part of the voluntary Travel Demand Management and Parking Program. // , Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Plan which will lessen, but not avoid, the significant effect identified in the EIR. Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable Explanation: There are no feasible mitigation measures:identified that would reduce the impacts to the six study intersections to less than significant other than measures that would conflict with other Plan Guiding Principles. Feasibility of mitigation in this case includes consideration of whether a possible mitigation measure meets overall project objectives. Here, those project objectives are contained in the Plan's Guiding Principles set out at Section i-3 of the Plan. The competing interests of building all roadway systems to meet peak travel period demands and preserving the overall community character of the city has been resolved in Policy 5-P-10, Program A, which notes that a level of service lower than LOS D for motor vehicles maybe deemed acceptable by the City in instances where potential vehicular traffic mitigations such as adding additional lanes or modifying signal timing, would conflict with the following Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #2, preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character; Guiding Principle #6, provide a range of attractive and viable transportation alternatives, such as bicycle, pedestrian, rail and transit; and Guiding Principle #7, enhance downtown by preserving its historic character, increasing accessibility and ensuring a broad range of business and activities and increasing residential activities. It has been determined that installing additional lanes or expanding vehicle capacity at these locations would conflict with these Guiding Principles. The deliberative process led the community and decision makers to recognize that the non-vehicular modes of travel would be adversely impacted if roadway improvements were undertaken to weigh more heavily toward a priority of vehicle demands. Building roadways to meet peak hour LOS demands were balanced with the overall community desire to retain a roadway system that meets a more balanced 24-hour volume demand. B. Traffic Related Noise Impact 3.9-1 At buildout implementation of the proposed General Plan would generate increased local traffic volumes in the Planning Area that would result in a substantial increase to existing exterior noise levels that are currently above the City standards. Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which substantially lessen this impact: Policy 10-P-3, Programs A, B, D, E, F and G. Provides, for the elimination or minimization of existing noise problems by minimizing the increase of noise levels in the future. Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Plan which will lessen, but not avoid, the significant effect identified in the EIR. Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable Explanation: Under the various elements of Policy 10-P-3, the city will locate and design transportation facilities to minimize noise effects on adjacent areas. It will • k in Cl_ w CD 2 Q U C W ti Z fY W w U Z L w DJ UJ n z z Z .....cjj 0 Ce Cl. (CS 0 U Ili ail Et U o ill sf CL z th Ce R (F) r 0 d z U U o) ��. pa r 4"`r,,,,,w ti r 91 ®�tlaV. eve li t.-* veltai 1/4:4 . w-�J to ria ..400:0g,:ioviispv*Migtofc.1/4,at. Ni et Q 4 w Q Z U K Lu i- ti w +=I u A rJ n W �u . J 4s a ' 1„ 1- i"vti y"JJ PJ i Q y b 3 y 3 r'dY' aI r I"' � Z Q P%, t. 4 •G,M M < „• •V j b� 4 x�a V `a L) f!J si '. or ;I'll d'',* rtl t. ,eibi';' 1 a Oil eilccfs c::::,,,t,e dr9;,V?45, Mal> ti C OC S'.: I' e qd :i' V. Naen 'l- U °I Q '"O G t Va untiJr Yx�'PN? . �I CdNnoold RE V '� r r"'h U V� r x Q F= *� q 8y y$ 5 L FFa0 0�¢' Z ♦ 8 ��xy,5., d CS F v-,‘vie J Q a (IS c Q c.�� 'sP �SP 1 .5 !"5 y s w 2 �i �� e a F� c {{e.. -, y (3 �. ,' — ry � 3E s B y, lac mein .p j c '5u,13 3i" RUM ft ` < a s s hI� �QjK'! Sb� c K --. f cJ Q. ! �' ez ul v�yry w e° a�4 y 6 tl 1 :. I�. y Qy r""alt c'1 i��wli��1: 5 5 £ O 5 40x11 RV¢ 3 3 Uoa Wool \ ? Mg, 00°MQ3H 070 e i`+a a, , 4t •s 1 4.441 �,,*?r 4 GYP '' Ft 4 V r I' '1'yG4. c,�i it ilA i'y�Lvgy. 4114 "r 'W RF x7 S t. < 6 �t r v y �y +y t F+.+�41 I�I �iM}r��tZ :*hrya SyM�lic .��.zaa% M cc cc 4l U a T 0 W Ill y o)) n V inc W c .4J 4 2 ceo v) c N O °0 w a C - c0el ® ® 0 42—) t Y LU .0 .4=i ms Cn 4-I 'a / V a) o _ 0 ® ® = ' .U C .•� 0 1 F l . L. a O -6-) (f) C) V 4) a C O > c C L n co .® Q D 112 p c w ' N E 0 0 o Cv Oa 6 �kta �, a w °^6n�nh`u: �Q alPy77�� ,' t ,S"d J V C� ,. � 6 it, '. S@ .. } V]7 4,.. W IE4QS`rcr: rN �s Z 4 U is Lu ti pG .� ter" ^ W !O •,lyd w 4/y 6r/ a q Nr O W fr i< tau t5 ua was r zk Lnp xn 0Q�j p3`J G ;.O ° w o "A� c `' Q 2 dd . o U ! y RI i d Oey �O :44 ra ° �G a .0- 3tr$E k"tt`,f' ><a r M CL) t. aD t' p . a H CS �'o � r a O 111 N W a U-. o O y . S . ?, #, fi LU pp y O' fip, v v i om U 6' , rrn o E v m .: a® `� a 'a Lt v C o �Q � v il 4y 3 ; ry E S3 , h ' v x� c �� : . w y :A,. a c r t yi if' t" v,} r W „i 7a P ra O �'- ;�t� ? ag .E t', a GI�' CI 6 OJ }. U N Q1 c'. 4 t unr gbh '7ti'. ti0 k k A r n?LOir N CI O ?„?; (� ' Scar o-n � t `35 {7"”' "� a E� �W . Ln 4 0_ 4 W C7 Q i U C Q) ro .0 a 3 o) > L- n R3 Q dY L_ CD -C 0 w y= N y. L -0 d1 C 70 C cu C e c ® O � 0 .�M. V j U C 0 °0 °c 'off In — CO' L_ '5 0 a o q 7 U cc Q. Z 0 I aj ® • U) D cz 7:af 1 i p 10 I ,N CS (U. M L- .e1° C Ln ti V 0 H > > L_ > ra o v -0 4 s- : l �` U J so c c Z . c D .ui c. •o c U al I .I-, V (1 Q Q t Q • ca Q u Q 0 ® 0 Y_ Im`n d el Oral k S t l t p a e t °I8 iiiit i� Y� x 4 'racy+•, @:x1ev'u 6.00 o-',_ in __ , , it 433171, 6_9g11311"Nil 11:1'fl! 3111W cs) QC In 4 ll I ":•1 ' , ir 04 (4 Q.. IN ‘‘',. 0 ta Lt-/ III' 1' N n ai CD II II $, N 0 r i!II t ' 1 I ., \-, N a- iii re up 2 pi !, i • • Li .. _ 1 I . , , ihi LE. 1 Nej.d. Z 111 1 I'l II ' I Z r Ili cccp 2 I--- .ssirscp I 11 il 1 c LU os 0 .-s-s = ocuitel si 1-; lu _A Z cos, a N- Lu L 1111 1,1 1 \ 0 scus4.—ss t.0 1 I,i f Isvimi, 1 I ! ill , r ccz 1— fa- :. cc r_. u., ,-„ -t iffii I , , 1 ll I ' 1 I -.. , I 1 -I I ' t" I h1 l' li i 11 1 1 .. • i 11 II I .CE . .., . I' ' __, l'■: 7=1 ill I QC ' - --- - . -- - - - - .1 II ;1 --1 . . ... 0 1,-L 1 I 1 • , , . i U ; -- I) - --. • --...f 1. Vi 1 1 I ' . - . , C7C Z l===1 I 1 r P! 1 I • 1 F=.0 I 11 i i lir 1 \ ::. .....1 l■ ' 1 I I I .: •:, .. L1.1 11 2 1,1 II , \ • " .. :4 U ..■• U.1 D . .. . H c==1 a • . ill II !Li I i < Z P II 11 1 ' l' ' 1 • ■ II II , l'' fa ta DI0) te 0 ci" cu _,irt,t9V1445M07:4:EC'1.1:.:•...' ,a ..grespe,..-454-trickw4(vdwr?„,.. i, 10.•.,a4stii,15(0....,zik194„..,..,7156wNts.,.,, I S..4. .,'It. 4iiiriq t-b 4.`44;44191'1U- .,,c4-,,lirree..,ti.11e04-.?..V-ct:''QOM,4:11(AVV,,kifi 1. • WII 41.;"lt41414:1' -iVi'Vg0„0.44'4'.141414,0}07SiR: -1\; '67,'M 444*,' ,,1-01'0°,41gtitht,WV,ILWa-lirft-it...“&b4,,i'tzfi 1,0,=.r, Meth'gatkatittAtal%;:a4=lakeirtz-Ayagesee,4- - - (ge--116, N. Vi 0_ I. 1.33HS 33S!3NPIHOIVIN a Lu E ' i jl 11 ,�- w Q li, z ill �C�// Il >;� Z N K I :II, 1) ¢ii 021. ti IlI I'I FUOJ L i? - <Z Z ® II I �i, li I a Q II id I ° w ; i ' 13� ii \ a d ,� , � ; IIIiI , L ∎ ', Po° ` 2 III II ' I li f i I "Ili 11� ,�� ,� :,� �� 1. I 7I� - f i Il gi Q N 4-Jim to_ ■ ,� � .�� ___ dr , �4y ti . ' -J II Lu {. �, I I II I l' L -,rif 11 lilI u Ifi I+ II ilil II T c 1 'j 111111 j , 11 III I ."® a . i>,611 1 to en Om Xfi 4 { h l/k T L 50)1"ArCetigisigkir.*,.;1, ,EptivititruS.4-,,,ttlictWaffAraiN4cif'1,{J: frig op 1133HS'33S 3NI1H3LVW K 1 , � z::!, 1 II; N C O CD j l I as U �� ' III o ?IL / 1 111 i ; aa., w :I\,1 N z t �1I CC FA �� 1 �I , _ W /1/7 1l 11 ai t `, , id f 11 1i 'I yy'ilk 5\ - r - /�// C o II LAna;�`k � Q'• On 4-1 1_. — s Z {I i7 _ �I I� t 1 An--„J_---,-,..__,--, —�7J1 � J .W I t i�NiliI r . ° Q > CD �,� 1 ,1 /lily z �4 J 1 II VI� I I ct Q 5 u , rt, = ,, \\\ tnn-2.;- UJ c 1� i i c _ 0 .c._..., �.J Q �, a4\\��'I _ ti 1 i i ` a iii:,II a m it,t ' t �U� ininailaai al z 3_ IF it. g g ;ma, 7 • /4„, / 1 u cic: 4m,1 L.L.i ,-. ( 7, 2 •,0 I--- •,L-0-„C--•4;' 'Y•VII I 1. '• i/ 6-, I triLl tq*: lig- g 4. f i i NC-1 es,,,i ct 1 ,11•1 r :I i 4.. : :: ----4, , 1 , e , in --, C : C li t i 4111 j„,—/..:,_„„1:••4 -II-at...J...2_4' ) iris's! 'f‘PL4...v...-+-:'---4-tt"----,TAV''141.-FaThirt---7k.!5;;:•s"- ,--- 4 •Eittn - ief;i7,•:_t. _T r_r_y0 — ).: • __ 1 RIO L:1 tYn ■ :,, , i, -.7/ ;• 4-.) -. f 1 It kt.' , : .i [L. ; , ! i irti '4. .- .1 r r Cj •t; 1 ' 1..• . / 11 ; ill. kui 1: lir;1)., cl. 0) . .., 12=c LC u_ C ._.1 U.1 0 ; '• litir 4 t trzt > U I trx=i 13 1==== Ftri; 1,1 • k I-LJ < CD z ek -.1.,V, " IL-I m 1 Ll. . 0 E pug, • ; 0 Ce i 0 . jn U4 C..) ' 7;3 I laail / ; Ill' o' U=1 CI W4:86 , :gt-CI -, iPil 1 t.r ? ,- • , ,I ■I., ; ? t P.,; .1 I i ; ;1•Elfli . ,,, 1 =1 Car 1-1 < (f.) 1 gl..c.cR -147.7.. ..=--7-t."=":"at'citiz` ''2'n.--' '•.- :4.:FI.Ail 1'1111 kr II ;i•■' 0 if, • Y.: OcIl in I i A. •?, 1 i ., , ;44a 4i , clt) _ .alcilitiretit.j ,:twit;44-, 11 11 ii, : r" - 4,„1."--4.;.1.,fi-..,ali•g;•tri(s...a,e,„kT4r 14-4- ati.:t ,ilitimbigoe.iphynt tityp ! _ r i Asitataadtast .t.k... .. . .. . . &e-cf-q 0 1 1.33HS 33S 3N11HOIVW n I I I II - I .`‘ I u") ILI 1 I 1 • >- N UJ J I- , .... Ns 0 LU La x z cc Z U z 0 cc fr LL., N I-- La . i I , I • 'IN L0 t --,. ,-... ..,,, .„„ _ m . LL, v) t ct Cis ., ' E , , ,.111 ..._.- 4, z ro , . ., cz cc .., it / : „::::‘:: , ,f. ill 1 •,' , 1-,: . : ,,,,,!?. .„:,.---.6.,„,_ . . , 0 ._ . . „ z , „..., i ,,1, , , , , , , ? ; n I / ../ '-i 1 !0 CE _ Ur.) ■e. — ' 1 i , --- -- , . ._-_..-..-- , -_7--.--7,anrin ...,L,....---=-:22'17-7=7:7,„;;;--_---. 7'I "-I QC a ...„, ! ill , , ..,,:,-,tt,.,*,,-:. cc > 0 .. , , 1,, , ...:„„,„-,,,,,,,,,. „--„,-,„ it—=.0 cn ' i Irl; l . . 1 1 cc' .z. H C I 1 1 I I ' \ 1 -.:;ij. "-- ‘,-.•L :ct t--- _ i I CL UP) 0 .1: , l■ \ . ! ..I Si.. - ?..-, '67 (..) _ LL Hn (1) 1. ,'1 ,•:,_ f,(:, -1Z3 ti Ihd 1 ,, 1 C ' ll 11 t ! < D • . 1 :? I r 1. li rl tl.? stE) otil ts) 16. 4ite. ,,,„,,„„-I:..:rt, 4 t --Q,,A.,,:qt-twari'lliI24 ea ,kst-ggffegtip&I;N[5-01.0,,Th 810 4.ager I,ifit,S.1:504.X/4iMvitt. ,:;! joi .),, rritith',EL-,. entt,4:44',V,r.Sveitififp'4 tri,,,,,3;kicr ii titdram MiTMS/MIVAlffeic Alta)Afillv'4';',fifr4e••• WI 1144t1r441/C1r.Vr.; .4".'t14,5:145eart,,4711-Wiltirq;j°4111;:;.' ‘.1 kITJJ...) .4.1,1T,.,50,mv, . savezw, ..w..es..i: ,?..4,,,:.:J[1'-'•' - 1-1 ri CC LI, ckd 11.1 LD 4=1 C Q C @ Z @ 70 U OC U U LI! 1-- ro cv u •1-1 so co u_i 'a > c (13 < :C) (O a) LL LU s_ ..c cu a) 0 cE .a) 0 .—• ..c n z ui (9 E s_ c 7 4_) o.) 4-I -a c u) 4.... -- ft) ea to oc: L.,_ 0 ‘t cr. C —C < Itin "C 0 0 C 7.0" C Cf)„, 1 (3) triari - Z. ii 2t 03 s4.• 0) C s_ n.) , iv} .6J u) 4:3 --] 1/41-/ U C CD M 0 >1% C Z ty 1:3 C (1). Cn I-1 al 0 u 4-Jcp 0 z 0 c_ d LL=. (1) @ 0 (1) (f) C U to • ub n u o I-.4_1 " — ....... z tin en 4.1 (47- (J) Lri U (f) CZ: D 1=4 U Q Q W w (13 c aw cir_: 4.- C (0 D k. s..., c , fl 0 0 -H ru ra a), 0"). • +Jr #4 oi 0 > IWO ...., „.- 4......) ,— , ri i r•••• > ..0 u ti 53 11- cw > t- 0 z. u .1_ s_ 4_ 7 _c LY ci) 1_ v.) ir T3'. CD ;.- VI en •n ' - a3 < 2 ce s .1; < res ce i—I s.•-• it H 0 0 DI I t2 6 Oa 4 t '''''''''"'s-0,JANki:V14%.Tav•;n , Es/6 ,,,Karew-SV:'ia, sliest ; rail .,i, • ae04-., lo,4*.L?..;.,,,,. „ aatirdataita !:. , (e6-57 (Ni w'7 T-{ Cr � a ' f c . g.= C7 al lik, i Z t w as y ? W rit,'te i _ ;a ILO "st., V 1 . cc C '132 a , Ork :?e 1 ? #„, G j Q,REc0 O O Y D " 0 n n u �yr Y� �� S gNp v \ d C.y'a�R�''` Fj' E- N- N S N Cr J > I I° '' io`BFI``Ok kpFO ° p °r W 4J IgE41r0 r N M N Q Ce y eQS ;,c7z rl ,es.ale 0 p n ry g Ye LI. II 'CV', 1, I ir. = r: tea.•r NP p a0 O) cA r. V 4 rO cD cam•? N O lin _itta# In ( - O l Iu I ci �� r ' N , 2 2 2 2 d co "`tam-, < a Q a a 4a ® wilt fl.;, l44:( 'a i�, 2 O -3. L R w ' f 11, j44 tyo 3.1 0 &A i "C5 G"tl.c ),, _04-Stilt a .its .{I n:. iv) ai a 4. 1p j . Cr V) 4 (T40 z N 6vis _ Ot -' .le 4,ij W Q) c 6040 `' 14i �S1 C w L > O 4ipi + U s_ u bad --Ai .o; w 4-I 9` /a IQ SJ o ` � D• 'CI a). Co aJ/b `° 'd' L U a X46 ay czc co ot lie iir cr‘i ,c u " (0 E D a//b' 1. M L la 4d0 a eTh N / N o r rn M 7 O w fl. a c -, .� E a -o -' ccd O Q 1 UN c � c o c. CU `c CO v O C v a 4.--d >. T 0 ® CL < In .� rG W > •L N p 46 r m M 1) D -0 (1) =.E c C Oahe ra cc:2 v CUf t LL Q> G W YS vn. v) a /7�4 U (n W O `is s 6 S�Jj U N Seth map s U 1P4J4�J. z N c .(a4o. a�/b la w CO L > w-'i0 +o z Q1 N 3 (A4 '�P4Ja%b c93 (Si ) a E r°C U £a /� y6 m 2 QJ "C3 c (�a;� �'��4ra b �M rn u a ,L Li. ro G ,aijb 6; rn v Q H (?oa , • a z o"rt& O L L a d N ti EL ® O a;/b d o I I U 7 L E N Q CD Q N c W g. o 0 0 . . .an -C mac/ �c'i c0 c6 CAS G G = O flH• H ,-1 0 1- > 2.2 (6 l0 c 0 b m O co. m' a) t k W Ate .CttiteageattelAtAsZ'kv''- 55 to a w CD Q na �O `�/Ply u ri Aeie.' y t I- V.�5s '0 am O O g O Z co �` 1494. E x.. h [� O M o0� Q F L"3/4 life w0 o O 0 Q O O cc ✓ 4a�of :- N Q O p p X y E 2 CL Q �� dO/a w ry e 70 c O 0) O (0 O • Ln Q > 4 6Y e $ °R` r. rv4 r� �. , ,4,,,5„,,F4,...1.,tre x C (n--c, O U Cf ^l n � ` 13 {ffr. 2 N fE 16 l9 J ."' L. ±' a a a a a e 9 v Q 0 ,a� a'' Q LL U .4, co L. � `. O uj E >, o a) � x .o O — IF 4r .. E`; r.. ^r y• 47w ,1("x� ,/ I D 0 Q QE 5,.,..• j 1-.r1P J r U)• M at (13 CIF. r' , rr ,. :T11410-..c/..4,..... ry �. �. rr�� �, rrr�y, �5+ • ; ,� r t '0 •rcy Efl- i- , ro .0 {f • CL t � �� six ,E N 0 0 >.,ar4A �'i d �! 0 r !*':'off .h, p� ..F .iy lr � `, a tt )X t �rA lfi t tF ` '^, rat Y � � Sr j�f � Ml � �y 1 K4 t 1 ati g t-4r `c a„ . k;r -}' �r , 4 4. l0 )' 1k +1 's� aY Ida '�} r' 43 a� k 1 N 1-1 Z "c•nak 'cl,:;■ t....Z. :: 4: - •'-0177.:4- 4.1,•'',::44c.thjatiti'ltkrAeb'.?"'d i.4 LD Z r..ir• . 1 7fr 7.....A.C. .- %,1 CE rii,_,..),.. 2„. :.: .4,4:„. . ,,,,,,_. , ., ,:ri ,4?)(0; tclai," kfilatifil #,. ALT. ."•.' 7, .,,;.4 ,m,aril .!, tk7? - -.,t '77".!■,4,7 ,tt U 0-' t? 7-Z.--; ts', irk -4h imm.a, If;'7?-7;€.!'i 7---#' ,, At",4,-,-.. ,-.0-7.,.., -71±7:4Tik, r .Fi4,V42 1 W . '-lICA'tjZC:,;kr. ,fl: .Vi'reHrN....-N:..4, r4 ;it;- ., ',:" -:,....!;!-Yor..-- t- - ;‘, 44.F.02,:.,'4e.t.,1c,s .—. 4.----, ---f%:r.7;.-L -A '',11711,AAIS'•-',4a.:Aok.a. 1..ES ,-- rs4,41.-,,,Ntli, •-'1 L-71 Iv' , ----14 :"'?!---"4.'11:1 4„) it.- UJ "T, > -PWritOr'r :. a 1''''-';', :;.--- .• i'..-v: ,F, ,21,041.,--,03*,Al2,,,,40.:°.,1-1 0 , y.s.s...bytip...45-s,,,,...4-attn--Klif irAstiov.,51n4, 0,, . ti, tr.. . , ,,ti.44fr*t: 'YANcWt,It-;.5j43.4143CPTS'elt%P' LU 1.1 Ars.77.7,7+'7t,' k,w-°. i :i:Jar,10711,,,s,„qtl-tic,,,t,i„. .tt-74747,47,: f4-, lj-tig'3176;?..'.i .'tt. , if4-it=4:trftit=s;:fe-;itliVitteRs.,,- cc .-:*-1 e %rid'4,4r_ ., ,,_, :c i.::.1/4:Nikt2tibly 4terripO,A Itt,l,tit' it—-,-i --i c; i --rut .; k-2,41A1Ft.ls.,.:47-et,e7; >=1 , IW .."-■ f.4) .' :No...Y. 0.3144.,,, .4,41.1.,4,7,4,44144,2-7-AT ti-r,04,-ica,'--1 ,,i :6 ii.-!,4!.t -....: .. f'i•444 Vitk.:,4„-,1:. ...v , crtAXAVIIkti it$04 4',,r--t-Pt ,--1 ad AI -W ;fAutc,', •: ie,--77'ecifkkar.4.0-4::.. t, ,46. iiirt.g:144i7EVEM232,yr-'.*:1''.! Lir°. t. .— o'''''—'•" ''—' , , mnr?- J(-vit . , :'-'11.14. !];' Illy!tt,"4.4Ns'i.1;h:if +AV- k „. mpet -, v . :-.;,...;44-1....4.,,tin;... < 14„ ,,4,4*L4.74,,grw--,,,,(.9-44r= 1,:., , .kyt, as.srsict..mtiiikt...1 tt 3/4,g i,Niit;r4:0141'4,,t: .4744bilirthik 2 0 .444-,/i:;'-9,i•fire&I:tt‘..( iikif PAK? ir,..-Skcr., ti4Lat, ihk iii.e..atia : ci-i-;,.w.i,Iff;s*,....-/ ;$ 1g%4144v6 Pli's?':...e,y,—.4.s . ..44-4-,;,,,,,tit,-',R.attiii.,14,iiii.fr'*27,70;t5.,,;•e , ,,,,AiM. ,' , ,b'A .1,-,44;47"4 0 .*.±. .40;t:FniP-N;„- , eiii-,,. -, fly, '4,7 - .:7•14-e..,;.;., ..41.4,7,,t,,,p,t,, . .. era.S ..'!",.,--S-7.,7ttlat "r. 'V1.1-4ZEP-77`;4" 4# 4.•■••■:1'. ' -: ,Olg-,-: IP;;-'4Z-4-ret g.til ts gr -Ae„: i.1514it. 'W3 ,,-.,i ...., tni 4 .■, , *"?...r.:.k.! ''',.'14 . :t.7 , trti' 14:':.'"\It' : ' kr-1,7:1Vi A.E. ho,,,, if;., t ,.fr< '-'s't?..tme;ra'N,,.4'4 Alibi 1:079410:13-42-1.:.ii 45,-Luktgli M fr.c.A.,X ;i:rsti-;-;4 ,,,a.E.,,,,,i(„71 ,mr„,,,,,-,,,,i ./1"..thrw-2,r4 ' -,r,s-i- E --fro,„ u_ 4:•-••,-,Y.•.4,- :,;,*!••••:,...fr e..-4-•,,,, ,,4:?-i4,6,40.,,N-4-4-tist.,r ,r.,„•.,1,4, . ..,,,,,,, „i„...,44, ,•-•, ) tft.o.v:431, ".**Cs-47 -4Nr.,,,I=cite;Miatie ci at KT. = acii4 „Ail i -4 r.o-,:-: 7-a' ■r ',. 34.41 iier,0,4,c:.:',-: ie:z.'7i .Th. `,."g .c.-0.; --,:4 l': 7:anie;. ri-, ...5. >94,017-7• ---v7.4'4 4.,),=:‘,-.-re.,,,K.--flaraw. . ped,Td , -,4?).e.' 11. RS at,_,,S 4i, r''1711,, . ;',i. - vknlittittrA"5'...1""ggIJ?6'4±4.4it, --0 tz Stp, '''„ 1 1-1 'ii:ittkar, ., It= 1.3%.U'j?"-Isf..2.;'-'-kil*TiVick' k-.A`,. .••0, 44,,7k ‘11:itNi1=,;.iii[c' .:1,1,440S^464," 1.4:,'A;:t.t....--;:,:tc-tiolkih,cier?Q't6trio .24=4. co 4,-;, •Ti.,;‘,.7:-..-,i-Atik ,g.,,,yslcs,:ve xi:v.4r- ,r•.4,54:44‘eks,alitc 4 firearttyPt7,140 rfikt,. .„-_,,,Q,41i42.417.42.4".nrs:‘"e.,;76 -.1 ip,,,44f41,17.-CW4m:eprf-tlailift,c4 .t. . „4_67.-:74"}",', ':-.'t 40,4,4,,fEgf,Trukti pfr tr,4,7-!;,:3717.7.3 '■t 0 k■AOP•r%erk 1,ilrge:;?..7-- %. ,ttt"visat.,:ir-mt.,i(4114,44tIV r ".,ic'ejoyvtlib5g11111...: ty.Y4S-ittet, 1-- lernp.1.4.-Vt5;- :el;-.W Of 4--5 41t4'44!"t54:11i2.4* eicar .."44kr,Qmert4rf:--40 1,7,R.,0e.;c4,1 UJ '..:"...r.,,L'ti,..*;*4 frAA747 ,01,-' ta,"12tirtiLM';.: 'lel ' lale4WtVir"4“1:1X4-‘413.1"T ;:iC.:,!--r0V41,-,:: -4,41,NA AP-13474E1Srair C.'1 , F.f0.,4414-41,47 IYal-t;tris-s'.!`,Stki u_ tissgs.4114::filiqn- mitgi%4:11. "--10.1V' 1 1 46AC:171-1.4,'4:%/1.,44. .1,0'OA_7„4,,sempl,-4 .t. --br,r-- ,. ,1..z.relloft. •.), 7....01,4ed. ,,, 41.. ,1,-,74'.).-s ffiy<-:‘,.. .i.,1 r.,;. fr.i.k-R14frai:ter% ..threwood7‘..?f'IP v""'a''''''' -•-4 '" Th- Q.) . . H .if': '...•.e...,e,-,..... .---,--stat, -nc.-„ --. ..„,-.,--,,q _va.:.,......,,;4}.. „,...i.,,,,4,,,,„„ . fl.,:i4,,,tht I f„ •elif. -.' at ii,r05 .7c,,:yirc,, .i.t l''-',..74fle...A.14 .4.6•1:11,.:•..tr...,,,,:thVarst.44,;i:. 0 3; -,!: 1.4;,,gaar.::::_44,ttsia■-- ' . :1=',:07.gal-54 V.4.--7Z,-.±-t1/4.449144`,:z: ' rciier*tig-,KY‘i?.11- e. *,..14...wal . „),(,.:_ii, ,“4,..;,NI4s,1;kyzi,aie.,!„i,44:siyal...5,..±7.9......ti_ite.4,3&:. Lu ''',.*:?47-4r.pit.:: Is a,i. it: . ,vir I,..:ivi,k;,;40,roregsipsattrapiTT..z.,,,itt:t5c.t,,Liv7.. ..04,47,‘%AR :.'44.',, r:1 '2'.1Zral..41.1,,,:X'SkYSIKV,T-C4r,kf .4.41a,pit 'is-te - •„:-(virli '"--; -'.'. ••,4.st-s ,'-w)t.',.,;',.-vv.44 yzle,.,0%.ropicr, ,..:4y.rir. ,,-,. ir=1 t;y4trilealt... giF, tx,f.,.2.,#).4.04..,4,,, 7.. , ,, PC 1:!r;te..11,1 .:Th'47.P jt:Var. • 6,..,'•Ne''44. ,* :kV," jitfrk-4.7?;:4 tn ,,,,w,...,,---, in r1/4:4jya*,.: I tn rj,,M;V:, I. Ce '',f61SiniA',4,,.. ■-„r•M?,-; ''' r,',Ail; ..,A r>"...,gi.. 0 2. 1:13 --;44,,,r4.4n3q07 CLe-.,16.4,1411 .- F" 0 t d t ya J.97 ,•,,,u,,,,'YL, ,,.. • , ■ f NiAtc:t4hjot1/2''&',,t4t.ht „firefartRiWit;CieVr'ittE''' eltillirelkitt,STSItiAtei'A■.‘, (ets-57 4astpri--,m7_47...alicriltikAtatiV4%,141,(1,%":„>;„,.*:, ..1,*“„wiL*0,v4.2,13,:s.tik,:+:13"■414-$.4441.•,"/..ik (Ni'/PI.2-,- ." A.42111*,56,S'kei" ,..:ittlitfaSSMIeg&t''' ' atg.tikttanki-Vr. .. ' 471t-aaja,ar.,4 a - co ri cc •� a IL CD(1) -I L C r 0 0 > W ati c 0 H Z U) CU, a Q W z o L > a U o c• D FR a t v) 0 H al o D C ce U D Li ec Q ra c1:3 ® (C) c '� J ra r ® ' L E cc- U CU 4., .0.. (f) - .r n (f) o ui w C o (I? CL Q.) C Lu H 0 n (n =° v . o co o a 0 0 B o U c C ®C �, t Li 0 ® 0 qqY. d �� rr s �s � m i h fia j � L Mi ,k�z.3+sk..'" 'breRa ice' „ r rn cc U} 4 W W ti CC W 0 q Z O J 6 ti W O N d V) 01. t amuiti � } b'am, _ .r. ... .ateA u,�' P c 1 r� '- �.. . --u..•c.'Jr yn,-irurcmA—puiNEss TRANS' 'AflON AND HOUSING AGENCY gaZNOW SCHWARZENFCCIB (- v,,rn r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION III GRAND AY-ENUE YF P O Box 23660 ; A OAKLAND-CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510)286-5900 FAX (510)286.6301 Fleer efficient! TTY 711 Be energy efficient September 30, 2009 Mr. Vince Marengo Director of Public Works City of Petaluma RU. Box 61 Petaluma, CA 94953-0061 Dear Mr. Marengo: Thank you for the August 17. 2009, Technical Memorandum for interchange justification for the proposed US 101/Rainier Avenue interchange. The memorandum's outline contains`the'conditions set forth in the California Department of Transportation (Department) Design Information Bulletin 77 and Chapter 27 of the Project Development Procedures Manual. However, we offer the following,review comments and request that the City of Petaluma(City) provide the additional,infortnation identified below in order for the Department to consider approval of the justification for new interchange: • GENERAL COMMENTS • Subject needs to be changed to "Justification for new access point on the(State Highway 101." Once the new access point is justified only then will a nonstandard mandatory feature be considered- • As the Technical Memorandum is intended to be a stand-alone:document, updated layout plans and other attachments (e.g., estimates, assumptions, etc.)need to be included to support the information presented. A strip map will definitely be helpful to show the limits of operational analysis,locations of "other interchange considered," and proximity of local street improvements considered. • It is extremely important that the latest proposed geometrics'atEast Washington Interchange be delineated as existing condition for the various alternatives in the memorandum in order to clarify the relationship, additional modifications needed, and the extent and associated cost of"throwaway" for other Build Alternatives. It is also important to carefully investigate the East Washington•Interchange as to why further improvements to this interchange by itself, or in conjunction with the "Split "Cafn'anss improves mobility across California" C6l Mr. Vince Marengo September 30, 2009 Paget Diamond Alternative" and together with some local street improvement, would not meet the purpose and need of the project. • Extent of right of way impacts referenced in various places seems very conservative. Perhaps, some can be avoided through minor design adjustments. • It appears that the costs "to meet all design standards" were added to Alternative 4 but not to other alternatives. Overall, there needs to be more specific and equitable comparisons on cost and impacts to justify the proposed elimination of Alternative 4. • It appears that Alternatives by itself will not meet the purpose and need of this project. There were references in the memorandum that this could be a "phased." If so, it will need to be conceptually designed to be compatible with other alternatives. • The assumption that this project will not be built until the MSN (Segment C) project is constructed should be added to the discussion section. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Paae 1 Second paragraph - The Project•Report referenced was approved in 1988, not 1998. Third paragraph - The author.of theMarch 17, 1992 letter to the City the Petaluma was not the headquarters geometrician, but the Jim Smith, Senior Transportation. Engineer of District 4 Project Development North Counties. Paae 2 Fourth paragraph - Cite the numerous traffic studies conducted over the years that concluded that improvements in the US '101/East Washington.Interchange,alone would not be sufficient to address the traffic congestion at the East Washington Street Interchange. Last paragraph - Define the acronym TJKM when first-used in the memorandum. Page 13 Interchange Justification- The first requirement is that: "The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by existing interchanges to the system, and/or local roads and streets in the corridorcan neither provide the desired access, nor can they be reasonably improved (such as access control along surface streets, improving traffic control,modifying ramp terminals and intersections, adding tun bays or lengthening storage)to satisfactorily accommodate the design year traffic demands." This test must first be met before moving to the next step. The next step is to ensure that: "The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by reasonable transportation system management(such as ramp metering, mass transit, "Ca limns improves mobilrry across California" Mr. Vince Marengo • September 30, 2009 Page 3 and HOV facilities), geometric design, and alternative improvements to the system without the proposed change in access." The above requirementsmusfbefully addressed before an alternative with new access is to be considered. Page 14 Last paragraph - The miniinum requirement for interchange modification or addition is to look at a minimum of one interchange upstream and downstream. In this case where the corridor is already operating in a highly congested mode it would be normal and prudent to evaluate the effects further upstream and°downstream. The termination of the.limits of analysis should be predicted on volumes. It is unreasonable to expect that the new interchange will not generate additional trips on its own. Other than the "isolated mainline" segment between East Washington Interchange and the proposed new access mainline, whatfreeway operations analysis has been done? It is unreasonable to believe that,addingt,a`new interchange to the already highly congested freeway would not adversely effect mainline operations. Page 15 Local Street Operations, It is not disputed that the proposed interchange would divert traffic from existing interchanges, at least initially. The requirement, as stated above, is that"The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by existing interchanges to the system, and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the desired access, nor can they be reasonably improved(such as access control along surface streets improving traffic control, modifying ramp terminals and intersections, adding turn bays on lengthening storage) to satisfactorily accommodate the design year traffic demands." It is also expected that the freeway system operate at a higher level of service than the local street network and that the local trips and shorter regional trips remain on the local street network and not clog the freeway system. Page 16 Alternatives that include improvements to the local street network and/or existing interchanges must be included in this PSR. It also appears that all alternatives assume that the MSN projectis,completed prior to the construction of an undercrossing.at Rainier. While it now appears that the funding for the completion of the MSN project is in question, it is suggested that all alternatives would need to account for the likelihood of this occurring, as the scope, cost, and schedule would be affected. It is understood that the City does not support right of way acquisition via eminent domain. Unfortunately as it may be the requirement and will be that this and any other project are constructed in the most public good and with the least private injury. As right of way acquisition will be required on any alternatives, speculating on what parcels will require condemnation is inappropriate at this time. "Cal trans improves mobility across California" Mr. Vince Marengo September 30, 2009 Page 4 We do not find an alternative that combines improvements to both existing interchanges and local streets. This must be considered as stated above. Page 18 Last paragraph - We disagree with the need for major reconstruction of the northbound on-ramp at East Washington Interchange in Alternative 4. The alignment as shown on available details has been retained as well as the new bridge spanning East Washington Creek. Page 19 Second paragraph.- Rewrite the second sentence to add "terminus" as follows: "...widening the northbound diagonal off-ramp-terminus from two lanes to four lanes..." Suggest redesigning East Washington details to accommodate Alternative 4 and reduce throwaway. Alternative 4, if designed properly, could keep the throwaway of construction capital of East Washington project to a;minimum. It is not as significant:as removing 75% of the East Washington project:and would cost$21 million of throwaway. Removal of the existing northbound loop on-ramp is not a,throwaway, there are'no;impacts in the southwest quadrant and the alignment of the proposed northbound diagonal-on-ramp has been mostly retained. Moreover,Alternative 4 can be done without realignment of US 101 and the current scope of East Washington only involves the northeast and southwest quadrants of the interchange. Without the realignment, impact would be reduced. Page 20 Second paragraph - Sound walls are;also part of Alternatives 2 and.3. Therefore the risk related to the MSN project of not accommodating the design of the ramps,or auxiliary lanes that would result in $5 million increase should also be included in the'cost of Alternatives 2 and 3. Page 21 The cost to bring to standard ($ 64.9 million) has been used against Alternative 4 but the cost to bring-tostandard for Alternatives 2 and 3 are not mentioned. It appears:that in evaluating whether Alternative 4 is-a viable alternative the cost estimate for the throwaway and the cost to bring the features to standard are excessive. The City's precise plan (page 17) may also include portions'ofAlternatives 3 and 4(since Alternatives 2 and 3 are almost identical except for the loop on-ramp) and therefore could also reduce the right of way cost. Page 22, Future environmental impacts to Lynch Creek and Washington Creek appear to be about the same once East Washington is developed. -Calif-ems improves mobility across California" Mr. Vince Marengo September 30. 2009 Page 5 Page 24 Impacts of improvements to East Washington as a standalone project are too conservative and exaggerated. For example, anticipated acquisition•of 35 single-family homes in the northwest and southeast quadrants, if details are properly drawn, could be reduced to only a few residential homes and mostly just partiaF takes of the residential backyards. Page 25 For East Washington Interchange, the additional right of way at the southwest quadrant that is needed for the widening of the southbound on-ramp.from East Washington Street to southbound US 101 would be dedicated by Target Store, which purchased the adjacent property. It needs to be clarified whether it is a no cost dedication. Page 26 The current East Washington 90%PS&E plans should not be,a determining factor for Alternative 4's viability. PS&E plans could be revised to incorporate portions of Alternative 4. Page How was it determined that traffic management systems would not address the need of this project? Page 30 Has there been any other mainline freeway analysis performed other than "an isolated mainline segment weaving analysis"? Page 33 Comparison of Alternative Impacts- How would the project cost and impacts change if the MSN project were not completed ahead of this project? Once these comments and missing information are addressed and incorporated in to the • technical memorandum for interch ange justification, the Department would be in a better position to make a determination of its support of the proposed new interchange. It should be noted that conceptual approval is obtained when the nonstandard features and PSR are approved. The Department appreciatesithe'City's cooperation and partnership to determine the most beneficial improvement at US 101 and Rainier Avenue. If you have any further questions or need further assistance,please contact Patrick Pang, Chief for Office of Advance Planning, at (510)286-5566. • "Cahrans improves mob,lay across Ca!forma" Mr. Vince Marengo September 30, 2009 Page 6 • Sincerely, LEE TAUBENECK Deputy District Director Transportation Planning and Local Assistance c: Susan Lackie, City of Petaluma-Project Manager Kai Chan, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Brian Krcelic, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. • "Caltrans improves mobility across California" l(/�-'l/�(/� e `G"� STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS:TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER:Governor. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION III GRAND AVENUE P.O..BOX 23360 TI` OAKLAND,CA 94612 PHONE (510)2865900 Flex your power! FAX (510)286-5903 Be energy efficient! TTY (800)735-2929 October 30, 2008 Mr. Vince Marengo Director of Public Works City of Petaluma P. O. Box 61 Petaluma„CA 94953-0061 Dear Mr. Marengo: Pursuant to the October 27, 2008 phone conference between the City of Petaluma (City)and California Department of Transportation (Department)regarding the Draft Project Study Report(PSR) for the U.S. 101/Rainier Avenue Project and City's desire to proceed with most viable improvements given available funds, below are the Department's comments on the current build alternatives. Per our October 25, 2007 letter,Department is required to ensure all proposed projects on the State Highway System maintain and improve the integrity and operation of the mainline corridor as whole. As such, local'improvements can proceed on the Route 101 mainline as long as they do not jeopardize the tremendous investments and benefits of current and planned improvements along the corridor. On October 25, 2008 the Department received City's preliminary responses to review comments on the first Draft Traffic Operations Report. Itas Department's understanding that City will incorporate the revisions'and submit the second Draft Traffic Operations Report in mid-November. Based on current preliminary information in the Draft PSR, build Alternatives.4 (Split Diamond) and 5 (Undercrossing) are consistent with the Department's requirements and standards. Alternative 2 (Modified Diamond Interchange with Loop Ramp) and 3 (Full Diamond Interchange)would,involve technical and operational challenges:and may have more potential adverse effects on the mainline. For iiiost effective use of available funds,the project sponsor may elect to,proceed with Alternative 1 (No Project) or only build alternatives that are most consistent with Department's requirements and project's purpose and-need. "Caltrans improves mobility across Cafjornia" Mr. Vince Marengo October 30, 2008 Page 2 The Department appreciates the City's cooperation and partnership to determine a mutually beneficial improvement at State Route 101 and Rainier Avenue. If you have further questions or concerns, please contact me at(510) 286-5908. \ '?� Iii 1t LEE TA . CK,M.S.,P:E. Deputy Di ct Director Transportation Planning and Local Assistance C: Bijan Sartipi, California Department of Transportation - District 4 Director Suzanne Smith, Sonoma County Transportation Authority- Executive Director "Caimans improves;nobility across California" n r - Eric To slackie @ci.petaluhia.ca.us,fnugyen @ci.petaluma.ca.us, Schen/D04/Caltrans/CAGov jmaitla1 @sctainfo.org,guy @gcpreston.com, 05/11/2011 05:35 PM Connie @valicooper.com,.Melanie a, f cc Subject 4A430(SON-101 RAINIER UC): DIRECTION-RESULT OF 5/11/11 MEETING After recent consultations and discussions among various members of the group at different times, a brief meeting was held today to confirm"direction of City of Petaluma's US 101/Rainier Undercrossing Project. The following six key points highlight the agreed upon direction: 1. City of Petaluma must clear environmentally entire Rainier Undercrossing Project's footprint completely on their own with an ER, inclusive of area within State RAW. 2. Rainier EIR can assume structure at Rainier/101 as pre-existing condition prior to constructing the Rainier Project. 3. MSN C2 can have design variations, such as fill or structure, over future Rainier crossing. 4. Design variations cambe addressed in a supplemental project report for MSN C 2 at the appropriate time. 5. PSR would not be the appropriate document for the portion,of the Rainier Project within State RAN as its estimated capital cost from URS is under $1M. 6. A PEER would be the appropriate process for projects between $1M to$3M with Design Oversight, and a simple Encroachment Permit for projects under $1 M. As to exactly when the supplemental project report should commence is still subject to further discussion , although approval of said document should coincide with approval of Rainier's EIR: Tentative schedule estimate provided by URS for completion of Rainier's EIR is end of 2012. Also, Department will not be circulating the draft PSR for the US 101/Rainier UC Project within State RM/ submitted by URS as this is no longer needed. Please let me know if there are additional comments or edits needed to clarify further what is stated above as some of the members were not present at the meeting. Thanks all for your patience. Eric Schen Project Manager, Proj. Mgmt. North Bay (510)286-4785 voice (510) 622-5460 fax SCTA i9°51FAq,OCI NO ANT.1411E,SITITE 106 Sal'A KosA, 95401 www.sccum,,).Onc.(7o7)565-5373 RCM Staff Report To: SCTA Directors. From: Janet-Spilmart, Deputy Director, Pladning.and Public Outreach Item: 5:2.1.— Updete-Orr:Regional Transportetiorr Platt and thei Sustainable Coinmunitiee Strategy Date: December 12, 2011 Current topics in the Sustainable Communities Strategy:(scs)process include 1. Local review and revision of Regional Transportation Plan (RIP) project list In May 2012 MTC and'ABAe are expected to approVe longrenge plan (Plan filay'Area)that includes a preferred land,use scenario and a transportation investment strategy(the RTP)that meet the goals of the So& On the transportation Side,tvrIc a Ns of regional.programsendptojactsand hes also requested that each county submit local priorities. Earlier this year MTC updated their policy to define committed projects or projects that have identified sources of funding and have met Specific milestones in implernentation. See attachment A tor file list of COMMittedprOjeots:itt Sonoma County. The SCTA is now being asked to refine the."uncornthitted" list of Itical priorities for inclusion in the RTP. 10-(Nlay261.t, the'SCTA:Subibittedt MTC an uncOnWalitileldli4cdf tincomthitted'PrOjeCt0,rellAting 411-6,6 franSPOrfatia091S4OtiCtriatediDy:2Q40. The list included Measure M projects, the remaining Hwy 101 widening segmentS,.sMART, a number of specific local road improvements, tranSitexpansion, bike/ped facilities and local road'rehabilitation The total cost to fulfil!our transportation needs was estimated at nearly$9 billion.Since then MTC has refined the revenue estimates and determined likely funding for each county.The Sonorna County 9budget"is estimated at$9075S3,600:for the life of the RTP(27 years). Regional.PrOgrams PlanBay Area is.a.cegienal effort that largely reflects a plan of action:fOr l\ATC:and.ASAG that includes a variety of regional-programt. Regional Programs such as Lifeline Transportation, Regional Bicycle Network 'Statei Highway Operations and mairgenanc0,plan for funding to be made available to each program The amount of funding for regional programs is still being discussed at MTC but Sonoma County will see some.benefitfrOrn these regional effoi-ts. It is also important to note that once those amountsare resolved ihe method of distribution varies depending on fund source;the One Bay Area Grant is an example of the latest proposal for distributions of the Si?and CMAQ funds and lS:an atiettipt io:align with the proposed.SCSIOOlicies. programmatic dategbriesi and Specific Protects 18 be- 13 Programmatic categories are groupings of similar types of projects such,as.Local Climate Initiative Programs and Non-Capacity Increasing Road Rehabilitation that are listed:in the RTP. Specific projects can also be listed in the:RTP.The distinctionbetween a programmatic category and listing a specific project is linked to air quality conformity, regional significance,capacity increases and size/cost for either roads DT transit. For example,arlocal road rehab project will be eligible for funding because it will be covered in the RTP under the Non-Capacity Increasing Road Rehabilitation category. A project such as SMART expansion fo Cloverdale is called out specifically in the project list as it is,an expansion project and has a significant cost. Specific projects may also be subject to a performance analysis by MTC. Any project that qualifies within-alcategory:will be eligible to seek funding, even though it is not named specifically in the project;list:In addition, MTC is likely to provide a certain level of regional funding to these programmatic.categories and Sonoma County will receive a portion of those planned funds. Many of the road projects are capacity:increasing, and therefore not eligible to be folded into programmatic.categories. Those projects are listed specifically by name and amount and are subject to performance analysis by MTC Advisory Committee.Review The SCTA Advisory Committees have reviewed the project list and have made recommendations that are reflected in the draft list Attachment B.These funding amounts demonstrate a desire to maintain bicycle and pedestrian, transit and road projects to a high level. These amounts do not. reflect the entire need, but demonstrate a level of commitment by SCTA to a multimodal transportation system that is maintained and expanded,whenever possible. In addition, the Advisory Committees recognized the need to fund local:climate:protection strategies and were especially interested in maintaining the Safe Routes to School Program at its current level.The balance ofthe listis largely specific projects:funded.by Measure M. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the SCTA consider the attached list and provide direction i0 staff as to what shall be submitted to MTC for inclusion in the RTP. is ( °.7f • 0 I N C. O \ 1 rn N -N 'O O in O O N O O b O-. O V1 f^ N N a m V y-) .4 m O N N' U. . m N In It •d-) VV V) if) ail- all U1 VY N an • iA N 0 V1 O O . .N O O .a N -O.1 Ot r .y N. o - m to iO y' N Of N- m y� ,213-.417...1V.4[:•24 I N. N N V1 N i/1 UI a/1 II ' T ?‘,1,15X7,1"2"..1/4-4, \ • 1 m I--O v �"L o n o o m ro o m o m m 6 N ry o 0 0 � o o N o 0 IO a pp3_ O O O N O O rt N z N O .O H t0 Ol N l➢- V1 N V O1 N z Em C_lb - - CO :ti m N ' O V'- - m a m .-.4 e N C .,-.,-,1, m ., c G C_O - N0 i � LL_�; �; in H in. VS in N in 4/� i/Y N h 'In in in i/1 1/o en -tn. in in Vl M in >- >- Y w F F 4+ u N n > Inc m > > = c - c p -J p 5 're-` > E 76.. 8 8 O. * v o: a v. = 2 u d , - E o f ,.in w - w E 'w m W ao no 0 u u o `y .A O F O na' m T m CO Q Q U '1 m p L 3 hIll C_..}� W E Y E p F a, m u C aw+_ w 6 v W C N 3 ❑ w t an N q O Q' W W G m U L -o C 0 N w 3 C 3 U w to w tio O w C p tri I- a$ u=- " >- E 3 m m o )5 w w w E.'m '^ c C >. u nu m vl oh`, 3 -o a w D own m -o w o w o. Q y c o- ri. c c u OC ,-..-7).--..„9,, ,--.1- L n to -0 tr C 3 C n m '-"1 w w E o; F - . cz ,, Co �' L A E N: awn O c w m a. o m N , ' w p' m N v, a, w m a) o m m t m 0 m s m 2 C, o w�;0`, U. 7 m E _ ` c CO u •.. C 2 w } {`' an m 2' C ;1:, C > m a0 w an N w c 3 w w w W N O q d w 'C c m. 0 - m N 3 c L _ c c C 0 c LJ U o c a cw E 3 E m w c . w o c x a -6 w C s 3 m s a ." 3 > a' o @l o 0 c w o N m 0 c .N-i m m w — F t. = `w c m a > w m m L -i `.} u' a " n y 3 r 5 b o c Y-. 0 u v '= o. o it 'c a j 0 m > O po u •21;75S.1-7:e..!,-3'.. 3 'u x .- F c tO c t. m '> E rc \ .Q w F c a _m a ao '= w 3 Cu N. ,Ni ° � L m .s '0 a Q > 0 0 0 d. o E `.. c l'n = .-i S] 00 w U U i ay a C 'art O o O O N rt N w r H. Z z c u Y m 13 2¢. 0 L 0 z. z 0 2 E 0 01 D L D a i. UO . r y . C , O R T m N F co N N. T T ~ 2 N N N E N T F' to F ru �"-- : C,. E E E E E E' E E E E 'el E 22 E E E E E E E E E E ij:"f � C O O O O O O O. p O o p O 0 O C O o O o O O" O ' C C C C c o C 0 'C C in C C C C C C C C C C C Y'. .`Y c c :O O 0 0 O' O. O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O �+pj.,1 "VI Vl an an N VI in in V] N N l/1 VI UI ✓1 Vl N Vf ✓1 ✓l to N in N (6213-Z5' Plan Bay Area Draft.List of Committed Projects Version Date: August 31, 2011 Santa Clara 240492 US 101 Express Lanes:10th Street to SR 25 $ 50 Santa Clara 240512 ,. Guadelupe Express Improvements -$ 20 Santa Clara 240518 Tasman Express Long T . $ 45 Santa Clara 240519 North,First Speed Improvements ' 3 8 I Santa Clara .. 240591 . Capitol Expressway Light Rail Extension-Phase! $ 50 Santa Clara. 240603 North San Jose Transit Improvements $ 41 Solano 22632 American Canyon.Road at 1-80 5- 8 Solano 22985 . Benicia Industrial Park Transit Hub. $. 1 Solano 230322. 1-80 EB'Cordelia,Truck Scales Relocation Project. $ 101 Solano 230590 Railroad'Avenue widening . . S. 5 Solano 240210 I-505/:Vaca Valley_Parkv✓ay Interim Improvements _$ 2 Solano . 240213 . I-80/Lagoon Valley'Road:Interchange $ 10 Solano .. 240313 Benicia Intermodal Facilities Project $ 3 Realign Route 116(Stage Gulch Road)along Champlin.Creek and widen Sonoma 21070 remaining segments to accommodate pedestrians and.bicyclists $ 12. Sonoma 21902 Widen US 101 for HOV lanes from Pepper Road to Rohnert Park Expressway- 5 106 Central Phase A US 101 North Project-Phase B-Airport'Boulevard interchange Sonoma 22191 $ 42 improvements and Airport Boulevard Sonoma 22195 old Redwood.Highway/US 101 interchange improvements $ 42 Widen US 101 for HOV lanes(one in each direction)frorn.Rohnert Park Sonoma 22655 Expressway to Santa Rosa Avenue(includes interchange improvements and .