Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6ALate1 09/14/2009Padovan, Deborah From: Diane Reilly Torres [dreillytorres@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:55 AM To: Padovan, Deborah Cc: Dave Glass; David Rabbitt; Mike Harris; Mike Healy; Pam Torliatt; Teresa Barrett; Tiffany Renee Subject: Late Document-EWP DEIR Attachments: 2cdCommentEWP-DEIR.doc; EWPcommentDElRRainierSlitDiamondsent2planningComm.doc Deborah, I just found out the Council has not been provided comments so Derek told me to send them in...sorry late for a doctors apt, Diane I am not against this but feel there are too many untrue statements in the DEIR and am very concerned. Attached are my comments in detail below in a nutshell- Pool and skateboard park Air Quality Was there consideration of requiring enclosing the pool and skate park as an air quality mitigation. Maybe a clear roof with solar panels, possibly cut down on city costs of heating the pool? Then people could skate and swim all year round. I don't know how much this would cost but the City could kick in some redevelopment funds and there may be some credits for saving energy and/or rebates with PGE or something? I don't know much about the LEED program. The City should try to avoid another Over riding Consideration like.they did on the General and Central Specific plans. Water 1. The City of Petaluma, May 2007, 2005 Urban Water Management does not require an increase in the number of groundwater wells. 2. When did the City Council take action that there is no longer a water shortage due to the recession in 2008-9 having resulted in far fewer anticipated development projects? 3. Does this mean us existing residents with high water bills do not have to cut back 15% of water as requested by the City? 4. What analysys .besides an email from Pamela Tuft determined that the City now does not now anticipate a shortfall in .2011'? Traffic Why does the EWP EIR assume The Rainer Avenue Interchange Project Alternative 2 "partial cloverleaf' or Aternative 3 "tight diamond" design to be in place by 2025 When in fact these alternatives were rejected by CALTRANS? . (See page 4.1.3-25 EWP DEIR .Roadway and Intersection Improvements (to be assumed in place by X2025);..... 2. What is the traffic impact of the Caltrans Preferred Rainer Avenue Interchange Project Alternative? Diane Reilly Torres Additional Comments on EWP DEIR WATER Page 3-13 under a. Water Supply says..... To help improve the City's overall the water supply, the Applicant has agreed to pay for construction of a well on or near the project site. Because there is no time commitment for construction of the well and no chosen location, the well is not analyzed further in this document. The impact of the well on groundwater supplies has been addressed in the City's overall water supply calculations.5 (5 City of Petaluma, May 2007, 2005 Urban ,Water Management Plan). This is iust not true. 1. The City of Petaluma, May 2007, 2005 Urban Water Management does not require an increase in the number of groundwater wells. 2. In case of an EMERGENCY and there is no water from SCWA only then will the City connect their three newest wells under future capital improvement programs, which will increase their emergency well capacity to approximately 5.0 mgd. This would allowthe City to operate for more than a month without any SCWA water. Page 4.14-5 Under Utilities-Water says....Moreover,since the General Plan was adopted in May 2008, water conservation programs outlined in the Plan have started to produce results and have resulted in considerable water savings. In addition, the recession in 2008-9 has resulted in far fewer anticipated development projects coming to fruition. These factors, together with the improvements to supply outlined above have ameliorated the situation and the City now does not now anticipate a shortfall in 2011 (Email from Pamela Tuft, Petaluma Water Department, to Steve Simmons, Michael Ban, and Remleh Scherzinger, April 8, 2009.) 3. When did the City Council take action that there is no longer a water shortage due to the recession in 2008-9 having resulted in far fewer anticipated development projects? 4. Does this mean us existing residents with high water bills do not have to cut back 15% of water as requested by the City? 5. What,analysys besides an email from Pamela Tuft determined that the City now . does not now anticipate a shortfall in 2011? CITY OF PETALUMA 2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN MAY 2007 The only potable water source besides Agency water currently available is City-owned groundwater wells. The City currently has seventeen (17) completed groundwater wells and four (4) newly constructed wells that have not been completed. The wells are predominately on the east side of the Cityb"ecause the City has experienced better water quality in these areas. Well depths range from 229 to 680 feet, with most~wells being around 500 feet deep. The City's policy has been to design wells with ashort-term (fourteen day) maximum capacity independent of drawdown to enable their use for standby, emergency, peak hour, or maximum use day. Water from the City's wells is typically hard and has a high total dissolved