$ 65 • ramp meter Sonoma 22656 US101/East:Washington:Street interchange improvements $ 21': Sonoma _230341 Mirabei'Road and Route 116 Roundabout _$ 5 Sonoma 240359 Rohnert Park:Expressway Widening $ 9. Sonoma 240366 Golf Course Drive West(formerly Wilfred Avenue)Widening $ 5 Sonoma 240672 MarihSonoma Narrows Stage 1(Sonoma County) _ $ 120 DRAFT-SUBJECT TO CHANGE 26 5 of5:- • icALU4 WCI CITY OF PETALUIVIA nt POST OFFICE Box 61 .2735$. PETALUMA,CA 94953-0061 Pamela Tnrliatt Mayor December 7, 2009 Teresa Darrell David chtfs Eric Schen, Senior Transportation Engineer Mike thirds Caltrans District 4 Mike Holy David Babbitt Project Management North Tiffany Rene P.O. Box 23660 Cotrncilnembera Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Dear Mr. Schen, Subject: Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector and Undercrossingof US 101 This letter is a follow-up to our meeting with Caltrans, SCTA, and the City on November 3rd. The purpose of the meeting Was.to.discuss including the undercrossing structure of the referenced.project as part of the Marin Sonoma Narrows C-2 (MSN C-2)HOV widening projectlthrough Petaluma. Currently, the extension of Rainier Avenue, or the Cross-Town Connector(which includes the undercrossing structure), and the future US 101/Rainier Interchange are two independent elements of the same project. At this meeting, Caltrans and SCTA were receptive to the City's proposal to include the undercrossing structure of the referenced project into the MSN C-2 Public Works design, as long as the schedule could be maintained and the City were willing to Adnunistrofion pay the design cost.. SCTA plans to request approval from their Board to execute 11 EnglishStreet a contract with a design consultant for MSN C-2 in January 2010. Subsequently, Perahnna CA 94952 design of MSN C-2 is expected to take 18 to 24 months. Phone(707)778-4474 Far(707)776-3603 E-dlail:publictnords@ It was the group's consensus that inclusion of the Rainier Avenue undercrossing cipeig(mngcaus . structure in-the;MSN C-2-designs and-construction with the MSN C-2 Project is prudent. The'group defined a'strategyby which the structure can be incorporated • Airport into the MSN C-2 Project without posing any risk to theMSN:envii-onmentai 601 Sly Ranch Drive Petahgaa,CA 94954 document To be included, the undercrossing needs a separate environmental Phone(707)7784404 evaluation, and an approved Caltrans Project Study Report Fat(707)7784403 The Transportation and Circulation Element of the City of Petaluma's General Corporation yard (Maintenance&Operations) Plan includes an extension of.Rainier.Avenue from McDowell Boulevard that 840 Hopper sr.Ext. crosses Highway 101 and connects to Petaluma Boulevard (the east-west arterial Petaluma C4 94952 Phone(707)778-4303 referred to as the Cross Town Connector, first independent element). The City's Fax(707)778-7437 General Plan also includes a new connection on Highway 101 at Rainier Avenue, between Corona Road and the E. Washington Street Interchange (second Tr Wall independent element). � 555 M McDowell Blvd. ..' Petaluma,CA 71954 Phone(707)7784421 Far(707)776-3791 Over the years.the City has been seeking approvahfrom the State'to develop a new connection on US 101 at Rainier Avenue. However,the Cross TownConnector element of that project has independent utility. At this juncture, after much consideration,the City is taking,steps to focus its resources on the Cross Town Connector(currently alternative 5 of the Rainier Avenue Interchange PSR), which is a project the City may fund in the near term. In focusing on the Cross Town Connector Project, the • City would suspend, for the tithe being, project development on the US 101/Rainier Interchange Project. As a.result of the above-referenced meeting held on November 3, 2009, the City proposes to proceed with the Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector, including an.undercrossing at US 101, as follows: l) To suspend, for the near term, the project development process with Caltrans for the Rainier Avenue Interchange Project, 2) To proceed with a Project.Study Report for the Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector, which includes an undercrossing on US 101 for the extension of Rainier Avenue, and 3) To allocate funding and proceed with preparation of the environmental document for the Rainier Cross Town Connector and Undercrossing of US 101. It is the City's intent to designxhe Cross Town Connector in a manner that would not preclude a future interchange on US 101 at Rainier Avenue. We request your written approval of the City's approach to separate the Rainier Avenue Interchange h Project into two separate projects, to prepare a Project Study Report for the Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector, which includes an undercrossing at US 101 for the extension of Rainer Avenue, and to suspend, for the near term, project development for the Rainier Avenue Interchange Project. Upon receipt of your concurrence;City staff will request authorization from the City Council for items 1 through 3, above, at its January 4th meeting. Please call me or if you have any questions. Sincerely,:. ,- r1 Vincent Marengo, Direct& Department of Public Works cc: Suzanne Smith,Sonoma County Transportation Authority Lee Tuubeneck.Caltrans,.Deputy District Director Planning Doahn Nguyen.Caltrans.District Division Chief Patrick Pang.Caltrans,Chief Advance Planning Susan Lackie.City of Petaluma Kai Chan_Jacobs Brian Kreclie,Jacobs Terry Bowen,Gray Bowen John Maitland.SCTA Deputy Director (p t� ' CITY OF PETALUMA • POST OFFICE Box 61 PLTALtiMA,CA 94953-0061 Pamela Tartlet/ Mayor December 28,2009 Teresa Barrett David Gloss Mike Harris Eric Schen, Senior'Transportation Engineer Mike Healy Caltrans District 4 David Babbitt Tiffany Renee Project Management North Cotmcibnembers P.O.Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Dear Mr. Schen: Subject: Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector and Undercrossing of US 101 This letter is,a follow-up to our meeting with Caltrans, SCTA, and the City on November 3d.. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss including the undercrossing structure for the future extension of Rainier Ave. as part of the • Marin Sonoma Narrows C-2 (MSN C-2)HOV widening project through Petaluma. Currently;the extension of Rainier,Avenue, or the Cross-Town D1 Public Works Connector(which•includes the undercrossing structure), and the future US 101/Rainier Interchange are being processed under a single Project Study Report. .Administration - II English Street Petaluma,CA 94952 At this meeting, Caltrans and SCTA were receptive to the City's proposal to Phone(707)77&4474 include the undercrossing structure for the future extension of Rainier Ave. into Fin(707)776-3602 the MSN C-2 design, as long as the schedule could be maintained and the City E-Wail: pmtlierarts!n? ctpetalnmaca.us were willing to pay the design cost. SCTA plans to request approval from their Board to execute a contract with a design consultaht for MSN C-2 in January Airport 2010. Subsequently, design of MSN C-2 is:expected to take 18jto 24 months. 601 SAY Rauch Drive Funding for the construction of MSN C=2 has not been programmed. Petalma;CA 9495I Phone(707)7784404 Fax(707)7754105 It was the group's consensus that inclusion of the Rainier Avenue undercrossing structure in the MSN G-2 design, and construction with the MSN C-2 Project,is Maintenance&Operations prudent. The group defined an approach by which the structure can be Corporation nerd 840 Hopper St.Ext. incorporated into the MSN C-2 Project. To be included, the undercrossing, which. Pone etaluma,(7074 ca 9:(773-43!1953 Ph 3 is part of the Cross-Town Connector,needs a separate environmental document, Far(707)7734437 and an approved Caltrans Project Study Report. Paris'&Lnnm&cape The Transportation and Circulation EIement of the:City of Petaluma's General Maintenance Plan includes an extension of Rainier Avenue from McDowell Boulevard that 840 Hopper St Ect: Petaluma.CA 94952 crosses Highway 101,and connects to Petaluma Boulevard (the east-west arterial Phone(707)778-4321 referred to-as,the Cross-Town Connector, first independent element). The City's Far(707)7784 35 -- - p )• ha s General Plan also includes a new connection on Highway 101 at Rainier Avenue, Transit between Corona Road and the E. Washington Street Interchange(second e#555 hi McDowell Blvd independent.element). Petaluma,.C.4 94954 y (IPUiuv n Pinlet'to Cuss town ConnectorrRaini 'C50120\.Uncieic ossmg only McUm Cav's Phone(707)778-4421 response letters anal/criers SC.1 A-CaltransC.hy`.Aecep(ed CT edit:to Cily to CF rc City's intent JSi-s1- Fat(707)776-3799 ealinins doe � a t. i Over the years,the City has been seelcing approval from the State to develop a new connection on US 101 at Rainier Avenue. However, the Cross-Town Connector element of that project has independent utility. At this juncture, after much consideration, the Cityis taking steps to focus its resources on the Cross Town-Connector (currently.altemative 5 of the Rainier Avenue Interchange PSR), which is a project the City may fund in the near ten. In focusing on the Cross-Town Connector Project,the City would suspend the development of a PSR for the US 101/Rainier Interchange Project. As a result of the above-referenced meeting held on November 3, 2009, the Cityproposes to proceed with the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector, including an undercrossing at US 101., as follows: 1) To suspend,the'development of a PSR for the Rainier.Avenue Interchange Project until the City develops a fundingplan. (At such time as this project is pursued in the future, the City acknowledges that a PSR specifically for the interchange will be required.) 2) To proceed with a Project Study Report for the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector, which includes an undercrossing on US 101 for the extension of Rainier Avenue. 3) To allocate funding and proceed with preparation of the environmental document for the Rainier Cross-Town Connector,which includes an undercrossing of US 101. The City estimates 12-18 months to secure environmental approval for the Cross-Town Connector. It is the City's intent to design,the,Cross-Town Connector in manner that would not preclude a future interchange on US 101 at Rainier Avenue. ',, SCTA has been advised that the City is willing to cover the differential cost to the MSN C-2 project and is willing to enter into a cooperative agreement to cover the cost of designing the undercrossing structure as part of the MSN C-2 project. We request your written approval ofthe City's approach to separate the Rainier Avenue Interchange Project into two separate projects,to prepare a Project Study Report for the Rainier Avenue Cross- Town Connector,which includes,an undercrossing.at US 101 for the extension of Rainier Avenue, and,to suspend the development of a PSR for the Rainier Avenue Interchange Project. Upon receipt of your concurrence, City staff will request authorization from the City Council for items 1 through 3, above, at its January 4'meeting. Please call me or if you have any questions. I t, � I ' 'Sincerely, . t r n u h( An.v tV/cen ts`e� _ i{gtta Department of Public Works i i A /\ cc: Suzanne Smith,Sonoma County Transportation Authority U Lee Taubeneck,Caltrans,Deputy District Director Planning Kai Chan,Jacobs Doahn Nguyen,Caltrans,District Division Chief Brian Krcelic,Jacobs Patrick Pang,Caltrans,Chief Advance Planning Terry Bowen,GrayBowen i ill Susan'Jackie,City of Petaluma Jbhn Maitland,SCTA Deputy Director nn777 S'\(IPUlnsion\Pojeu Cnxs-Town C'o,necta Raini•iC5I) 204*)actrrcrosing.nnlv.Mt Umas:Cit response I.uu:PrfinatIcucis �Xl / sc:r', 6Ou.ms Cily.lccy:rtal C i edits in Cii to Cr re C tt s.nilcnt J\1 sl c Iltfuns.doe ( - „t. ccbt w 14.* CITY OF YETAL UMA \ POST OFFICE Box 61 18-se PETALUMA,CA94953-0061 Pamela Torliatl Mayor December 7,2009 Teresa Barrett David Glass Suzanne Smith; Executive Director Mike Harris mat,Hemy - Sonoma County Transportation Authority Umid Rabbitt 490.Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206 Tiffany ers Santa Rosa, CA 95401 CmmciimemGers Dear Ms. Smith, Subject: Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector and Under Crossing of US 101 This is a follow up letter to the very productive rneeting:on November 3rd with ProjectTeamtmembers of Caltrans, Sonoma County-Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the City. To summarize the meeting,the agencies agreed that constructing art undercrossing structure at US 101/Rainier Avenue, in lieu offill, is an efficient use of public resources, since the,overall cost for this installation would be less, and impact to traffic on the mainline highway would be reduced. In partnering;with sCaltrans and SCTA,the City wishes.to define the process for implementation of this design variation without compromising the schedule of the MSN Project, As an outcome of this meeting, and with,concurrence from Caltrans,.the City staff will request authorization from the City Council on Public Works January 411, as follows: Aununistro tin n 11 English Street 1. To suspend,.for'the near term,the project development process with Petaluma, CA 94952 P J P P Caltrans for the Rainier Avenue Interchange Project; Phone 1707)778-4474 Far(707)776-3602 E-Mail:publ neorksQ 2. To proceed with a Project.Study Report for the Rainier Avenue Cross pe4oh.,nn.can Town Connector, which includes an undercrossing on US 101 for the extension of Rainier Avenue; and Airport 601.Shy Ranch awe Pemba));C-I94954 3. To allocate,funding and proceed with preparation of the environmental Phone(707)7784404 document for the Rainier Cross Town Connector and Undercrossing of US FaT(7707)7784405 ]01. Corporation Yard (Mn&Nenmtee&Operations) In its Transportation and Circulation.Element, the City of Petaluma's General 840 Hoppers,.E;-r. Plan includes an adopted Plan Linefor the extension of Rainier Avenue from Petaluma,CA 94952 Phone(707)778-4303 McDowell Boulevard, crossing Highway 101 to connect with Petaluma Boulevard Fax(707)778 4437 (the east-west arterial referred to as the Cross Town Connector). Transit 555 NI McDowell Blvd Peralama,CA 94954 Phone(707)778-7421 Fax(707)776-3799 .. .. - . . • d ,e By this letter, and upon receipt of the City Council resolution authorizing the above (prior to your January Board,meeting),the City of Petaluma requests the Marin-Sonoma Narrows (MSN) • C-2 Project include design of an undererossing structure at US 101/Rainier Avenue. The City is willing to cover the differential cost to the MSN C=2 Project, and is willing to enter into a cooperative agreement with SCTA to cover the cost of design (PS&E) of the undererossing structure as part of the MSN C-2.Project. On behalf of the City,I would like to thank SCTA for their cooperation and creativity. Please call me at 778-4593 if you have any questions. Sincerely,. / /' ,.' ,//7 Vincent Marengo,Director Department ofPublicWorks cc: John Maitland,SCTA.Deputy Director Lee Tauhenack,Caltrans,Deputy District Director Planning Doahn Nguyen,Caltrans.District Division Chief Patrick Pan&+ Caltrans.Chief Advance Planning Eric Schen.Caltrans,Project Management Susan Lackie.City of Petaluma Terry Bowen,Gray Bowen • STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATIQl1AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . t. 711 GRAND AVENUE A': P.O.BOX 23660 OAKLAND,CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510)286-4785 Flex your power.' FAX (510)622-5460 Be energy efficient! TTY 711 December 30, 2009 Vincent Marengo,Director City of Petaluma Department of Public Works 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Mr. Marengo: Thank you for your December 28,2009 letter, expressing City of Petaluma's intent to focus on completing a Project Study Report (PSR) for the project proposed to construct US 101/Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector in order to include the undercrossing structure for US 101 into the Marin Sonoma Narrows HOV Widening Segment C-2 (MSN C-2) Project. The California Department of Transportation concur and support the City's approach to the following: 1) Suspend development of a PSR for the US 101/Rainier Avenue Interchange Project until the City develop a funding plan. At such time when this project is pursued in the future, a PSR specifically for the interchange will be required. 2) Proceed with a PSR for the US 101/Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector Project,which includes an undercrossing-structure on US 101 for the extension of Rainier Avenue. 3) Allocate funding and proceed with preparation of the environmental document for the US 101/Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector Project. The City estimate 12-18 months to secure environmental approval for the Cross-Town Connector. Please contact Patrick Pang, Office of Advance Planning,at(510) 286-5566 when the City is ready to initiate the PSR. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" (o8-847 Mr.Vince Marengo December 30, 2009 Page 2 We look forward to continued;partnership and cooperation with City in efforts to deliver improvement at US 101 and Rainier Avenue. If you have further questions or concerns,please do not hesitate to contact me at(510)286-4785. Sincere 1.,Y ERIC . ' Project Manager Project Manage try—North Bay cc: Sue Lackie,City of Petaluma; Project Manager Suzanne Smith, Sonoma-County Transportation Authority,.Executive Director Kai Chan/Brian Krcelic, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Terry Bowen, Gray Bowen "Caftans improves mobility across California" Q JACOBS meeting summary project: Rainier IC.Project attendees: See Attached project no: CB701727 subject Incorporating.Rainier Ave date: November 3, 2009 Undercrossing into the MSN Segment C-2 Project Design location: Caltrans District 4 The following discussion items are not meant to be verbatim. The intent_is.to generally represent what was discussed at the meeting and to identify action items and responsible parties.Items indicated by Bold Underline are decisions made by the PDT at the meeting. Purpose of Meeting The purpose of the meeting is to discuss a design variation which consist of constructing an structure instead of a fill on the Mann-Sonoma Narrows Project-Segment C-2 (MSN C-2), at,the location where the future Rainier Cross Town Connection (RCTC)would cross through and under the proposed US 101 freeway,in the of City of Petaluma. The discussion was to assess if this change would affect the environmental document for the MSN Projects. Design variation proposal—structure vs. fill Status of projects: 1. The Record of Decision (ROD)was issued last week for the MSN environmental document. SCTA is planning to have a consultant begin design of Segment C-2 starting tin January 2010. 2. The RCTC project is ready to proceed to preliminary design'and.environmental studies. 3. The Rainier/US 101 Interchange PSR is pending Calirans approval. To reduce construction impacts on'traffic on US 101 and to the City of Petaluma,the City would like SCTA to indude'in their design and construction of the MSN C-2 project,a structure instead of a fill at the location where the RCTC will cross under US 101. The structure would provide for the future RCTC. The RCTC and Rainier Avenue/US 101 interchange improvements are includedin the City's General Plan and the MSN ED references conformance to the City's General Plan. Coordinating the City and SCTA projects would be advantageous from an engineering standpoint for the following reasons: • The.construction cost of the structure would be less if it is included in the MSN C-2 project as compared to constructing the structure after the MSN C-2 project is completed. If the construction is done after,a tunnel option may be required to minimize construction.unpacts. A tunnel option would require the RCTC to be at a lower elevation than what is currently proposed. There would potentially be more drainage design requirements and cost. • Constructing the structure as part of the Marin-Sonoma Narrows Segment C-2 project,in one project, would have less impact on US 101 traffic and project stakeholders during construction as compared to constructing the structure after the Marin-Sonoma Narrows Segment C-2 project is completed. • Recognizing the City's General Plan,it would only make sense to build a structure instead of a fill,when you consider that both projects are public projects;best use of public funds;and construction impact on the traveling public and the City of Petaluma For the MSN C-2 project,Caltrans is the Environmental Lead and they do not see major environmental issues with construction a structure instead of a fill at the location of the RC 1 C, except forpublic perception as there Page,1 of 3, T. JACOBS meeting summary may be'mixed opinion regarding the Rainier/US"101 Interchange. Caltran`s received twelve letters from the public as part of the MSN environmental document review process raising questions/concerns about the interchange. Caltrans response to these letters was that the US 101/Rainier Ave I/C project are subject to another environmental document where the City is the lead environmental agency. It was pointed out that the MSN C2 environmental document did not detail all the construction details of the proposed improvements;and(did not commit to constructing only a fill section in the MSN C-2 section of US 101. Therefore,the design change would probably not be an issue as long"as the proposed freeway profile does not change significantly and impact the environmental footprint for the MSN C2 project. However, Caltrans will need to assess the potential environmental impacts,if any, due to the design variation and a revalidation may be required. The proposal design variation will not change the environmental footprint,and is expected to not change the conclusion and findings in the MSN environmental document All agreed it would be best to construct the subject structure in the=MSN C-2 project. Environmental studies for RCTC,with only an Undercrossing atUS 101 For the ROTC environmental document,-Caltrans will not be the lead for the environmental, as project inside Caltrans'right of way is minimal,—road under freeway only. 'The City would take the lead for the environmental studies and the document may only have to comply with CEQA requirements. It would be best to have the City complete the ROTC environmental document before construction begins on the MSN C-2 project. Currently there are no capital construction funds for the MSN C-2 project and SCTA do not have a schedule for when construction would- e ts ookingto issue bonds to obtain funding Comment: SCTA is not looking to issuing bonds nor is it in our current 2009 Strategic Plan for MSN C-2. Since City has full funding-for the structure and the ROTC project and since the City would need to further develop a project funding plans for the Rainier Avenue/US 101 interchange; separating the interchange and the RCTC into two projects would be a good,phase approach that is consistent with the City's General Plan. Action Items: Responsible: Deadline: City to obtain City Council approval to proceed with doing a Project.Study Vince,Lee, TBD Report (PSR) for only a RCTC.Undercrossing at US 101 and to separate Suzanne the Rainier/US 101 Interchange from the RCTC project. Vince asked for Caltrans and SCTA support at.the City Counc l meeting,if needed,to explain the approach described above.Both Lee and Suzanne agreed to participate if needed Jacobs to advise City on the level of environmental document needed for Kai Than 11-10-2009 the RCTC project,with only an Undercrossing at US 101. City of Petaluma will work with SCTA to execute a cooperative agreement SCTA/City of 1-30-2010 addressing who will design the structure;agree on roles and .Petaluma responsibilities, and to funds the support and construction cost for the structure. SCTA will work with City to change the scope of their project to include a structure option. Jacobs to develop the geometric requirements for the undercrossing so Brian Krcelic 11-30-2009 that it does not preclude a future interchange. The future interchange would be subject to Caltrans approval and separate environmental • meeting summary document. Jacobs to discuss with Caltrans the approach to take regarding the I{ai Chan,Patrick 11-10-2009, processing of the current PSR and a separate PSR for the undercrossing. Pang Completed • 6C 1/ G 1 Subject: FW: 2012;JCT From: Hines, Heather Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:11 PM • To: Brown, John; Zimmer, Larry Subject: Rainier John and Larry, The Deer Creek Village FEIR includes Topical Response 7: Rainier Avenue Interchange/Cross-Town Connector, which refers to an adopted resolution authorizing "proceeding with a Project Study Report for the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector, including an undercrossing, while separately and concurrently pursuing the interchange project". This citation is directly from the title of the adopted Council Resolution No.2010-009(January 4, 2010). Reading over the resolution in its entirety it appears that the primary goal of that resolution was to allow the separation of the larger interchange/crosstown connector project into two independent elements, but clarifying that the separation did not abandon either of the elements. Instead the resolution restates that the City's policy direction remains to pursue both the interchange and cross town connector as called for in the General Plan 2025. The separation of the two elements of the project was to allow a focused effort on and provide funding (partial)for thetrosstown connector portion to coordinate with the design phase of the MSN C-2 project (Marin Sonoma Narrow C-2HOV Widening Project). But again, the specific language of the resolution reassures that the intention is to continue to pursue approval of the PSR for the Rainier Interchange as well. I do not see anything in the recitals of the resolution that negate this intention. Although not inconsistent with this intent,staff is not technically pursuing the approval of the PSR for the interchange at this time based on Caltrans' feedback that t e Cityshould not pursue approval of the applicable PSR until funding sources are in place. Based on that feedback and the fact that there is not available funding, staff is not currently pursuing the PSR for the interchange. This does not mean that this will not happen in the future or that the policy direction for both the interchange AND the crosstown connector has changed. I believe that the FEIR accurately reflects the City's policy direction with regard;to the Rainier Avenue Interchange/Crosstown Connector Project. Let me know if you would like to discuss further. Heather • HEATHER HINES Deputy Planning Manager T: 707.778.4316 E: hhines @ci.petaluma.ca.us City of Petaluma Community Development Planning Division 11 English St Petaluma, CA 94952 For faster response to planning and Zoning questions, please e-mail us at petalumaplanninq @ci.petaluma.ca.us Contract No. SCTA 1 1012 COOPERATIVE FUNDING:AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA nit This Agreement is made and entered into as of �Ilveh 3/ --Ill e— -("Effective Date")'by and,between the City of Petaluma hereinafter referred to as "CITY"and the SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY hereinafter referred to as "AUTHORITY:" RECITALS 1. AUTHORITY and CITY desire to enter into,a Cooperative Funding Agreement to define_a framework tof enable'the two parties to work cooperatively in,developing plans and specifications for the Rainier Cross Town Connector Undercrossing structure to be included in the MarinSonoma Narrows C2 project in Sonoma County, as more particularly described in Exhibit Ato this agreement(hereinafter referred to as"Project"). 2. Caltrans has completed the Environmental (PAED)`phase of the MSN Project. 3. AUTHORITY is the lead for the development of Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for MSN:C2`Project. 4. AUTHORITY in cooperation with Caltrans will take appropriate measures to environmentally clear the addition of the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing structure in the MSN C2 Project. 5. CITY will environmentally clear the Rainier Cross Town Connector Project as a separate, independent project. 6. AUTHORITY and CITY developed a financial'plan, a schedule,and roles and responsibilities for completion`of the Project which is attached hereto as Exhibit B,Exhibit C, and Exhibit D (hereinafter referred to as the "Project Plan"). 7. CITY adopted Resolution No. 2110-009 N.C.S. on January 4,2010 which separated the Rainier Interchange Project into two independent projects (Independent Project l —Rainier Interchange and Independent Project 2,Rainier Cross Town Connector), and committed $498,000 for the incorporation of the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing structure into the plans, specification and estimate (PS&E) of the MSN C2 project. (Resolution No.2110-009 N.C.S. attached hereto as Exhibit E) 8. CITY will provide $498,000 in funding to pay for the development of PS&E for the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing structure Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA 11012 �Q ('i}� City of Petaluma /�— G Page 1 of 11 Resolution No:>2010-226NC' Contract No. SCTA11012 • 9. AUTHORITY is committed to developing the PS&E for the MSN C2 Project and incorporating the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing structure into the MSN C2 Project pending CITY obtaining environmental clearance of the Rainier Cross Town Connector Project. NOW,THEREFORE; in consideration of the foregoing, AUTHORITY and CITY do hereby agree as follows: SECTION 1 CITY AGREES: 1. Total CITY Contribution. To provide $498,000:inlocal funds [or other CITY contribution]towards the Project,-in accordance with the MSN C-2 HOV Project. The cost of CITY's own administration,independent quality assurance,oversight,and project management is not considered';a Project cost that is covered by this agreement and is not included in the MSN C-2 Project. 2. Completion of Work. To timely complete the environmental clearance of the Rainier Cross Town Connector Project in accordance with the deadlines set forth in the MSN C-2 Project. 3. Payment. Invoices shall be submitted monthly to the City of Petaluma, along with a summary of the-work completedlo date. Total payments shall not exceed $498,000. 4. Compliance with Laws. With regard to administering and completing CITY's responsibilities for the Project, CITY shall at all times comply with all-applicable laws of the United States, the State of California, the County,and withal]-applicable regulations promulgated by federal,state, regional, or local administrative and regulatory agencies, now in force and as they may be enacted,issued, or amended during the term of this Agreement_ 5. Records. To allow AUTHORITY to audit all expenditures relating to the Project funded through this Agreement. For the duration of the Project, and for five (5) years following completion of the Project, or earlier discharge of the Agreement, CITY shall make available to AUTHORITY all records relating to expenses incurred in performance of this Agreement. 6.Notice of Audit. To provide timely notice to AUTHORITY if an audit is to be conducted. Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA 1 1 012 City of Petaluma v Page 2 of 11 Pao.ilotlr.n tan 'M111_10,,1■1"C Contract No. SCTA11012 SECTION II - AUTHORITY AGREES: 1. Total AUTHORITY Contribution. The cost of AUTHORITY's own administration, independent quality assurance, oversight, and project management is not considered a Project cost that is covered by this agreement and is not included in the Project Plan. 2. Agreements. To modify AUTHORITY'S agreement with design consultant to include the PS&E of the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing structure in the MSN C2 project. 3. Completion of Work. To timely complete the work necessary to complete PS&E of the MSN C2 project including the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing structure. 4. Payment. To request payment from CITY of Petaluma, based on monthly invoices. The total cost of work shall not exceed$498,000. 5. Compliance with Laws. With regard to administering and completing the AUTHORITY's responsibilities for the Project,AUTHORITY shall at all times comply with all applicable laws of the'United States,the State of California,the County, and with all applicable regulations promulgated by federal, state, regional, or local administrative and regulatory agencies,now in force and as they may enacted,issued, or amended during the term of this Agreement. 6.Records. To allow CITY to audit all expenditures relating to the Project funded through this Agreement. For the duration of the Project,and for five (5)years following completion of the Project, or earlier discharge of the Agreement, AUTHORITY shall make available to CITY all records relating to expenses incurred in performance of this Agreement. 7. Notice of Audit. To provide timely notice to CITY if an audit of CITY records is to be conducted. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: I. Funding Needs. If additional funds beyond those identified in the Project Plan are necessary to complete the Project, AUTHORITY and CITY will cooperate to identify and secure new, increased,or replacement funding. If funding cannot be identified to complete the project, this agreement can be discharged by either party as provided in Paragraph 3 or 13.. Cooperative Funding Agreement'SCTA11012 ��/a� City of Petaluma Page 3 of 11 R esntntinn Nn.2010-276-N C:R Contract No. SCTA 11012 2.,Term. This Agreement will remain in effect until discharged as provided in Paragraph 3 or 13 of this Section III. 3. Discharge. This Agreement shall be subject to discharge as follows: a. This Agreement may be canceled by a-parry for breach of any obligation, covenant or condition hereof by the other party,upon notice to the breaching party. With respect to any breach which:isreasonably capable of being cured,the breaching party shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the notice to initiate steps to cure. If the breaching party diligently pursues cure, such party shall be allowed a reasonable time to cure,not to exceed sixty (60) days from the'date of the initial notice,unless a further extension is granted by the non-breaching party. On cancellation,the non-breaching party retains the same rights.as a party exercising its right to terminate under the provisions of paragraph 3(b), except that the canceling party also retains any remedy for breach of the whole contract or any unperformed balance. b.By mutual consent of both parties,this Agreement may be teiwinated at any time with 30 day written notice. 4.Indemnity. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon AUTHORITY or arising under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that AUTHORITY will fullydefend,,indemnify, and save harmless CITY and all of its officers and employees from all claims,suits, or actions of every name,kind,,and description brought forth under,but not limited to, tortious, .contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions"of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITY under this agreement. Neither AUTHORITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority,or jurisdiction conferred upon CITY or arising under this agreement: It is understood.and agreed that,CITY will fully defend,indemnify, and save harmless AUTHORITY and all of its officers and employees from all clainrs,.suits,or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under this agreement. 5.Notices. Any notice:which.may be required under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be effective when received, and shall be given by personal service, or by certified or registered mail,,return receipt requested,to the addresses set forth below, or to such addresses which may be specified in writing to the parties hereto. • Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTAI1012 City of Petaluma (jig Page 4of11 `� Resolution No:.2010:226.N.C:S. Paad 5' Contract No. SCTA11012 To CITY: Vincent Marengo Director of Public Works City of Petaluma 11 English Street, Petaluma CA 94592 (707)778-4467 vmarengo @ci.petaluma.ca.us To AUTHORITY: Suzanne Smith Executive Director Sonoma County Transportation Authority 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 565-5373 suzsmith@sctainfo.org 6. Additional Acts and Documents. Each party agrees to do all such things and take all such actions, and to make, execute and deliver such other documents and instruments, as shall be reasonably requested to carry out the provisions,intent and purpose of the Agreement. 7.Integration. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No representations,warranties, inducements or oral agreements have been made by any of the parties except as expressly set forth herein, or in other contemporaneous written agreements. 8.Amendment. This Agreement may not be changed,modified or rescinded except in writing, signed by all parties,hereto,and any attempt at oral modification of this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. 9.Independent Agencies. CITY renders its services under this Agreement as an independent agency. None of the,CITY's,agents or employees shall be agents or employees of the AUTHORITY. AUTHORITY renders its services under this Agreement as an independent agency. None of the AUTHORITY's agents or employees shall be agents or employees of the CITY. 10.-Assignment. The Agreement may not be assigned,transferred,hypothecated, or • pledged by any party without the express written consent of the other party. 11. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successor(s), assignee(s) or transferee(?) of the.AUTHORITY or CITY as the case may be. This provision shall not be construed as an authorization to assign,transfer, hypothecate or pledge this Agreement other than as provided above. Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 City of Petaluma (88. /� ry Page 5 of 11 Resolution No.2010-226 N.C.S. Paee 6. . Contract No. SCTA11012 12. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be determined to be unenforceable, invalid, or beyond the authority of either partyto enter into or carry out, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement which shall continue in full force and effect,provided that the remainder of this Agreement can, absent the excised portion,be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. • 13. Limitation. All obligations of AUTHORITY under the terms of this Agreement are expressly subject to AUTHORITY's continued authorization to collect and expend the sales tax proceeds provided by Measure M. If for any reason AUTHORITY's right to collect or expend such sales tax proceeds is terminated or suspended in whole or part,AUTHORITY shall.promptly notify CITY, and the parties shall consult on a course of action. If,after twenty-five(25)working days, a course of action is not agreed upon by the parties, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated by mutual or joint consent; provided,that any future obligation to fund from the date of the notice shall be expressly limited by and subject to(i)the lawful ability of AUTHORITY to expend sales tax proceeds for the purposes of the Agreement; and(ii) the availability,taking into consideration all the obligations of AUTHORITY under all outstanding contracts, agreements to other obligations of AUTHORITY,of funds for such purposes. • Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA]1012 J p� City of Petaluma Page 6 of 11 Resolution No. 2010-226 N.C.S. Page,? Contract No. SCTAI1012 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF 0.[�j,$GU/ SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY By:\ (J). c A T City Manager SCTA C afi it ATTEST: , AA� nn APPROVED ASS T�O� SUBSTANCE: By: W ! BY: ® :'l�u_.LAAL City Clerk . Executive Director APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM FOR CITY ti By: BY: t Hal ` i City Attorney L?Counsel Authority APPROVED: ep e t c hector C OVEQVD As to Form Risk Mafiagement Risk Manager APPROVED: . ale a/aaly Finance Dire Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 City of Petaluma I ^,g�/o7 Page 7 of 11 (�/ l Cl • Contract No. SCTA11012 COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Design a new six-lane structure to allow the undercrossing of US 101 for Rainier Avenue as part of the MSN C2 project. The Undercrossing Structure shall not preclude a future interchange at this location. • Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 J a i f City of Petaluma UPC,)-14..Z.— Exhibit A Page 8 of 11 Resolution No.2010-226 N;C.S. Page 9 Contract No. SCTA11012 COOPERATIVE FUNDING•AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE`SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA EXHIBIT B PROJECT FINANCIAL PLAN Funding Plan by Fund Source and Development Phase(Funds in Thousands) for the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing Structure FUND PS&E TOTAL SOURCE CITY $498 $498 (100%) TOTAL $498 $498 (100%) • Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 City of Petaluma --103 Exhibit B Page.9 of 11 Resolution No.2010-226 N.C.S. Page 10 • Contract No. SCTAI 1012 COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE.SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA EXHIBIT C PROJECT SCHEDULE Project Development Phase Begin End Environmental:(PAED) Complete Complete Environmental Revalidation _ 12/1/2110 6/1/2011 Design (PS&E) Apr 2009 Mar 2012 `Right of Way AcquisitionI_ROW) TBD TBD *Advertise, Award,ApproveyvkA) TBD TBD `Construction (CON) TBD TBD ` Right of Way Capital and Construction Capital funding have not yet been identified for the MSN C2 project therefore the schedule at this time is unknown: Cooperative'Funding Agreement SCTAI 1012 LCJ " 0—I City of Petaluma Exhibit C Page 10 of 11 Resolution No.2010=226 N.C.S. Pagel 1 Contract No. SCTA11012 COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA EXHIBIT D RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES Table D-1: Responsible Implementing Agency by Development Phase Project Activity Implementing Agency Caltrans Authority City Environmental(PAED)MSN Project X Environmental Revalidation fez.Rainier X • Undercrossing Structure Environmental Clearance for Rainier Cross Town X Connector Design (PS&E)for MSN.C2 including Rainier X Undercrossing Structure Right of Way Engineering and Support for MSN X C2 including Rainier Undercrossing Structure *Right of Way Capital X *Advertise, Award, Approve (AAA) X * Right of Way Capital and Construction Capital funding have not yet been identified for the MSN C2 project therefore implementing agency cannot yet be assigned. Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 City of Petaluma f , �//�5 Exhibit D Page 11 of 11 (�✓ I v Resolution No.2010-226 N.C.S. Page 12 Resolution No. 2010-226,N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SCTA) AND THE CITY OF PETALUMA FOR THE RAINIER AVENUE UNDERCROSSING STRUCTURE PROJECT C00501204'SEGMENT C2 COMPONENT OF THE MARIN SONOMA NARROWS SEGMENT C(MSN-C) PROJECT WHEREAS, on January.4, 2010, the Petaluma Community Development Commission adopted findings, made in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 33445, for expenditure of tax increment funds to pursue design of the Project Study Report(PSR) and environmental document for the Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector, and for work with Sonoma County Transportation(SCTA) to incorporate design of the undercrossing structure into design of the Marin Sonoma Narrows(MSN) C2 HOV Project; and, WHEREAS,the City Council consented to the expenditure of funds to design these Public Improvements; and, WHEREAS, in order to proceed, a cooperative funding agreement for design of the Rainier Avenue undercrossing structure must be executed between the City of Petaluma and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority. • NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Cooperative Funding Agreement between the City of Petaluma and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, including any final changes to such agreements approved by City Attorney. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was intt6duced and adopted by the Om-1 as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 20th day of December, trm: 2010,by the following vote: City "-ttorney AYES: Barrett,Vice Mayor Glass,Harris,Healy,Rabbitt,Renee,Mayor Torliatt NOES: None „.._.,...._-....�! t ABSENT: None ,..."r "'--*,--.••.- .�� ABSTAIN: None ✓ / P GL ATTEST: Dep Cler Mayor Resolution No.2010-226 N.C.S. Page 1 Contract No. SCTA11012 A-1 COOPERATIVE FUNDING AMENDMENT NO.1 BETWEEN THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA This.Amendment No. 1 is made and entered into as of 2011 ("Effective Date")byand between the City of ]uma hereinafter referred'toas"CITY"and the SONOMA COUNTY RANSPORTATION AUTHORITY hereinafter referred to as"AUTHORITY." RECITALS 1. AUTHORITY and CITY desire to enter into a Cooperative Funding Amendment No. 1 to defineia framework to enable the two parties to work cooperatively in developing plans, specifications, and estimates(PS&E), environmental work and construction phases for the Rainier Cross Town Connector Undercrossing structure to be included in the Marin Sonoma Narrows C-2 project in Sonoma County; as more particularly described in Exhibit A to this agreement(hereinafter referred to as "Undercrossing Project"). AmendmentNo. 1 to AgreementNo.SCTA11012 replaces Agreement No.SCTA11012-in its entirety. 2. Caltrans has completed the Environmental(PAED)phase of the MSN Project, 3. AUTHORITY is the lead for the development of Plans, Specifications and Estimate(PS&E)for MSN C2 Project. 4. AUTHORITY in cooperation with Caltrans will take appropriate measures to environmentally clear the addition of the Undercrossing Project structure in the MSN C2 Project. 5. CITY will environmentally clear the Rainier Cross Town Connector Project as a separate construction project, independent of the Undercrossing Project. 6. AUTHORITY and CITY developed a financial plan, a schedule, and roles and responsibilities for completion of the Undercrossing Project which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D (hereinafter referred to as the"Project Plan"). 7. CITY.adopted Resolution No.2010-009 N.C.S.on January 4, 2010 which separated the Rainier Interchange Project into two independent projects (Independent Project 1 —Rainier Interchange and Independent Project 2,Rainier Cross Town Connector), and based on findings required under the Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety Code §33000 et seq.),consented to contribution of $498,000 of tax increment funds of the Petaluma Community Development Commission (hereinafter referred to as"PCDC") for the incorporation of the Undercrossing Project structure into the plans, specification and estimate(PS&E)of the MSN C2 project. By Resolution No. Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 A-1 City of Petaluma • Page 1 of 13 (,e/ Contract No. SCTA11012 A-1 2010-02, based on findings required under the Community Redevelopment Law,PCDC authorized contribution of$498,000 of PCDC tax'increment funds for incorporation of the Undercrossing Project structure into the PS&E of the MSN C2 project (Resolution No 2010-009 N.C.S. attached hereto as Exhibit E, Resolution No. 2010-02 attached here to as Exhibit F.) 8. CITY will provide $498,000 in funding to pay for the development of PS&E for the Undercrossing Project. 9. AUTHORITY is committed to developing the PS&E for the MSN C-2 Project and incorporating the Undercrossing Project structure into the.MSN C-2 Project pending CITY obtaining environmental clearance of the separate Rainier Cross Town Connector Project. 10. AUTHORITY is not committed to,providing funds for the development of the PS&E or construction phase of Undercrossing Project as part of the MSN C-2 Project. CITY has sole responsibility,for funding all work and costs of the Undercrossing Project, as set forth in this Agreement;.AUTHORITY has no obligation to perform the work anticipated by this Agreement if funds to do so are unavailable. 11. CITY is requesting that AUTHORITY incorporate the PS&E for the Undercrossing Project structure into its construction contracts as part of the MSN C-2 project if sufficient construction funds are available to construct the undercrossing structure at the time the MSN C-2 project is ready to advertise for construction bids. 12. CITY,on January 31, 2011, adopted Resolution no. 2011-016 making findings required under the Community Redevelopment Law, consenting to the expenditure of tax increment-funds for specified public improvements and redevelopment activities, including the Undercrossing Project, and authorizing execution of a cooperative agreement between CITY and PCDC committing tax increment funds to specified projects, including.the Undercrossing Project. PCDC, on January 31,2011 adopted Resolution no 2011-02 making findings required under the Community Redevelopment Law authorizing expenditure of tax increment funds for specified improvements and redevelopment activities,including the Undercrossing Project, and authorizing execution of a cooperative agreement between CITY and PCDC committing tax increment funds to specified projects; including the Undercrossing Project. 13. CITY on March 7,2011,by Resolution no. 2011-039,authorized issuance by PCDC of tax allocation bonds. PCDC,on March 7,2011,by Resolution no. 2011-05, authorized issuance of tax allocation bonds. The Petaluma Public Financing Authority on March 7, 2011,by Resolution no. 2011-01 authorized purchase and sale of the PCDC bonds. 14. CITY and the PCDC,.on.March 21, 2011 jointly adopted Resolution No. 2011- 046 authorizing and directing.the CITY Manager/PCDC Executive Director to negotiate Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 A-1 City of Petaluma 03401 Page 2of13 Contract No. SCTA11012 A-1 with AUTHORITY and execute an agreement committing up to$7,000,000 of private placement,PCDC debt proceeds for the Undercrossing Project, as approved by legal counsel. NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, AUTHORITY and CITY do hereby agree as follows: SECTION I CITY AGREES: 1. Total CITY Contribution. To provide$498,000 in local funds [or other CITY contribution] towards the Undercrossing Project for the development ofthe:PS&E and up to$7,000,000 for the construction phase of the Undercrossing Project in accordance with the MSN C-2 HOV Project; for total City funding commitment under this Agreement to the Undercrossing Project of$7,498,000, as specified in the Financial Plan in Exhibit B. The cost.of CITY's own administration, independent quality assurance,oversight, and project management is not considered a Project cost that is covered by this agreement and is not included in the MSN C-2 Project. CITY understands and acknowledges that it has sole funding responsibility for the Undercrossing Project. AUTHORITY has no obligation to perform work that is not funded by CITY. 2. Completion of Work. To timely complete the environmental clearance of the separate Rainier Cross Town Connector Project in accordance with the deadlines set forth in the MSN C-2 Project. 3, Payment. Invoices shall be submitted monthly to the CITY for the development of the PS&E, along with a summary of the work completed to date. Total PS&E payments shall not exceed $498;000 without CITY's consent. AUTHORITY will invoice CITY for a$290,000 initial deposit 30 working days prior to the construction contract bid advertisement date.This deposit represents one (I)months' estimated capital costs. Thereafter,AUTHORITY will submit to CITY monthly invoices for estimated monthly costs based on the prior month's actual expenditures. CITY agrees to make payments within 30 days. When CITY and AUTHORITY agree all work is complete, AUTHORITY will submit a final accounting to CITY. Based on the final accounting; CITY and AUTHORITY will refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the financial commitments in this Agreement. 4. Compliance with Laws. With regard to administering and completing CITY's responsibilities for the Undercrossing Project, CITY shall at all times comply with all applicable laws;of the United States, the State of California,the County, and with all applicable regulations promulgated by federal,;state, regional,.or local administrative and regulatory agencies,now in force and as they may enacted, issued, or amended during the term of this Agreement. Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 A-1 City of Petaluma Page 3of13 e-110 • Contract No. SCTA11012 A-1 5. Records. To allow AUTHORITY to audit all expenditures relating to the Undercrossing Project funded through this Agreement. For the duration of the Project, and for five(5) years following completion of the Project,:or earlier discharge of the Agreement, CITY shall make available to AUTHORITY all records relating to expenses incurred in performance of this Agreement. • 6.Notice of Audit. To provide timely notice to AUTHORITY if an audit is to be conducted. SECTION H AUTHORITY AGREES: 1.Total AUTHORITY Contribution. The cost of AUTHORITY's own- administration, independent quality assurance, oversight, and project management is not considered a Project cost that is covered by this agreement and is not included in the Project Plan. 2.Agreements. To modify AUTHORITY'S agreement with design consultant to include the PS&E of the Undercrossing Project. 3. Completion of Work. To timely complete the work necessary to complete PS&E of the MSN C-2 project including the Undercrossing Project structure. 4. Payment. To request payment from CITY for PS&E, based on monthly invoices. The total cost of PS&E work shall not exceed$498,000.To request payment from CITY for construction costs, based on monthly invoices of estimated expenses, in advance. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited, provision I of Section III, total CITY payments for construction costs will not exceed $7,000,000. 5. Initial Deposit. AUTHORITY will invoice CITY for a$290,000 initial deposit 30 working days prior to the construction contract bid advertisement date. This deposit represents one (1) months' estimated capital costs. 5. Compliance with Laws. With regard to administering and completing the AUTHORITY's responsibilities for the Project, AUTHORITY shall at all times comply with all applicable laws of the United States,.the State of California, the County, and with all applicable regulations promulgated by federal, state,regional, or local administrative and regulatory agencies, now in force and as they may enacted, issued, or amended during the term of this Agreement. 6. Records. To allow CITY to audit all expenditures relating to the Project funded through this Agreement. For the duration of the Project, and for five(5) years following Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTAI 1012 A-1 City of Petaluma Page 4 of 13 Contract No. SCTA11012 A-I completion of the Project, or earlier discharge of the Agreement AUTHORITY shall make available to CITY all records relating to expenses incurred in performance of this Agreement. 7.Notice of Audit. To provide timely notice to CITY if an audit of CITY records is to be conducted. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: I. Funding Needs. AUTHORITY will not incur costs beyond the funding commitment in this Agreement without CITY's consent and,agreement. If additional funds beyond those identified in the Project Plan are necessary to complete the Undercrossing.Project,.AUTHORITY and CITY will cooperate to identify and secure new, increased, or replacement funding. If finding cannot be identified to complete the project, this agreement can be discharged by either party as provided in Paragraph 3 or 13. Nothing in this.Agreement commits.AUTHORITY to utilize its own funds on the Undercrossing Project, or.commence or continue the Project unless full funding has been identified and is committed. 2. Term. This Agreement will remain in effect until discharged as provided in Paragraph 3 or 13 of this Section 3. Discharge. This Agreement shall be subject to discharge as follows: a. This Agreement may be canceled by a party for breach of any obligation, covenant or condition hereof by the other party, upon notice to the breaching party. With respect to any breach which is,reasonably capable of being cured,the breaching party shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the notice to initiate steps to cure. If the breaching party diligently pursues cure, such party shall be allowed a reasonable time to cure,not to exceed sixty (60)days from the date of the initial notice, unless a further extension is granted by the non-breaching party: On cancellation, the non-breaching party retains the same rights as a party exercising its right to terminate under the provisions of paragraph 3(b), except that the canceling party also retains any remedy for breach of the whole contract or any unperformed balance. b. By mutual consent of both parties,this Agreement may be terminated at any time with 30 day written notice. c. By either party up until the time construction contract is advertised for construction bids. In the event this Agreement is cancelled pursuant to this paragraph, CITY shall remain responsible for paying any non-cancellable costs incurred in accordance with this Agreement prior to the notice of termination. Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 A-1 City of Petaluma Page 5 of 13 Contract No. SCTA11012 A-1 4. Indemnity. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITY under or in connection with any work, authority,or jurisdiction conferred upon AUTHORITY or arising under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that AUTHORITY will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless CITY and all of officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to,tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertionsof liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITY under this Agreement. Neither AUTHORITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work,authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CITY or arising under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that CITY will fully defend, indemnify, and save.harmless AUTHORITY and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description,brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done Or omitted to be done by CITY under this Agreement. This indemnification provision shall survive termination of this Agreement. 5.Notices. Any notice which may be required under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be effective when received, and shall be given by personal service, or by certified or registered.mail; return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth below, or to such addresses which may specified in writing to the parties hereto. To CITY: John Brown City Manager City of Petaluma 11 English Street,Petaluma CA 94592 (707) 778-4467 jbrown@ci.petaluma.ca.us To AUTHORITY: Suzanne Smith Executive Director Sonoma County Transportation Authority 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 565-5373 suzsmith @sctainfo.org Cooperative.Funding Agreement SCTA11012 A-1 City of Petaluma Page 6 of 13 L9—:G13 Contract No. SCTA11012 A-1 6.Additional Acts and Documents. Each party agrees to do all such things and take all such actions,and to make, execute.and deliver such other documents and instruments, as shall be reasonably requested to carry out the provisions, intent and purpose of the Agreement. 7. Integration. This Agreement represents the entire,agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No representations,warranties, inducements or oral agreements have been made by any of the parties except as expressly set forth herein, or in other contemporaneous written agreements. 8.Amendment. This Agreement may not be changed,modified or rescinded except in writing, signed by all parties.hereto,and any attempt at oral modification of this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. 9. Independent Agencies. CITY renders its services under this Agreement as an independent agency. None of the CITY's agents or employees shall be agents or employees of the AUTHORITY. AUTHORITY renders its services under this Agreement as an independent agency. None of the AUTHORITY's agents or employees shall be agents or employees of the CITY. 10. Assignment. The Agreement may not be assigned,transferred,hypothecated, or pledged by any party without the-express written consent of the other party. 11. Successors._This Agreement shall be binding upon the successor(s), assignee(s) ortransferee(s)of the AUTHORITY or CITY as the case maybe: This provision shall not be construed as an authorization to assign,transfer, hypothecate or pledge this Agreement other than as provided above. 12. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be determined to be unenforceable, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement which shall continueln full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement can, absent the excised portion, be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. 13. Limitation. All obligations ofAUTHORITY under the terms of this Agreement are expressly subject to AUTHORITY's continued authorization to collect and expend the sales tax proceeds provided by Measure M. If for any reason AUTHORITY's right to collector expend such salestax proceeds is terminated or suspended in whole or part, AUTHORITY shall promptly notify CITY,and the parties shall consult on a course of action. If, after twenty-five (25)working days, a course of action is not agreed upon by the parties,this Agreement shall be deemed terminated by-mutual or joint consent; provided, that any future obligation to fund from the date of the notice shall be expressly limited by and subject to (i)the lawful ability of AUTHORITY to expend sales tax Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 A-1 City of Petaluma Page 7of13 Contract No. SCTA11012 A-1 proceeds for the purposes of the Agreement; and (ii)ithe availability, taking into consideration all the obligations of AUTHORITY under all outstanding contracts, agreements to other obligations of AUTHORITY,of funds for such purposes. • Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 A-1 City of Petaluma Page 8 of 13 6-115 Contract No. SCTA11012 A-I IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed.this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF P(Tt 4L&M°fr SONOMA COUNTY TRR \PORT_ATIO-N AU APJRITY - A� By? _ D 4_...c..4.1)4_...c..4.1),-----)- City Manager --// SCTA Chair Al ZEST: APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE: B lOkidiso / ,La / C City Clerk Executive Director APPRO _ , ' TO LEGAL,FORM FOR C T By: By: 4 _ City Attorney ■- Legal Counsel Authority APPROVED: n Depa ment Director a-13'ROVE D: Ate (9-1S— 1 1 Risk Manager if APPROVED: aJI Finance Director Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 A-1 City of Petaluma Page 9 of 13 / Contract No. SCTA11012 A-1 COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN • THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Design and construction of a new six-lane structure to allow the undercrossing of Highway 101 for Rainier Avenue as part of the MSN C2 project. The Undercrossing Structure shall not preclude a future interchange at this location. Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA 11012 City of Petaluma Exhibit A Page 10 of 13 • X13-1IZ Contract No. SCTA11012 A-1 COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SONOMA COUNTY-TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA EXHIBIT B PROJECT FINANCIAL PLAN Funding Plan by Fund Source and Development Phase.for the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing Structure FUND SOURCE PS&E CONSTRUCTION TOTAL CITY • $498,000 $7,000,000 $7,498,000 • TOTAL $498,000 $7,000,000 $7,498,000 Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA110I2 City of Petaluma Exhibit B Page 11 of 13 (Pet-11 Contract No. SCTA11012 A-1 COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN . THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA EXHIBIT C PROJECT SCHEDULE Project Development Phase Begin End Environmental(PAED) Complete, Complete Environmental Revalidation 12/1/2110 6/1/2011 Design (PS&E) Apr 2009 Dec 2012 'Right of Way.Acquisition (ROW) TBD TBD *Advertise,Award,Approve(AAA) TBD TBD *Construction (CON) TBD TBD * Right of Way Capital and Construction Capital and Capital Support,funding, other than the $7,000,000 provided by CITY, have not yet been identified for the MSN C2 project, therefore,the schedule at this time is unknown. • Cooperative Funding Agreement SCTA11012 City of Petaluma Exhibit C Page 12 of 13 (06---10 Contract No. SCTAI10I2 A-I COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OFPETALUMA EXHIBIT D RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES Table D-1: Responsible Implementing Agency by Development Phase Project Activity Implementing A.ency Caltrans Authority City Environmental (PAED)MSN,Project X Environmental Revalidation for Rainier X X Undercrossing Structure Environmental Clearance for Rainier Cross Town X Connector Design(PS&E)for MSN'C2 including Rainier X Undercrossing Structure Right of Way Engineering and Support for MSN X C2 including Rainier Undercrossing Structure *Right of Way Capital X *Advertise, Award, Approve (AAA) X * Right of Way Capital and Construction Capital funding, other than the $7,000,000 provided by CITY have not yet been identified for the MSN C2 project.The implementing agency for construction has not yet been assigned. 1661597.1 • Cooperative Funding Agreement S CTA 11012 City of Petaluma Exhibit D Page 13 of 13 (P6 Resolution No. 2010-009 N.C.S. EXHIBIT E of the City of Petaluma, California RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROCEEDING WITH A PROJECT STUDY REPORT FOR THE,RAINIER AVENUE CROSS TOWN CONNECTOR,WHICH INCLUDES AN UNDERCROSSING ONUS 101 FOR THE EXTENSION OF RAINIER AVENUE (INDEPENDENT ELEMENT 2); CONTINUE TO PURSUE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT STUDY REPORT FOR THE RAINIER AVENUE INTERCHANGE PROJECT SEPARATELY AND CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PROJECT STUDY REPORT FOR THE RAINIER AVENUE CROSS TOWN CONNECTOR PROJECT; PROCEEDING WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PREPARATION (INDEPENDENT ELEMENT 2); AND CONSENTING TO THE EXPENDITURE OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS FOR THE RAINIER CROSS-TOWN CONNECTOR PROJECT C00501204,AND ADOPTING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 WHEREAS, Sonoma County Transportation Authority(SCTA) will be entering into an agreement with a consultant to prepare the plans, specifications and,construction estimate for the Marin Sonoma Narrows C-2 HOV Widening Project(MSN C-2 Project) through Petaluma; and WHEREAS;the Rainier Avenue Interchange/Cross Town Connector and Undercrossing of US 101 is within the limits of the MSN C-2 Project; and WHEREAS, the Rainier Avenue.Interchange/Cross Town Connector and Undercrossing of US 101 Project Study Report is still under review by Cattails'and may not be approved in time to incorporate the Project's undercrossing structure into the design of the MSN C-2; and WHEREAS, it is recognized that the Rainier Avenue Interchange/Cross Town Connector and Undercrossing of US 101 Project is in the City of Petaluma's General Plan, and that design and construction of the larger project can be split into two independent elements. (Interchange,independent element 1, and Cross Town Connector, including undercrossing of US 101, independent element 2)and still meet the intent of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, Caltrans has stated their support for the Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector Project(element 2) ("the Project"), and staff anticipates a letter of concurrence by the time City Council convenes; and • Resolution No 2010-009 N.C.S. Page 1 WHEREAS, Caltrans, Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), and the City agree that by proceeding in a timely fashion with a Project Study Report (PSR) and environmental document for the Project as an independent element (2), the design of the undercrossing structure can be incorporated into SCTA's design of the MSN C-2 Project; and WHEREAS, incorporation of the undercrossing structure component concurrently'into the design of SCTA's MSN C-2 Project will result in earlier receipt of project benefits, cost efficiencies, reduction of traffic disruption and shorter construction duration; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 33445 provides that redevelopment agencies may, with the consent of the legislative body, pay all or part of the value of land for and the cost of the installation and construction of any building, facility, structure, or • other improvements that are publicly owned either within or without the project area, subject to certain specified findings being made; and WHEREAS, the Project is funded from$3M City/PCDC; and WHEREAS, before the PCDC may commit funds for publicly owned improvements, the consent of the legislative body must be given and the following findings must be made in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 33445: 1. That the improvements are of benefit to the project area or the immediate neighborhood in which the project is located; 2. That no other reasonable means of financing the improvements'is available to the community;and 3. That the payment of funds for the cost of the improvements will assist in the elimination of one or more blighting condition inside the project area, and will be • consistent with the implementation plan adopted by the redevelopment agency; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma Community Development Commission ("PCDC") Five-Year Implementation Plan ("Implementation Plan") for the Central Business District ("CBD") and Petaluma Community Development ("PCD") areas (collectively, the "Project Areas"), approved by the PCDC on June 11, 2007, provides for the transfer of certain specified tax increment funds for the purpose of funding roadway reconstruction and related improvements as more particularly described in the Implementation Plan,including the Project; and Resolution No.2010-009 N.C.S. Page 2 WHEREAS,the public improvements in the Project are of benefit to the Project Areas in that they will improve public facilities and infrastructure within the Project Areas, improve transportation and traffic circulation along both McDowell Blvd. and Old Redwood Highway corridor, and facilitate private'investment and revitalization of the Project Areas by alleviating impediments to circulation and access that deter revitalization; and WHEREAS, City staff is aware of no other source of funds reasonably available to undertake the City's share of funding for the public improvements, as the only other source available for such purpose would be City general fund revenues which are committed for the provision of essential services such as police and fire services; and WHEREAS,payment of funds for the public improvements will assist in the elimination of blighting conditions in the Project Areas in that they will improve public facilities and infrastructure within the Project Areas, improve transportation and traffic circulation along both McDowell Blvd. and Old Redwood Highway corridor, and facilitate redevelopment of the Project Areas by alleviating impediments to circulation and access that deter revitalization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City. Council of the City of Petaluma as follows: 1. Preparation of a PSR and an environmental document for the Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector Project C00501204(independent element 2)is approved. 2. Continue to pursue approval of the PSR for the Rainier Avenue Interchange Project separately and concurrently with the PSR for the Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector Project. 3. Based upon the foregoing recitals; which are declared to be true and correct and hereby incorporated herein as findings of the Petaluma City Council, the City Council finds in accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 33445 and other applicable law that (i) the expenditure of tax increment funds to undertake the public improvements and the Project as set forth in this Resolution and the Implementation Plan will be of benefit to the Project Areas, (ii) no other reasonable means of financing the public improvements and the Project is reasonably available, (iii) completion of the public improvements and the Project will assist in the elimination of blighting conditions in the Project Areas; and(iv) completion of the public improvements and the Project is consistent with the Implementation Plan adopted for the Project Areas. Resolution No.2010-009 N.C.S. Page 3 4. The. City Council hereby consents to contribution of $3M from PCDC to account 5530- Merged Project Area-C00501204 (as scheduled in Exhibit A, attached to this resolution and incorporated herein by reference) for the Rainier Avenue Cross Town•Connecter Project. • • • Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the A..rovr.� t. Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 4'h day of January, fo . 2010,by the following vote: City Morn AYES: Barrett,Vice Mayor Glass, Harris,Healy,Rabbitt,Renee,Mayor Torliatt NOES: None v ABSENT: None 4' ABSTAIN: None �4� . ATTEST: , - ` i • City Clerk May/r Resolution No.2010-009 N.C.S. Page 4 ff EXHIBIT A Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector and Undercrossing;of US 101 Protect C00501204 Estimated Time Preliminary Project Cost Estimate Schedule Est'd. Est'd. FY Dollars When Cost Est.($000) Needed Dollars Task ($000) Needed FY-FY Project Study Report (PSR) 80 none 09-10 01/20010—04/20010 Project Approval and Environmental Document(PA&ED) 880 none 09-10 01/2010—06/2011 Incorporation of the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing Structure into the Plans,Specifications, and Estimate(PS&E) for MSN C-2 Project 498 none 09/10 01/2010—1212011 Total Project Cost $1,449 $1,449 As of,July 1,2009 Funds Available ($000) — Funds budgeted __ 3,000 _Allocated and encumbered PCDC Fund__ 1,330 Funds available __ i 1,670 • Total cost to;prepare the PSR, Environmental Document and design of the;undercrossing structure for MSN C-2 $ 1,449 Total Project Cost $2,779 Resolution No.2010.009 N.C.S. Page 5 • (-P6ldr • RESOLUTION NO. 2010-02 EXHIBIT F PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF TAXINCREMENT FUNDS:FOR THE RAINIER CROSS, TOWN CONNECTOR PROJECT CO0501204, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS.REQUIRED BY HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 WHEREAS, Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) will be entering into- an • agreement with a consultant to prepare the plans, specifications and construction estimate for the Marin Sonoma Narrows C-21-10V Widening Project (MSN C-2 Project) through Petaluma;and, WHEREAS, the Rainier Avenue Interchange/Cross Town Connector and Undercrossing of US 101 is within the limits of the MSN C•2 Project; and, WHEREAS, the Rainier Avenue Interchange/Cross Town Connector and Undercrossing of US 101 Project Study Report is stillunderreview by Calirans and may not be approved in time to incorporate the Project's undercrossing structure into the design of the MSN C-2;and, WHEREAS, it is recognized that the Rainier Avenue Interchange/Cross Town Connector and•Undercrossing of US.101 Project is in the City of Petaluma's General Plan, and that design and construction of the larger.project can be split into two independent elements (Interchange, independent element 1,. and Cross Town Connector, including undercrossing of US 101, independent element 2):and still meet the intent of the General Plan;and, WHEREAS, Caltranslas stated their support for ihe Rainier,Avenue Cross Town Connector Project (element 2) ("the Project");.and staff anticipates a letter of.concurrence by the time City Council convenes; and, WHEREAS, Calirans, Sonoma'County Transportation Authority-(SCTA), and the City agree that by proceeding in 0 timely fashion with a Project Study Report (PSR) and environmental document for. the Project as On independent element (2), the design of the undercrossing structure can be incorporated into SCTA's design of the MSN C-2 Project;and, WHEREAS, incorporation of the undercrossing structure component concurrently into the design of SCIA's MSN C=2 Project will result in earlier receipt of project benefits,cost efficiencies, reduction of trdffic disruption and shorter construction duration:and, WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 33445 provides that redevelopment agencies may, with the consent of-the legislative body, pay all or part of the Value of land for and the costof the.installation and construction of any building, facility,structure, or other • PCDC Resolution No. 2010-02. Page 1 (A McDowell Blvd. and Old Redwood Highway corridor, and facilitate redevelopment of the Project Areas by alleviating impediments to circulation and access that deter revitalization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of the Petaluma Community Development Commission as follows: 1. Based upon the foregoing recitals, which are declared to be true and correct and hereby incorporated herein as findings of the Petaluma Community Development Commission Board, the Board finds in accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 33445 and other applicable law that (i) the expenditure of tax increment funds to undertake the public improvements and the Project as forth in this Resolution and the Implementation Plan will be of benefit to the Project Areas, (E) no other reasonable means of financing the public improvements and the Project is reasonably available, (iii) completion of the public improvements and the Project will assist in the elimination of blighting conditions in the Project Areas; and (iv) completion of the public improvements and the Project is consistent with the Implementation Plan adopted for the Project Areas. 2. The Petaluma Community Development Commission Board hereby authorizes contribution of$3M from PCDC to account 5530=Merged Project Area-C00501204 (as scheduled in Exhibit A, attached to this resolution and incorporated herein by reference) for the Rainier Avenue Crosstown Connecter Project. ADOPTED this 4r^day of January, 2010, by the following vote: Cdrnmisslorer Aye No Absent Abstain Barrett X Vice Chair Glass X Harris X Healy X Babbitt X Renee X Mei Chair TorHatt X Pamela(orliatt, Chair PCDC Resolution No.2010-02 Page 3 ATTEST: eyn���i'Qt) Claire Cooper, CMC, Recording Recording.Secretary APPROVED -• >t Ft-M: Eric Danly, Genera ounsel • ?CDC Resolution No.2010-02 Page 4 EXHIBIT A TO PCDC RESOLUTION 2010-01 Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector and Undercrossingiof US 101 Project C00501204 Estimated Time Preliminary Project Cost Estimate Schedule Est'd. Est'd.FY Dollars VYhen Cost Est.($000) Needed Dollars Task ($000) Needed FY-FY Project Study Report (PSR) 80 none 09-10 01/20010—04/20010 Project Approval and Environmental Document(PA&ED) 880 none 09-10 0112010—0612011 Incorporation of the Rainier Avenue Undercrossing ' Structure into the Plans,Specifications, and Estimate(PS&E) for MSN C-2 Project 408 none 09/10 01/2010—12/2011 Total Project Cost $1,449 $1,449 _ As of July 1,2009 Funds Available ($000) Funds budgeted 3,000 Allocated and encumbered PCDC Fund 1,330 Funds available 1,670 • Total cost to prepare the PSR, Environmental Document and design of the undercrossing structure for MSN G2 S 1,449 _ Total Project Cost $2,779 PCDC Resolution No.2010-02 Page 5 ei.54:31 • AG IteAnI#4.0 `�ALU`tr•R ...o11it�'9 Ig68 • DATE: December 19, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Scott Duiven, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Updates to the City's Development Related Fees RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City. Council provide feedback,and adopt the attached resolution directing the preparation of revised development fee and capacity fee studies as a basis for updates to the City's development related fees. BACKGROUND For a discussion of the City's development and capacity fees; how they were set and why; their relationship to the General Plan 2025 and EIR; and how Petaluma's fees compare to other fees within the region, please seethe attached September 12, 2011. staff report. DISCUSSION At September 12°i City•Council meeting, staff presented several proposals aimed at reducing development fees and water capacity fees. A summary•of the status of those efforts follows: Review of Cast Estimates: Public Works staff reviewed.the cost estimates for several of the larger public facility and roadway improvement projects to determine if based on new information, the estimated construction costs have changed. Staff found that the cost estimates were still;consistent with today's project costs and recommended no changes:.At this'.point.no savings can be anticipated from this proposal. Water anti Wastewater Capacity Fee Studies: The Department of Water Resources and Conservation has contracted with Bartle Wells Associates to review and update the Water and Wastewater Capacity Fees. This update will review the need for the recycled water distribution system and modifications to the planned improvement schedule in the context of the recently completed 2010 Urban 'Water Management Plan and the recently completed Financial Plan and Utility Rate Study. The update will also allow for the removal of already completed and funded projects from the long-term project improvement lists, such as the C Street Pump Station and completed Tenth Street water and sewer reconstruction. Agenda Review: City Attorney ' Finance Director City Manager • Process'for Revis1ng Fees i J As noted above, the adjustments to the Parkland and Open. Space. Acquisition. Fees were accomplished administratively, in accordance with the fee legislation': The remaining proposals will require addihional staff .tithe, potential consultant time, legal review; and;:updated fee resolutions and'legislative:action.bythe'City Council:The amount of time varies from a week or two of staff nine-`[n a couple months of consultant time ni Cendtlef ;the. necessary analyses • depending'on City Council direction: Some..of the.analyses may require'additional.direction:from Counsel and reginre additional eosts;and time associated with any general plan amendments and ' CEQA analysis. In addit'ron,to the analyses is the time associated with preparing stall'reports and . legislation which typically requires a few weeks of staff time in:preparation and a few weeks=for routing reports for review. Ideally any revisions would be presented to the Council as a package. Assuming direction from the City Council on September;1.2h',the time necessary to bring a package of updated fee•resolutions to the:City Council .for:adoption could result in legislative action to update the fees comp ei cmg atone of the.two meetings!ih'Decernber. FINANCIAL.JMPACTS • Most of the recommendations-above wll'l.require staffand legal Stafftinie in preparing legislation • as well as potential costs associated with consultants for some of the technical analyses required in support of the fee adjustments `I here .costs can he borne''by the development fee funds themselves as part of ongoing adn imstcation of the.fee program,;Staff estimates consultant costs , • ranging between $8,000 and:$'43;000 or more and related expenditure of staff time and legal service costs depending on City'.Counci1.direction. Table 5 eoritairis'the•current-balance for each • impact fee account. ' Table 5: Current Development•Fee•Account Balances Development Fee,Account. . Balance asof6%30/11.. Aquatic Center Facilitiesiimpact•Fee $ 15;294 Commercial Linkage Fee. $ 398;038 Community Center Facilities Impactlee $ 1056;755 . Fire Suppression Facilities Impect7Fe , $ 189,745 In Lieu Housing FS $ 1,750,269. Law Enforcement Facilities pact.F ° m Im ee $ 236,747 Library Facilities:Impact Fee: $ 1:14;896 i. _ Open,Space Acquisition Fee. $ - Park-land:Acquisition:_Fee,. $ . Park'Land.gevelopment'ImpacfFee $ Park.Land.Acquisition%Development' . Impact Fee (pre 2008tfee structure) $ 1,624;228• Public Art Fee $ 40;536 Public.FacilitiesImpactEee: $ 60,459 • Traffic Impact'Fee.(CaltranS.P2efeLred).. $ 1,741;850 Wastewater Fee • Water Capacity''Eee Storni Drain_'Impact Fee:ItypicalSAO $ 3,769;0.79 TOTAL . $ 10;998,896' . L9eJ L2 ,i .. . ... i:.' 1 . .`.ALA . r• ixin^irq°� f ' y tal�arn �1F TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE ��� :Jt�`a Pe 3 . .. •w �M£_ P GGR•AM l P®A`f' fk'`.-++ •w�' tom` s z . � :: i a't wx' w'aft`. i y.�y ri. cs° y 4 "� .z .F. o��' " 1 Sbk4)}4.t re 4)-t;N:g •.s42;;;;^yl R .\G'F�. .1 :41"------v ^' i 'K±°' ...*,,i' '•+¢•i rk, Lr5�*w''� !t° -,,ra -I' 3,--�r '�., f 7$;4;`kc � . p a ?� ,...ft„:. t • -1Au,'i aw ..,I yr.4 +uZ�iR - tyr s Y ' AleF� .£tt�.. , est "" ,,� +3-r '-;.., f} ra{F L ` m$'�..a' r�AG �}e it t 1 - a 1r -n btr #* 44' v -•fix 14 r �, tit }y f R�'k,ly e e��[ ,k.;4.;S `^ R f13SF .2"Ni--,- "3 is I°'�'R4 f4-'•' b.:, � ` z S rl,w�ww�, ,«y � � �lfiC �,w.�#e`, :s`61 IA i t a r r f 4S 1311 gJ(x Z n we z y .n, , -22 .Y q1 S ! .+��_>�_"'� n alt1,444 3 t Yr A 3$° T".' at,,,., .. kiSin' T''3 f ' �: j E m I vri dt_yA7. at$4.=.4 .34'`f : ` ., {, o ,�f ^vi —..-try 1 rt �r Y}IT1 '' 1r `F 3" t� H t. R , �1 V . 1,i�nllfjr$r.liktirltittf{ � r-s'11�f i. '., s x..,, */ 7L-5rr-tom t � '� A3 �tr 6j �lrt'T�E:IyL tyIA9 �.a-u -n ,';f v,i:. LCi , l '%e` , ,•,v r 1 a� S { ,1 c CIS ( '�4' ! .v,. ,L3. f 4. {r.„,� tie-K. +k s . it 5 .,-;L E�^r�•,i4�. to G my-v: i K t w 1 fTnFr -..{n :' f," r f t '%? 3rtr54TCk i'�''�3L1�"' 1rdi•r at�job 44 m'nt f?• F�4°' v t has i rt' `f P. . . F m rT'w quE>rS" :it,: s,r:{(tt„.p `"]"j c' i T+.- a'3 L� i a 'S-' A z '- �.+R. li e•F bt a -' YZ> •r'rY,. t` �, - x3 rk?lit ;ltic'lb ngt�,�} f i -1 tt • S I r i BYO eF' .11,,E ',.*- ..A ""la 3 g3 1 1' -P ,t�.�f .,1. 33 9"'s •h;.re § { 43 4Y AtiLx A R'�S,S'itel Y,''k e-t iO i.∎ ,, ",;lrxs �•y t' " {r Sh P 1 YI d 3 %y_za k r .IF`3s x r l z`' x..t .s r r�. ices; " M '�q is sY`""at-••5 ^s. S� !f + �LGe - p 4 r tY4; '". ""Y 1 Iw i Y 'F '' ' fiY s..-. n 1 .vm v, i !S air. .,,. .rr b rf 1 .. yi4 4"s✓-z" 4� rSo- Y-4 'v a ' . - `k sM- AL i l ; 1 !' �t L 1+'`tj L y„ ,c4;-.14,44,-.): :-...4..' A r3. u "• x.? s Y ,Yf' ,e1 5 y h. 5 tt I i ,}Y=L` �1 . r .: Cr G ne�,p,3, .r•�y"0 x d u! ` r �...._t i., ;r” '.r .p d(R13y il'tYl 111F' tt $1:t v-a,*'^ L•O+ p�'._"� t, 4...pit } ` , 4 •n. s a• r Y� k r s,.,�y+f c ' z t i i♦ P. 1 74"t77:4-,. Cp o t �'4 �:WdS.S'°{ IiL Iy t �wlk� ',Wit,*x d�. x i�•TEn1�_4.1- y irk „W ty-t Y y y''t� 4 t.Yt,-{ i W X34 (S(y�� 1Ts �t y ` jr:q 5 r4=1[ r sr¢st 5.-i ; -' ��`'" y`�1c4�.1i= �F'r c;":"41,1 y r �f S .. # Z .,` ° n ¢µwk-yr ° *�4 ''i 2d j Y. N r sf cti Cd �.A f•ti4`Sj `.... x t Y� ir6It ,i,,,i.?el.�L .. 1Id IIn nnn.".T"t.+* r x;' + .'e. >N � - t47'. � s -� f �•h+ s� ky t • °rtf� 1. Prepared by Iktit f.104 ' . • • ' a FEHFL & PEERS I '�y �,ia,a .z j TPAWSPORTATION CONSU L7A'N TS ,.nab:qlc y, _ - I r s < ij l,rr ty _ 33Z Pine SGeet:4tiY Floor I 1 Freeµ •T >>:. . - San Francisco, CA• ■ �`." ; ' ' ") - SF06-0282 .,C,m,�ssL�r�` . l x; !7f ry 1 May 2008 . I. ant 11-s, • . . .. . . •• .. • . .. ..."4....'7:, : :' '..:, t '; •• . . . ! -.-. . • • .. , . - • . . . . ' . . . - • . VC.:•.;:rilitMc4.4 .•117:...t.-kr:d.'fftt22-: tTrttett'0•4t.:Wit.t•,tht:taaltttitt•3;tiedtine'a-2:keet4gge:•tri,ritt7:::;4y.. , tentttitteatStgc,,tait;tAsk, . . dfiP..f;,.eP'Ot.4tn.a.tte4'•'Pijtt§4fifti.t.gie,0'.igib:)iiifliiitiPR15;%,5:)VIMWcM..*'R;9?ZMM:12R:AW'gSP: . ‘.. 09.oqawilvt%vattp:i4014:00V.M.lts,g4-6.-VgA',.:30R*V4Vit,-.i:gmAjognot+z-irn = ,-41.-7,: 1152%-ri.:visr,;(,274,4:). .pc20,..?:.. .:3;,,sz..0114,::::,&i.,...6....,..1.!,. ... ..1,:iE,E;:i•-;,-,4,,,,,,si-2..:41.7;z*.f:40,. . . . . . .. • i . . . . .. • 4. - . . • . • . . . • . • .. . _ „ .. - • . . . ..... . _. .. . TA0.LcA • . . CITY iiEiff.tAO.iiitikbiRcut.. ritiltinkOVEW(Eitut:.FSE.60NTRIBUTIONS . • . : : . Et.imatecf.boi is . . .. . _ Niw 74Centage nwoyreeht. •:'.;:itteci.:!d..itty oevfitrminent 'PcatetretbiaLr.ea 9i rtogram . Share . Cost ; • . .. . _ • • , lhairderditvenuelExtension andlInteiChange-locaPy:preferred • .1,1te.thethee . . . . . ' .. . 448.100,000t, 106.dottle , IA8;100,000 28.4%. , • . .,- . _ .. .... 1 Cqltrans prefefred afternativ04iipplement 4.3-1; p2,opo: '.....160,ob% # 000 13:3°4 1 . ittilfiela Eerie Ecteesibh• • ' 1..S4'30-0,06-61 -rici010S1/4-. tit:4;3S3;000' i2:;?%.- ' • • • Copeland Extension iv.po.-AP9 - ..109-09% - $6!&47tigt • 3tre • ; ... ..__.. .... IS tti39000d-416tithy.irth§±40ghl40&450 sit cO06 topo . .. . . . - i aitheld.LanerF4Vean DireettInterseption:Impt.oy.emeetp $500,000 :I oacovo , . St iii 0:3% Peteturra,IttlbulayarriOiegr4e Avenue•Llipirap.pireetIntersep;tio •W0000• ::... 300.00 $500000 0.3t4:- . •orietruCtioti of New ihiereectiprts.ithreghhoef the':Oty . _ ;$?;sospop :• 100.00% • 1,300;666 . raffic Signal tipirad4TIcidiigtio-citiWo1W : : ... : 1:45,064s0. - - fijoow: : :1,035600. . 1.1*, ectestrikr4i6:!itp:o.-y-*-46is'. .-F.AFIAcr1 the City ;t5•;t5.1! tilfl • JI107 ;•-•.$5..e.12igt:9 a•6%...: yp3it foipc04srpqr0 Throughout the City . Siii,47”00,0, 2-iS ,$2432.;000 16% mililatretten:eciitS? $A 986 000 • .4.9% 1 ' • ' i.,Ai4ot with- ....... iek....a ir?d.•.ii.i.ir.l_ierjau e e flo.ig..i..tho 5163 146•8 r.,006!'• .. ... $139 P4.00 e1.:-n;4: I - , - total uiftheatilth4147-0terfAi%)iqiiiii0r&lii4iirgeht itt 3.7;001061i.f 1170;636,030. I ilia% I .. .. . • - " :. . -:. t?reftateSDrOVAli in buEs 9.-,052-81: ... ..... . :Ilse:per 10-4,iissOpreferr.ed kainier•Avenu#: ikelna*e.. $45 370 i • ' . . . : . .. . . 04 poi;bpgAt;filiticiliiifeiegaftti,i; qpiiiirli I $i S;zaO. .• •••• - • source:-bey et Pethiurrsa,208. . • .2.ASUrnei 3/of'iNet•Cily Cost"teah•Galtean3Alternalitie SiTilerneillEof.§inier Ave Interchange • . .. . „ . . • •DTER',6;—..E. V-jit41 PONT,' - • - . - . . The,totO I 06.titot Itoe'iclertietbuted thy:hew deyojogitiont.,($top:3)*A0befp019.1,q0d by:frie lotAl:riurrte'n of bew DU Es . (Step 4) to dterteitiefti3O.OppfOpri6te....tOlal fee amount Lobe generated by each DUE as shown in Table 10. The haw.pbtehti0146Safrid0A•rePiesetii.a•d'iangejiorn:lhe:current fee,sch.ecille for a V4tithty 011Q S(311S,inClUding: • • The indLition Cif additiOnahcariitalimprbvements. • to:ccee.see,i the tpeto!cossthiehort snd right:of:way b4jui0iliCin • . • • - . .. . . r-P - 20 Ft.Ft ' • .• . . ' . . . . . . . . . •' Wildlife Check List, Winter 2011,(December 13, 2011) early afternoon,Visit`#1 Andersen Property, Cinnabar Lane, Approx. 10 acres Upland habitat: Annual grassland, oak woodland (live oaks), mature willow and other trees, adjacent to Petaluma River, near seasonal creek, adjacent to flood plain. Wildlife corridor. Andy LaCasse, Lou Oliker, Susan Kirks Avian (49) Western bluebird Yellow-rumped warbler Black-throated gray warbler Say's Phoebe Black Phoebe Brown creeper Golden-crowned sparrow White-crowned sparrow Song sparrow White-breasted nuthatch Ruby-crowned kinglet Raven American Crow American goldfinch Lesser goldfinch Dark-eyed junco (Oregon junco) White-tailed kite(Nesting,.DFG Fully Protected) Red-shouldered hawk Red-tailed hawk Great horned owl Turkey vulture Hutton's Vireo Spotted towhee California towhee Northern mockingbird European Starling Rock pigeons (flock) Acorn woodpecker Hairy woodpecker Downy woodpecker Red-breasted sapsucker(Nesting,DFG Special Animals List) Northern Flicker (3) 1a8-130 • Nuttall's woodpecker(Nesting,American Biird Conservancy Watchlist Birds of Conservation Concern,USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern) Mourning dove Eurasian-collared dove Scrubj ay Wild turkey (30) Bushtit Oak titmouse (Nesting,ABC Watch List Birds of Conservation Concern,USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern) (Winter flood plain adjacent) Gadwall Cinnamon Teal Green-winged Teal Northern Shoveler Kingfisher Snowy Egret(Nesting, DFG Special Animals List) Great Egret (Nesting, CDF Sensitive) Great Blue Heron(Nesting, CDF Sensitive) Black-crowned Night Heron(Nesting,DFG Special Animals List) Green Heron Reptiles Western Pond Turtle (California Species of Concern)(BLM Sensitive) (US Forest Service Sensitive) Western Toad Pacific Coast Frog Gopher snake Garter snake King snake Mammals Bobcat Grey fox Pocket gopher Mule deer Black-tailed jack rabbit Raccoon Opossum California Vole Amphibians (06-437 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 6,2008 AGENDA REPORT FOR RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FUNDING PLAN FOR IHE RAINIER AVENUE CROSS-TOWN CONNECTOR AND INTERCHANGE PROJECT 0)0501204 (ALL PHASES OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT THROUGH CONSTRUCTION. 1. RECOMMENDATION: Approve a resolution adopting the funding plan for the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Improvement Project 2. BACKGROUND: In order to continue moving Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Project through the Caltrans process and maintain a project development schedule in sequence with that of the Caltrans Marin/Sonoma Narrows (MSN), Segment C, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Project (construction to start late Spring of 2014, with construction complete late Winter of 2016) an approved funding plan is required. In authorizing this resolution, the project development and,improvement schedule can proceed,which will allow for the project's inclusion as part of the MSN Segment C HOV Lane Project. 3. DISCUSSION: The following is a breakdown of the estimated costs required to fund the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector and Interchange:Project through the traffic impact fee and entitlement process, as development occurs adjacent to the cross-town connector roadway. In general, traffic impact fees would fund the cost of the interchange,bridge over the-Petaluma River/SMART tracks,northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes on US 101.between Rainier and the East Washington Interchange, a new US 101 undercrossing, and associated-right-of- way acquisitions (estimated cost between $28M to $79.4M depending,on which alternative is selected). The reconstruction of the-freeway and the cost of the US 101 structure crossing over Rainier would be funded from the MSN project. Estimated costs have been identified below, under each Rainier Interchange alternative. The connector road from McDowell Blvd.North to Petaluma Blvd.North(minus the bridge over the Petaluma River/SMART tracks) is estimated at $16.9 to $19.6 Million, depending on which alternative is selected. As developments occur along this roadway, it is anticipated the various project sponsors will dedicate and construct these improvements as part of their various projects. With the exception of Alternatives 1 and 5,the costs are not be part of the City's impact fees and are identified separately under each of the other alternatives. 2 The following outlines improvements for each of the fivealternatives, along with an estimated cost,to be funded through the impact fee and entitlement process. Alternative 1 - No-Build The No-Build Alternative would not construct an interchange or cross-town connector at Rainier Avenue. It would include planned freeway unproyements within the MSN project study segment. Future US 101 would raise the freeway (between Lynch Creek to approximately Corona Road) to improve the freeway sight distance in this area and would consist of two mixed flow lanes in both northbound and southbound directions and an additional HOV laneirrboth directions, all to be constructed by the MSN project. • No traffic impact fee collected for this alternative. If the project is not successful in receiving Caltrans approval, the impact fees would be revisited at its next appropriate update. Alternative 2 - Modified Diamond Interchange with Loop:Ramp Alternative 2 includesthe•construction of a new cross-town connector, an extension of Rainier Avenue, from McDowell Boulevard.North on the east side of US 101 to Petaluma Boulevard North on the west side:of US 101. This alternative also includes a new interchange at US 101, which would be a modified diamond type configuration with a loop ramp in the southeast quadrant. This alternative was studied and approved in the. original 1994 Environmental Impact Report(ER). Impact fee component of the project Major construction includes the following: new modified diamond interchange configuration with a loop on-ramp in the southeast quadrant, new 6-lane undercrossing with enough width for two through lanes in each direction, left turn lanes, Class II bikeway (bike lane) and sidewalks on both sides of the undercrossing, new signalized intersections at the ramp tennini with Rainier Avenue,on-ramps with provisions for future ramp metering,new auxiliary lanes between the new Rainier Avenue Interchange and the East Washington Street Interchange, landscaping where there is sufficient land, and an elevated structure over the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) corridor/Petaluma River. The construction for this alternative would require right-of-way (R/W) acquisition. The estimated cost of this component in 2008 dollars is $48.1 Million. Improvement through the entitlement process as developmentoccurs component of the project This component includes right=of--way dedication and construction of'the.connector roadway portion of.Rainer Avenue from McDowell Boulevard North to the start of the interchange improvements,then continuing after the bridge over the SMART tracks to Petaluma Boulevard North, and installation of a traffic signal at Rainier Avenue and Petaluma Boulevard North: Projects along the collector route are Dear Creek Plaza (east of US 101), Sid. Commons, Petaluma Village.Market Place, Legacy, Johnson Property, and the Anderson Property. These projects would contribute throughout the entitlement process (Attachment 6). The estimated total cost of this component in 2008 dollars is $16.9 Million. The estimated project cost (2008 dollars) for Alternative 2 is $75 Million, including support costs. 3 Alternative.3 -Full Diamond Interchange (Type L=1 Configuration) Alternative 3 includes the construction of a' new cross-town connector, or an extension of Rainier Avenue from McDowell Boulevard North on the east side of US 101, to Petaluma. Boulevard North on the west side of US 101. This alternative includes a freeway interchange at Rainier Avenue, which would have a'diamond type configuration. The interchange would be a hybrid between a compact diamond(on the east side of US 101), and spread diamond (on the west side of US 101).. The distance between the ramp signalized intersections would. accommodate storage requirements for the left turning vehicles. Impact fee component of the project Major construction includes the following: new tight diamond interchange configuration with a loop on-ramp in the southeast quadrant, new 6-lane undercrossing with enough width for two through lanes in each direction, left turn lanes, class II bikeway (bike lane) and sidewalks on both sides of the undercrossing; new signalized intersections at the ramp termini with Rainier Avenue, on-ramps with provisions for future ramp metering, new auxiliary lanes between the new Rainier Interchange and the East Washington Street Interchange,landscaping where there is sufficient land, and elevated' crossing over the SMART corridor/Petaluma River. The construction for this alternative would require R1W acquisition. The estimated total cost of this component in 2008 dollars is $51.1 Million. Improvement through the entitlement process as development occurs component of the project This component includes right-of-way dedication and construction of the connector roadway portion of Rainer Avenue from McDowell Boulevard to the start of the interchange improvements, then continuing after the bridge over the SMART tracks to Petaluma Boulevard North, and installation of a traffic signal at Rainier Avenue and Petaluma.Boulevard North. The estimated total cost of this component in 2008 dollars is $16.9 Million. The estimated total project cost (2008 dollars) for Alternative 3 is $78 Million, including support costs. Alternative 4 - Split Interchange (Type L-5 Configuration) with Parallel Street System This alternative also includes the construction of anew cross-town connector, an extension of Rainier Avenue from McDowell Boulevard North on the east side of US 101, to Petaluma Boulevard North on the west side of US 101. In addition, Alternative 4 incorporates both the East Washington Street Interchange and Rainier Avenue Interchange. The proposed design requires converting the existing loop ramp configuration on the east side of US 101 at the East Washington Interchange to a tight diamond configuration. Two one-wayramp extensions that parallel US 101, one in the northbound direction and one in the southbound direction, would be constructed. In the northbound direction, traffic destined for Rainier Avenue would take the off-ramp from northbound US 101. and proceed to the East Washington Street ramp intersection, crossthe intersection, and enter the on-ramp, opposite of the off-ramp, to connect to the Rainier Avenue Interchange. A similar type of movement would occur in the southbound direction as well. Southbound US 101 traffic destined for East Washington Street, would take the off-ramp from US 101 and proceed to the Rainier Avenue ramp intersection, cross the intersection, and enter the on-ramp, opposite of the off-ramp, to connect to the East Washington Street Interchange. 4 The split interchange alternative would change the scope.of the,current East Washington Street Interchange Project. The current East Washington Street Interchange Project proposes to construct a new northbound diagonal on-ramp, and realign the existing northbound loop on- ramp and northbound off-ramp. The above alternative would require demolition of the northbound loop on-ramp and realignment of the northbound off-ramp. With the split interchange proposal at Rainier Avenue, the proposed East Washington Interchange freeway entrance gore (the triangular area between the ramps and.the freeway) area at the northbound diagonal on-ramp would need to be'modified to fit into the interchange configuration proposed in this Alternative. Impact fee component of the'-proi ect Major construction includes the following: two new one-way ramp extensions that parallel US 101, one in the northbound direction and one in the southbound direction; new northbound and southbound US 101 diagonal on- and off-ramps at Rainier Avenue. • East Washington Interchange improvements would include a new northbound US 101 diagonal on-ramp on East Washington Street, realignment of the existing southbound US 101 on-and off.-ramps, realignment of the existing, 'northbound US 101 off-ramp, modification of the existing signals at the north and southbound'East Washington Street ramp intersections, and construction of a new ADA-compliant pedestrian crossing to replace the aging existing structure. • Rainier Avenue Interchange improvements would include construction of a new, 7-lane undercrossing with enough width for left turn lanes, class, II bikeway (bike lane) and sidewalk on both sides of the undercrossing, landscaping where there is sufficient land, elevated crossing west of US 101 over the SMART corridor/Petaluma River, traffic signal at Rainier Avenue and Petaluma Boulevard North, and new on-ramps with provisions for future ramp metering. The construction for this alternative would,require R/W acquisition., The estimated total cost of this component in 2008 dollars is $79.4 Million. Improvement through the entitlement process asdevelopment occurscomponent of the project This component includes right-of-way dedication and construction of the connector roadway portion of. Rainer Avenue from McDowell Boulevard to the start of the interchange improvements, then continuing after the bridge over the SMARTT tracks to•PetalutnaBodlevard North, and installation of a traffic signal at Rainier Avenue and Petaluma Boulevard North. The estimated cost of this component in 2008 dollars is$19.6.Million. The estimated total project cost (2008 dollars) for Alternative 4 is $109 Million, including support costs. 5 Alternative 5—Undercrossing Onlyt(No Freeway Ramps) Alternative 5 is considered as the"Minimum Build Alternative"which includes construction of a new four-lane undercrossing of US 101 at Rainier Avenue. There would be no freeway access at Rainier Avenue, but rather an extension of Rainier Avenue from McDowell Boulevard North on the east side of US 101, to Petaluma Boulevard North on the west.side of US 101. Other features in this design include class II bikeway (bike lane) and sidewalks on both sides of Rainier Avenue, landscaping where there is sufficient land, an elevated crossing west of US 101 over the SMART corridor/Petaluma River, and installation of a traffic signal at Rainier Avenue and Petaluma Boulevard North. The proposed construction work for this alternative would stay within the existing State and City rights of way. Impact fee component of the - The impact fee component is related to the entire project, as described above. The estimated total cost of this component in 2008 dollars is $28 Million. The estimated total project cost (2008 dollars) for Alternative 5 is $38 Million, including support costs. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Summary Table of Costs for each Alternative Impact.Fee Development PCDC Alternative Component Coti ponent Component Estimated Total Cost 1 zero zero zero budget expended to-date 2 $48.1 Million $16.9 Million $10 Million $75 Million 3 $51.0 Million $16.9 Million $10 Million $78 Million 4 $79.4 Million $19.6 Million $10 Million $109 Million 5 $28.0 Million zero $10 Million $38 Million Preliminary project work plan schedule: Start preparation of Project Study Report (PSR) 03/2007 Approve PSR 12/2008 Project Approval &Environmental Document(PA&ED) 03/2010 Right-of-Way(R/W) certification 04/2011 Plans, Specifications, &Estimate(PS&E) 04/2011 Ready to list 12/2011 Approve construction 06/2012 Construction completion 12/2016 The above schedule is in alignment with Caltrans' time schedule for the Marin/Sonoma Narrows Segment C HOV Widening Project. This provides an opportunity to combine work from the Segment C HOV Lane Project and the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector and Interchange Project, which would minimize costs, reduce construction durations and minimize traffic interruptions to the traveling public. 6 /n 43 • r 0 0 <- 0 a •W =m O m .0 .N O O 0 V' co m m 0 0 CO 0 CO :;0 r O 'n to N. 0 0 O t` 0 lo): of r u • o v o a ° trio :M o co r d d o gait ri. 0 n 0 omo m m n co co vo ov' T e a to ID 0 7 '0 co U) a) r to M 0 O N n C) 0 C m to op r m vi N al v o N r o n. N n N CO n C CO N 4] <C N N T r • m▪• 0" tp. 0 0 7 m O N N t N O O,N 'it Cl 1 ''M' 0 o O to '-' O O m m ° n o O co c C1 n Q 0, O an < N O co° v of N N Cl t C)) O a! O N'' r- O N m m N N n n CO LO H LO 0 fq OT r N N O N O0 O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 100000000Q 0 0 : C .0 0. 0 O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O A t`0. a a E E m m o o C C C C W W ▪ O 0 '0 0 +" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 O o' o O 0 6, 0000000o O O O L 0 0 O' O 9 o 0 0 o o o 0 o o O d o m O '0 O O m 0. O O ° 0 0 0 O O o m 0 0 0 o m o O. 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 4'1 N CD N 0 d- O co ai m '0 N CO 'Cr 0 Colo V N ID ul r N tc) Ira N C) N CO - O 0 0 0 0 0 a'O.C O N 0 0 0 0 m Q V' O 000 O 0 ,66a) O r 0 0 0 0 (0 n N- C d O O C '.�.'D R) ni 0 0 0 0 C') CL CO A, o 0 co 0 t7'N o O 0 '0 V' 0 :4) i' 0 O O I D 'n n o r 0 0 0 m O o m U) 'Co r m tD t0 O O CO N CO-' D] o. ¢ N N N ` CO V' rnn CD r r • O O r r re aaa h F" N c o o O •o.0 C0 0 N O O ° ° V t V' W • o00 o m ;a) 0 o 0 t, o o 00 n n n 06. ,_ .m+ o00 'o '.tOCO ip o00o to to :m 0 Q Q N Cma O r O O o•o Or m m eo m• 1_ n r v v v a .o U I- 0_ 0 N c o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 O 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O o O 2 d 0 O O 'C o'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O a �a a` .0 O E E U a U W C C Z W W 2 , 0O0 ° o ° o 0 ,0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 '0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 U ,a o ° o 00 a 000000000 0 '0 0 0 0. 00 O C z mil O. 0 o m O O O 0 O. O O O N M n m 0 '°a' N t°O CO m r N r r r CO O C U m Z 6 N H U W O o 0 .0 W U o CA C Lu Z Z C LL K C Z m E 'v h Oct m o al E Eo o' LL aw tn0ZZ m 'LL/ I ' C7 a 0 o > a o Z W U O 00 )- 0 Q m o '0 Ca N LT. 0 C N 0 W 0 = 0 0 Z =. N W m N 0 2 C O Q o Cry Z 0 Z J - i_CC F Z > O +0r 0 a 0 @ O J 0 Z a 9 < Z ZZ Z Q V y 200 0 3ZQwW0000a 0 II 0 I- Ma_ 0 ❑. JaJ < 0000 t) Ll N m 0 ,o� rt 9 ON° OO i v 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 °o' o �L/'✓ � ! �0� a N 'o C N V' d 0. N CO V to co n 0'0) a: CO 1- +a O N N LO X 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0'0 0. C N d 0 LL. 0 0 0 Ill CO CO CO CO CO CO-CO 'm C7' RAINIER AVENUE CROSS-TOWN CONNECTOR AND US 101 INTERCHANGE PLANNING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY-ALTERNATIVE?'5. 30-Apr-09 District-County-Route 04-Son-101 PM 4.33/5.96 EA 4A430K Program Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Limits On US 101 (N-S)from 0.33'miles.north of Caulfield Lane Overcrossing to 0.20 miles north of Petaluma Overhead;and on proposed Rainier Avenue(E-W)between McDowell Blvd and Petaluma Blvd North Proposed Improvement(Scope) Alternative 5 Alternative 5 includes the extension of Rainier Avenue from McDowell Boulevard on the east side of US 101,to Petaluma Boulevard North on the west side of US 101 and a new 4-lane Rainier Avenue undercrossing at US 101.Other improvements'include class II bikeway(bike lane)and sidewalks on both sides of Rainier Avenue, landscaping where there is sufficient land, an elevated crossing west of US 101 over the SMART corridor/Petaluma River,and installation of a new traffic signal at Rainier Avenue and Petaluma Boulevard North. TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $. 25,652,000 TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $ 6,432,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 32,084,000 TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $ 18,740,000 TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 50,820,000 Reviewed by Program Manager Date (Signature) Approved by Project Manager Date (Signature) Phone No. 5/11/2009:2:38 PM PET022_Cost Est_AIt5_20090430:xIs:Summary Page 1(06-4124a of 6 . COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT NO: SCTA10021 BETWEEN TILE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA This Agreement is made and entered into as of fA ail 7 , 10 9 (`'Effective Date") by and between the City of Petaluma hefeinafier,referred to as "CITY' and the SONOM. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY hereinafter referred to as "AUTHORITY." RECITALS 1. AUTHORITY adopted that certain 2007 Strategic Plan that sets forth AUTHORITY's program and`project implementation policies with regard.to the use of funds provided under the 2004 Traffic Relief Act for Sonoma County Expenditure Plan and Ordinance approved by the voters of Sonoma County on November 2,2004 (hereinafter referred to as”Measure M"). The 2007 Strategic Plan as-such plan may be amended from time to time is hereinafter referred to as.the"Strategic Plan". 2. Pursuant to the Strategic Plan and Measure M. AUTHORITY and CITY desire to enter into a Cooperative Funding Agreement to define a framework to enable the two parties to work cooperatively in developing transportation improvements on the Highway 101 - Old Redwood Highway Interchange in Sonoma County (hereinafter referred to as "Old Redwood Interchange Program Improvements"). 3. AUTHORITY and CITY desire to deliver the Old Redwood Interchange Program Improvements in conjunction with the ramp improvements of Highway 101 from Old Redwood Highway in Petaluma to Rol-alert Park Expressway(hereinafter referred to as "Central Highway 101 Program Improvements"). The.combined project is more particularly described in Exhibit A to this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"). 4. AUTHORITY and CITY desire to re-validate the Environmental Assessment/Final Environmental Impact Report for Central Highway 101 Program Improvements to include the Old.Redwood Interchange Proeram Improvements,which would include a replacement bridge overcrossing of Highway 101 at Old Redwood Highway in Petaluma. 5. AUTHORITY and CITY developed a financial plan, a schedule, and Toles and responsibilities for completion of the Project which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D (hereinafter referred to as the"Project Plan"). Cooperative Funding Agreement No. SCTFs ltl0%I City of Petaluma Pale 1 of 7 1 e j' /fj 6. Pursuant to the Strategic Plan and Measure M, AUTHORITY is committed to make available up to $10,000,000 in Local.Street Project(LSP)'pr'ogram'funding and $11,630,000 in Highway 101 Program funding to assist with the Project. 7. CITY is conunitted to make available up to $17,060,000 in funding to assist with the Project. 8. AUTHORITY is committed to apply for up to $3,000,000 in State and Local Partnership Program (hereinafter referred to as"SLPP") funding to assist with the Project. NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, AUTHORITY and CITY do hereby agree as follows: SECTION I • CITY AGREES: I. Total CITY Contribution. To provide up to $17,060,000 in local funds [or other CITY contribution] towards the Project, in accordance with the financial plan (Exhibit B) and schedule(Exhibit C). The cost of CITY's own administration, independent quality assurance,oversight, and project management is not considered a Project cost that is covered by this agreement and is not included in the Project Plan. 2. Additional Cooperative Agreements. To enter into a cooperative agreement(s) with Caltrans for die EnviIonmental.(PAED) and design (PS&E) phases of the Project in accordance with the Project.Plan. 3. Completion of Work. To timely complete the environmental and design phases of the Project in accordance with the deadlines set forth in the Project Plan. 4. Construction Funding. To provide up to $13,760,000 in local funds [or other City contribution] to the AUTHORITY for the construction phase of the Project. 5.Initial Deposit. To make payment of$1,200,000 within 30-calendardays of receipt of invoice for advance construction deposit. 6. Progress Payments. To promptly make payments on all construction progress invoices, within 30-calenday days of receipt of each invoice for construction progress payments. 7.Compliance with Laws. With regard to administering and completing CITY's responsibilities for the.Project, CITY:shall;at all times comply with alljapplicable laws of the United States,the State of California, the County, and with all applicable regulations promulgated by federal, state, regional, or local administrative and regulatory agencies, Cooperative Funding Agreement No. SCYR l U 02-1 City of Petaluma Page 2 of l l • now in force and as they may enacted, issued; oramended,during the term of this Agreement. 5. Records. To allow AUTHORITY to audit all expenditures relating to the Project funded through this Agreement For the duration of the Project, and for five (5) years following completion of the Project,or earlier discharge of the Agreement, CITY shall make available to•AUTHORITY all records relating to expenses incurred in performance of this Agreement 9. Notice of Audit. To provide timely notice to AUTHORITY if an audit is to be conducted. SUCTION II AUTHORITY AGREES: 1. Total AUTHORITY Contribution. To provide up to $21,530,000 in Measure M funds, consisting of$11,530,000 in Highway 101 program funds and $10,000,000.in LSP program funds, towards the Project, in accordance with the Project Plan. The cast of AUTHORITY's own administration, independent quality assurance„oversight and project management is not considered a Project cost that is covered,by this agreement and is not included in the Project Plan. 2. SLPP Funding. To apply for$3,000,000 in State SLPP funding towards the construction phase of the Project and promptly notify CITY if SLPP funding will not be available in accordance with Project Plan. 3. Additional Cooperative Agreements. To enter into a cooperative agreement(s) with Caltrans for the Right of Way Engineering and Support(ROW SUP),Right of Way Capital (ROW); Advertise, Award, and Approve(AAA),Construction Support (CON SUP), and Construction(CON) phases of the Project in accordance with the Project Plan. 4..Completion of Work. To,timely complete the work necessary to complete.off- site environmental mitigation by the time frames set forth in the environmental documents and permits. 5. Initial Deposit. To invoice CITY for a$1,200,000 initial deposit 60 working days prior to advertisement of the construction contract. 6. Progress Payments. To promptly invoice CITY for CITY's share of all construction progress payments in accordance with the'Project Plan, within 30-calendar days of receipt from Caltrans of each invoice for construction progress payments. Cooperative Funding Agreement No. SC in Id02-1 City of Petaluma Page 3 of 11 (ce_450 • 7. Reconcile Construction Payments. After receipt of final Construction accounting from.Caltrans,AUTHORITY will invoice or refund as necessary in order to satisfy the obligation of this agreement. 8, Compliance with Laws. With regard to administering and completing the AUTHORITY's responsibilities for the Project,AUTHORITY shall at all times comply with all applicable laws of the United States, the State of California; the County, and with all applicable regulations promulgated by federal, state,regional, or local administrative • and regulatory agencies,now in force and as they may be enacted,issued, or amended during the term of this Agreement. 9.Records. To allow CITY to audit all expenditures relating to the Project funded through this Agreement. For the duration of the Project, and for five'(5) years following completion of the Project, or earlier discharge of the Agreement, AUTHORITY shall make available to CITY all records relating to expenses incurred in performance of this Agreement. 10.Notice of Audit. To provide timely notice to CITY if an audit of CITY records is to be conducted. SECTION HI IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. Fundina Needs. If additional funds beyond those identified in the Project Plan are necessary to complete the Project or if State controlled.SLPP.funds are not available in accordance with the,Project.Plan,AUTHORITY and CITY will cooperate to identify and secure new,increased,or replacement funding. If funding cannot be identified to complete the project, this agreement can be discharged by either party as provided in Paragraph 3 or 13. 2. Tenn. This Agreement will remain in effect until discharged as provided in Paragraph 3 or 13 of this Section Ill: 3.Discharge. This Agreement shall be subject to discharge as follows: a.This Agreement may be canceled by a party for breach of any obligation,. covenant or condition hereof by the other party, upon notice to the breaching party. With respect to any breach which is reasonably capable of being cured, the breaching party shall have thirty(30)days from the date of the notice to initiate steps to cure. If the breaching party diligently pursues cute, such party shall be allowed a.reasonable time to cure, not to exceed sixty(60)days from the date:of the:initial notice unless a further extension is granted by the non-breaching party. On cancellation, the non-breaching party retains the same rights as a party exercising its right to terminate under the provisions of paragraph Cooperative Funding Agreement No.`JQ..TIk I t30 2. I City of Petaluma Page 4 of I I 3(b), except that the eanceling•party'also retains any remedy for breach of the,whole contract or any unperformed balance. b. By mutual consent of both parties,this Agreement may be terminated at any time. c. This agreement may be cancelled by either party by no fault of either party if SLPP funding is not available in accordance with the Project Plan. 4. Indemnity. Neither CITY not any officer or employee;thereof isresponsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITY under or in connection with any work authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon AUTHORITY or arising under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that AUTHORITY will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless CITY and all of its officers and employees from all claims, snits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to,torlious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITY under this agreement. Neither AUTHORITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CITY or arising under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that CITY will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless AUTHORITY and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to; lortious, contractual, inverse condemnation,or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY underthis agreement. 5.Notices. Any notice which may be required under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be effective when received, and shall be given by personal service, or by certified or registered mail, turn receipt requested,to the addresses set forth below, or to such addresses which may be specified in writing to the parties hereto. To CITY: Vincent Marengo, Director of Public Works 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 vmaren goOci.petaltnna.ca.us To AUTHORITY: Executive Director Sonoma County Transportation Authority 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite'206 Santa Rosa,.CA 95401 (707) 565-5373 suz.smith@sctainfo.org sctainfo.org Cooperative Funding Agreement No.SCTA 1002] City of Petatuma Page 5 of 1 I 6. Additional Acts and Documents. Each party agrees to do all such things and take all such actions, and to make, execute and deliver such ether documents and instruments, as shall be reasonably requested to cany out the provisions, intent and purpose of the Agreement. 7. Integration. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No representations, warranties, inducements or oral agreements have been made by any of the parties except as expressly set forth herein, or in other contemporaneous written agreements. 6. Amendment This Agreement may not be changed,modified or rescinded except in writing, signed by all parties hereto_ and any attempt at oral modification of this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. 9.Independent Agencies. CITY renders its services under this Agreement as an independent agency. None of the CITY's agents or employees shall be agents or employees of the:AUTHORITY. AUTHORITY renders its services'under this Agreement as an independent agency. None of the AUTHORITY',sagents or employees shall be agents or employees of the CITY. 10. Assignment. The Agreement may not be assigned, transferred, hypothecated, or pledged by any party without the express written consent of the other party. 1 1. Successors_ This Agreement shall be binding upon the successor(s), assignee(s) or transferee(s) of the AUTHORITY or CITY as the case may be. This provision shall not be construed as an authorization to assign,transfer,hypothecate'or'pledge this Agreement other than as provided above. 12. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be determined to be unenforceable, invalid,or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement which shall continue in full force and effect; provided that, the remainder of this Agreement can, absent the excised portion,be reasonably interpreted to give effect to-the intentions of the parties. 13. Limitation. All obligations of AUTHORITY under the terms of this Agreement are,expressly subject to AUTHORITY's continued authorization to collect and expend the sales tax proceeds provided by Measure M. If for any reason AUTHORITY's right to collect or expend such sales tax proceeds is terminated or suspended in whole or part,AUTHORITY shall promptly notify CITY, and the parties shall consult on a course of action. If after twenty-five(25) working days; a course of action is not agreed upon by the parties, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated-by mutual'or joint consent; provided,that any future obligation to fund from the date of the notice shall be expressly Cooperative Funding Agreement No. SC=1711007- I City of Petaluma Page 6of11 6645. limited by and subject to (i)the:lawfid ability of AUTHORITY to expend sales tax proceeds for the purposes of the Agreement and (ii)`the availability,taking into consideration all the obligations of AUTHORITY under all,outstanding contracts, agreements to other obligations of AUTHORITY,of funds for such purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF PE /AL C-tlitif SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY � By: — ' /_ City Manager S _ .0 " SCTA Chair ATTEST: APPROVED ! 'AS�T�(O^SUBSTANCE: By: lt� �l.t7tr��- � BY: .�S.liU�'ll_/)r'Ut��.��� '`""City Clerk: C Executive Director APPROVE P A.. TO EGAL FORM FOR CIT : By: By: 13 6--/ City Attorney ) Legal,Counsel ( Authority APPROVED: I Department Director° APPROVED: 7 L 1a�.�t.• r..r� !/n GY.%n..E�,�.... /O,('D9 I is1fl'Aanager d / APPROVED: 5 � IZ cp 7-3d0 Finance Director Cooperative Funding Agreement No._ City of Petaluma Page 7ofII COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. SFRIOD%-I BETWEEN THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF TIM PROJECT Replace Old Redwood Overcrossing with new 110-foot wide bridge (six 12-foot lanes; one 12-foot median: two 6-foot bilce lanes,two 6-foot sidewalks, and two 1-foot railings); a Reconfigure on and off ramps at Old Redwood Highway, but maintain Partial Clover configuration; Signalize Old Redwood Highway ramp intersections; a Provide ramp metering at all four on-ramps; a Construct the portion of the Central Highway 101 Project soundwall that requires right of way acquisition; on west side of Highway 1D1,.near.the southbound off-ramp to Old Redwood Highway. Note: The Project does not include landscaping beyond erosion control. Landscaping will be accomplished by separate landscaping specific contract. Cooperative Funding.Agreement No. Sc71}It,tU-I ' City or Petaluma / Exhibit A Page 8 of I I (tag /fir COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. Gc 111-1002- BETWEEN THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA E7HIBIT B PROJECT FINANCIAL PLAN Table B-1: Project Cost Estimate by Program and Development Phase Old Redwood Central -Highway 101 Project Interchange-LSP Program Project Phase Program Estimate Percent I Estimate I Percent Estimate PAED 1 $ 600,000 1 100% I $ 0 1 0% S 600,000 PSLE $ 2,200,000 I 81% I $ 500,000 19% S 2,700;000 ROW SUP $ 110,000 1 19% $ 480,000 81% 5 590,000 ROW CAP I $ 1,850,000 1 28% $ 4,800,000 72% 5 6,650,000 CON SUP $ 3,300,000 81% S 750,000 19% 8 4,050,000 CON CAP 822,000,000 81% I $ 5,000,000 19% 1 527;000,000 TOTAL 830,060,000 72% 811,530,000 18% 541,590,000 Table B-2: Funding Plan by Fund Source and Development Phase(Funds in Thousands) FUND PAED PS&E ROW ROW CON CON TOTAL SOURCE SUP CAP SUP CAP CITY $600 $2,700 S 0 $ 0 $ 0 $13,760 $17,060 (100%) (100%). (0A) _ (0%) (0%) (51.0%) Measure M $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 84.050 $ 5.950 $10,000 (LSP) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (100%), (22.0%)'_ Measure M $ 0 $ 0 $590 $6,650 $ 0 $ 4.290 $11,530 (101) (0%) (0%) (100%) (100%) (0%) (15.9%) SLPP $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 3:000 I $ 3,000 (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) I (11.1°A) TOTAL 8600, $2,700 5590 $6,650 $4,050 527,000 $41,590 (100%) .(100'o) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) I Note: Measure M funding for ROW CAP of$750,000 is for off-site Environmental Mitigation. SCTA is implementing agency for off-site Environmental Mitigation. Cooperative Funding Agreement No. 10i) 1 City of Petaluma Exhibit B Page 9 of I I (py sZa COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. SC'Oh GO-I BETWEEN THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA EXHIBIT C PROJECT SCHEDULE Project.Development Phase I Begin I. End Environmental (re-validation of EIS/EIR) Mar 2009 I Sep 2009 Design (PS&E) Mar2009 Mar2011 Right of Way Acquisition (ROW) Sep 2009 Mar2011 Advertise, Award, Approve(W) Mar2011 Sep 2011 Construction (CON) . Sep 2011 Dec 2013 r Cooperative Funding Agreement No. C )TSLUOi,( City of Petaluma Exhibit C Page 10 of I l (06...</57 COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGRE a I NT NO. e;e TA-1002- BETWEEN T1E SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CITY OF PETALUMA EXBDIFF D RESPONSIBILITIESOF THE.PARTIES Table D-1: Additional Cooperative Agreements between Parties by Development Phase Project Activity Cooperative Agreement Caltrans 'I Authority I City Environmental (PAED) X X Design (PS&E) X I X Right of Way Engineering and Support X X Right of Way Capital Ix I X Advertise, Award, Approve(AAA) I X X Construction Support X X Construction Capital X X Table D-2: Responsible Implementing Agency by Development Phase Project Activity Implementing Agency Caltrans Authority City Environmental (PAED) X Design (PS&E) X Right of Way Engineering and Support X Right of Way Capital (Utilities:and Acquisition) X Right of Way Capital (Off Site Environmental Mitigation) X Advertise, Award,Approve (AAA) X Construction.Support X l Construction Capital X Cooperative Funding Agreement No.4.CT}I0t'1 I City of Petaluma Exhibit D Pale 1] of I I 415g Resolution No. 2009=125 N.C.-S. of the City Of Petalurna, California AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SCTA FOR DELIVERY OF PROJECT APPROVALIENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA/ED), PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES (PS&E), RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE PROJECT (PROJECT 000501304) WHEREAS,at its meeting,ofJune 18, 2007, the Petaluma Community Development Commission authorized allocation of 515.1M from PCDC to account 55-Merged Project Area C00501304 for the Old Redwood Highway Interchange; and, WHEREAS, on June 18; 2007, the Petaluma Community Development Commission adopted the Endings, made in accordance with California Health and Safety.Code Section 33445, for expenditure of these tax increment funds to pursue the Project Study Report(PSR),PA/ED, PS&E, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Old Redwood Highway Interchange Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council consented to the expenditure of said funds to undertake these Public Improvements; and, WHEREAS, in order to proceed, a cooperative funding agreement for PA/ED and PS&E, right-of-way acquisition, and construction must be executed between the City of Petaluma and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Petaluma and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, including any final changes to such agreements approved by the City Attorney. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of.said City. _ REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Ap rovJd as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 3r°day of August, Jf m: 2009,by the following vote:. ✓✓✓// •Attorney AYES: Vice Mayor Barrett,Glass,.Rabbiu,Renee.Mayor Turliult NOES: None ABSENT: Harris,Healy ' _ ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Gi—Oka) r City Clerk Iv{ayor Resolution No.2009-125 N,C.5. Pace I • 3(b), except that.the canceling party also'retains anyremedy for breach of the whole contract or any unpe formedbalance. b. By mutual consent of both parties, this Agreement may be terminated at any time. c. This agreement may be cancelled by either party by no fault of either party if SLPP funding is not available in accordance with the Project Plan. 4. Indemnitw:. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITYunder,or in connection with any work,;authority,or jurisdiction conferred upon AUTHORITY or arising under this agreement It is understood and agreed that AUTHORITY will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless CITY and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to tortuous, contractual, inverse;condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITYunder this agreement. Neither AUTHORITY-nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CITY or arising under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that CITY will fully defend, indemnify,and save harmless AUTHORITY and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name,kind, and description brought forth under, hut not limited to,tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories'or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under this agreement. 5. Notices. Any notice which may be required under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be effective when received, and shall begiven by personal service, or by certified or registered mail, returnreceipt requested,-to the addresses set forth below, or to such addresses which may be specified in N to the parties hereto. To CITY: ?ye.t To AUTHORITY: Executive Director Sonoma County Transportation Authority 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 565-5373 suzsmith cr,sctainfo_org Cooperative Funding Agreement No. 561-A 0021 City of Petaluma Paae5ofii Resolution No. 2011-046 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AND THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY COMMITTING FUNDING FOR THE RAINIER AVENUE,,CROSS-TOWN CONNECTOR/INTERCHANGE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING/DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER/COMMISSION`EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma("City") is a California municipal corporation and charter city; and, WHEREAS, the Petaluma Community Development Commission ("PCDC") is a redevelopment agency formed, existing and exercising its powers pursuant to California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ("Law"); and, WHEREAS, on January 4, 2010 the City Council and PCDC Board adopted resolutions approving proceeding with a Project Study Report for the Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector Undercrossing (the "Rainier Project"), proceeding with environmental documentation preparation and consenting to expenditure of nearly $1.5 million in tax increment for the project, and making required findings under California Health and Safety Code section 33445; and, WHEREAS,on January 31, 2011„ the City Council and PCDC Board adopted resolutions authorizing execution of-a cooperative agreement between the City and PCDC committing tax increment funds to specified projects, including'commitment of an additional $7 million to the Rainier Project and making required findings under California Health and Safety Code section 33445; and, WHEREAS, on March 7, 2011,. the City Council, the PCDC Board and the Petaluma Public Finance Authority Board authorized proceeding with a private placement of debt intended to generate debt proceeds of up to $15 million to fund improvement costs for the Old Redwood Highway Interchange and the Rainier Project to secure funding for critical, ongoing projects and activities of the PCDC and to avoid disruption of the City's planned capital improvements and Pagel programs as a result of State action; and, WHEREAS, as authorized by applicable law, the PCDC Redevelopment Plans and action of the City Council and the PCDC Board on March 7, 2011, the PCDC has entered into an agreement with an appropriate lender (the"2011 Issuance") to provide for a total of$10 million in financing for transportation improvements for the Old Redwood Highway Interchange Project and the Rainier Project; and, WHEREAS, on August 3, 2009, the City Council authorized execution of a cooperative agreement with the Sonoma County Transportation Agency covering funding and other responsibilities of the parties related to the Old Redwood Highway Interchange Project (Old Redwood Agreement);.and, WHEREAS, now that up to $7 million of the funds which were the subject of the City Council and PCDC's approval and findings on January 31, 2011 are available for the City's and/or PCDC's portion of costs related to the Rainier Project, it is appropriate for the City and PCDC to enter a cooperative agreement with the Sonoma County Transportation Agency ("SCTA") in a form substantially similar to the Old Redwood Agreement to define a framework to enable the City, PCDC and SCTA to work cooperatively in developing transportation improvements for the Rainier Project; and, WHEREAS, the funding committed by this action is related to a project which was the subject of the cooperative funding agreement approved by the City and the PCDC on January 31, 2011, by City Resolution No. 2011-016 N.C.S. and PCDC Resolution No. 2011-02, respectively, and which contained detailed CEQA findings for the projects subject to those resolutions, including the Rainier Project. Notices of Determination pursuant to CEQA for the cooperative agreement were filed by the City and PCDC on or about February 7, 2011, and no further CEQA review is required for this action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma and the Board of the Petaluma Community Development Commission as follows: 1. The City Manager/Petaluma Community Development Commission Executive / -'G. _ _. _... .. ... ., .. Pabr2 Director is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City and the Petaluma Community Development Commission ("PCDC")to negotiate and execute an agreement between the City, the PCDC and the Sonoma County Transportation Agency(SCTA) in a form substantially similar to the cooperative agreement between the City and SCTA covering funding and other responsibilities of the parties related to the Old Redwood.Highway Interchange Project attached hereto as Exhibit A; providing for the commitment of up to $7 million in funds from the 2011 Issuance to the Rainier Avenue Cross Town Connector/Interchange Project; and as approved by the City Attorney/PCDC Counsel. 2. The City Manager/PCDC Executive Director is hereby authorized:and directed on behalf of the City and the PCDC to undertake such actions and to execute such additional instruments as may be necessary or desirable in order to carry out the intent of this Resolution. 3. If any provision, sentence, clause, section or part of.thisaesolution is found to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, such finding shall affect only such provision, sentence, clause, section or part, and shall not affect or impair any of the remaining parts. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 2111 day of March, Y7/i/"t_aJ_1. form. 201 1,.by the following vote: Assistant City Attorney AYES: Albertson, Barrett, Mayor Glass, Harris, Kearney, Renee NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Mayor Healy ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: ai / AS'�'.111 I / ,/ City Clerk - 'yor V J / ATTACHMENT 6C • February 27, 2012 Ms. Heather Hines Community Development Department City Of Petaluma 11 English Street • Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Deer Creek Village Project Final Envirormmental Impact Report(FEIR) Comments Dear Ms. Hines: Please find below continents on the FEIR for-the Deer Creek Village Project and document references that are submitted for the record. All documents referenced in this letter shall be considered by the City of Petaluma and the applicant their entirety as comments and reference data regarding the consideration of the,FEIR for the Deer Creek Village Project. I previously commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Report.for Deer Creek Village (DEIR) and am adding additional comments=plus'-responses to continents in the DEIR.and FEIR. Many of the DEIR responses found in the FEIR were neither responsive to current conditions nor compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Broad comment categories for the DEIR and FEIR included Traffic, Air Quality, Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions, Public Safety, and Economic Impacts. Traffic The DEIR and FEIR use. the 2008 Petaluma General Plan FEIR as a supporting document for Environmental Review Analysis. At that time, the City of Petaluma included as traffic mitigation an Undercrossing of Highway 101 at Rainier and a Rainer Crosstown Connector and Interchange Project. On May 5, 2008, the City of Petaluma received a project update on the Rainier Avenue Crosstown Connector and US 101/Rainier-Avenue:Interchange.Project. See Attachment"I." On Page 18, it states next steps for the City of Petaluma to complete the Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR). City of Petaluma adopted policy is to complete the PSR for Caltrans which is required to be completed to construct an interchange at this location. The City of Petaluma received a letter from Caltrans dated September 30, 2009 from Lee Taubeneck, Deputy District Director'of Transportation Planning and Local Assistance stating that Caltrans needed further clarification froni the City of Petaluma on the justification for the new access point on the State Highway 101 at Rainier. See Attachment."2." This letter calls into question the feasibility of a full interchange at Rainier and many issues associated with necessary approval from Caltrans for any Rainier Interchange. The response to comments in the Deer Creek Village FEW dismisses the letter from Caltrans as aAraft. Its°purpos eful characterizatiomas such does not excuse, City of Petaluma and the project applicant from complying with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requirements to respond to the issues raised and evaluate,the impact of thus letter on the proposed project. This Caltrans letter has been in the City's possession since 2009 and should have been responded-to in a timely fashion based on City Council adopted policy to proceed with the PSR. The City of Petaluma needs to respond to GC,/ the Caltrans letter and the Caltrans response needs to be fully evaluated and properly considered in the Deer Creek Village FEIR. There is no excuse for not evaluating this information in the Deer Creek Village DEIR and the-FEIR.prior to the Petaluma City Council.consideration. If the City of Petaluma and Caltrans responses to this letter are not included?:in the Deer'Creek Village'DEIR and FEIR it leads one to suspect the City withheld responding to'and receiving an answer'from Caltrans for'over 2+years to avoid including the information in this CEQA evaluation. This process is a circumvention and end run of proper CEQA analysis. The.City.of Petaluma needs to contact its engineering contractor Carter Burgess to provide to the public its correspondence with Caltrans and any communication it has regarding these issues. All of this correspondence and communication should`be included in the record for the Deer Creek Village FEIR to properly evaluateits=impact on traffic mitigation. In addition, since the DEIR for Deer Creek Village is based;on traffic calculations with a full interchange at.Rainier, the alternative of a Rainier-Crosstown Connector Only traffic model needs to be evaluated in the DEIR/FEIR. Nor, the DEIR for Deer Creek Village:or.the 2008.Petaluma General Plan 2025 FEIR evaluates a Rainier Crosstown Connector.Only option and neither document includes any finding or overriding considerations to address'the traffic calculations for this scenario. Please see below factual information which relies upon build out of major traffic:circulation structures including the Rainier Avenue Interchange and Crosstown Connector plus the Caulfield Lane Extension project. These are not feasible traffic mitigations. that will be completed by 2025 or even 2040. This new and significant information since the adoption of the Petaluma General Plan 2025 in May 2008 requires the City of Petaluma to complete a Supplemental Environmental Document;to the Petaluma General Plan FEIR 2025 under CEQA and analyze its impacts in the FEIR for Deer Creek Village and any other project that uses the 2025 Petaluma General Plan FEIR. Unfortunately, the Deer Creek Village project continues to rely on the Petaluma General Plan FEIR-2025 throughout the FEIR for Deer Creek Village, notwithstanding the obfuscation attempted in the Deer Creek FEW comment below. The FEIR on Page 11-53, Response A2-5 states "Further, both the US-101/01d Redwood and US- 10I/Rainier Avenue interchanges are assumed to be completed by General Plan Build-Out referenced in the Cumulative Conditions"Planned'.Infrastructure Improvements"on page IV.B-26 of the DEIR. Additional evidence as stated below requires the City of Petaluma to complete a Petaluma General Plan 2025 Supplemental Environmental Document and additional analysis in the Final Deer Creek Village EIR. Demise of California Redevelopment Please see Attachment "3." California Supreme Court Case entitled California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos determines,there will no longer be any future redevelopment funding for the Rainier Crosstown Connector and Interchange project. City of Petaluma Capital Improvement.Program 2011/2012 Please see Attachment "4." This is a copy of the City of Petaluma's Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Budget entitled the Rainier Avenue Cross-town Connector/Interchange. This CIP project is.for the undercrossing structure of Highway 101only. The CIP does not include any funding or project fora RainierCrosstown Connecter:and interchange: The City of Petaluma istudgeted to expend $10 million dollars of committed redevelopment funds for the undercrossing structure of Highway 101 only There is absolutely no redevelopment funding source left for a crosstown connector and/or interchange project. In the CIP Project Purpose and Description for the Rainier Avenue;Cross=town Connector/Interchange, it states"This project funds a ProjecuStudy Report, an environmental document, and design/construction of the undercrossing structure of existing Highway 101 as a separate component of the total project. The structure will be constructed by Caltrans with the Highway 101 widening project. Future City led projects will be extending Rainier.Aveniie under the future 101 :undercrossing to.create a dross.town connector, and POTENTIALLY a full. 101 interchange." In the City of Petaluma's own adopted CIP for 2011/2012, it states there is potential for aninterchange,not that an interchange.willbe constructed. Upon reviewing documentation submitted to the City by, Bngit S. Barnes & Associates, Inc. dated February 23, 2012, there is an Exhibit "1" which is a PSR dated;February 2011 for a Rainier Crosstown Connector. It is shocking-for City,of Petaluma to deny this PSR ever ezisied and knowing the impact this work has on the increase in project cost which demonstrates the City is not collecting enough in traffic impact fees and has no other reasonable,resources to pay-for infrastructure. This is substantial evidence for the record that has been completely.omitted from the CEQA documents. City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fees According to the City of Petaluma Traffic:Mitigation-Fee Program.Update of May 2008 (See Attachment "5"), it states the "Net City Cost"-for the.Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange — locally preferred alternative is $48,100,000. The only funding source listed'. for the Rainier Avenue Crosstown Connector/Interchange for this project cost is Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees. On December 19, 2011, prior to therelease of the Deer Creek FEIR, the City of Petaluma had a publicly noticed meeting and agenda:item, 4.C, "Discussion and possible action regarding updates to the City's Development Related Fees." See Attachment "6." The Petaluma City Council adopted a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to execute professional services agreements for the preparation of revised development and capacity fee studies for a variety of different fees including traffic impact fees. In addition, the City Manager was' directed to return to the City Council with updated development fee studies and proposed implementing legislation so that the City Council may consider and adopt the studies, and adopt updated development fee legislation based on the studies to ACCOMPLISH FEE REDUCTIONS without jeopardizing implementation of the Petaluma General Plan 2025 while ensuring that future development will.pay its fair share to mitigate the impacts of new development on the community. See Attachment"8` ' So under no circumstances will the,fees be increased. Currently, all major traffic infrastructure projects are,calculated to have future development pay for 100% of the costs. In a revised fee study, the cost sharing for the city's portion will increase with no available funding sources other than the City's General Fund which cannot realistically accommodate funding such projects. On page 18 oithe same staff report,Table 5 shows the Current DevelopnientFee Account.Balances as of 6/30/11. The account balance of the Traffic Impact;Fee forthe ENTIRE,City.of Petaluma including the Caltrans Preferred Alternative is $1,741,850. See Attachment"7." As of today, the City of Petaluma has at leasttapproximate ly`$145,000,000 of unfunded Circulation Improvements'projected to be constructed within the Petaluma General'Plan 2025. The Deer Creek;Village FEE(does not even acknowledge that traffic impacts fees are under review by the City of Petaluma. It is clear the traffic impact fee staff report was underway when the responses to comments for the DeerCreek:FEIRwere.diafted.andreleased. (fie v City of Petaluma's General Fund The only two significant funding sources for a Rainier Avenue Crosstown Connector/Interchange, either no longer exist, California Redevelopment revenues, or, are going to be reduced which are Traffic Mitigation:Fees. Over the,14 years left on the Petaluma General-Plan 2025 the City would have to set aside over fen percent(10%)of its General Fund budget to pay for this project. There is no plan or ability for the City.of Petaluma to dedicate this furl ing'out of its General.Fund Budget. If there is no feasible or foreseeablefundingsource, then the mitigation is infeasible. If the mitigation is infeasible, then the'City of Petalunia or a Project-.Applicant cannot use the Rainier Avenue Crosstown Connector/Interchange as a feasible mitigation for the_approval of the Deer Creek Village FEIR, and the Petaluma General Plan 2025 FEIR needs,a,Supplemental Environmental Document update it in light of these new conditions. In addition, on December 19, 2011, at the-Petaluma City Council meeting there was a public hearing on Agenda Item 6.A. Attachment "6." This agenda item was Resolution 2011-172 N.C.S. Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Authorizing the City Manager to.File an Application With the;Californra Public Utilities Coiiimission for the-Re-Authorization of the Caulfield Lane Railroad'Crossing Project Located at Caulfield Lane. In the staff report prepared by the City of Petaluma Planning Manager, Geoff Bradley and signed by the City Attorney and City Manager, on Pages 4-1, 4-14, Attachments"9" and"10," the City of Petaluma's attorneys state in their draft letter to the Public Utilities Commission "The-economic downturn has forced the City to adopt four consecutive years of budget cuts' and"`The effectof these extraordinary budget cuts and layoffs has been that the City has had to struggle with existing staff hours or resources to carry out its existing workload. Given that the City's resources depend on the economic climate, availability of funding, and other factors outside the City's control it is impossible to predict whetherthe southern°crossing and the Caulfield Lane Extension anticipated in the 2025 [Petaluma] General Plan will ever materialize." The likelihood of the General Fund to pay for any of-these Circulation Improvements adopted in Petaluma's General Plan 2025 is notfeasible or even possible without decimating public safety services. Other Circulation Improvements.-Southern'Crossing—Caulfield Lane Extension Referenced above is the December 19, 2011 Petalunia City Council agenda item 6A. In addition to this agenda item detailing declining General Fund:revenues, the staff report letter states "it is impossible to predict whether the southern 'crossing and the 'Caulfield Lane Extension anticipated in the 2025 [Petaluma] General Plan will.ever',materialize." This applies to the Deer Creek Village FEIR and Petaluma General Plan 2025 because the construction and completion,of the southern crossing and the Caulfield Lane Extension are a basis for the Traffic Modeling,in the 2025 Petaluma General Plan FEIR: If the southern crossing, Caulfield Lane Extension and/or the "Rainier Crosstown Connector and Interchange Project are no longer viable protects due to the lack of funding they are not feasible Mitigation measures for either the Deer Creek Village FEIR or the Petaluma.General Plan FEIR. A Suppleniental;EnVironmental Document for the'2025-Petaluma General-Plan FEIR and/or analysis in the Deen'Creek-FEIR°excluding-these circulation elements and/or analyzing a Rainier Crosstown Connector only alternative must-be.completed prior to the Deer Creek Village.FEIR approval. The viability of these circulation elements not only-effects the Deer Creek Village FEIR but any project-the City of Petaluma considers,approving'using these circulation elements as a,basis for traffic mitigation and/or the 2025 Petaluma-General Plan'FEIR as a`,basis'for complying with.CEQA. hi addition,,Please see Attachment "11" the City of Petaluma's.Capital Improvement Projects Table of Contents for FiscalYear 201.1-2012. There is-no Capital Improvement Projects listed in 2011-2012 for W�� the Southern Crossing, Caulfield Lane Extension, Rainier Avehh&:Extension;and Interchange (which is for aCrosstown Connector or Interchange), Copeland'StreetEztensionandPetaluma Boulevard/Magnolia Avenue—Payran Street Intersection. Regional Transportation Plah2040:(RTP) Please see Attachment "12:" 'This attachment is the staff report.from the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA))(Ale Board`of Directors dated December 12, 2011. The staff report is an "Update•on Regional Transportation-Plan and the Sustainable Communities•iStrategy". It states, In May 2011, the SCTA submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) an unconstrained list of uncommitted projects;reflecting all transportation needs anticipated by 2040." There is also a list in this Staff report of the 2013 RTP;Constrained Project List Sonoma County listing Petaluma Crosstown Connector/Interchange at a cost,of$49.7-million and Southern crossing at Caulfield at$72.0 million. The Constrained Project List is for FutureRTPs which are AFTEW2040. The RTP's Plan Bay Area.Draft List of Committed Projects dated August 31, 2011 does not include the widening of Highway 101'through Petaluma. This segn ent.of Highway/101 between Lakeville;Highway • north, to Old Redwood Highway is the critical component the Rainier Crosstown Connector and Interchange Project because it cannot be completed without-it Highway 101 MUST be widened before Rainier.can be completed. The US 101 Corridor Update,of Sonoma County Projects and Marin/Sonoma Narrows Projects presented to the California Transportation-Commission dated September 15, 2011 by SCTA and Caltrans states,the"total funding:needed:to complete the Highway 101 do'rridor-is $254 million of which $86 million is needed for HOV lanes in Petaluma. There is no projected funding source for this segment of Highway. See Attachment"13." In addition, Traffic Modeling for the Petaluma General Plan 2025,needs to take into consideration 2 lanes each way on Highway 101<thrrough Petaluma. Other considerations of Major.pfojects anticipated in the region and are not modeled include traffic impacts from the Graton Rancheria Indian Casino in Rolmert Park. Other Transportation related`issues: In Figure 111-10-of the Deer Creek VillageProject DraftEIR the Project-Site Plan shows the developer constructing a portion of the future Rainier Avenue west of North McDowell Boulevard. According to the,Rainier Avenue Crosstown Connector and US 101/Rainier Avenue Interchange Project report dated May 5, 2008 "pages 16I and 17, the developer for Deer Creek Village is responsible to construct Rainier Avenue west of North McDowell Boulevard the'ENTIRE length to theprrroposed Rainier. Avenue Interchange northbound off ramp., See Attachment "14." The Deer'Creek Village FEIR should be required'to,includeFmitigation and:a condition of approval for the developer-to build the'developer's contribution of the roadway. as shown in Attaclunent "14:" The Planning Commission discussed and I recommend should be includedas a mitigation'in!the DeerCreek Village'FEIR, the extension of Lynch Creek Way to Rainier Avenue to improve overall vehicle and truck circulation. Finally the Petaluma Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to not recommend approval of the Deer Creek FEIR because if its inadequacies: • • Thank you in advance for your consideration to require the Deer Creek Village FEIR and the-Petaluma General Plan 2025 to comply with'CEQA. Sincerely, Pamela`Torliatt Cc: John Brown,,City Manager,City.of Petaluma Cc: Eric Danly,City Attorney; City of Petaluma Cc: Claire Cooper;City Clerk, City.of Petaluma • '� i.� AYE FCALIFORNIA—FiU S1NES5 TRANSPQa R TATIO'd ANO HOl,4S�G Ac�i S._C m Y;:3° _yt - - d • (.> � ° P t 'ARNGS P SCHµAR�7CGCLR ocma 1 DEPARTMENT,OF TRANSP,ORTAT1ON ; 111 GRAND AVL'NUF - rp •;, t �i`i 're r osoxz366o_ _ OAKLAND,CA 94623 40660 . _ '. - PHONE 0510)2R6:5900', ° FAX(510)286-6301 .1i; 7TY 71l - , A=ttacht�ie€t 2 , ' . September 30„2009 - t 5 '` • ° Mr. Vince Marengo I - P O .Box 6l' . 3 ' , v d Diector,ofPublicWoiks' ' , 4 F E City ofPetaumria_ -p• Petaluma CA 94953-0061 III Dear Mr Marengo t I' , Thank>you for the:August pI7,2009,°T-echnical>Memorandum for interchange justlficattonfor _F• = the proposed'US'1'01/Rainier Avenue Intel ct ange y • kg s, "� t l 4". The m`emorandum's,outline"contatns'the conditions set fortfi_in the California Department`of Transportation,(Depariment)Design InfonnatibntBulletin'77 and Chapter 27 of the Protect Development ProceduresiIvlaniial. However we;offer•thetfollowingeview co minents and '” _ request that the City of Petaluma(City)provide thew idthonalinforuiation identified below m ; ,, order for-the-Department.to?considerapproval of the 7ustificaiion for new,interchange 1. ?, _ r � GENERAL COMMENTrvx_ t 46 N� rI • Subject needs;to be„changed �x `-Iustificauon=for:new aces s pomf on tile.,S.41 -.•i ghway• 101,” Once the new access p ,intis Iusuf ed`only then will a nonstandard mandatory featu, ---.:_f,_!;1..,:;‘' be considered: J. • if i • 1 As he Technical M ern orandua ii's intended to:be a standalone document updated layout ii•pf s,and.diher attachments te,g,.esmnTtes,iassumptious, eto) need to.be included to? ° ' ° sppportthe iiiformauorti!presented i A strip map will definitely be helpful tocsliow,the limits of operational analysis 1 cations,of 2 otherrinterchange considered dt and proximity of local street improvements considered } e . r �M1 i. P y ' �S if �!' r jc. C, x day r -- his,extremelyunportant that the latest proposed geometries at East Washington _ Interchangelbe,delineated as existing condition for the various alternatives in,the ' memorandumtin order to�cl Irify the:relationship additiopal modifications needed ,and the° 1 a :',_7-'::,;;;?:..Y'.a . "'.. f extent and'associated cost v .throwaway or°other Build Alternatives r ;, 1 °_ It is also importantto careful y investigate the:East WashmgtonInterchange,as to why t ve further improvements-to`thi'sEtnterchaiige'by tself,.or to conjunction vrlth the 'Split ,,=+ �'altr us lmpry es tobiliry across Cal fornia y � mg,.L. i r ° y• .r. _ I - ,-a ` u.+ e;o ,I * } ° De../7 If N rt •vC"` '+ vzx ag.s - a ^ !-1'y Y � Mr �mce Marengo ti (September 30 2009 :, , „ � "o- s r '� , � a � 1 F g4 a ed Page 2 T<k Nit....f' Diamond Alternative? aridttogether with some local street improvement would+not meet the_ H,•„ _3. .x _e pnrpOSe)and needOf the pIOj eCt. ;it b ��t �mw°J, qi..i It.. I. ••• • Po . .'#Extent"of ngbt of way impactsrreferencedim artous places seems very conservative i + ; r, Perhaps;sonic•can;be,avoided through;"tumor design}adjuster ents Dili " 3ti • l a .. it p'� trlq i SYillz s v appears,that the,costs 'to meet allpde's'ign st mdards wereaaddedatofAltemative 4'but not I a i, ?o- _ to�otheraltematives Overallethere=needs«tox bcniorerspeeificandiequttablecompansons�on u__ $,"bi• eostsarid`'impacts to:justify the?proposed'el minationtof Alternative 4 �I • " • It appears that'Alternahvel5 by itself will not meet the purpose and need of this project There;were references,tn,tlie inemorat dum,that tl i"s'could€be a 'phased' If so,'it will i eed' tobe conceptually=designed to be compatible with other ralterliatives .t a a t,fr :r i 1 r T7ie assumption that•thisgproject will not+be'buili imhl`the MSN (Segment C)project is J constructed shouldbe'adde.„--;--. the• discussion section. i • SPECIFIC'COMNiENT S ,' " ; ti - p ” J a �+1Y t� t a•R S P LL i • Page 1. ._ ,�K i t A �� n - 4.4 . i u I • Second:paragraph=The Project Report referenced• :I'was;approved in 1988 not-1998. 'r. • 1 Third ph aragraph The'xauthor of t}ie March`"1�7 19192 letter to•the=City the P,etalurna�was not the " I, • headquartersigeometr cian„but ttl e late;JiFii.S ,, Senior Transportation Er gineer of District L 1• Project Developmentallorth Couiities ' .� j J_ 'cange t on§e a•Page i2 ous rafficuFoargap Citethenumer _rh alwoult 11 d n t be suffcideend t to t _ ;discon ducted`overtheyears that conclu ets m he US 101/Fast Washgon ce a r that improvmen the East WashgtonStreet Inteang 3 address the traffc congeson, t m r , 4-! e,`[c u4,46,9• F hasY ara _ap l' __ _ thememorandum F- - p gr ph Define the acronym TSKM`whe❑ hrst�gsed m Page 13 - Interchange Justification The first reguirement5is that The need being addressed by the F e r request cannot be adequately satisfied=by'exis`tin4 1 nterehanges`to>thesysTem;and/or loc roads and skeetsinithe e'orridor-can neither provide the desired access,,nor,can'they be reasonably , .'_ ;,941 improved+(such as access,conirolialongsurface streets,improvingstraffic,control rmodifymg �.• + ramp,term nals,and intersections adding,tum_bay s or lengthening'storage)to satisfactonly =_ - accommodate the design year traffic demands` `'I his test must first be metibefore moving to i, . ' o- - + thelnextstepll .. F . ' >•'r - r ) i ,, M .F - s, Ih d,L'r. ' - d ' _ 'Jl�•" " �' n ° +� - i .+ , •P!!la 1;414" " i al•The next step'is to ensure that Tlie need beingaaddressed by the request cannot be adequately = satisfied by reasonable,,transportationsystem management (such as ramp metenng mass+transit, , - C'oltrain improves mob+fr auacs Cdfo a 1 N i. d n. , (17-0 'S . ._� 4ih.„ '' 1 Mr Vince Marengo Septembei30 2009 �} s ■ Page 3 f 1 14 4k _ a �.. l �. a 1 F and Hoy`faciltttes);geometric-design:an d alternative improvements trio,the system wrt)iout the proposed change igl'access" v ,._. .;;41<,, ,i. , a T.heabbie re" uirements`n list be itilly'addressed,,before an alternative with new-access is torbe 9 considered. ii Pagerl4 I ast paragraph The minimum irequtteme"nt for inte ch ge modificationtor addition is to,look at a minimum,of otie_mterchange upstream and dow istreami. In4this case where theeorridor is ` at a iiii operating in a highly congested mode it twould be normal and prudent to evaluate the•effects further upstream and downstream The termination ofttle limits of analysis'should be.z l predicted'on volumes `It is u`nreasonable-to expect at the`new.:interchange willriot;generate' additional trips-onitsowu. _ 'I il 1 . , Other than4ihe"isolated mainline s• egment betwe n East Washington Interchange and the, „ proposed new access main hne,;{wlgatf eeeway'pperations anaiys has been done? It is unreasonable.to believe that adding a new4mterchange to the al eady highly congested freeway' • i �_ would not=adversely effect mainline operations: - v •PagelS i` rat a.' :0;717 cal Street Qperattons,'It is not disputedthat he proposed interchange would divert traffic i=1 existing interchanges at,leastirttially The requirement,fas stated above is that `The. ; need bemgaddressedby the re uest cannot be adequately satisfied by existing interchanges to j 4_ the system and/or local roads and streets n the corridor„can neither provide thedesiiedvllig' ; noncan they be reasonably improved Ouch as access control alongisuiface streets improving rafficcontrol modi€ymg ramp term nals and i nterseotions,a lding turn bays on lengthening storage) ntr'olisfactorily accommodate the`designnyear traffic demands 'It is also expected that the.freeway system.operate at a-higher level of service than thetlocal street network and that the : r, , local`tr psand shorter regional.,tinps `remain on the local,rstreet network and'not-elog,{he:freeway, , system: s, ,.a Bate 16 , o , i Alternative's that include improvements to the Iocal:street network and/orexisting interchanges niustbe included in this PSR -. •v It also appears that:all alternatives a sume'.thai the,MSN project is completed prior torthe construction of an undererossrng at Faimer While itnow;appears that the'-funding for the u, completion':ofthe"MSNiproject'is inquesnon it islsuggested-thai alltalternatrves would need to. 13 account for-theilikeliliood of tlusroccnriin asrthe scope cost,and schedule would be affected. r It is.unde . .stood that?tlie Cirya does not snpport,nght of way acgv sihon via,emment domain. Unfortunately as rt maysbe the requirement?and will-be that tins and any'.otlier projectare constructedin the most publicgood and with'd e;least�pnvate in- juryuAs right of way , acquisrtion:will be!ieequiredton,any alternatives,speculatmg on what parcels will require condemnation xis+inappropriateat'this time_ ' , - ,y ,, Z�r r ;a° 0 'Ca/turns rmyravet ribs,/r�acrov Co!{fomra 7y a lua Ca . Mr Ume a A• _" tr,3 S E -l 'X'...±:„.,-2,-.111 `, y t 11 f> { c1 Marengo September 30;2009`- � ' Page 4 :t h'1 We do,dot find'an=altemanve that combines improvements kto both existing interchanges and . local streets. This must beaconsidered as'stated above �t i,.. , _ , ` . t f r = Page 18' Last paragraph WC disagree'with°the need for major reconstrucuonrof the northbound on ramp at East has Wrashingtd oan sIwnteelrcahanhgee nw Abltrierndgae t isvpe a 4 x uThngre Eaaslignm t Wasenht nas gt sohnoCwn re-eok.available details b Page.19 Second paragraph:Rewnte.the,,secondsentencc for add"terminus"as follows ' .:widening the, g pt erminus frfrom two lanes toifour lanes a northbound dia onal off ram t " - I ' Suggest redesigning_East Washington,details to ac.coinmodaterAltemative 4 and reduce throwaway. Alternative 4,if designed properly could keep the throwaway of construction capital of East Wasli ngtonproject tota min mum I is not as significant as`removing 75%of � the1East Washington project and�ewould cost$2 I million of throwaway ,!Removal of the , slip , existing northblund?loop'on-ramp'is nota throwaway,there are no_ _,,, ;is m the sotrtliwest quadrant'arid the aligtiment ofthe1propo°sed nonhbo rid dia'g'onal.on ramp'if ,been nosily retained. Moreover, Altemative.4 can ire done withoutrealigncnent of US..101±and;the,current 'Scope of East-Washington onlyainvoly es*thenorthe`ast,and,southwestquadrants oftlie: interchange. Without the'realignment-impact woul'd`':be reduced: , Page20, : r n ' �` , Si econd�paragraph ,Sound wallslaxe al-sot`part ut Alternativesh2 and a Thg;efore th'e risk related: i} 3o the MSNapro7ect of not accommodatingYhe design.of the ratnpslor auxiliary lanes',that would result in` million increase sho ild also be mcluded, mtfie cost ofAltemahves 2'and'3. Page-21 The cost to bring ytorstandard($i-64 9 million),has,been,used against A1terriative.4Rbut tlietcost.to bring toxstandard'forrAltemativ2 es and 3 =are not°mentioned - It appearsithat in evalttatmg whether Alternative 4 is a viable alternative the cost estimatetfor a `the throwaway znd the cost toibimgldie feanucs two standard are excessive „ I -- r is — ° r ,,,1-- ' s F �iAU S 1 �k r n The City siprecise.plan (page 17)mayalso include�p&rtions'of Alternativesr3 and 4(since:Lr I Altemauves 2and-3. e almost identical except fop, Le loop on-ramp)andttherefore could also r reducerthe`nght ofway cost` ' "` j Page 22 TL°Future environmental1lmpacts toLytich'Creek and•Washington'Creek appear to`be about the • same-one-CT-as-14'W, ashin"gton is developed: - „ 'CU/Irattnmproves uArpry anoss Calfomro ��. i j t _ ( C.4(9 • . ,..,i :.. , I, , . . .. - I114r:.VIriceMatengo _ I Sepferber30,429Q / i_-.LL,:,fL.:;.=29c2 ore;7 4 ' Impacts of ithproy- em—ehts,hto EaSt,WasliiriktohL IS,S,Sian—dal Oriel-#rOjeer are ttioC6nsetyativeand,=;, exaggerated: For - exaM')14;LPI)i,.-csi1.P4.41e..„O..,'acquisition i,t4. a.C57,.....-.1glPI i134,..-.°41-42,„ siL-,iel lenorthwest' andSouiheastquadfants; ifderailsLareLproerlyLdra vfreouldibeeducelpto ion lyafei residential homes,aramPSily-140AiWiasc of tii71esia0niidi649g4r4. L _ = Page2S ,:t c '-', -1,,,'''' .7. . 1 ' it. l':-- , 7k.C' -'V- . L L ii. ...,';'LL -LI ' 1. ]_P. For East Washirrgtont=1,1 " I I."1,;?,.,*the'additional i/ night of way southwest quadrant that is 2 .-. needed for the Widening Lofithesouthbound=onnmpt&oM- LgaSIWasihington;Strneet.e.tol, i. - - Sn-delietlibthintrOS101 Would be dedicated bL---Tar et:StOte-Which'purchased the adjacent _ It needgio be clarified whether it isLa'no cost"dedication:4 _L .. .: J _ -.. !-• _ ,=, i - . erctifterit East Washington 904PSAE, p„ans s ----.5- 1 Th -- 7 1 ' -houldLnot 6ea aete rthiliffigLELefor:Tor - L _ -, ' t- 5AiOnsLiiLf.Alternative 4- Ali ati've 4's viability=.P§&a,filalislcbilld beLrevisechto:incorpora eLp - ir i, -,i ,,, ,. - ,-- 7 . - . 2 P . - ' `e -r_t 7, -,:o I E „. ' i ■ , • . IIPOZ;;/'‘j'aS it deferni. inedttliat.traffi---c-L,Man'apc-tierit.-SLY:,slelniSLWOUldrioiifftfiti ,ihHiL"needOlthis' . _ ; r this- project? - p3Ø • . ,analysis' l Has herebeenanYohet- rmlliie eew y 'performed dihe ifi ari IsO late d Ma inline - 1 . i 1 segment weaving analysis-. , , . ri - -;,-,, ,,, -;„ .- - - .- - . aage.33„ . - ' CeiniihriL SOS."of,A1 tern—atiVe-LiMprat'tS,L'Hoiki,,w,Loiird thtelpiroje.eti:igoiSti.an"1,pni- paiiets77.6-haryz' el if the i„,(L..,,: :: , , •_,I.,......, MSN:projedt were noiLeoinpletedLahead'of this project? - .=,,,,t,,,,i , ; -.(7 .,L. _, _ 1 „ ,,,,,=. ,, , •L - - = -L.- L., 'HIH'LL.a-,Li,''r L :-. ,,-,‘•', , , 4,,i iv, L - .0hee ithese,ciiiiimelitslin:d ihrii-ril'giintOrrn—aticiniire dddreSSed-cand'iricorporate =m19 e . , , I= • .. rechnigalLmemorandumforin-Cfercliarige jpstirlisociioniy;:th e D ei;L eniwtOLi‘,4):e-tieirti[a.better ' -:= L--1 --;=Z position tecinaktirdeteimihation,of its support of 11,1.?CoPco§ 9ifiew3n,..!lici?an "I:1! houl8, ..:: _ ' . ir • noted that conecritual,ip-prOvans,=6 blatned when ihe,tionStan 111rdfeatures ar-HdLySR ar e._ i H.L, _, [ 1)1)1.9-74. 1 . - ' , P '-': ' ,,, . 212 :.- J, !Lit ,,f,.. -I p, ,- -, , ,,,,,,, ' . . TlielDepaitm—era:appreciates th .City'scdoeration1andparmerhip toLdetermine the most--- • • bedeficiatimproveMent,at US 101,andllfZaintof Avertniidi,..-Ifyonthaelan- 21,:filitliL. er'(4,iurestionS,.,o,LI ,r L,- :,:, , = ...„" - needituriher:assiltan ee;pleas,e contact Patrick Pang„:-C, htef for Officeor Apay,m2-5„?r! lig, cit_.= (510),28 6-5566. . , ., .1, ,.%.:._r... ..-., -./:,;-,:oi iri, -. 1-, ' --:. Ii . AI.'''.F4 "I4 2,,c , , ] - 4 . .• - : , ., .- . .... .I - -_ , , . Ix. . , . fi „ fri 11 k,-. -',I4,--. _ -, " I -•.-- . . I I -- : ;-I .4II. I' ' a I • . - - , ....4:,:4-,, , v ri . I .,.-4.I"',.,-/--.--,4'.-.1" 44 `-' - - -J- - 1 • Mr.Vince'Marengo' • . Septeniber30 2009 Fage'6 • Sincerely, • • LEE TAUBENECK. Deputy District Director • Transportation Planning and Local Assistance c: Susan Lackie, City of Petaluma—Project Manager • Kai Chan,Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Brian Krcelic,Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. • • • { r" "Calrrans improves mobility across California". (1104/2 - about:blank••' - - - -, I . Art ach'm`ent 3 n To view:this'email as a.web page,igo?hef 4 > r;l:-... .-�- -- --- - -:_: , 1 °=MN'logo r96'.- li,' Visit 12 [ Read l MeyersNave.tom "a Our Biog. MEYERS NAVE LEGAL ALERT REDEVELOPMENT, REAL ESTATE AND'AFFORDABLE HOUSING Court Upholds,Redevelopment Dissolution 6111,'Strlkes 1 I Voluntary Payment Bill „ . Theitalifornia Supreme Court today issued an.opinion,in the,Cali@rnia Redevelopment Association v Mato.santos case upholding Assembly Billl x1 26 (the r,Redevelopment ' Dissolution 'bill and invalidating Assembl Bill`fl 27 the, Voluntar Pa ment" bill The Court,provided a four month'extension for all deadlines?contained.in,AB'xl 26 that _ arise prior,toizMay 1, 2012;BAs a result; effectiveiEebruar„„y1;1', 20.12; all redevelopment agencie§ in California will'be dissolved.. rE Prior to'their dissolution, agency activities are!limited to{carrying out enforceable .., _. ., obligations as defined m ),Xe xi 26'. Followmgi,dissolution ;+thesuccessor entity (the city '1 . orncourity ,that formedithe agency,,unless such junsdictionreleets"notito'fill this `role) is_. I charged,with winding"up'the affairs of-the dissolyedaagency, subject'to review:ty an , oversight board'composed°offrepresentatives�appointed=by,`the city,'the county the local :_! school district, the local community=college district, and the largest=,local special district. ` By March.1, 2012,.,the successor entity is required to prepare at draft recognized obligation payment schedule describing enforceable obligations payable durin g'the - period f omJanuary=through;June 2012 ,Thessuccessor,entity is=directed to dispose of 'the'assets of th"e° ydw former redevelopmerit agencith,the,proceeds,to be transferred to ,° the county auditor-controller.fer distr bution-to local taxing entities. The successor entity, may elect.to retain the housing assets and functions previously perfoimed bythe? l redevelopriientagency, however, funds on deposit in the`Low and Moderate Income • Housing iFund^are notaretained,by the successor.entity. r The Court held that AB xl 27 (the measure thèt would have permitted cities and F counties to continue the of5eration of':their local;,redevelopment agency,-hr agreemg to' , make' -speeified payments forithe benefit of;schools>and spebialydistrict ) violates 'Proposition 22,:the'ballot measure a'dopted�in 20=10)thatliimitsthe legislature's ability to require localigovernmentpayments. 1 . Six .justices signedtheqma)ority opinion. The Chief)usticeissued a dissenting and concurring opinion in which,she opined that AB'x1 27 does„not on its,face compel-the I k violation'or Proposition 22. Please contact any:memberiof;the Meyers Nave::"R :edevelopment Practice Group for further information at''800:464.3559. ' ` CPC-c3 • 1, ti City of Petaluma California . Fical Year°2012 Bud et , m;•,. w� .�sA r • ta ., rin — t .,tchret 4 Project Title Rainier Cross town Connector/ Interchange, .` C00501204 PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION( i, -- 4 - This project fund`s a 'Project Study Report an environmental document,, andb desighllconstruction of the I undercrossingstructure•of,&existing Highway,101,as a separate component of=,the"total project The°structure will.• be'.constructed'by Caltrans with the tHighway=101 widennling projectj'IFuture City<lead,'projects will be,rextending_ Ra the future 101a`undercrossing to create a cross town coninecto ; nt 'and potentially's full-101 erchange. ^ . • r PROJECT PARAMETERS • I Environmental: Environmental impact reportlstatement I ' - Public Info:. The ProjectStudy Report : • _. j Schedule ,Expected cornpletion20,1'A Project cost estimate through completion between $13'.1M. { Permits iCaltrans Project'`Study Report ti, r�• c,°'` 1 ' ReferenC'e:f .-PCDC-Implementation Plan General Plan 2025 :`� 1 FINANCIAL.OVERVIEW • C00501204 'I "7otel Estimetea. of Adjustments l Ealinate;as _ ! USES(dollars In$000) -164041„ ,FY 1112 of 5136!12 - e Planning)Environmental ' 2, 2 104 +`2106 ^ - - Lana&Easements ' Design 711 it (20)! ro, 691 I I j Legal Services- .. 4, 1 C2 -' sd , ■ry Administration Construction Contracts . 8000 II N ., BDxI It ' i - f • 1: Cansalucuon Mgmt-' 00 ( 870 Sala}lei/Benefiti - 384 112) s�; 372 - _ I- contingency �.� CIP OVerheaos _ 3S 46 !.:.371 TOTAL' SOURCES(dollars in$000)- - - .'- " Traffic Mit16ano6 Impact Fees !y ._.. .._ ._ .. - PCDC Fund 5400! 3000 .)000 1 t0 000 - Daselopa cCOntnemiona 1 431 � '1,431 -; -- �1 - Undetermined 8,512; (7,098) _ ,1;414 . ;. TOTAL' ''13,1421 58 .'13 200 44 • .Actual Llla ` r^}'' PRp1ECrEp' --' II. io Date thful Estimate t FY of FY 12-131 ..FY 1314• F,Y74-15 FY 15- Total USES(dollars in$000)- 6/30'10 FY10-11 v�t'`� i 181 Estimate' - PI n ng/Environmenal. ..',_. 104] 99 Y `4P9`CNI _ _1 2,106 Land&Easemenisi_ - x &� Design _ 159 1 ig501 691, • Legal Servliei , xr X110 -1 421 Administration ' � 1 1.8 Construct an:Contracts, `T --8000 80007 ConstruRlon-Mgm. -1 800 •8001 ' Salaries/Benefits 75 67 122; c 108 372 - Contingency: _ 1x{5 e 1 760 __ 810 : _ CIPOverheadS1 • - m - 63' _ 371 'rx :n233 .. 371 - .. _.-.... E. - - -TOTAL USES - ...'1384 __204� '1'x71 . .. - f)....„1"-_' i ,'>�9,901 �, -7- '- ' .13,200 _ - . :. rs . _ ). I souecFSfaouar:m5000l . . ; .TFalnc Mitigation Impact Fees - 1.355 _ - _ ` 355 ' PCDC - - 1528 1356, 17116 - 10,000' I_• Detelo'per Cantdbullons: Y. 1429 1,431 Undeteirianetl- n' =7 :1;414 F 1,414 " . - _ . TOTAL-FUNDS .".1,530 '1:7`2=11 -;l_. . ' ;99,9591 a 13,200' a - , 1 CIP-2911 l• , n :'211 s= .. - _ii ,• f '.'x3g - y, e t: e �r „ i y? d aeA ,d*'&y3`k C!, - d . 4 �'�''� A to ent�5 C' 'o(PeYafdrna Traffic AAl6g don a P%gram Bpdats 1 v . .4 r ,fi ^s c r ° '"" gas'v aY al '+s ,. s 'Dv t t EiSi: a �, . d .AAA 'l l ?'1 R rt , 3 e a, `t 4 ilh $. t , r ._ ..• ,1[ S , !ys ' Table.5 provides estimated costsiprovided by the CltyleffPetaluma iAtjthe time of this report there were two , ,alternatives-being' studied for the R iniegr Avenue''Extension and Interchange with U.S 101;with significantly 9 � c different costsassodiated Since the desi n has not been finalized two estimates of the netiCity cost'and traffic impact fee are calcitlated in this report 't ' s r .:I --,33•,--. TABLE 5t ? I° . Of PETALUMA`,CIRCULATION:IMPROVEMENTS .. _.- ,ase ,., Improvement Estimated Coats • '4-1-4 _' - ', Total Project Other Funding ' NetCity„Cost a 3M o- r fSk.'�, 3 Rainier Avenue Eztensaon and,ln(er_change locally s", preferred alternative v $75 000 000' ° i v*$26 900,000v, $48,100 000_ 1.r. Caulfieid!Lane Extension,i Pp. p' - $60656,000 • 4,$62580005+ $54,3 8:000 1M, Ceitrans referredalternati✓e su lenient' ,$3,4`,-662;000 -$470§:900,, '$31 S' 98 000 *> Copeland Street Extension $15'825 600 - $7119 000 • ,$8,706,000 t „' Old Redwood Highrvay Interchange improvements a ;, $28475000n $20000000,.;, $8:975000 CaulfieldlLanelPayian;Street,tntersectlon Improvements ' $5000001 '- $0.■ �., $500,000 fig, - Petaluma Boulevard/MegnoliaAvenue-PayranlStree a . `, t Intersection 1$500000 It �,„ $0, , ,$500000 1. ' (Construction of New,IntersectionsSThrougha,R theCity . 1 1$39000007 _ $0 .` -$39.00000 ; •pp w PedestSignal Upgrades Throughout the City ,,t. $1 885 0„00 $0 $1;885 000' _ „ a n/&cyc e IrnprovementssThroughout,the City ' ,$25 >; $25:523,000 t t, y. ransrt lmprovemerits ThroughoufaheyCity F. $11 47,1;000 c, va y 4 i$0'74 .'I `% $1.1,471,000 1 Subtotal_with locally pro/erred RarnierAve alternative $223 735,0001,,41e „$60 277 000 I.,$163;458,000 Total With''''' . ns PreferredAlternabveSupplement , t $257,797,000 ,, $62,977,000't . $,197,820,000 , !.' Source ;Qtly of Pe aliirna 20081 n ,J _ .. x 'Covers modified diamond mlerch nge configurallonalterr wt'(Allernative 2 of Rainier Ave`Project Study Report) based on 'f estimates of Jacob Gaiter, -' te'y'+` 34 a ii al ', 'Fundmgindudes S10M in(CDCfunds al ocaL:d Sy.CRy Counci�atd$16 9M in local roadway consVUWOn costs covered by,development adjacent to site.;For the segment of Rair ter Avenue cast of interchange its anticipated,that the dev'el'oper will construct full cost of w roadway in-rnvemente For tine sect on of Rainier A e wesfof the interchange and�west of the Petaluma River full costs to construct newv roadways will be covered by the Immvcf lely.adjacent nevi developments'q t e, .v i I ','The incremental cos-1'h°' and above locally preferred alter nat we)lof split interchangewith',parallel street ystem(Alternative 4 of Rainier"'. lid r ," li 0, ,TMy.t - Ave Project Study Report)„based on cost estimate of Jacob,CanenBurgess 2008 ry... 'Incremental cost o'local toad`way construuton(ovoi and abovo locally preferred alternative)covered by development adjacenflo the site {E. w . Cost ofllocal roadway.construcion'covered by development adjacent to the site! r , t sx.. w t °Covers bndge ., < ., '- ” 'Assumes that the cost-of kcal roadway construction is covered by'adjacent developm`enf except-for two agricultural support parcels where r r fronting ii ,rrovements are included in the'net City CcsP-portion Local roadway construction costs were derived using unit costs , ,yt ` ' 'provided by Jacob Carter Burgess 2008 '” Y: Includes$10M In treasure M funds and 210M inPCDC funds F^. I to t 1.y. t n t {< The City anws onti,'host of long range iran..it Improvemen however at the time of this study there is not sufficient docum¢_nlation on a., �:` these protects to;include in the afee p ojram qv. 'I'LL” 2, 1'. =I, k r . - t` , I` r 1s . I � FLHI; oafPEEi`St 4 i • mi cm, of PetaILillirr gala onzral uA7ttaeh'me nt 6 . - 'Regular.City`Council/PCDC'Meefing ° t Monday, December 19 2011 5 30}P.M 1 Council'Chambers, City Hall, 1 EnglishtStreet,lPetalurna;(California 94952 - I . city Managers Office:*Phone!'7017 778:4345 Fcrx 707778 4419 EL_mpilf.aitymgr@cl.pep,alum9.ca.us:` ' -_ - City Clerks Office Phoner707, 778-4360 Fax 407 x778 4554 Email cityclerk @ci pefaiyma.ca.0 City Websde''cityofpetaluma.net " " ._, CALL TO -ORDER- ClOSED,SESSION -4:30 P.M.. - W t - - w S A. Roll Call ?f '. .. " . L ■ . CLOSED SESSION` x PUBLIC EMPL"OY,EE°'PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Title City Manager. . ,I1 i '.. PUBLIC:.EMPLOYEEfPERFORMANCE EVALUATION'Title City Attorney. l , CONFERENCE'`WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant toiCalifornia Government , Code-Section.54957 6;Agency Designated4Representatiye`s:'John„Brown, Scot_f t Brodhun, and"P<amaia.Stephen's. Emplbyee Organizations AFSCME Unit 1 - ' Confidential, Unit 2'-"Maintenance, Unit 3t ,Clerical%Tedhriical 'P,etalu_ma Professional: I ;' & Mid-Manager Association Unit 4=- Professional, Unit 9 - Mid=Managers, and Unit 11 Confidential, Peace Officers `Association of Petaluma Unit 6-„,Police, Association of FirefightersrLocal, 1415 -.415 Unit:7. Fire and Petaluma Public Safety Mid- Management Association,Unit 10 =Publlc'Safety Mid=Mana`gers. ” CONFERENCE'WITH LEGAL,COUNSEL -,EXISTING LISIGATION: Subdiv,isibh (a) of California GovernmentCodeSectionx54969 Baywood LLC vs ,City of;Petaluma, 1 et al.,Sonoina;CountySuperiorrCourt No4SCV`243426 ' Is PUBLIC COMMENT ON•CLOSED=SESSIONJTENIS' i ' Prior to adjournment into Clos'ed`Session, the public may speak up to 3�minutes , on items''to be addressed°tiin Closed Session, , ., - - ADJOURN'TO'CLOSED SESSION !i $ f CALLTOgORDER -:EVENING SESSION -7:00 P.M. r A. Roll Call,., B. Pledge of Allegiance -I F C. Moment of'Silence ' AGENDA,CHANGES;AND DELETIONS (TO CUR3RENT'AGENDAIONLY) I PRESENTATIONi'• Sonoma County Con tnunity Choice A g ( y y. -' (Agg ) -Stud re ation�,CCA) Eeasib (Cordell Stiliman;"Sonoma County Water,Agency (SCWr`A I -GENERAL:PUBLIC COMMENT' ;.� During Genetal Pubi e yComment the public pv tea tto"make comments on items of purblic interest':th'at aretwithin`t e,City Council srsubject-matterjurisdiction ' ' and'that are"not listed on the agenda. Public comments arelimited to 3 '` minutes per person Depending on the `number of persons ` wishing::fo address the. i Council, time will be allocated in equal shares totalingrno more than 20 mir utes ' Please',fill outra speaker.card (available3at the rearof`the Council Chambers) and.. submit it to the-City Clerk;SPEAKER CARDS FOR GENERAL PUBLICCOMMENT`WILL - NOT BE;ACCEPTED'AFTER.`THEMEETING BEGINS (l9SUAULY 7s00'P M )``•The,Mayor will ' . call on;individuals.whose7names appear .on the Speaker Cardsr.;1 more:than•three persons.wish to address'Council on the same topib, they are encouraged,to°select a spokesperson. Please be ready to step>forward to the microphone as soon as"the _ previous speaker has concluded.his/her"comment's (Cal Gov t.-Code §54954.3(a), l Petaluma City Council-Rules -Policies an`d'Procedur�es III(A))' • REPORT,OUT'OF CLOSED,SESSIONf(ACTIONS"TAKEN) (COUNCIL COMMENT' CITY MANAGER COMMENT. 1 . APPROVAL OF•MINUTES' ,' A Approval of Minutes of Regular City,. Council/PCDC Meeting-of'Monday, December5, 201`1. 1:A-December5Minute4; } ' 2. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED:AGENDA ,! A Approval of Proposed Agenda for Regular CityfCouncil/PCDC=Meeting'of Monday, _y 9;x20121. v ��., • Januar ,, 2 A-January92012tentativeA'Qenda' 3. CONSENT CALENDAR . A . Resolution;2011-1673N C S. Approving theFourthIAmendment'to Lease. Agreement befweenthe.city of Petalumaland Roost R er un-`Golf Club, tic. (Brown) ` 3. A--RobsterRun r - "B Adoption (Second",Reading) of Ordinance12422 N C S.`Amending Chapters 4, - 7 8 and 24:61 the=City of Petaluma>Implementing,Zoning,Ordinance to Promote Economic'Development. ''(_Brown/Duiven) :Removed for discussion. 3:11uAmendind170;' - , a. "a - S,, 1 C: ° Resolutio n : n42011 rT`68aN C S.,Acceptmg;Complefion'`ofrthe=Construction ' ' Contract for the Lyn°ch:Cr_eek.Trail Project':,(Zimmer/Nguyen} I, II 1 3C LynchCreekTrail' ° D Resolution 2011 1-;r 69 N.C.S. Acceptinw'''t' 'e PCDC Comprehensive•Annual ' FinaneiaPReport (MUshall(D) i_ 4 - � 1 i 3_D Financial Statements_ i iWii E 'P,ossible-Letter fromM-ayor to St°ate Attorney General`.Regarding Enforcement of _ ws Against'Fraudulent'Foreclosure Processes. j(Brown) ; • ' ' 3.E ForeclosureL'efter _ • 5. NEW BUSINESS: - A. Resolution.2011-1.70 N C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute.:Loan • `Documentswith;:PacificGas and;Electric.for the Bill Financing Loan•Agreement ' , T:! Program for Energy EfficiencyImprovements at the Swim,eenter,`Cavanagh ; Recreation Center Soup.Kitchen, Airporf,Senior Center Animal=Shelter,.Corporation Yard, and°Fire;Stations1, 2 =& 3:-(_Ramirez); 5.A EnergyEfficiehcylmprovements ' t ii:4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS " I B. Disc(ussion_)Re ardin theiExistin Cost°Recover �S stem for�Development 9 2. 9 g Y Y Brown . Projects. _ ^ _ r r r ' _ _ ,' 4.B-CostRecoveryPatl , ), , 1 4.B-C-ostRecoveryP.art2'. ���E iii • 4.B'CosfR' ecoveryPart3 r , C. Discussion and Possible.Action Regarding=Updates to,;the City's Development i Related'Fees. '(Brown/Duiven) ' -d .4 C DevelopmentFees = ; i , A Discussion and Possible Direction on Maintaining Current Medical Marijuana Dispensary,Moratoriu m.,(Fish) - 4,A-MedicalMariivanaParf1 -- = 4,A-MedicaiMdtii anaPart2 . - 1 ' 6. PUBLIC:HEARING' A. 'Resolution 20h1-172?N C S Adopting'a M_ifigated Negative Declaration and •Mitigation`MonitoringiRe"porting Program"�and Authorizing thetCity Manager to File an,Application=with theicalifornia;Public Utilities,Commission for the Re 1 - C i t V 3 . Authorization of the•CaulfieldlLahe Rail oad Crossing Project Located'at Caulfield . Lane. 'Bradley) ' , ; • ; '1-4I-- ,.5 �y 6.A,CaulfieldLaneP art 1 8.A-Ca ulfieldlianeRart 2.. • -- ,, { I ' 6.A LateDocumentl _ ADJOURNu. ,!,i . I gdd In accordance with athe Arnencans-with'Disabilities Act-,'if youlreguirelspecial assistance , to participate in this'meetingrplease_contact'theiQty>Clerk s Office at 707.778.4360 (voice) or 707.778:4480,(TDD). Translators American,SignLanguage interpreters, and/or assistive listening devices forrndividuals with hearing disabilities,wil be available upon request. Requests fortran,slators or=_interpreters:should'be mad eta,rnihimum of two full working days prior to a mee:ting,to ensure the availability of these services. Please note , that City'Hall is'closed on.Fridays. In consideration,of.those wittsmultiple-chemical ' sensitivities or other-environmental illness it is.k`requestedsthat yourefrain from wearing s scented products. The•City Clerk-hereby certifiesthat this'agenda has=been=posted-in accordance.with,the',requirements4of the Government`Codei , I rx I r, S. _ , t R P ,I • G� , 1 f gi Attachment 7 I .i ,1 r, --• Process nr Revisin Fees' f 8 As noted above; the adjustments to-the"•,Parkland kand„Open Space E.,ey s , . .,ces were 1 • accomplished adm rtstrattvely in accordance with the fee legilatron I he remaining�proposaLs will `require'.'addittor a! staff tine potential consultant_ time,legal review and updated; fee I, esotuuons and legrslahte"aciron by the'Ctty( Dune The imtiunt of Cone vanes•`from'a•wbek of f 1 •two of staff-rime to a couplecmonth's ofjeonsu!tant,time toyrtconduU'the necessary nalyses: : l d'ependin"gon City Counctl;rjitcctron^Sane of Ihte:analyses may regmr&additional direction from Counsel and rcgidre additionalicosts and time issociated with anyageneral`plan amend rents and CE."-QA analysis.:tn addaron;to the an tlyses is the time associated withtprepanng sisf) repo)is and, legislfitton which';typicallyrequires a few wee-of.staff rune in tprepa ation Jnd.a few,wecks for " • routing reportss=for review_ Ideally any.revisions would be prLsseifted to the, Council _, a package Assuming d'"eciion boin,ttie city Council on September I2rFi toe timeitecessary to bring a package of updated lee resolutions to the Cu' Ctigncilrfor adopitonncould result in legislative r,r • action to upclate'the ices commencing at one o' the two meetings m December 1 Most"of the recon}mendations above wii>requut,st'il[and legal staff mile 1n.preparing legislation as well as potential costs associated ki h consukants'for sonic.of the`technictl.a-.7, .'s required . .n support of the;'.1-"'•e d�ustrncnts Ihese costs can be borne'by tlier,.de eloprnent fee funds' I■ humselvesas pai6of oneoing:admnustrahon of die fee program Staff estimates consultan 'costs ranging between:SS 000 and i$43 000 or:more and related cependnure:of•stai lirue an legal 1 service costs=depending on`Cily.Councihdirecuuni it able o contains tlie.current balance for each, r impact'fee.iccount. Table:5:Current'Development•Fee Account Balances" `_ '-. - 1 a. Development Fe e'"Account :,Balanre as'of 6J30/ll r1 Aquatic Center Lacilities Impact Fee '5 e' 15 294 'I _. Commercial Linkage Fee • ,$ ,- .398';048, 1 - ,1. Community Center Faci6nes Impact Fee • $ • 056 755 j,+ - :�.; fire Situpression'EeCilrties Impact Fee .$' 1B9 745 1 - " In Lieu,'iacsing Fee' - + $- 1 750,269:1' - _ Law Enforcement F;acilroes Impact Fee , -$ ; 2361747= ? - - Library Facilities bn pact, e., ' I$. + -, 114;896. 7 1.. open Space Acquisition Fee.: - !$ - _ - i 15i:. Park Land Acgii sitlon Fee •• _ '.s j. is^ • Park Land Development Ijpp. .r. $ Park Land ACQuisit[OIl/Developments', .impact Fee(pre 200,8 fee strucfure),• $ " -:1,6 •61,i2,51. { 1 PublicAr t Fee' ," 40 536 - PublicFacilnies Impact^Fee. II ' - $I 60459= I ' ° Traffic':Impact•Fee.(Caitrans Pcefe'red) $' WastewaterFee, 1 • Watef Capacity Fee °' 1 • I i 'Storm'Drain Impacb_Fee(typical SFDI '$ =..3,769;0.79' TOTAL • I-- ':$ 110998,896,, 1 „ i 5 • , 4w f ,� Attachment s k . : 1 P -a - 5,., °` Attachment 1 I RESOLUTiON,AUTIIORItING 'III F.CITYMANAGERTO'EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AC RN I VENTS 10:PREPARE UPDATED RESTRUCTURING:.tANli APAC Y FEEISTUDY,REPORT S AS A BASIS,FOR _ !)EVELOU�IENT A'ND CAPAC„ G SPECIFIEIJDE=VELOPMENT'RELATED FEES , , WHEREAS, on May 19, 2008 pursuant;to its'General Plan2025 and apphcable.State and local • - law,• tore' City of `Petaluma ;( Cay ).}updated ccertam fees -and°-chargs, applicable to new , development-in^the City, including the'tAquauc'CenteriFacilities impact.r ee,3Community.Center Facilttiesdmpact Fee, Fire,Suppressiei Facihties IImpac Fee Law Enforcement f aciltes mpact , Fee, Library Facilities Impact;Fee Open Space hew isition_Impact+fee. Pukla iisit, qutsitien " Fee 'tor, NohaQuiinbv Act Development• Projeets , Parkland A'cqui'sition fee for Qumiby,•Act f • bevelopment Piojects, Parkland Development Impau Fee; Public facilities Impacl.Fee..,Tra ftic Impact Fee. Water Capacity Fee ,ands Wastcwate Capacity}eel and WHEREAS, thc_Resolutions..for'the•above fees`'-prosideithat the City`willrcontinuer'to conduct- further study and=analysisetoidetermihe-whether the tfees should be revised"and when°additional ' information is•avail'ablc ,the City Council may review the fees.'to detc iiiipe that the-fee amounts are reasonably related.to the impacts,of'developmentrwithin the•City of Petaluma; and- •• r - WHEREAS, the City Council during its 2044,1goal sating session, expressed interest in 4 re4icwing the current devclopmuu'fcc program to�determme wli'ther�and^liow current tees co'idd be reduced without jeop editing implementation r t the General Plan 2025. while ensurmgtthat future development will pay'ithfair.sharelto mitigate its impacts on the community, and i WHEREAS the City Council on Se te"mbe 12 29,11, discussed ands r o vidcd .feedback and direction to•stafiregaiding lee • proposal.; and , WHEREAS .Citystaff•has-reviewed those proposals and baseddon'that"revview recommends that the City'prepare •updates to.;t e Mitigation Ecci Report •[raffl Mitigat on3fee Program, and Water and?Wasiewater Capacity Fee'Study as r basis for possible later City Council action,to restructure and reduce certain devctopment related fees �'. ' NOW,TIIEREFORE, BEFIT RESOLVED th a r - I) -lit City y Manager f ar istItoriced and dirt cied to execute professional serviceaagreements. for the preparation of tevksed developntentland capacity fee studies for the Ctty,s.open space acquisition fee traffic impact fee public,facilities„impact fee, park,•elated fee and •water and wastewatcr'capacdv fce`iprogt uns'fi ; - • i . - _ - 2)' The City' Man-iger isatthoriccdland directed„t`o return,Itoithe Cify'Council with updated_- - �dcvelopmentt„fee studies:and proposed unplernennngtlegi"sl3tionsso thahhe.City Council t may consider and'adoptxthe studies, and adopt updated development thellegislation based . onathe studiesito accomplish.fee reductions without jeopardizing`iinplementation of'the General Plan_'20 5 while ensuring`,that-future development will pay 'its• fair share to , ]t tiitigttte tltztii npaots ofrneev leJelopme t,onathe community. 4 lLw d1 ✓ J . • a d' _ ^�i+` 'av P5i Attachment y } 6 . BEFORE-THE PUBLICUTII (TIES COMMISSIONpF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, r 1 k r' YI C' aPc�l 1 f F'1 �pphcanorl of the eery of Pctalurn for nn g. ntrRclocadcn ' Ordes,luthoni:n the f erm,i' \pplicauon I1-12 .. of One i\c Cyr rdc Gro„ing of the I tacks of 1 , _ t}ie,Sunona Mann_5fearRarl Tianslt.Drsaxt ` ip- Z • APPLICATION,Oi 1 HECITY OI sPFTALU YfA hOR AN ORI3ER AIJTHORI7_ING' ■ THEiPERMANI NT RELOCATION OIa O1�E AT GRIME CItOSSING:OF THE', TR 1CKS OE THE SONOMA-MARTNIAREA RAIL'TRANSIT DISTRICT ' _ Y •, 1'� 3 `i l- i j .„ _, 1 j' .111 p Y' . 1 . ,.. . & : L. it }• 17 mss,} - f k! . ' Shy Woodruff Esq (SBN .197204) T i Gnitzm lcher SBN 92$G49) Jc stca,nlullan {Sli ?63430 i= B YCRS A F,-RBAC7�,SI1 U}R R WILSON 55 12+''Street, Suite 150C ti O ddarid Ct1 94607 ' ', . -� ±. l .lephone 510) 508.2000; - I c;pmil . (510)T444 1108= ',: il._sivot n$f1meyersnave come „' _ I '`, - 2 11 \lror ,ieys§ror the;CITY OI- P, 4 j Tma fJarcrl I)ecc her' 1 IALU�41 • r 4n• • _ �.. _ ta fin+ Vx 1 3Aa1e hmen10 forced the City to'adopt four consecuove years cif budget cuts.0 Ib tddiuon to theuiifficult f i ecolionsi'c elimate;„the City facea meteased'cos s of.dotnl business p trneularly troth respecrrto employee benefits_? The Cltii redticed;ittstGent al`Pu id spending from $,48:9 irullion-in 2007- 1 2008 to-less than $32 million in 2011/201,258 Nuace:2013 tithe City has calm] a number of ,' v", '_ i t dramatic rncasuresro tdlresstdeclning.revenur and'.reducespending ndiidmg ellminaLing fundnig For capital improvemeenl deferring and teducingifaclht3t rnatutenanee laying uff, ,elimnlaLing or-treeztrig o'er 50 Sostnons;,eliiimi rung-pan nrne,po ons reducing overtime and tandby costs,deplete g City•reaer es to;pret ent further nr gauceystaffng level impacts, ,ehnunatuig-all r General I undefinanued vehicle repl tcement;and pot aiding current planning I functions,janitorial services.and aquatics;centei m Anagement,f°In ahort'sunprecedented • financial_challenges'hat e forced the City rb cut h tcck on essena l'ser ccs like tevnt,before , • In t iseal 1 car 2011 t 2012 alone the Cil s forecast prejecied a$2 3 milligh hudget - r , dificir tf To addicts^the budget shortfall;;the C ty was`tote d t avtoff two community services Officdrs, one olice. cords rssi to boluh�c bhc works mspe or,and one office ass iseant ei p two police captain rosmons w ed Hiring for apprpeunatdv n nefull rune;equivalera s ix Y 1 positiorishas been-frozcn c v -- l'lie effect,ofthese exr aordi ian bud';e cut:and layoffs;has been that the City'h rs had 1 le-with e- n saFflrors o msou carry out its existing w i ad Gnenrhat • ` totsr-rgg - • g . '. i s Li the Ciht s resources t epend ou`d e ec motive dim tie_,availa) ity of funding,and orher"fac.tors 4 o utside Efie Ctn s tonrrol;tt is iinposstblcti0 pit d.et vhethet the southerntcrossing and Caulfield; ' i r! f ane Extension anndlparcel i tfie 2025 Genet I an mill ,,cve,!:,inaterjatyt...1.fhe lhvexfront Piojectdoesiiot require.or ind6de'sucld an extension Nor ble meteases io tta CPC Over the.0 a ttekl.Grotstug occur only iii the event that the: t' Caulfield Ianc P.'xreisoon is con:atructed at`'\lthuugho he Caulfieldsl ane Extension would ! . !':City of Peialuin:iCaLfornn;i' cr Year'j2012 ii dguL`Cit \lanager s:Budget \lessage l City ■ atiageis Budget Mc ss ige ) it,li �T._City \Ir tiger';Budge[Alcssage i;l.l:_ � , „+ i'_ f�;: Ott Manager !Budgets ilessage at 1 I., , _ I -, r '`Gir 4lanig,e s-Bi duet viess3ge at 1 Ito}I-2 ah ( 9 r"5:5:11i-i\ deer',leaage '113.. I i� r 'n Gn Alan age--..BuJ er■ ess nee it I rj- ' - r f n=Cited ran4;c;:slndgietIe>srgc:rt17. k - ca,jlNU t 42! 3 _ - 3 1- City of'Petaluma California! Fiscal Year 2011 Budget t ' Attachment 11 TAB Lei 4 ONTENTS."" I Capitalflmpro �t . PAGEa#' vement Projects ,,--- - Airport Projects ° CIP_.;1 C00100208 Airport UST Removal .: . ..... ....... :2 Fire',Projects, «w., 0003003051 Relocation=of Fire-„Station #1. . ... : : ....... ...... I 4 000300405; ?Expansion of Fire.Statiorisd#2 & 13 , , ..;... .... ...: ....... :,5 Parks-and Recreation Projects 7 , C00400206 Wiseman Park Restroomf ........: ............ ....: 8 01460100A Swim Center Energy Efficiencyrand'Renewable Energy 9 C004001104_' ' East Washington Park ..... C00400205 Pla` round Re"'laeements... ..:... . ........ ..... ...:11 Yg p PCDC Projects 1'3 • C53101002`. Auto Drive•;Extension " .. :.. ..... ........14 C03200503 "River Trail -°Washington io?Lakeville:. .: .......15 i rdal00280 101•/East Washington Interchange `,Caltrans 16 t Public Works Project's;...................... . CO2500104 Rule-,20A Petaluma Blvd .North, 18 ' 000500108 Pedestrian Safety Enhancements 19 1 I s C16101005 Cycle 8 State SafefRoutesrto Schools' - 20� i C16101096' Protected,Left Turn Signal Upgrade.:;, r,::. .,:21" 016'101101 Petaluma;'Blvd South Road3Diet ... .. ....,.; :22 ' C161;0,1102, ,Sonoma;Mountain'ParkwayRehabilitation 23 I `,016101102 'HSIP Lighted Crosswalks je-* ..t...::: 24 i 016501101 Trestle-Rehabilitation, 25 ,000501304 Old Redwood Highway Interchange..::-.1..--.--- 26 C16�101201` Washington•StreetBridge_Seismtc,Rehabilitation 2�7 003500 1 04' Rule 20A„BddegarPhase II; - 28 000501204 Rainier`Avenue�Cross town.Connector/ Interchange :..:::29 Recycled Water Projects:: .. . . . ...... . * .. ...•a ; •,• 31 .C.:064,00.902 Recycled Watei,Purnp Stat.ronbMain &No. 1,;Improvements 32 ” 000500505 Phase;-2A Recycled`Water Pipeline ..:... ..........:. ..I33 000500408 Phase2B.-Rec y .cled:1Water Ripehne &'Reservoirs 34 ., w 0005005'08 Phase 3,Recycled yVatr:-Ir PiPeline ... 35' ': ' Surface Water Projects 37•' 000500208 Riv_er Plan — Denman Reach Phase13 ', _- 38 ` 005003308 Stream san recip itation.Gages ° ..: .....39 - 00050008- Sts d e p ils Reclamatlon;Plan1' 40 v I a/ ATTACHMENT 6D From: Nicholas Littlejohn Imailto:nicklittlejohn @gmail.coml Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 1-1:32 AM • To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek Village, really it's about keeping our community wealth I am happy to see that we will have a chance at a local hardware store in place of multinational • Lowes. We need to urgently work toward building community wealth, not exporting it to • • companies peddling primarilyChinese goods. I'd also like to see a promote Main Street campaign, to ideally develop many more local shops reachable by bicycle and foot in place of the proposed giant Target. We can have a stronger, healthier community. It's in the hands of our wise decisions. Thank you, Nicholas (90- 1 From: annamaria pardini [mailto:ampardini@Yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04;.2012 11:39 AM To: CDD; chds.samson arouscourier.com Cc: info©deercreekdroject.corri; sino081960Ca?yahoo.com. Subject: Deer Creek Project Hello City Council and Chris: I am thinking of the environmental impact of the Deer Creek Project and can think of many ways the project will have an immediate positive effect on our limited and precious resources. 1. Driving to Rohnert Park for a full service home improvement store takes about an hour round trip and costs .50 - .90 a mile to operate or own and operate a car, respectively, so not having to drive to Rohnert Park will save us the transportation "costs" including cash, fossil fuel and the most precious resource of all, time. 2. Less driving means cleaner air and reduced traffic for Sonoma county. Both of those sound good to me! 3. Petaluma residents will .save half a percent in sales tax by shopping in Petaluma as opposed to Rohnert Park and Petaluma will reap the benefit of receiving City sales tax that now goes to Rohnert Park. Wow! What would I do with all that time, money and clean air? Well, I'd walk downtown and take a sewing class at StitchCraft, take a friend to dinner at Kumari's; maybe treat myself to an afternoon treat from Petaluma Pie Company and, of course on the way home, I'd stop into Copperfield's for a new book to read. Annamaria Pardini (503) 781 9261 PETAIu€P4A N nGa o R oo s O 'U.A I N 40 Fourth Street - Petaluma, CA 94952 g 4897TO: Petaluma Plannin Commission dry 11. English Street - Petaluma, CA 94952 JAN 2012 ;, ; Receiver) w RE:"Deer Creek Village" Project, FEIR review r City Attorney dot DATE: January, 7th 2012 `S9e92ta£2 .`u..d de1'w.-ko Clerk's v�F'cL- Note: The following are comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report of the project known as "Deer Creek Village" being proposed along North McDowell Blvd. Please, submit my comments into the project's administrative record. Dear Planning Commissioner, The cumulative impacts on our community, of yet again another bigbox project like this is clearly evident. That is why we are gravely disappointed, the FEIR (prepared by WRA consultants) does not adequately address these issues: We are very concerned about the shortsightedness displayed by the City, regarding future planning and General Plan compliance, as this and other large retail projects continue to progress through the approval process. As City Planners, each one of you have an obligation to our community to thoroughly assess the project's impacts. Yet, the preparers of the FEIR have not responded to our comments and concerns with due diligence, as required by CEQA guidelines. This makes it impossible for you as City Planners to properly vet the impacts which concern all of us the most. The1applicant and consultants continue to use the argument that a comprehensive impact analysis of'.their proposal is not required and continue to sidestep their responsibilities by referencing the City's General Plan EIR. This is a preposterous attitude to take, while we know full well that the project does not comply with the policies and overall mission of our General Plan. The FEIR should be rejected based upon the following reasons: 1) The project does not comply with the policies of'the City's General Plan that describe how development should proceed at that site The General Plan envisions a mixed use, pedestrian project at that site For instance, it even goes into detail about extending Lynch Creek Way North through the site and connecting it Rainier, a simple planning element to enhance pedestrian/bike mobility, which the project fails to incorporate. (e,0-3 r 2) The impact mitigation measures of Petaluma's General Plan, regarding build-out of the site, is dependent upon the feasibility of infrastructure projects (e.g. traffic and water) to be in place sometime.in<the future. Yet, the city does not have the funding to pay for these projects. In addition, Project(sj Impact Fees do not even come close to paying for infrastructure and city services relevant to the project impacts. Furthermore, as of Jan. 1, 2012, "Redevelopment Agency Funding" has been eliminated. Therefore, what will be the mechanism to. fund the infrastructure to help mitigate the project's impacts? 3) The EIR does not properly'address the traffic generated by the project, over 10,000 in/out car trips per day. Because the overall scope and character of the project is auto-centric, we feel the project's poor design has a direct correlation to its high traffic generation and it's impacts. The project should be redesigned as the General plan intended, as a pedestrian oriented mixed use development, with pedestrian/bike links to surrounding neighborhoodsandbusinesses. This will encourage biking and walking and reduce the.overall traffic generated impacts on our community. We look forward to Petaluma's future as a well planned, healthy community. In your roles as City Planners, we expect you to look beyond the scope of one solo decision and consider the overall planning for the future. We.expect you to honor the vision presented in our General Plan of a healthy sustainable community, and place the interests & quality of life of those who live in Petaluma above all else. You can do this by rejecting the FOR for the project, a nd by recommending that the applicant present alternative proposals that will best meet the policies and programs laid out in Petaluma's General Plan 2025. Respectfully Yours, Paul Francis Petaluma Neighborhood Association CC: Petaluma City Manager, John Brown Petaluma City Attorney, Eric Danly Shute Mihaly & Weinberger, Gabe Ross Jan. 9,.2012 Dear Ms. Hines, Thank you for the opportunity to provide a comment. I had the opportunity to review the original and updated biological resources section of the document. In short, I would encourage the Planning Commission to consider the acreage and location of the Deer Creek site as a potential habitat area with a natural seasonal creek,vernal pools, and mature oaks. This is a property that has been routinely disked,with no interface fpr attention to natural resources of annual grassland and fresh water resources occurring naturally on the property.. The property appears to be of significant size to support foraging'and'movement of any wildlife in the area. The description of seven shallow basins or vernalpoolsdescribed by Zentner and Zentner as "wet meadows," combined with theexistence-of seasonal Deer Creek, a long established and described ephemeral drainage, and the flood plain element of the property indicatea combination of natural resources that could be identified, protected and enhanced. Such habitat could likely support a variety of bird and other wildlife species,foraging, during;migratory season, and seeking fresh Water. It appears the developerisproposing to-eliminate the natural drainage:channel of Deer Creek, move it and recreate a drainage channel. This appears to apply to the naturally occurring wetlands and vernal pools, as well. Personally, I.would:caution the Commission in considering any proposal to remove and artificially recreate natural'resources.that have been longstanding and occurred naturally, thus comprising a portion of a larger ecosystem in,the annual'grassland and oak woodland area interestingly mirrored with similar resources on the west side of Highway 101, an area where there appears to have been little disking,with sustained and mature.habitat areas. As is characteristic of bioticassessrnentsorbiological studies performed by development consultants, the assessment and updated report for the proposed Deer Creek shopping center project comprised walking on a,site and looking for plant life'or wildlife and researching databases such as the CNDDB. The DFG often reports the CNDDB can_be used as a guide, but cannot be relied upon solely or as a primary resource only for determining the,presence or absence of special status plant and animal species in a particular area. If the Commission receives input from resident observers or naturalists Who have lived in the area for an extended period of time it seems reasonable to consider this input tote consideration, as such observers often document sightings over long periods of time This can add to the depth of the developer's consultants' brief visits and database research. And'itis'important to help form a whole picture of the potential for habitat, residerit:and migrating wildlife, and foraging, as well as connecting areas for wildlife, especiallynocturnalspecies. This property also appears to lend itself to exactly the type of combination of preservation and possible development in the Sonomal.Co.Water'Agency's search for land in the Petaluma area for various sized conservation and water resource projects to help with rainwater catchment and detention, open space and habitat enhancement, and natural areas for groundwater recharge. The significant impacts of increased human activity and shopping.center.development on this property should not a be underestimated, nd designating a large buffer zone of open space in relationship to preserving identified existing natural resources of the creek,.vernal pools, open grassland and'oaks would appear beneficial to support any respect for and sustainability of existing natural resources, with the-potential;fo`rrestoration.and enhancement in a natural way. The fact,the property owner has,chosen to routinely disk the site in a heay disking fashion does not preclude the additional.facts of the apparent natural resources and habitat potential on the property. Restored areas where seasonal wetlands, a longstanding creek, annual grassland providing the potential 620-5 for foraging and movement, and vernal pools could occur naturally and sustain could lead to significant enhancement of the quality of biological resources in the area. The mature oaks described to exist on the property are also of'note for their age and suitable habitat for migrating and resident birds and other wildlife. As described in the biological resources report, the oaks occurring'on the Deer Creek site appear to be connected to or relevant for the woodland and annual grassland with the Petaluma River traversing on the west side of Highway 101 directly,and diagonally across from the Deer Creek property. The lack of disking and relative pristine quality of the oak woodland, grassland,flood plain area and river on the west side of the freeway appear to have led to a rich and diverse habitat area with multiple wildlife species. This observation is supported by a recent initial avian and wildlife survey checklist, with the first visit completed within the last month. Across the freeway to the east,where the property has apparently been routinely and heavily disked over time, there appears to exist similar topography and resources, including, but not limited to, Deer Creek,the vernal pools, mature,oaks, and open annual grasslands that, if allowed to remain for groundwater recharge, wildlife movement and foraging, could contribute significantly to the North Petaluma area. Again, if a shopping center development of some form is proposed and approved for the Deer Creek site, it would be appear advisable.to consider preserving a portion of the property for open space, grassland restoration and preservation, oak preservation, fresh water vernal pool and creek restoration and potential groundwater recharge area if feasible'. Other conservation meaures to benefit the City of Petaluma residents could also be considered fora portion of the acreage in the sensitive identified areas that if not disked, could recover and,with restoration,flourish for biological resources likely having not been fully identified through the EIR process. As a naturalist with twelve years of experience in-research and monitoring ofAmerican Badger in West and Northwest Petaluma, I concur the likelihood of occurrence of American Badger on the Deer Creek site is low. This is primarly due to the,highway division of the Deer Creek-property and property to the west. However, the Northwestern1Pbnd Turtle, known to occur on the west side of the freeway in similar habitat area may likely occur on the Deer Creek property. California'Red-Legged Frog could also have the potential to occur, and a'more'thorough survey maybe advisable, immy opinion.. The special status avian species, including loggerhead shrike;white-tailed kite,:and long-billed curlew, among others, in my opinion and based on the beginning avian survey immediately on the west side of the freeway to Deer Creek, are highly like to occur inihe area and would benefit from the seasonal fresh water sources, the open grassland and the oak habitat. My primary purpose for providing this comment is to note that a review.of the biological resource survey process and reporting leads to aty'conclusiondhat repeated disking Of the property could mask the open space values,the annual grassland, and-mature oaks for diurnal and nocturnal wildlife species for foraging and movement, as well as.the potential for significant restoration efforts for the naturally occurring creek, vernal pools, grassland and oaks, in conjunction with preserving appropriate portions of the land for natural habitat, wildlife`movementand water conservation and groundwater recharge. I encourage the Planning Commission to engage in recommendationsthat will establish a large buffer zone between any;area of the property proposed for the building envelope and to preserve the naturally occuring creek, vernal pools,as much of the open grassland as possible, and the oaks for the benefit of biological resources and also hydrologic conservation and replenishment. Sincerely, Susan Kirks Petaluma, CA Original Message From: Francesca Smith 1mailto:fvspetaluma0gmail.com1 Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:34 AM To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek project Dear Council, I support moving forward with this project without further delay. This project is vital to our city's economic future. Sincerely, Francesca Smith 160 Banff Way Petaluma Sent from my iPhone Original Message From: barryalbertkomcast:net. fmailto:barryalbert(icomcast,net! Sent: Tuesday, January 10, -2012 5:14 PM To: COD Subject: Community Development feedback form Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by (barryalbertPcomcast.net) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 19:14:02 First Name: Barry Last Name: Bussewitz Live in: yes comment: yes Subject: : Project Updates - Deer Creek general: I am concerned. that the Deer Creek project proposal currently fails to meet our General Plan in several ways. 1. It does not include what the General Plan calls miiced use. 2. Circulation of pedestrians and bicycles throughout the community and along the Lynch Creek path: this is a virtual thoroughfare for many pedestrians and bicycle riders like me. Lynch Creek connects the west side to the hospital and the medical offices in its vicinity, as well as the two shopping centers nearby on McDowell. Dealing with McDowell here is already a deterrent to families and children, and crossing it (or just using it) on a bike is a challenge to grown men. This Project could and should make this area one in which ALL pedestrians and bicycle riders can circulate with confidence, a family value! 3. Significant mitigations for traffic and water are based on infrastructure that is not there. Is: it not that simple? 4. The overall design seems' ,outmoded and quite likely to become a dead dinosaur that we will have to reckon •for decades to come. Thank you! Please respond: yes Submit: Submit From: suesgarden7-shoQ©vahoo.com jmailto:suesgarden7-shon©vahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday,January 10, 2012 2:00 PM To: CDD Cc: Deer Deer Creek Village Subject: Deer Creek Village I am unable to attend"the meeting tonight but feel I should still voice my opinion. I am, surprised how long the planning approval process has taken. 'Because of that, Petaluma lost the chance of having a Lowe's Home Improvement store here in town. Petaluma is in need of some tax revenue which Deer Creek Village would help bring in. I am one of the many unemployed in Petaluma and Deer Creek Village Shopping Center would open up hundreds of jobs. I do most of my shopping in Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa. The only shopping I do in Petaluma is part of my grocery shopping. (Some of my grocery shopping is also done at Costco in Rohnert Park). Petaluma is in need of a good home improvement store. I: have found that Orchard Supply does not have a wide enough selection, so I usually shop at Lowe's or Home Depot and would be happy if Friedman's came to Petaluma. I also would prefer to have a Target or Walmart here in Petaluma. I rarely shop at KMart. The approval process has been drug out way too long! I hope that the City of Petaluma will approve Deer Creek. Village to bring in the tax revenue and jobs that we need so much! Thank you, Sue F. (Petaluma resident for 35 years) C�t�� From: pauffrancis fmailto:oetalumaneiohbors©vahoo.coml Sent;Wednesday,January 11,2012 1:51 PM To: jenpierreoetaluma @vahoo.com Cc:::petalumaplanning Subject: Deer Creek Village FEIR Comment Dear Planning Commissioner, This pertains to your inquiry about whether there is a "home improvement/building supplies" retailer in North Marin. Novato Builders Supply: http://novatobuilders.com/ So,the project would not necessarily draw consumers from Marin into Petaluma to buy these goods. If you are considering the viability of this project in terms of"retail needs and revenues"; also consider that Petaluma presently has the following building supply& appliance retailers: OSH Hardware Masselli & Sons Rex/Ace Hardware Peterson Paints K-mart North Bay Kitchen& Bath Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul Francis P.N.A. CC: Jennifer O'Hagan, Petaluma Planning Department Please, submit this into the administrative record for Deer Creek/FEIR cl' From: paul francis Imailto:oetalumaneighbors ivahoo.coml' Sent: Wednesday,January 11,2012 1:51 PM To:jenpierrepdtalumanlvahoo.com Cc: petalumaplanning Subject: Deer Creek Village FEIR,Comment Dear Planning Commissioner, This pertains to your inquiry about whether there is a "home improvement/building supplies" retailer in North Marin. Novato Builders Supply:.http://novatobuilders.com/ So, the project would not necessarily draw consumers from Marin into Petaluma to buy these goods. If you are considering the viability:of this project in terms of'retail needs and revenues"; also consider that Petaluma presently has:the following building supply& appliance retailers: OSH Hardware Masselli & Sons Rex/Ace Hardware Peterson Paints K-mart North Bay Kitchen& Bath Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul Francis P.N:A. CC: Jennifer O'Hagan, Petaluma Planning Department Please, submit this'into the administrative record for Deer Creek/FEIR 0 D-G6 • From: Maryann Hedstrom.jmailto:starrbnd@hotmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:57 PM To: CDD Cc: infoedeercreekproiect:com; daveglass @comcastnet; teresa4petaluma©comcast.net; councilmemberkearney©me.compmike4pet @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilman:albertson gmail.com; tiff @tiffanyrenee.com Subject: Deer Creek Village Please reconsider your decision regarding the Deer Creek Village Project As a 5 year resident of Petaluma,.I must admit•that Lweekly drive to San Rafael or RohnertPark for my main shopping needs. I would prefer for Petaluma to receive funds from my shopping, but the prices &diversity of goods in Petaluma are not competitive enough to keep my.business local. I welcome the potential new vendors to ourcommunity, and I hope you will as well. Sincerely, Maryann Hedstrom • • Original Message- From: Pardini, Anna Maria (ww Apple Segment Marketing Manager) {mailto:ahnamaria pardini(dhp.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:25 AM To CDD Subject: Deer Creek Village. Hello City Council: Please reject the Planning Commission's decision and give Deer Creek Village the green light. Lets show the world that Petaluma is a town of action, not just endless politics. This is. your chance to do something tangible that will give back to all of the people of Petaluma. Sincerely, Annamaria Pardini From: ZLOTA PANI jmailto:zlotaDani©yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:11 PM To: CDD Cc: INFO$DEERCREEKPROJECT.COM Subject: DEER CREEK VILLAGE WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO TO PETALUMA, GO BY THE WAY OF VALLEJO? REJECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSAL. EVERY COUNCIL HAS PLAYED WITH RAINIER INTERCHANGE AND HAS DONE NOTHING TO ADVANCE`ITS'PROGRESS. I FOR ONE WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY OF YOU IF YOU DON'T DO SOMETHING TO MAKE PETALUMA A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO WORK, LIVE AND SPEND THEIR MONEY. BARBARA L. PADGETT 15 HAVEN DRIVE PETALUMA 38 YR RESIDENT Cep--r3 • From: I.vicino fmailtoa.vicino @comcast;net] Sent: Thursday, January'26,r2012 1:04 AM To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek Village Honorable City Council, When are you going to start doing what the citizens of Petaluma want? We don't have our Rainier Crossing, and we don't have Target in our City and now we don't have the Deer Creek Village development. You have been sitting on these projects for a long time, when are you going to do something about it? You are losing revenue and not giving our citizens jobs. These projects would generate revenue for our City. Not only that but the Deeer Creek Village Project and the Target;project enoucraged builders to buy property, pay money for something they are not getting. Get off your and give us our projects! Louise Vicino Petaluma Resident (1046e I previously wrote expressing:my concerns that the effects of increased-traffic using Rushmore Ave -a small curving residential street connecting Rainier Avenue and Professional Drive - had not been considered in the draft EIR`for the Deer Creek project. Included in the Final EIR are these statements. "Residential intersections other than Rainier Avenue and Maria Drive were not determined to have potential adverse effects from projecttraffic so as to require mitigation." "Rushmore Avenue offers no more capacity or direct access than the adjacent routes and is therefore not expect (sic) to have substantial increase in traffic." In fact, according to Google Maps; using Rushmore to Professional will be the shortest distance to the main entrance of the new shopping center for anyone using Rainer Ave, the logical route for anyone on the eastside wishing to avoid the,,bottleneck at E Washington and McDowell Blvd. With the addition of a stoplight and higher traffic volumes on McDowell, Rushmore may also,become the fastest route, especially for those who don't mind exceeding the speed limit-on residential streets to pickup an extra minute. The statement about:th&street not offering more capacitythan'adjacent routes is unfortunately true. I don't think it is unlikely that someone on their way to Friedman's.will turn onto.Rushmore going the same speed they were traveling on Rainier and run into the open car door of someone returning from work or from the store with kids"and groceries. I have serious concerns about the real value of traffic analysis contained in the EIR. I'm sure the numbers were correctly fed into the model, but it's not clear that anyone doing'the.study actually drove around the neighborhoods that will be impacted by the increased traffic Deer Creek will generate. That's probably not required for this EIR; but humans are making the decisions about this project. I urge the City Council members to take a few minutes to drive around Park Place_and..adjacent neighborhoods. Drive along Rushmore, try to turn left on Rainier with the intersection's limited visibility and imagine more cars coming from N McDowell„some,ofthem going faster than they should. Drive up Professional from where the shopping center entrance will be and go right on Maria when school is letting;out or there are games going on in the park. Forget ab"out.the numbers while you're driving and I bet you can pick out possible problems that aren't addressed in=the°EIR traffic analysis or are dismissed,as not significant. People don't follow models and I"would.Urge you to apply your common sense and knowledge of what happens in the real when you evaluate ethis project. People aren't.supposed to speed or be inattentive on Rushmore Ave, but when you increase the number of drivers on it who.are,unfamiliar with this narrower, curving street, you will increase the chance that something bad will happen. The models may not consider it a potential adverse effect, but if someone gets hurt on Rushmore, his or her family and neighbors will consider it highly significant. The fact that the noise and pollution levels, congestion and residential urban blight that will accompany this project are unavoidable, do notindividually rise to a legal level of significance, or are not in the scope of the final Elk does not change,the fact that, taken as.a whole this project will adversely affect the lives of'many.people on the east side of Petaluma. Do duplicated services and retail space, a home improvement store, and some jobs and tax revenue that'will.be partially be offset by jobs and revenue lost by existing businesses tip the scale in favor of this development? Maybe it all just comes down to whether it's your.family:that will suffer. I hope not. In the EIR there is a statement: Although impacts to common diurnal and nocturnally active wildlife species (deer, raccoon, opossum, striped skunk) may be adverse, they are not considered significant under CEQA. When I read it, I felt a certain empathy for the listed animals. I can do that because humans can put themselves in the place of others and I'd hope the Council Members would try to do that for a moment in connection with the issues affecting our neighborhood. Steven Schuler 105 Muir Ct • From: West Haven (mailto:'com OWesthavenmail.infol Sent: Wednesday, February 15', 2012 1:03 PM To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek Village 1 have only two thumbs but both of them are up for. Friedman's. Any council Member voting against will lose my vote if standing for re-election. Michael P. Burwen, President West Haven Homeowners Association Petaluma I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting span). SPAMfighter has removed 3828 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter_com/len The Professional version 'does not have this message L GREEN UiI[DING ARCHITECTS 22 February 2012 Petaluma City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Reference: Deer Creek FEIR Mayor Glass and City Council members, As a Planning Commissioner-,.my objection to Deer Creeks EIR primarily relates to traffic. While I am convinced that Petaluma sincerely wishes to see the undercrossing and crosstown connector built as described in the General Plan, I find no compelling evidence to suggest that CalTrans is equally committed. In fact, there is information to suggest the contrary. If our General Plan is based upon false assumptions in this regard, then we cannot continue to approve projects thinking the related environmental concerns will be mitigated down the road. The FEIR should not be approved. The traffic conditions at the East Washington/North McDowell intersection are expected to be at LOS F during peak traffic. This condition extends along North McDowell to the project site. This is also the access to Petaluma Valley Hospital. The traffic engineer downplayed the seriousness of this impacted traffic by saying emergency vehicles had the ability to pre-empt the red lights. So how many emergency room patients arrive by ambulance? I would guess that 75% are driven there by family or friends...without the ability to pre-empt the red lights. Is this development so important that lives may be risked for the sake of its approval? As a citizen of this lovely community, I object to the.Deer Creek project because it does not t(Friedman's aside) add anything that we do not already have. According to.the developer at the Planning Commission hearing, the Deer Creek project is targeted to several national chain restaurants and stores. Do we need more development like this? It's not about Small Box vs. Big Box or Growth vs. No Growth. It's about:quality development. It's providing something more thoughtful than another bottom-line retailer in a big, auto centric; shopping center. Are we trying to look like Rohnert Park? When the developer compared an aerial photo of Deer Creek with Plaza North Shopping Center, they were illustrating how much less parking Deer Creek had Actually, I was taken by how similar the two developments looked. It is acres of asphalt ringed by stores. They advertise it as a pedestrian-oriented development, but it is no more pedestrian oriented than Plaza North. It could be. They could take their"Main Street" William B. Wolpert, Architect / 7 Fourth Street, Studio 61 / Petaluma, CA 94952 / 707.789.0822 and really make it a dedicated`pedestrian thoroughfareand it would be a great improvement. But that is not their intention. It:is'so poorly planned that not only is the proposed drug store not facing the medical building,you have to walk across multiple lanes of traffic and around to the opposite side of the building to find the front door. Let's face it, they intend for you to drive there. If you walk around town, east side or west, you see vacant store fronts. The retailers that are open are just holding on. How do you approve another similar retail shopping center without significantly damaging the existing businesses? If Deer Creek differentiated itself with better retailers and a truly pedestrian-oriented development, it would be offering the town something it does not have and would not be competing with existing retailers for a race to;the bottom. If they proposed a design concept that remotely paralleled the expressed desires of Petaluma citizens during the General Plan upgrade, it would be warmly received. Yes, we need find better ways to work with developers. Yes, we need the tax revenues that development brings. But more importantly, we need to maintain the vision of what we want the town to become and not be redirected by whatever today's emergency happens to be. It's not easy, but it will be so rewarding to future generations. This development will likely outlive us all. Let's not leave behind an eyesore. Please deny Deer Creek's FEIR until such time as they propose a project that meets the vision expressed in our General Plan. If you don't ask for it, it will never happen. -Bill Wolpert William B. Wolpert, Architect / 7 Fourth Street, Studio 61 / Petaluma, CA 94952 / 707.789.0822 (QO-I From:.Leland Fishman fmailto:Ifishman©fishmansupolV.com1 Sent: Wednesday, February 22;2012;9:26 AM To: daveolass©comcast.net;''Onita Pellegrini; bill©friedmanhome.com Cc: Chrisalbertson(Wcomcast:net; Mike.Harrisancross-check.com;.mthealyalsbcglobal.net; tiffa@designmotif.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; gkearnev@me:com Subject: Dear Mayor Glass and Council Members, On Monday you will consider the Deer Creek Village project and the return of Friedman Brothers Hardware to Petaluma.As a native Petaluman I believe this decision ranks in magnitude with the proposal to develop Freitas Ranch and the development of Theater Square downtown. This is the kind of decision that drove you to hold public office in the first place; an opportunity to shape the economic and cultural vitality-of our town. You hold in your hands a decision that affects the soul of Petaluma; something we all hold arrogantly dear. And your decision won't be easy. There are issues to;consider; traffic, noise congestion. No one would say this is a simple decision. But•then again, we don't pay you guys five whole dollars a meeting to just handle the easy ones do we? I've read the EIR. Traffic-will be impacted. Intersections will be impacted.There is no doubt about it. And mitigations will have to'be considered. But I've also considered the economic impact. And I've considered how proud this town will be to have developed a center like this with a homegrown tenant as the anchor. I've considered the generosity,of the Friedman Family and how our non profits will ultimately benefit from Friedman's return to Petaluma. I've considered the impact on our local small businesses who will become vendors and service providers to the store. And I've considered how the new employees will enjoy higher wages and benefits than if a national chain had been the anchor. And yes, I've considered to sales tax revenue that will flow into the city's coffers. Ladies andgentlemen, your town is watching: Your employees who have sacrificed so much are watching. Now is the time to be bold; to take a positive step towards the economic health this town so dearly needs and deserves. It is time to say YES to the Deer Creek Village;It is time to say YES to the long awaited return of Friedman Brothers to Petaluma; It is time to say YES to bold, decisive leadership. I cannot attend the council meeting Monday night as I will be.in Phoenix on business, but I urge you to vote in favor of this project. The positives so outweigh the negatives. Don't drag the city through another Regency debacle. We've got the right project, the right developer and, for goodness sake, we have the right tenant. Approve this project and let's start moving our city forward. Thank You for Your Consideration Leland Fishman President Fishman ',.,.(RrxN Pcapfie` nnJ Serve e.iica7Valian.; 1345 Industrial Ave Petaluma, California 94952 800-675-7750 707-763-7352 Fax Ifishman @fishma nsupply.com t'tritic t <r)\ ctr A : 4 I For More 4pfornaation: You may contact Heather Hines, Deputy Planning. Manager, at (707)778-4316 or !:.”4t4lillifies@ci:petaluma.ca.us. You can also come to the Planning,Division;to review the project file. The office is open " 474.5grday through Thursdays from 8:00a.rn to 12:00 p.m.and 1:00 pit.to 400 P.m. CitY Hall is closed Fridays. If you challenge in court the matter deScribed above,you may be limitectto raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public. {Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)}. Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court no later than the 90th day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Pea S 8042 / CeAS;44 eie77- 77,64 7Led 16/1 AfrYt?na oal ( /dr trAtt n : Barbra Padgett 15 Haven.Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 MAYOR From: Leland'.Fishman,fmailto:Ifshman@fishmansubulv:coml Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:26 AM To:.daveglass @comcast:net 'Onita;Pellegrini'; bill @friedmanhome:com. Cc:.Chrisalbertson @comcast.net;,Mike.Harris @cross-check.com; mthealy @sbcelobal.net; tiff@designmotif:com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net;,.gkearnevOme.com Subject: Dear Mayor Glass and Council Members, On Monday you will consider the-Deer Creek Village project and the return of Friedman Brothers Hardware"to;Petaluma. As a native Petaluman I believe this decision ranks in magnitude with the proposal to develop Freitas,Ranch and the development of Theater-Square downtown. This is the kind of decision that drove you to hold public-office in the'first place; an opportunity to shape the economic and cultural vitality of our town. You hold in your hands!a decision that affects the soul of Petaluma, somethingwe all hold arrogantly dear. And your decision won't be easy. There are issues.to consider; traffic, noise congestion. No one would say this is a simple decision: But then again, we don't pay you guys five whole dollars a meeting to just handle the easy Ones do we? I've read the EIR. Traffic will beimpacted. Intersections will be impacted.There is no doubt about it And mitigations will have to be considered. But I've also considered the economic impact. And I've considered how•proud this town will be to have developed a center like this with a homegrown tenant,as the anchor. I've considered the generosity of"the'Friedman Family and how our non profits will ultimately benefit from Friedman's return to Petaluma. I've considered the impact on our local small businesses who will become vendors and service providers to the store. And I've considered how the new employees will enjoy higher wages and benefits than if a national chain had been the anchor. And yes, I've considered to sales tax revenue that will flow into the city's coffers. Ladies and gentlemen, your town is watching. Your employees who have sacrificed so much are watching. Now is the time to be bold; to take a positive step towards the:economic health this town so dearly needs and deserves. It is time to say YES to the Deer Creek Village; It is time to say YES to the long awaited return of Friedman Brothers to Petaluma; It is time to say YES to bold, decisive leadership. &2D 3 I cannot attend the council meeting Monday night as I will be in Phoenix on business, but I urge you to vote in favor of this°project. The positives so outweigh the negatives. Don't drag the city through another Regency debacle. We've got the right project, the right developer and, for"goodness sake, we have the right tenant. Approve this project and let's start moving our city forward. Thank You for Your Consideration Leland Fishman President Feshrnan EN n:034 rA "Z rrisv'nhi..'��i i 1345 Industrial Ave. Petaluma, California 94952 800475-7750 707=763-7352 Fax Ifishma n @fishma nsupply;com From: Ant y•0'Bhen f ailto:anthy@tobsoeeddata.cori. Sent: Wednesday, February;22, 2012(9:57 PM To:.Onitap @petalumachamber:com. Subject: support for the Deer-Creek EIR Certification I support the EIR Certification. Please pass on to the City Council. Thanks. Anthy O'Brien President & CEO Top Speed Data Communications Inc. 707.283.2710 ext 727 www tbpspeeddata.corn.. lJ/D-- From: Kathy,SchmidtfMailto:kschmidtf&fhallen.coml Sent: Wednesday, February.22, 201210:11 AM To daveolass@ comcast:net;.Chrisalbertsonecomcast.net; Mike:Harris(alcross-check.com; mthealy©sbcglobal.net; tiff(Ddesignmotif.com; teresa4netaluma(Dcomcast:net; Qkearnev(Dme.com Subject: Friedinan's/Deer Creek Dear Mayor Glass and Council Members, I urge you to support the Deer Creek Project and Friedman's return"to Petaluma at this location. Unfortunately I won't be able to attend on Monday evening to lend my support during the meeting,but I do want to support the application,and a long overdue approval. I live on the East side and'recognize that there will.bea traffic impact, as there is with any development. However, in weighing the pros and cons, I truly believe that the development is a good thing for Petaluma. R6ftVy Scorn t, REALTOR, Broker, RPA License No. 010 5 3642 Frank Howard Allen, Realtors 905 E. Washington Street;#109 Petaluma, CA 94952 707-775-2209 (direct) 707-762-2647 (fax) 707-481-1851 (cell) From: shannonstearns(alcomcast.net.fmailto:shannonstearns@comcastnetl Sent: Thursday,;February 23, 2012 9:44 PM To info deercreekproject:com;'CDD; daveolass(acomcastnet;;teresa4oetaluma©comcast:net, councilmemberkearney©me.com;.mike4pet @aol.com; mthealy`@sbcglobal'.net; council man.al bertson @gmail.com; tiff @tiffanyrenee.com Subject: Deer Creek Project: Bring Friedman's to Petaluma Please! Petaluma leaders: I.am writing to ask that you please do everything in your power to approve the Deer Creek project and°bring Fried;man's to Petaluma. This is precisely the kind of local business that reflects that spirit;and values of our town. Friedmans will join the likes of our much-beloved Rex Hardware, and be a welcome alternative to driving to big-box stores Lowes or Home Depot in.Rohnert Park. As a 13-year resident of Petaluma, and employee of Petaluma-based CamelBak, encourage you to listen to the community and bring us the opportunity to support local business. Friedmans is;a welcome addition to our town! Thanks for your consideration and your vote to approve the Deer Creek Project. Shannon Stearns 1055 Rancho Lindo Drive Petaluma CA 94952 From: EverettPina'Jrhailtd:everettpinaCaatt.netl Sent: Sunday, February:26, 2012:5:16.PM To: Hines,.Heather;petaluinaplanning; CDD;.- City Clerk Cc: arkemmer @hotmail.com Subject: Deer Creek Final EIR Attn: Heather Hines City of Petaluma, Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952-2640 Re: Deer Creek Final EIR My husband and I are long time of Muir Court, which?is directly across the street from the proposed Deer Creek Plaza development. Our house backs up to Professional Drive. We have several concerns about the proposed development, not the least of which is traffic: Traffic: It appears that the intersection'at Professional'and S. McDowell was a part of the EIR study, but not Professional Drive and Rushmore. The main entrance to the shopping center will be located at Professional Drive arid S. McDowell, and we are especially concerned that Professional Drive^will become a major thoroughfare as cars try to avoid N. McDowell and the East Washington intersection. We are also very concerned abouvthe size and tonnage of trucks using surface streets in our neighborhood. We would like to request that the City impose a limit on the tonnage of trucks that can use•Professional and Rushmore, similar to the limits that are now posted On Baywdod Drive. Certainly the limit should not preclude emergency vehicles or trucks making deliveries to:residents.,We simply want to make sure that we do not have large trucks using surface streets or parked behind our homes, which does happen now. Signage: The proposed developmenf'includes a 30-foot monument.pylon sign, which means that neighbors will be able to lookout their windows and see a:neon sign. We feel that signs of that size are simply unnecessary and inappropriate for a neighborhood. I have spoken to representatives of Merlone Geier about the signage and they have commented that the signage will be similar to what is currently seen along S. McDowell,Blvd. It is unfortunate that the residents along McDowell have to look out at 30-foot neonssigns.Frankly, the homes and neighborhoods along McDowell have been marginalized by the poor design of the existing shopping centers and we see"no reason to continue with that tradition. Noise and Air Quality: Nine (9) fullgrown trees along the center divide on N. McDowell will be removed in order to make a left hand turning'lane for the entry into the shopping center at Professional. Those trees provide natural sound barrier and block the neighbor's view of the street and proposed shopping center. We would like_.to request that those nine mature trees be replaced along the sidewalks on.both sides of the N. McDowell: Replacing the trees is a simple, small, and inexpensive gesture in helping to abate the sights,and sounds/of traffic congestion. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety: The McDowell corridor is busy with bicyclist, and pedestrians, especially along Lynch Creek and near Luchessi Park. We'do feel that the proposed bike path is a=good design addition and we are pleased to see that there will be-greenery separating the te,D?—a7 bike/pedestrian pathway along McDowell. We would like to see the bike/pedestrian pathway raised up frormthe•street;level, similar to the pedestrian pathways,alongSonoma Mountain Parkway and along S. McDowell near Schollenburger Park. Ideally,similar improvements to the pedestrian walkway along the east side of N. McDowell could be implemented. Residents in our neighborhood are often portrayed as "NIMBYs" and for that reason we feel it is important to point Out that the project site was zoned light industrial until the adoption of the new General Plan in 2008. We, like so many of our neighbors, did not buy homes next to an empty lot expecting that we would have a large-retail complex.across the street. When the new General Plan was adopted, the neighborhood and the City Council,at that time,felt that the site's current 'mixed use' designation suited the.surrounding land uses which include Petaluma Valley Hospital, Lucchesi Park, the Community Center,medical offices,and-the senior housing. It was the neighborhood's hope that a mixed-use site designation would,mean that the development at the site would be pedestrian and bicycle friendly and that it would fitin well with the surrounding land uses. Unfortunately, it is apparent that-none-of the traffic and noise impacts of a commercial development of this size.can be mitigated based on the current project:design. The EIR provides mitigations-why are they not=being considered as a condition of project approval? We are asking the City Council reduce the.size'of the retail component of the development. The smaller stores and restaurants along:N. McDowell,the fitness center, offices, bank,the seasonal creek and the proposed development attributes of out seating and pedestrian interoperability throughout the site and fitness trail are:all amenities that need to be kept. The combination ofboth'a home improvement center and the addition_al "major anchor retail" stores simply add too many additional car trips to overcrowded streets, exasperating traffic,noise-and air quality issues. Finally, we are asking the City Council to remember.thatthe discussion Monday,February 27th, 2012 is about the project EIR and land use issues, not a public forum for or against any particular retail chain. The environmental impacts are the same whether there is a Lowe's or a Freidman's at the project site. We understand that the site Will be and we are,askingthe City Council and Planning Commission to make it the very best development possible. The'east side of town deserves more . than strip malls and sound walls. Thank you for your tithe. Sincerely, Ann.Kammer: Everett.Pina Cc:,City Cleric Petaluma Planning Commission From: Michael Morgan fmailto:mmorgan943( igmail.coml Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:52 AM To: info©deercreekoroiect:com;;CDD; daveglass©comcast.net;teresa4petaluma{alcomcast.net; counalmemberkearney eme:com;=mike4pet©thaol:com; mtliealyCalsbcglobal:net; councilman.albertson @nmail:com; tiff@itiffanyrenee.com Subject:Support'for'Deer Creek:Project& Friedman's Council and Leaders of-Petaluma:. I would like to add my voice of support for this project. Friedman's has long demonstrated itUocal, customer service based culture to our area and they are precisely the type of business°we need in Petaluma: If we are to have a quality, big box store, Friedman's could not be a better choice. I am a 6+year resident ofPetalama„having grown up in and moved from.Southern California. While I like to shop local and typically visit Rex Hardware for items they carry, I also routinely travel to Santa Rosa for the Friedman experience, their inventory of quality products and assistance with our home improvement projects. I truly:believe Fried man's will be a welcome addition to local business and our great Petaluma. Thank You for supporting;this opportunity for Petaluma! Michael Morgan 440 Sunnyslope Rd Petaluma, CA 94952 Michael Morgan (707) 773-0743 • (QD21 Hines, Heather From: mgfashionart@comcast.net Sent: Monday,February27, 2012 5:20 PM To: Hines, Heather Subject: Fwd: Deer Creek FEIR Comment From: mgfashionart@comcast.net To: hhines @ci.petaluma.us Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 5:00:13 PM Subject: Deer Creek FEIR Comment To: hhines @ci.petaluma.ca.us To: Hines, Heather; petalumaplanning; CDD; - City Clerk To: daveglass @comcast.net; Chrisalbe.rtson @comcast.net; Mike.Harris @cross-check.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net;tiff @designmotif.com; teresa4petaluma @ comcast.net; gkearnev @me.com Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report of Deer Creek Village February 27, 2012 Dear Mayor Glass and Councilmembers, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Deer Creek Village FEIR. We would like to ask for your support of the recommendations of'the Petaluma Planning Commission. Like the PPC, we feel the FEIR is not complete, in its present state, and therefore is inadequate at this time„to be used,as a guiding tool for making the many important decisions on behalf of the City, Petaluma Residents, and the Developers. We ask that various components of this EIR be adequately studied in a more comprehensive manner. We ask this in an effort to make available the totality of many Environmental Impacts, not yet studied, or understudied. In essence, we are asking for all the puzzle;pieces to be'put on the table, so that this development will ultimately result in something we can all be proud of and not suffer in the overall health, wealth, and well-being of our City,our Residents, and our Visitors. God speed that we can all work together on this. Once we have all the necessary data to go forward, then the size ofthis development can be adequately addressed, and in looking at all possible alternative projects on this acreage, which will be the best fit, for all, considering all impacts. The areas of incompletion of study we.fiind to be the following: Traffic- As stated in our comment to the DEIR, we stated that it was a deficiency to not have studied the potentiality of"No Rainier Interchange and/or Crosstown Connector", your response, Topical Response 10 assumes Rainier, therefore is-an inadequate.Response. All traffic at the Cumulative level and Project plus Pipeline should have the "No Rainier" study. 1 �eD3 Further traffic analysis, which we did notseestudied, were the effects of this project on traffic during: Fair Season. Car Racing. Employment Shift Changes at FED EX, Lucchesi , The Hospital, and many other employee shift changes along both McDowell Blvd., Offices on Professional, and those offices on Lynch Creek. Further, were the Office Tenants, and Owners, within 1000 sq. ft. of this project noticed of the DEIR, and FEIR of the DCV hearings? The personnel atall of the Lynch Creek Offices will be impacted by all the fact that 40 foot trucks are to be sent down this street, as a result of this project. Response to Delivery Schedule of trucks was not adequately answered. We did not see the impact of the fact that not all trucksvwill arrive only between 6 a,m, - 7p.m. This does not apply to Long distance trucking as they arrive, when they arrive. Local Streets, not studied, was inadequately responded to in Response C-2-11. Your response did not consider "Induced Traffic" but rather only.residential traffic. Results of traffic congestion, without Rainier, will result in increased traffic congestion, especially when the full load of Regency is in place. This will send more cars off of Washington and onto McDowell looking for escape routes from congestion. There is a new App on the market called WAZE, which drivers access on their (Pads, etc., that drivers communicate with each other and send other drivers onto alternative streets. We;respectfully ask-that Rushmore, East Madison, Lauren Drive, and Prince Albert be studied. And East Washington and Maria be reconfigured for the Lack of Rainier possibility. Rushmore Ave. has no crosswalk on either end. Both Rushmore and.Prince Albert are currently difficult to make.a left turn onto Rainier Ave., in thatyou have to pull way out into the traffic, through what would be a crosswalk, if in place, in order to see oncoming traffic. This was brought up in the 1990's Rainier Interchange EIR. Janice Cader Thompson gave the City a photo of this. This should be addressed and mitigated in this FEIR. It is an impact of the increased DCV project related traffic. Your response to Emergency vehicles mobility is inadequate. Although lights, sirens, and signal pre-emption was stated, cars cannot jump off the:road and there is not enough room to pull to the sides adequately. Further, no mention was made Of residential cars parked along McDowell Blvd. being required to permanently remove their parked cars off the,street. Will this be required as was suggested by Council? Have those residents,and/or owners of those homes, been noticed of this FEIR hearing? All Traffic patterns need to be laid out to make Policy decisions. The EIR is inadequate without this. Please complete the Traffic Analysis, Recirculate, and receive Public Comment on. Flooding- We can remember when the prior City Councils, and Commissioners, spoke to this acreage being in the 100 yr. Flood Map. There were jokes by members of the Council of perhaps putting pontoons under buildings so as to create a development there. The fact that this was left off the current flood maps is an error: Please tell us why you did not find all,the evidence, following the historical designations and update the analysis related to this issue. Urban Decay- The response to this concern is inadequate. Please suggest mitigations for the possibility of the large anchor building going vacant, and creating blight. It happened to the former Petaluma Yardbirds, Home Depo. Please suggest mitigations of other stores going dark, like K-Mart, and CVS, which are likely to shutter due to this new Development. Wildlife Biological.Studies- 2 id)-3 Response C-2-8 is inadequate. This study is dated back to 2003, and,updated.by what you describe as using what you describe as the best available information,that being using a Publication'List of Species. Statement such as therefore, "unsuitable habitat", is incorrect. We ask that you have experts afforded you, on your assigned staff of the biological component, to come and look with their eyes, and binoculars, during the times of day, of visible foraging. Peregrine Falcons, for example, forage there. I believe they are on the list of species Of Concern. They also fly over the Park Place neighborhoods. They prey, amongst other critters, on other birds. One of my favorite song birds was prey...Last summer they were most active in pairs, flying over the DCV field. There are also Kites on the site. What,other species are missed are yours to find. Please address this field in a more comprehensive; on site, evaluation. ft may take a few days of visits to see all. Public Safety and Security- The response C-2-7, to concerns of increased Police being necessary, due to crime potentiality thefts of equipment off of tradesmen's trucks atHorne Improvement Centers was inadequate. Please complete your analysis/research, as to know the impacts•on required police infrastructure and public safety. This is an impact that Home Depo has in San Rafael. San.Rafael Police has a special working relationship with the Management of Home Depo. Please consult with them as to frequency, parking lot electronic monitoring, etc. Project too large for this Site.- You sent me to Topical Response 6, however,as demonstrated in this response, your documents maintain that Live/Work residential is available under this Zoning of Mixed Use. The FEIR fails to utilize this option in consideration of alternative projects. Whywas this residential not considered as a potential mitigation for traffic, air quality, etc.?The original designed project forthis site, by DSL, had a residential component. This demonstrates, in the Traffic Impact Study of dune 30, 2003, that the project then had 7,873 cars daily, having much less impacts than 10,000+ daily. General Plan Compliance- This project is out of compliance with the General Plan 2025. First, it is too Auto-centric. Topical Response 4 does not answer this concern. In this response, the city negates itself. In specific, GP Goal 5-G-7 speaks to why this project, as is current, does not fit this site enhancing quality of life and community character with nearby neighborhood. Policy 54-47 states ...efforts to preserve the peace and quiet in Residential areas should be continued. In conclusion, I ask that we all work together by sending this FEIR,back for completion, so we can then have the critical information for making the wisest choice of a sustainable development at this site, serving all of the best interests in health, wealth, and well-being for the City of Petaluma, our Residents, and our Visitors. The size, or alternatives will be the next step, once this FEIR is completed, then Heard, then Certified. Then Architectural Design decided. Then, hopefully a wise, smart development occurs in Petaluma, that even the Developers will be proud of. Sincerely, Mary Glardon and Kevin Bodwell 3 e�1#2232425262?� A5j c b tea February 27th, 2012 c{? C>>'` Zp7, 1 ( Ynr�,,.. City Council 44': W Sit City of Petaluma 11.EnglishStreet C11101,6 8 Le) Petaluma CA 94952 Hon. David Glass, Mayor, Email:daveglass @comcast.net Hon:Tiffany Renee,Vice Mayor, Email:tiff @tiffanyrenee.corn Hon. Chris Albertson,Councilmember, Email:councilman.albertson @gmail:com Hon.Teresa Barrett, Councilmember, Email: teresa4petaluma @ comcast.net Hon. Mike Harris,Councilmember, Email: rnike4pet @aol.com Hon. Mike Healy,Councilmember, Email: mthealy @sbcglobal.net Hon. Gabe Kearney, Councilmember, Email: councilmemberkearney@me.com Claire Cooper, City Clerk City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Email: cc000er @ci.petaluma.ca.us Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Clerk: I write to urge you not to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project.As a resident, I will suffer the impacts of a poorly executed or inadequately mitigated project. I believe that Petaluma PlanningCommission was correct that the Draft EIR is fatally flawed to the extent that the only appropriate solution is to re-circulate a revised Draft EIR. I agree with my fellow Petaluma residents who sit on the Planning Commission and who determined that the EIR is inadequate,because of its "failure to reconsider for CEQA purposes whether the Rainier interchange is a reasonably foreseeable future improvement;and the failure to study traffic impacts in the cumulative scenario with Rainier Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing only and no Rainier Interchange." Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final EIR. Sincerely, • John 0 eeffe 1701 Gamay Place Petaluma, CA 94954 City of Petaluma Resident A1,025262/4 ' February 27th, 2012 �� fi O ` 6g?Gl2 j City Council -' N :� s-' 4:4 City of Petaluma ;,F, �� . , 11 English Street .r��. Petaluma CA 94952 ' I.,80 g9 ' Hon. David Glass, Mayor, Email: daveglass @comcast.net Hon.Tiffany Renee,Vice Mayor, Email:`tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Hon. Chris Albertson, Councilmember, Email: councilman.albertson @gmail.com Hon.Teresa Barrett,Councilmember„Email:teresa4petaluma @comcast.net Hon. Mike Harris,Councilmember, Email: mike4pet @aol.com Hon. Mike Healy,Councilmember; Email: mthealy @sbcglobal.net Hon. Gabe Kearney,Councilmember, Email: councilmemberkearney @me:com Claire Cooper,City Clerk City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma,CA 94952 Email:cc000erPci.oetaluma,ca.us Honorable Mayor,Members of the City Council,and City Clerk: I write to urge you not to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project.As a resident, I will suffer the impacts of a poorly executed or inadequately mitigated project.I believe that Petaluma Planning Commission was correct that the Draft EIR is fatally flawed to the extent that the only appropriate:solution is to re-circulate a revised Draft EIR. I agree with my fellow Petaluma residents who sit on the Planning Commission,and who determined that the EIR is inadequate because of its "failure to reconsider for CEQA purposes whether the Rainier interchange is a reasonably,foreseeable future improvement; and the failure to study traffic impacts in the cumulative scenario with Rainier Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing-only and no Rainier Interchange.” Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final EIR. Sint , I / � •shua'Jones 222 Fifth St Petaluma, CA 94952 City of Petaluma'Resident (eD 3 1 February 27`h, 2012 �37g251?' 7�c , , Pee og) t City Council Crry�.,_ 2p72 City of Petaluma p 'r G'Ltn 11 English Street ' 1 +``�� Petaluma CA 94952 4 Hon. David Glass, Mayor, Email:daveglass @comcast.net Hon.Tiffany Renee,Vice Mayor, Email:tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Hon. Chris Albertson,Councilmember, Email:councilman.albertson @gmail:com Hon.Teresa Barrett, Councilmember„Email:teresa4petaluma @comcast.net Hon. Mike Harris, Councilmember, Email mike4pet@aol corn Hon. Mike Healy, Councilmember, Email: mthealy @sbcglobal.net. Hon.Gabe Kearney,Councilmember, Email: councilmemberkearney @me.corn Claire Cooper,City Clerk City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Email: cc000er@ci.oetaluma:ca:us Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Clerk: I write to urge you not to certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project. As.a resident, I will suffer the impacts of a poorly executed or inadequately mitigated project. I believe that Petaluma Planning Commission was correct that the Draft EIR is fatally flawed to the extent that the only appropriate'solution is to re-circulate a revised Draft EIR. I agree with my fellow Petaluma resident.who sit on the Planning Commission and who determined that the EIR is inadequate because of its"failure to reconsider for CEQA purposes whether the Rainier interchange is a reasonably foreseeable future improvement;:and the failure to study traffic impacts in the cumulative scenario with Rainier Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing only and no Rainier Interchange," F Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final EIR. Sincerely; 21` Dan Martin 112 Countrywood Court Petaluma, CA 94954 City of Petaluma Resident (PD45 Attn: Heather Hines City of Petaluma, Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94:952-2610 Re' Deer Creek Final EIR My husband and I are longtime`residents of Muir Court, which is directly across the street from the proposed Deer Creek Plaza development. Our house backs up to Professional Drive. We have several concerns about the proposed development, not the least of which is traffic: Traffic: It appears that the intersection at Professional and S. McDowell was a part of the EIR study, but not Professional Drive and Rushmore. The main entrance to the shopping center will be located at Professional Drive:and S. McDowell, and we are especially concerned that Professional Drive willbecome a.major thoroughfare as cars try to avoid N. McDowell and the East Washington intersection. We'are also very concerned about the size and tonnage of trucks using surface streets in our neighborhood. We would like to requestthat the City impose a limit on the tonnage of trucks that can use Professional and Rushmore, similar to the limits that are now posted on Baywood Drive: the limit should not preclude emergency vehicles or trucks making deliveries to.residents. We simply want to make sure that we do not have large trucks using surface streets or parked behind our homes, which does happen now. Signage: The proposed development includes a 30-foot monument pylon sign, which means that neighbors will be able to look out their windows and see a neon sign. We feel that signs of that size are simply unnecessary:and,inappropriate for a neighborhood. I have spoken to representatives of Merlon Geier about the signage and they have commented that the signage will be similar to what is currently seen along S. McDowell Blvd. It is unfortunate that the residents along McDowell,have to look out at 30-foot neon sighs.Frankly, the homes and neighborhoods along McDowell,have been marginalized by the poor design of the existing shopping centers and we see no reason to continue with that tradition. Noise and Air Quality: Nine (9) full grown trees along the center divide on N. McDowell will be removed in order to make a left hand turning lane for the entry into the shopping center at Professional Those trees provide a natural sound barrier and block the neighbor's view of the street and proposed shopping eenter. We would like to request that those nine mature trees be replaced along the sidewalks on both sides of the N. McDowell. Replacing the trees is a simple, small, and inexpensive gesture in helping to abate the sights and sounds of traffic congestion. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety: The McDowell corridor is busy with bicyclist, and pedestrians, especially along Lynch Creek and near Luchessi Park. We do feel that the proposed bike path is a good;design addition and we,are pleased to see that there will be greenery separating the bike/pedestrian pathway along_McDowell. We would like to see the bike/pedestrian pathway raised up from the street level„similar'to the pedestrian pathways along Sonoma•Mountain Parkway and.along S. McDowell near Schollenburger Park. Ideally, similar improvements to the pedestrian walkway along the east side of N. McDowell could be implemented. Residents in our neighborhood•are often portrayed,as "NIMBYS";and for that reason we feel it is important to point out that the project site was,zoned light industrial until the adoption of the new General Plan in 2008. We, like so many of our neighbors,did not buy homes next to an empty lot expecting that we would have a large retail complex across the street. When the new General Plan was adopted,the neighborhood and the City Council at that time felt that the site's current 'mixed use' designation suited The_surrounding land uses which include Petaluma Valley Hospital, Lucchesi Park, the Community Center, medical offices and the senior housing. It was the neighborhood's hope that a mixed-use site designation would mean that the development at the site would be pedestrian and bicycle friendly and that it would fit in well with the surrounding land uses. Unfortunately, it is apparentthat none of the traffic and noise impacts of a commercial development of this,size can be mitigated based on the current project design. The EIR provides mitigations-why are they not being considered as a condition of project approval? We are asking the City Council reduce the size of the retail component of the development. The smaller stores and restaurants along N. McDowell, the fitness center, offices, bank, the seasonal creek and the proposed development attributes'of out door seating and pedestrian interoperability throughout the site and fitness trail are all amenities that need to be kept. The combination of both a home • improvement center and the additional. "major anchor retail" stores simply add too many additional car trips to over crowded streets, exasperating traffic, noise and air quality issues. Finally, we are asking the City Council to remember that.the discussion Monday, February 27th, 2012 is about the project EIR and land use issues, not a public'forum for or against any particular retail chain. The environmental:impacts are the same whether there is a Lowe's or a Freidman's at the project site. We understand that the site will be developed and we are asking the City Council and Planning Commission to make it the very best development possible. The east side of town deserves more than strip malls and sound walls. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ann Kemmer Everett Pina Cc: City Clerk Petaluma Planning Commission .e,._37 UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA cp LOCAL UNION 751 rg February 27,2012 tfi AU Via Email and Hand Delivery \;'' - • "t City Council City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma CA 94952 Hon. David Glass,Mayor, Email:daveglass @comcast.net Hon.Tiffany Renee,Vice Mayor; Email:tiff @tiffanyrenee.com Hon. Chris Albertson,Councilrhember,,EmaiL councilman.albertson @gmail.com Hon.Teresa Barrett, Councilmember, Email:teresa4petaluma @comcast.net Hon. Mike Harris, Councilmember; Email: mike4pet @aol.com Hon. Mike Healy, Councilmembe, Email:.mthealy @sbcglobal.net Hon. Gabe Kearney, Councilmember,Email: councilmemberkearney @me.com Honorable.Mayor and Members'of the City Council: Carpenters Local 751 appreciates the,opportunity to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project(the Project). Local 751 represents hundreds of local construction workers and their families'who live, work,and recreate in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Local 751 members will sufferthe impacts•ofa poorly executed:or inadequately mitigated project,just as would the members of any nearby homeowners association,community group, or environmental group. After reviewing the record, including the Draft EIR,the Final EIR,and comments,submitted subsequent to the release of the FEIR, it is clear that the.Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts, even after the application of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. Further it is clear from comments as,well as the action of the Petaluma Planning Commission that the Draft EIR is fatally flawed to the extent that the only appropriate solution is to re-circulate a revised Draft EIR. Carpenters Local 751 specifically notes and concurs with expert comments from Abrams Associates that the traffic and transportation sections of the DEIR is incomplete and should be updated and recirculated.Relatedly,.we concur with the analysis from Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger that the assumption in both the FEIR and the DEIRthat the Ranier Avenue Extension will be constructed(despite significant financing'hurdles) is an Inappropriate and unsupportable assumption(that) undermines many of the document's.condusions regarding the severity of the Project's traffic impacts." We also concur with the Land Use expert analysis from Stegeman and Associates that the Draft EIR "does not consistently relate the Project EIR to the General Plan Program EIR" and that"the General 1706'Com AVENUE SANTA ROSA,CALIFORNIA 95407 • PHONE 707-545-5121 • FAX 707-545-0715 Plan consistency analysis is incomplete and inaccurate". Finally,we concur with the Planning Commission's finding that the Final EIR'.is inadequate based on the"failure to reconsider for CEQA purposes whether the Rainier interchange is a reasonably foreseeable future improvement;and the failure to study traffic impacts in the cumulative scenario with Rainier Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing only and no Rainier Interchange." Carpenters Local 751 adopts and reiterates all the substantive comments that nave been submitted to the City by the above-named parties, as well as those submitted February 23,2012 by Brigit 5. Barnes& Associates. In summary, the Deer Creek Village Final EIR fails to adequately analyze the significant impacts to a range of environmental resources; including but not limited to air quality,traffic and transportation and dismisses comments regarding significant impacts in a cursory fashion based upon flawed and/or outdated information that is not supported by substantial evidence.Carpenters Local.751 believes that the EIR must be re-drafted and'recirculated. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Final EIR. Sincerely/wig Dan McCulloch Financial Secretary 1706 CORBY AVENUE SANTA Rosa, CALIFORNIA 95407 • PHONE 707-545-5121 • FAX 707-545-0715 From: rosalie(Amore To: fih,rnnnci( Cc: Press Democrat. Subject: DeerCreek,EIR meeting on 2-27-12 Date: Sunday, February 26,2012 1:52:40 PM Dear Members of the Petaluma City Council:. On Monday evening,. February 27, 2012, the Petaluma City Council will discuss the final environmental impact report on the Deer Creek Village shopping center. A couple of groups claim the EIR is inadequate.. To them it will never be adequate because they oppose any commercial development within Petaluma's city limits. There are many of us who are less:vocal and would like to see Friedman's Home Improvement and other needed businesses move to Petaluma. The traffic will not go away whether the-shopping center is built or not. The revenue the shopping center will bring to Petaluma will be an asset. Iam for approval of the current EIR because it is no secret that Petaluma needs revenue sources to pull itself out of the financial hole it is in.and to take care of the business of improving the infrastructure and well-being of city residents and those:who live in,the nearby unincorporated areas surrounding Petaluma who use the city's resources and bring revenue to its coffers. To go into a litany of issues that needs attention is like beating a dead horse. You know what is needed to improve.the infrastructure and keep revenues within Petaluma's coffers so it can do its job and make.Petaluma the lovely place it should and can be. I, for one, shop outside. Petaluma (except for food and household products), on line and through catalogs. Most residents do what I do and the opportunity Petaluma is losing by not providing more revenue for the city is incredible. The downtown businesses will not lose business because that area is unique to the county and the area, n general. There are few businesses on Petaluma Blvd. and Kentucky Street that will compete with the shopping center and tourists will always gravitate to downtown. Thank you far your attention. I am, Rosalie Gillmore 226 Windsor Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 707-769-8826 r.gillmore @sbcglobal.net CeD From: Steven Keriimerle lmailto:nansenikanatt.netl Sent: Monday,.February 27,-2012 4:42 PM To: CDD Subject Dear Creek Village To Those Concerned Deer Creek Village with Friedman's is a must for Petaluma. Zoning,jobs,tax revenue traffic;mitigation, benefits to all.Petalumamans is a must. I moved here in Dec 72. Friedman's was always the place to go for all home improvementneeds. The veterans all remember 1946-1976 where to go when projects needed completion. I believe Friedman's has paid it's business license since 1946- 2012. I plan to voice my opinion tonight. Steve Kemmerle - PastCommender American Legion Post 28, Advisory Board Member ob the Veterans Buildings, and Veterans Day Parade Organizer for 7 years (0D—ti Original Message From: Kathy Brandal Email to:kibrandalkomcast.netj Sent: Monday; February 27, 2012 1:53 PM To: CDD Cc: daveglassOcomcast.net; teresa4petalumagcomcast.net;. councilmemierkearney(o)me.com; mike4pet(thaol.com; mthealy @sbcgloba1.net; councilman:albertsonOemail.cor; tiffOtiffanyrenee:com; info{kdeercreekproject.com Subject: DEER CREEK VILLAGE To All: If you are against this project it is time to give. up on your personal agendas and okay the Deer Creek Village Project. If you have been in support of the project, please stand ,your ground as the majority of the citiiens of Petaluma are behind you Air quality will be better with the project as ,100's of cars will not be driving north and south' on 'the freeway to purchase materials that will be available at Deer Creek Village. We need this NOW without further delays. We need JOBS, SALES TAX REVENUE and the OPPORTUNITY TO SHOP IN PETALUMA. WE SUPPORT DEER CREEK .VILLAGE AND THE RETURN OF FRIEDMAN BROS. TO PETALUMA - 100%! Tom Brandal Kathy Brandal 25 Douglas Street Petaluma 94952 • 707-763-7495 From: Danielle Couch'Jmailto:DCouch @Ontrac.comj Sent: Monday, February27, 2012 10:28 AM To: CDD Cc: info @deercreekdroiect:com; Cherry Palaces; davecilass @comcastnet; teresa4petaluma @comcast net, councilmemberkearney @me.com; mike4net @aol corn, • mthealy @sbcglobal.net; coundlman.albertson©gmail.com;tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Subject: Deer Creek Project Dear Petaluma City Council Members, I am a private citizen of Petaluma,:and am NOT part or any special interest group. I am sending this email to the council because I am unable to buy lumber in Petaluma to repair my fence. The environmental impact report has been vetted by the EIR company-the City hired.The city hired the EIR Company because they believed they were expert in ERI reporting. There should be no reason not to approve the Deer Creek project tonight. The council should applaud Friedman's for filling the void of Lowes, for being a long term good citizen, and for future job creation. And as far as the mayors concerns.about pollution. I believe driving my F15O truck to "Novato Lumber Company" for fencing boards and 4x4 post is more polluting causing then picking up supplies in town. Lastly, I would like to remind the council that Friedman's is a major sponsor of the Butter and Eggs Day parade. A'parade that lost funding from our cash.poor city. Wouldn't it be nice to get residual tax monies from a anchor tenant like Freidman's? Maybe in the future the City can pitch in and help subsidize our town parade. Please know citizens want the Deer Creek Project to be approved! Sincerely, Danielle Couch 419 Sheldon Street Petaluma,CA 94952 707.762.6677 Ace Yurth jmailto:aceshirt @comcast.neti Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 8:45 AM To: CDD Cc: info @deercreekproiect.com Subject: Deer Cree Village Project • Please approve the EIR for the Deer Creek Village project. ACE ACE SHIRT & CAP PRINTING 1130 INDUSTRIAL AVE STE 11 PETALUMA, CA 94952 707.789.9398 www.aceshirt.com Hines, Heather From: ODD Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:54 AM • To: Hines,'Heather Subject: FW: support for the Deer Creek EIR Certification From: Onita Pellegrini fmailto:onitap @petalumachamber.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:53 AM To: Crump, Katie; CDD Subject: FW: support for the Deer Creek EIR Certification Onita Pellegrini, CEO Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce 6 Petaluma Blvd., Suite A2 Petaluma, CA 94952 707-762-2785 The Voice of Business From: Anthy O'Brien Jmailto:anthy©topspeeddata.comj Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012,9:57 PM To: Onitap@petalumachamber.com Subject: support for the Deer Creek EIR Certification I support the EIR Certification. Please pass on to the City Council. Thanks. Anthy O'Brien President & CEO Top Speed Data Communications Inc. 707.283.2710 ext 727 www.topspeeddata.corn 1 From: eamonn.burns @hotmail.com fmailto:eamonn.burins @hotmail.coml Sent: Tuesday,February 28, 2012 8:09 PM To: CDD Subject: Deer creek. Please vote in favour of Friedmans. We need the jobs and contractors like myself need a local store. Thank you. Eamonn Burns Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless • (i1)-6g, From: Andrea Christensenf mailto:andrea(enallstarwest:coml Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:51 PM To: CDD Cc infoOdeercreekproiect.com Subject: Deer Creek Project Dear City Council: As a small business owner in Petaluma, lam asking you to please make theDeer Creek Project become a reality while being cognizant'of the needs/concerns of the property owners'in the vicinity of the project. While haying our offices remodeled a few years ago, it was:disheartening to have to go to Rohnert Park or Santa Rosa to shop for building materials since the local hardware stores did not carry all of the materials needed. The tax dollars that will remain'ih Petaluma and the jobs created by this development are necessary to keep our community viable. Thank you for your consideration. Andrea Christensen-owner Andrea l., enristensen Allstdr Vilest attorance Services Rd 622 Petal one Blvd. N. Petaluma.CA P1452 .-,.tsa,se#UG5312 707 /6 2-4 20'7 or 4t4 SAh`i100x2Q7 707-762-4721 fox Coverage cannot be bound or changed nged vi , email,voce rt<sll-or fax--you mu:t speak to one of our licensed agents pe oea'ly and our tnsurance carnets nets m -st confirm coverage or changes.Before they go into affect. Electronic nic mail disclaimer: This cyan and any files transmitted with it may contain cons dentia and/or privileged material. This email is intended solely for the use of the individual and/or entity ity to whore it is addressed. If you are not the intended reci gent or have received this deaf in error, please notify the sender immedia ely'by replying to the sender and the^delete this'ernail from your computer system. Be aware:tat any ut ,uthorited disclosure. disv e n incti on; cistnbuticn;duplication i.ation n use of the email contents or any attachments therein,is strictly prohibited, From: KSz fmailto:kszdvm©amail.coml Sent: Saturday; March 24, 2012 6:18 PM To: CDD Cc: davealass @comcast:net;councilman albertson @gmail:com; teresa4oetaluma @comcast.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; mike4pet 0aol:com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Subject: Yes to Friedman's in Petaluma We live on 7th Street and use Tomasini's Ace. But for bigger projects we drive up to Friedman's in Santa Rosa. If putting in a.big hardware store in Petaluma, let itbe a local one like Friedman's. They are also more likely to hire knowledgeable staff compared to big box stores, and we all appreciate that, right? Voting with our pocketbooks'bysupporting locally-based businesses and boycotting big box stores, Katherine & Jared Katherine Szabo, DVM From: Louis Rose fmailto:todkinq @comcast.netl Sent: Monday, March26, 2012 2:03 PM To: CDD Cc daveglass@comcast.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; teresa4petaliima @comcast.net; mike4pet @aol.com; mthealt @sbcglobal.net; councilman.alberts @gmail.com; tiff@tiffanvrenee.com; info @deercree kproject.com Subject: Deer Creek Village I want to add my name to what I hope is a very long list of Petaluma residents who support the economic and other benefits,that would flow from approval of the Deer Creek village project. New jobs, expansion of the tax base, bringing new and desirable businesses to our town (particularly Friedman"s) ---what's not to like??? I, along with my family, have lived in Petaluma for almost 25 years. We typically take visitors on a tour of our town and poiritout, with considerable pride, the many enhancements that have been instituted in the last several years; particularly, the newer portions of downtown. The Deer Creek Village project represents yet another opportunity to ensure the future prosperity and growth of this terrific community. I personally see no substantial downside to approval of the Deer Creek Village project. I understand that I am not privy to the many complex issues that arise,with such an undertaking. With that understanding, if the Council decides against the project's approval, I hope that your rationale for such a decision is,presented to the community in clear and precise language without the technical jargon so often associated with a complex decision making process. I appreciated this opporturity to present my views on this issue and would welcome any insights you, as a Council or individually, would like to share. Thank you. Cep-Leg From: Butch.Smith [mailto:the.keeper©sbcglobal.netl Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 9:33 PM To: Chris Albertson; Teresa Barrett; CDD; David Glass;'Mike Harris; Mike Healy; Gabe Kearney; Tiffany Renee Subject: This Monday Night you will prove your Worth Deer Creek has been on the books since 2007 and here it is 2012. This city needs many many things starting with Street Repairs and Street Light Repairs: As you probably know, it's hard to duck a pot hole in the Dark... This is your time to shine and finally get a "Tax Basin" from the citizens of Petaluma. Time to start bringing retail to Petaluma instead of giving it to Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa and Novato.... Your friends in the East would love you to not approve this project where they can sell morefuel to our citizens... S000do, is it time to approve this Shopping Center or come up with more conditions not to approve it. My personal beliefs are you all have run out of reasensto NOT APPROVE IT_ I could use a job in this town... After being laid off from the City of Petaluma in 2008 after 34-years of honorable service.... Butch Smith, alias "The Keeper" CD U From: Louis Rose fmailto:tgdkincOcomcast.netj Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 2:03 PM To: CDD Cc: daveglass(thcomcast.net; councilmemberkearneyC hme.com;;teresa4oetalumaCalcomcast.net; mike4pet©aol.com; mthealt@sbcglobal.net; councilman.alberts@grnail:com; tiff©tiffanvrenee.com; i nfo©deercree koroiect.com Subject: Deer Creek Village I want to add my name to what I hope is a very long list of Petaluma residents who support the economic and other benefits that would flow from approval of the Deer Creek village project. New jobs, expansion of the•taxbase, bringing new and desirable businesses to our town (particularly Friedman°s)--- what's not to like??? I, along with my family, have lived in Petaluma for almost 25 years. We typically take visitors on a tour of our town and point out, with considerable pride, the many enhancements that have been instituted in the last several years; particularly, the newer portions of downtown. The Deer Creek Village project,represents yet another opportunity to ensure the future prosperity and growth of this terrific community. I personally see no substantial downside to approval of the Deer Creek Village project. I understand that I am not privy to the many complex issues,that arise with such an undertaking. With that understanding, if the.Council decides against the project's approval, I'hope°that your rationale for such a decision is presented to the community in clear and precise language without the technical jargon„so often associated with a complex decision making process. I appreciated this opportunity to present my views on this issue and would welcome any insights you, as a Council or individually, would like to share. Thank you. IJG I / ` From: james page Jmailto:jimmvmio(thvahoo.coml Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:45 PM To: CDD Cc:'.infor@deercreekproject.com Subject: deer creek We'd all love.a Friedman's here in Petaluma but this project is too large and in the wrong place. Is this not in the middle of the flood plain? And Ranier- give me a break. It'is completely irresponsible to base traffic estimations on this "phantom" connector. JP • Sent By.: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; ATTACHMENT 7 y`pA,1Es}£CALff0AN1A=HUBn4EB :71048POflAtZON AND HOUSING AG N(.'1' .. EDMUND G.BROWN Or t]o4nxnvn DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . .: 111 GRAND'AVENUE -;n�' P.O. BOX 23860 r "" .� OAKLAND,CA.04623-0660 Flex your pour! PHONE(610).286-6541 Be entr6y efficient! FAX(510)286-5559 TTY 711 December 30, 2011 RECEIVED JAN n o 2012 SON101893 SON-101-4.76 SCH 2004092093 Ms.Heather Hines COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma,CA 94952-2610 • Dear Ms.Hines: Deer Creek Village—Final Environmental Impact Report(FEW) Thank you for continuing tolinclud&he California Department of Transportation(Department)in the environmental review process`for the pmposedproject. In review of the responses to our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR),kwe"r'emain concerned over the establishment of a baseline for traffic analysis,accounting for traffic added to congested facilities and coordination with the Department regarding stormwater management, in particular the use of our drainage facilities at the East Washington Boulevard Interchange. Baseline for Analysis In our comments on the-DEIR.we stated that references to the State's economic downturn and its, impact on traffic volume do not relieve the responsibility to use current traffic data,instead of traffic data from 2007. In consideration of your FEIRresponse regarding 2007 numbers as the more conservative approach, it is still necessary to account for traffic added to the area by projects between 2007 and the present as the baseline for analysis. For exatnple,ahe nearby East Washington Place project(Notice of Determination [NOD] filed 9123/2011)adds traffic generated by 362,000 square feet of retail uses and 16,000 square feet of office space,with approximately 1,500 parking spaces. As requested throughout your CEQA process,we urge you to actively consult with us to address details of analysis;our highway projects are based on performance measures before and after construction. The responsibility to account for project impacts and addrrt traffic to the mainline will fall on the California taxpayers if not the proponents of projects that make our highway hiqnovements necessary. Accounting for Added 7kqffic to Congested Facilities Discussion of traffic additions to congested highway facilities should not be discussed in terms of • percentage of capacity. •When traffic is forecast to be over 80%of capacity, a meaningful discussion of volume throughput and travel time becomes necessary..,This will describe the planned disruption to circulation and potential safety concerns, including on and at local roadways I 'Coltrane improver mobility won California' • Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; Dec-30-11 10:50AM; Page 2/2 Ms.Heather Hines/City of Petaluma December 30,2011 Page.2 and intersections. In the future,please consult with us on appropriate methods to address additions to congested facilities. Coordination with the Department on Stammerer Management .: The Department is required to adhere to certain standards for runoff and drainage as is the City of Petaluma. The use of the 54"cross-culvert programmed into the East Washington Boulevard Interchange project will require the issuance of an encroachment permit by the Department,and will be subject to conditions established for the purpose of us meeting our obligations under applicable law. If the water volumes added to out facilities exceed standards required of us,the City will be responsible for funding,the necessary upgrade. As implied where your document states that additional measures and appropriate detenninations will be assessed as the project is further developed,we will require active consultation between the City,my office and Department units engaged with the East Washington-Boulevard Interchange Project to establish specific thresholds and determinations on whether and how to move forward with the use of our drainage. Should you have any questions regarding this letter,please call me at(510)286-5541 or Connery Cepeda of my staff at(510)286-5535, Sincerely, • GARY ARNOLD ... . District Branch Chief Local Development/fntergovemmental Review c: Scott Morgan(State Clearinghouse) • • • • 'Caldron.,improves nobility acrose California' . ' Z ATTACHMENT 8 Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIC PLANNING; 510 286 5560; Feb-27.12 1:term; ESTATE OF CAWFOANIA—BUSINESS:TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY EnMVNTGSOWN Jr:Gmem j ;DEPA�tTMVYENT C S TRANSPORTATION \23.GRANb AVENUE •P.O.80X 2866.0 04,1 OAICLANP;'CA 94623:0660 Flex your power! PHONE(510)286-5541 Se energy efficient! FAX(510)286-5559 February 27,2012 l • SON101893 SON-101-4.76 SCii2004092093 Ms:IieatftieY Hines•- CityofPetaluma .: 11 English Street .• Petaluma:CA 94952=2610' . . Dear Ms.Hines:: Doti-Creek Village Iliad F nvirorimetttalliii ipattReport(FEIR)'=Meeting'Surnmary Thank you for speaking;with us on February 13,2012,regardingthe California Department of Transportation's (Department),comnients on the FEIR.for the proposed Deer Creek Village project; The fallowing is a summary of our understanding of the issues as a result of our conference call. Hydraulics No storm water from the.project will be diverted to State;drainage facilities or right-of-way (ROW). Because no construction:or,physical improvementa are necessary,or.proposed within the US-101 ROW,-no encroachrnentpermit from the Department will,therefore,be necessary, It was explained:that the project proposes to drain runoff from the site through the existing 54-inch culvert under US 101 which drains`the project site The applicant's Civil Engineer prepared a hydrology analysts;indicating that the existing culvert has ample'capacity to handle the proposed increase in flow from the Deer Creek Village;project. Additionally,the City of Petaluma(City)has a proposed condition of approvat requiring on-silt storm water. of the 100-year event should the final storm water calculations submitted with construction drawings show the need to. do so. The preliminaryhydrology"analysis further indicated that on-sitedetention should,probably be avoided because the timing of the release of the detained storm'water may increase downstrearn river flows: .The•project(hydro'logyanalyses were provided to the Department The ownership of •heexisting'.54-inch culvert and data-regarding..potential easements'are unverified. We will continue to collaborate with the City of Petaluma to identify these andadtlress appropriately. HtghwayOperahftas . For the traffic impact analysis,it was clarttiedthat 1. the Fxistrng,Conditions for the project was based on 2007 traffic:counts, .. .., 2. the Existi.FYg.pius:P.ipeline plus:Project Conditions includes traffic from all approved projects, and 'Caitrone improuca mobility across Califbrnfa' 2 _ f Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 2B6 55G0; Feb-27-12 3:23PM; Page 1/1 Ms. Heather.Hines/City.ufPetaluma February 27,2012 Page 2 3. the Cumulative Conditions analysis was based on a buildoutscenario for the City's'General Plan 2025, approved in 2008. This is sufficient for our need's on this project, Traffic Impact Study For future projects that may potentially impact.the State highway system(e.g.US-101 and,State Route 116),the Department requests.that the City expand its discussiomof traffic'impacts to include other parameters such as number of trips,seconds.of delay,and,queue lengths, instead:of simply expressing added traffic in terms of percentage.ofcapacity. We recommend using`the Department's Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for determining which scenarios and methodologies to use in the analysis;the guide 4:available at the following website address;. http://www.dot.ea.gov/ligltraffons/developsery/opetatinnal systemslreportShis gut de.pdf. The City agreed to consult with the Department before finalizing the scope of work for Traffic Impact Studies for future projects:that could potentially impact state facilities. This will allow the Department to ensure that the appropriate highway segments and;intersections/interchanges are studied. Should you have any questions regarding this letter,.please call Connery.Cepeda of my staff at (510)286-5535. Sincerely, • GARY ARNOLD Digtn Branch Chief . Local Development t—Intergovernmental Review Meeting Attendees: City of Petaluma: Heather Hines,Deputy Planning Manager Curt Bates,'City Engineer/F1ood'PlainAdministrator Department: Lee Taubeneck,Deppry'District Director,Transportation Planning d'Local Assistance Jean Finney,Office Chief 1Transit.and Community:Planning :,; Gary.Arnold, Branch'Chief.Local Development—Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Connery Cepeda,Associate Transportation Planner,LD-IGR • 'Caaran9 improvee mob iUb'peruse Cati/ornia' V /� ATTACHMENT 9 STATE OF! Al IFORNIA—HUSa aSS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSIN G A EN Y EDMUND(1,BROWN Ic.Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �it% I I i GRAND AVENUE tr.— P.O.BOX 23660 , ' OAKLAND.CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510)286-590? Flex your power'. FAX (510)286-6301 TTY 711 Be energy efficient' I ' Februza-v.22, 2012 RECEIVED Mr. Curt Bates FEB 2 7 2012 City Engineer City of Petaluma PLANNING DIVISION 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Mr. Bates: • Early last week I participated in a telephone conference between-you,Ms. Heather Hines of the City of Petaluma's(City),PlanningDepartment,and MS:Jean Finney and Mr.Gary Arnold of my Community Planning Office. The focus of the discussion was the City's response to the California Department of Transportation(Department) comments on the Deer • Creek FEIR. During-the conversation Gary asked you about;the;status of the Rainier Interchange with State Route 101. In response,you referenced providing$7.5 million to Sonoma County Transportation Authority(SCTA)towards an iundercrossing structure,and the collection of trafficiimpact fees_fop the completion of the Rainier Cross Town Connector (RCTC)beneath StateRoiite(SR) 101. • A chronology of events as they relate to the proposed Rainier AvenueIC is pertinent. In August 2009,the City submitted:a Technical Memorandum which claimed to address the • .non-standard interchange spacing for the proposed new interchange. In September 2009,the Department shared a draft'letter outlining reservations it had about the City's Technical • Memorandum. In November 2009,,a meeting was held in which a consensus emerged between the City, SCTA and the Department on re-validating the'Marin-Sonoma Narrows (MSN)environmental=document to include an undercrossing;structure at Rainier Avenue (see -attached minutes). In'late December,2009,the Department concuired in the choice made by the City to suspend work on the Rainier Avenue IC pending completion of a P-SR;for the RCTC(see attached copy). . Hence,while extensive efforts have repeatedly;been made by the City to justify either ramps • ' or an interchange at Rainier ue,at this time the Department still`needs'considerable . information before either ramps or an interchange can be deenied acceptable. Despite the need for more information,:the City appears to be going forward withproperty reservation as part'of the Deer Creek project for future improvements. One,item of concern is whether.the • ROTC PSR now being prepared will address these concerns:•Perhaps of more immediate . importance,,the City .t should realize may be reserving property for improvements that never materialize. • • "Caltrans improves mobility across California" - • • • d-1 Mr. Curt Bates February 22;2012 Page 2 There were other comments from Ms. Finney and Mr. Arnold which are being forwarded separately. Collectively,they should be considered as part of the comments from the Department. Should you need to discuss this more fully; can be reached at(510)286-5908. Sincerely, LEE TAUBENECK,M.S.,P.E. Deputy District Director, Transportation Planning and Local Assistance • Attachment • • • • "Caliranx Improves mobifl7y across Gagmen" , . • f _� Thomsen, Leslie From: Eric Schen[eric_schen @dot.ca.gov[ Sent: Wednesday, May 1.1, 2011 5:35 PM To: slackie@ ci.petaluma.ca.us; fnugyen @ci:petaluma:ca.us;jmaitlal @sctainfo.org; guy @gcpreston com; connie valicooper corn; Melanie Brent Doanh'Nguyen; Patrick Pang; Mike (SON-101 Robert'Blanco; issen,Ramsey; Williams, David;Wajahat Nyaz; Betcy Joseph Subject: ): DIRECTION - RESULT OF 5/11/11 MEETING After recent consultations and discussions among various members of the group at different times, a brief meeting was held today to confirm direction of City'of Petaluma's US.101/Rainier Undercrossing Project. The following six key points highlight the agreed upon direction: 1. City of Petaluma must clear environmentally entire Rainier Undercrossing Project's footprint completely on their own with an EIR, inclusive of area within State RAN. 2. Rainier EIR can assume structure at;Rainier/101,as pre-existing condition prior to constructing the Rainier Project. 3. MSN C2 can have design.variations, such as filler structure, over future Rainier crossing. 4. Design variations can be addressed'in a supplemental project report for MSN C2 at the appropriate time. 5. PSR would notbe the appropriate document for the portion of the Rainier.Project within State R/W as its estimated• capital cost from URS is under$1M. 6. A PEER would be the appropriate process for projects between $1M to$3M with Design Oversight, and a simple Encroachment Permit for projects under r$1 M. As to exactly when the supplemental project.report should commence is still subject to further discussion, although approval of said document should coincide.with approval of Rainier's EIR. Tentative schedule estimate provided by URS for completion of Rainier's EIR is end of 2012. Also, Department will not be circulating'the draft PSR for the US 101/Rainier UC Project within StateR/W submitted by URS as this`is no longer needed. • Please let me know if there are additional comments or edits needed to clarify further what is stated above as some of the members were not present at the meeting. Thanks all for your patience. Eric Schen • Project Manager, Proj: Mgmt. North Bay • (510) 286-4785 voice . (510)622-5460 fax • • • • • • • • q--3 ATTACHMENT 10 Original Messagei From: Lee Taubeneck; Imailto:lee taubeneck@dot.ca:govl Sent:. Friday„ March,-16, 20122:13 PM To: Zimmer, Larry Cc: Bates, Curtis; Eric 'Schen; Betcy Joseph; patrick.panadot.ca.gov Subject: Re: FW: Hi Larry, My reference to a Rainier PSR 'now being prepared' was based on information that Curt provided during the telephone conference call that I referred to during the week of February 13. I have no independent knowledge of a PSR being prepared there. I was also not aware of the six point agreement nor the 5/11/11 meeting you reference in your note of March 7. Although there is currently no funding for this segment, in any construction scenario MSN-C2 must go first in order to accomodate any local features due, to raising the grade of the mainline freeway. I believe this is one reason why the SCTA Board approved the study of a structural alternative this past Monday at the location corresponding to the cross town connector. - - Lee "Zimmer, Larry"<lzimmer @ci.petaluma.ca.us> To 'Lee' <Lee. TaubeneckOdot.'ca_gov>, 03/07/2012 12:17 PM cc "eric schen(mdot.ca:gov"<eric sthen(mdot.ca_gov> "'Williams, David david_a.will-iemsPurs.com>, "Bates, Curtis" <CBATES(olci.petaluma,ca.us> Subject FW: Hello Lee (and Eric), The first attachment above is. the February 22, 2012 letter you sent to Curt Bates at the City of Petaluma regarding the Rainier project. In that letter, it refers to the Rainier Cross Town Connector PSR "now being prepared" . It is my understanding that the PSR for the cross town connector is not wanted by Caltrans. The second attachment is from a meeting where this was discussed and sent by Eric. The City did draft a PSR for the RCTC at our expense and was then directed not to I need to understand if your letter is in error, or the City's understanding of what is needed. Thank you both. Larry Larry Zimmer, P.E. Capital Improvements Division Manager City of Petaluma lO -4 Public Works and Utilities Department 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 707:776.3674 • Mon:--Thor. 8-5; Closed Fridays P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. [attachment "doc20120307111522.pdf" deleted by. Lee Taubeneck/D04/Caltrans/CAGov] Message from ".Lackie, Sue" <IMCEAEX- O=CPMAIL+200RG1_OU=FIRST +20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP CN=RECIPIENTS CN=SLACKIEOci.petaluma.ca.us> on Thu, 12 May 2011 06:53:57 -0700 To: "Zimmer, Larry" <lzimmer(ici,petaluma.ca.us> Subjec FW: 4A430 (SON-101 RAINIER UC): DIRECTION - RESULT OF 5/11/11 t: MEETING FYI Original Message From: Eric Schen [mailto:eric schenOadot.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, .2011. 5:35 PM To: Lackie, Sue; fnugyenPci.petaluma..ca.us; imaitlalPsctainfo.org; guyftcpreston.com; connie(mvalicooper.com; Melanie Brent; Doanh Nguyen; Patrick Pang; Mike Thomas; Robert Blanco; ramseyhissen8aurscorp.com; david williamsPurscorp.com; Wajahat Nyaz; Betty Joseph Subject: 4A430 (SON-101 RAINIER UC): DIRECTION - RESULT OF 5/11/11 MEETING After recent consultations and discussions among various members of the group at different times, a brief :Meeting was held today to confirm direction of City of Petaluma's US 101/Rainier Undercrossing Project. The following six key points highlight the agreed upon direction: 1. City of Petaluma must clear environmentally entire Rainier Undercrossing Project's footprint completely on their own with an EIR, inclusive of area within State R/W. 2. Rainier EIR can assume structure at Rainier/101 as pre-existing. condition prior to constructing the Rainier Project. 3. MSN C2 can have design variations, such as fill or structure, over future Rainier crossing. 4. Design variations can be addressed in a supplemental project report for MSN C2 at the appropriate time. 5. PSR would not be the appropriate document for the portion of the Rainier Project within State R/W as its estimated capital cost from URS is under $1M. Ib ---ar 6. A PEER would be the appropriate process for projects between $1M to $3M with Design Oversight, and a simple Encroachment Permit for projects under $1M. As to exactly when the 'supplemental project report should commence is still subject to further discussion, although; approval of said document should coincide with approval of Rainier's EIR: Tentative schedule estimate provided by URS for completion of Rainier's EIR is end of 2012. Also, Department will not be circulating the draft PSR for the US 101/Rainier UC Project within State R/W submitted by URS as this is no longer needed. Please let me know if there are additional comments or edits needed to clarify further what is stated above as some of the members were not present at the meeting. Thanks all for your patience. Eric Schen Project Manager, Proj. Mgmt. North Bay (510) 286-4785 voice (510) 622-5460 fax lb- ATTACHMENT 11 From:Janet Spilman fmailto:JSPILMAN(Thsctainfo.orgl Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 3:42 PM To: Zimmer, Larry Cc: Suzanne Smith Subject: RE: Rainier Hi Larry, You are correct.The RTP/SCS officially plans for the time period between 2013 and 2040. The RTP will be updated again in 2017 and again every 4 years, at which time new projects can be added. Janet Janet Spilman Deputy Director, Planning & Public Outreach SCTA IRCPA "707-565-5371 707-565=53701- www.sctainfo.org ATTACHMENT 12 Deer Creek Village located at McDowell and Rainier Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory (PBAC) Planner: Derek Farmer CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.DATED June 2, 2010- proposed by . Subcommittee for full PBAC consideration at June 9, 2010 meeting Notes to Planner: the PBAC wants to aclmowledge the efforts of this applicant to meet with the PBAC to review and discuss proposed plans. PBAC commends the applicant for listening to PBAC concerns at the several meetings where this project was on die agenda for discussion and for including comments, concerns and modifications to plans recommended by PBAC and the Public Works dept. These are the first set of actual COAs prepared by PBAC for this project,after reviews of this application in July 2009,December 2009,January 2010 and May 2010. All comments and COAs contained herein are based on the plans:dated April 12,2010 as stamped by die Public Works Dept. Bicycle Parking (Section 20-300, Article 20, Zoning Ordinance) Plans show 150 bicycle racksprovided, 80 covered and 70 uncovered. PBAC approves of these racks in the amounts and locations`shown,and recommends same as condition of approval., PBAC notes that Bicycle Parking has been moved away from trash receptacles as requested PBAC notes approves of widely dispersed bicycle parking on the plans and the inclusion of separate racks serving individual buildings. Applicant has supplied post and loop bike racks designs for use in the project, on plans labeled M/SA-05,.,which meet City standards. Applicant is encouraged to use a variety of rack models and styles with artistically interesting designs;,showing creativity and reflecting the character of the city and complementing die building designs;whilemeetingcity specs. Whenever possible,Applicant shall locate racks near doors and with adequate lighting. Class I Shared Use Pathways (BPP Policy 1 Program C,Policy 11) PBAC notes placement and conditions the project with a minimum 10 ft wide Class I shared path along entire frontage of project shown on plans:We commend Applicant's solution here to create a useable shared path appropriate for multiple users,offering some offset from McDowell,with some architectural interest while creating safe passage along the project'sfrontage. PBAC recommends . signage at drive and street entrances to the project alerting vehicle traffic to Class I users. PBAC notes the deteriorated condition of the Class I on east side of McDowell,which should be improved to ease bike/ped traffic in both directions. PBAC was advised. this project could not be conditioned with.Class I-improvements along both sides of McDowell. For this reason;PBAC recommends'that in the future;the City earmark funding for improvement of Class I on east side of McDowell. PBAC notes and approves of the inclusion of a minimum 8 ft wide Class I shared use paths along both sides of"Deer Creek"and the loop path around the dog walk area,which shall be a condition of approval. Further we note and approve,ofthe 8 ft:DGpathway shown on the plan at the back of die Majors connecting_with Lynch Creek Way,which shall,be.elevated 4from the adjacent parking area by 6 inches. Applicant shall be responsible in perpetuity for proper installation to ensure long-term usability and providing proper maintenance of the DG path,which PBAC notes requires special 12-1 attention. PBAC recommends signage at drive and street entrances to the project alerting users to the existence of the Class,I paths especially the route behind the Majors,to Lynch Creek Drive Class II facilities,which lead.to the Lynch Creek cross town connecting path. Class II Bicycle Facilities A Class II bike facility shall be installed along both sides of Lynch Creek Way,as agreed to by applicant at PBAC May meeting. Additionally,vehicle parking shall be prohibited along Lynch Creek Way. Inclusion of these'Class'IlTacilities.will provuide cyclists;especially commuters and through traveling cyclists with a safer,more direct route to Lynch Crk Trail,than using the Class I along the frontage. Applicant shall install Class IL facilities:along its entire frontage of Rainier Avenue. Intersection Improvements (BPP Policy 1 Program E,Policy 8 Program B) Applicant shall install full intersection improvements at theintersection of Professional Dr. and McDowell Blvd..North.Where not already present,,the applicant shall`install intersection improvements at Rainier andMcDowellBlvd.North-Additional intersection improvements at these locations,or any other intersection or location shall be installed as determined through the project review/environmental analysis:. PBAC notes and includes as.a condition of approval crosswalks shown on plans at south side of Major 1 and Lynch Creek Way,near Fitness,across parking lots between Shops D and Grocery, southern exit from project turning right onto McDowell etc.;Applicant shall used articulated and colored pavement in all of these-areas. To enhance safe pedestrian,access to the project's McDowell frontage/village aspect of the project adjacent to "Shop C and Medical Building 2",clearly defined crosswalks,signage and barricades shall be installed to guide pedestrians. Through Travel All walkways within the project shall'be 6 f wide minimum;to the:greatest extent.feasible. Sidewalks shall be installed on Rainier Avenue along the project frontage. Pedestrian-friendly Infrastructure (BPP Policy 5,Policy 8) PBAC notes and approves of the 3'"separate, designated walkways to be installed in the parking areas in front of the Majors as shown on the plans. These walkways shall be constructed with raised/colored pavement to;provide safe convenient passage for shoppers/peds in the east/west directions from Major 1 to the'Medical Office building and from Major 1's garden center to Shops B and Major 3 to Shops A. This is necessary to reduce conflict between peds and vehicles,as there is considerable pedestrian exposure to vehicle traffic in this very large parkediarea. PBAC requires signage to alert both motorists and pedestrians to safer passage for all These walkways must have a minimum'clearance width of six(6) feet(after consideration of vehicle overhang)but ideally 8 ft if can be accommodated,between parked cars to allow movement of shoppers with carts and ped/strollers. Applicant is advised to work with Public Works department to identify the most elegant solution io this concern,.which may include wheel stops or similar method. Signs • Applicant shall prepare a•signage plan for review by:Public Works and (do you want this to come back to the committee?) addressing safety and direction-to other points of interest/significance in the area Of importance is to ensure signs are installed to alert motor vehicle traffic to bike/ped use of the Class facilities and pointsof intersection. Install signs at intersection of Rainier and McDowell alerting cyclists to use the Class I shared facility instead of riding in the street. At Buildings Major 1,2 and 4,install signs indicating"employee and truck delivery passage only"to prevent public traffic from going to the west side of retail buildings. This is necessary to reduce the number of vehicle/bicyclist/ped interactions. Install signs at rear of project alerting through truck traffic to peds/bicyclists using the Class I DG pathway to Lynch Creek Drive. Install stop signs from both directions on frontage drives along all sets of retail buildings. Public Transit Accommodations (BPP pg36,83) Install bus stops along McDowell if consistent with SCTA plans/polices;consider running the route to bring transit users into the project along the road between shops. Glare-free Lighting (BPP Policy 17 Program E) Ensure good quality lighting.guiding the way to and near exterior bike rack/lockerlocations,at the dog-walking loop, along the Class'I behind Major 3 and 4,along the Class I at the rear of the Majors and along Deer Creek. All exterior lighting shall provide a "soft wash"of light against the wall and shall be hooded and directed downward with no direct glare into bicyclists/peds eyes and shall conform to city standards. Employee Showers/Lockers/Amenities (Section 20-1200,Article 20,Zoning Ordinance) City code requires employee showers and'lockes are required for retail spaces,over 10,000.square feet.Applicant's plans list 4 employee showers. However,PBAC notes-that there are 6 buildings exceeding 10,000 sq ft. (not including the fitness building,which must have a separate set of showers 1 for men/women customers. All buildings within this project that are 10,000 sq ft or more,shall have at least one shower,per,City standards.Buildings that are 10,000sq ft or more and then divided to accommodate more than onetenant,shall have shared showers accessible to all tenants to encourage employees to use their bicycles to get to work'orallow them-to shower after exercise to comply with the spirit of the city code. PBAC notes and approves of inclusiomof showers for Professional Offices. Benches & Drinking Fountains Water fountains,accessible to people and'their dogs/service animals are needed: At the dog walking loop,along the Class I along Deer Creek,in the plaza areas between Professional Building and-Medical Office,Between ShopsA and B,and near Restaurant A. Benches'•shall be installed along Deer Creek,at the dog-walking loop and behind Major 3 and 4. Ample outdoor"seating shall be provided with benches or through other means at Professional Building and Medical Office,Between A,B and C,and near Restaurant A,and in areas • II• expected to be used!'for:farmer's markets. Incentives.to Walk/Bicycle/Transit to Work 'Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy,Applicant shall provide a simple one-page document to the city naming a designated "transportation coordinator" describing specific incentives for employees to walk,bicycle or to take transit,thereby encouraging alternatives to driving cars to this site. Examples include lending-bicycles for short errands,monetary or other rewards for not driving, discounts for bicycling,formation of groups of employees who pledge to bicycle,walk, carpool or ride transit at least once a week,etc. Applicant shall comply.with Municipal Code 11.90." To reduce GHG emissions,delivery trucks,contractors and persons using the drive up to Major 1 for construction'material loading shall be prohibited Erom running their engines. Signage shall be installed to instruct motorists'to turn off their engines while loading/unloading. Delivery trucks serving all of the buildings within the project shall be required to turn off engines while loading/unloading. Measures to reduce automobile trips should be implemented,thus reducing mobile source emissions (Green House Gas Emission reduction). Measures should include:. Developing a rideshate ro n am that would be implemented implementedhy all future employers. Providing protected,secure,and convenient bicycle parking for employees at all uses within the project. Providing a shower and locker facility for site employees who bicycle or walk. Providing short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other non-commute trips that would be more convenient than auto parking.. Providing safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to all uses on the site."