solids concentration. City wells have been used when required to meet peak summer demands in past years, but the preference is to reserve the City wells for emergency use only (pg 5 petaluma UW MP 2005 ) Permitted Active Wells Pump Capacity (gpm)1,473 (2.121 mgd) Inactive Wells Pump Capacity (gpm)1,100 (1.584 mgd) Del Oro New well, not completed La Tercera New well, not completed McDowell New well, not completed St. Francis New well, not completed The City has nine above-grade, welded steel reservoirs and one buried brick and gunite lined earthen reservoir. The City is cu~tently designing a tenth above-grade welded steel reservoir. The City normally maintains the reservoirs at two-thirds capacity. Capacity (MG) 13 4.2.2 Planned Groundwater Resources The recommended supply/offset program to meet water demands includes groundwater supply via City-owned wells as a minor program component. Although the City has utilized groundwater in the past to meet peak summer demands, the City prefers to reserve City well capacity for emergency use only. For this reason, future water demands would be met utilizing the City's groundwater wells as the last element to be implemented in the program. The recommended program in its current state requires the use of 25 percent of the City's existing well capacity during the four summer months starting in Year 2024 to meet the City's potable water demands. The annual amount of potable water produced by the wells will be 186 acre-ft/year (60.75 MG/Year). In addition,.the wells will also satisfy 0.5 mgd of the ADMM demand (Table 4-3). This plan does not require an ihcrease in the number of groundwater wells. TABLE 4-3 (DWR TABLE 7) AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER PROJECTED TO BE PUMPED BY THE CITY, AC- FT/YR Basin Name 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Petaluma 0 0 0 0 1 Valle Percent of total 0 0 0 0 186 water su I 5/15/2007 Page 18 #5321 Since the City of Petaluma must plan to meet the potable water demands for the City in times with historic low vacancy rates, the water use factors for ihdoor water use were adjusted to account for realistic vacancy within the commercial, industrial, and office sectors. Water use factors were adjusted to 2% vacancy rates for commercial properties and 5% vacancy rates for ihdustrial and office properties to reflect historic vacancy rates for each sector which occurred in Year 2000. (APPENDIX B CITY OF PETALUMA URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN POTABLE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS 2/16/2007 Page B-11 #5321) URBAN WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN 2006 UPDATE 4.1 No Water Available From SCWA In the event that SCWA's Russian River supply becomes cohtaminated (i.e. due to a chemical spill or other environmental incident), it may be possible that no water would be available from SCWA for a period ofitime. In such a case, the City would need to rely on water from system storage facilities and emergency wells. Storage facilities available to provide water in an emergency event include both those in the City``s dsfribu.4ion system and SCWA's distribution system. The City has 13.0 MG in total storage. Of the 13:0 MG, it is assumed that two thirds ofthe total volume, or 8.67 MG, will be available'in the tanks at any given time. Of the 8.67 MG available, 1.0 MG is designated to remain in storage for`fire protection. In addition to the 7.67 MG available within the City's distribution system, another 12.0 MG stored:within the.SCWA distribution system is allotted,to the' Gty~in an emergency situation. In addition to the total storage capacity of Tg.67 MG from the. combined storage facilities, the City can produce an additional 3.7 mgd by utilizing their emergency wells. Based on the minimum month average usage in Year 2005 of 5.4 mgd, which was used to represent the City's minimum health grid safety requirement, the City would run out of water in 11.6 days. The City plans to connect then- three ne"west wells under future capital improvement programs, which will increase their emerpensy'well capacity to approximately 5.0 mgd. This would allow the City to operate for more 4han a month without any SCWA water. If such an event were to occur, the City would need to implement one or more stages of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to notify customers of the need to reduce water use and use the emergency wells until the SCWA water supply could be restored. 5/15/2007 3 #5321 Even though the. City Council Declared Water Shortage Emergency and this notice was in our water bills http://cityofpetaluma.net/wrcdLpdf/1 important-notice- to-water' eustomers.pdf here is how the DEIR addresses water supply //citvofpetaluma.net%cdd/pdf/ewpeir/4.1.4 utilities.pdf 6. Is there no longer a water shortage? 2. Cumulative Impacts (pg 4.8-19 -20) A list-based approach has been used for this cumulative analysis. The analysis considers the development projects listed in Appendix E (Cumulative Projects) and whether this project would have significant cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality in combination with the cumulative projects. However, since the water usage foreach of the cumulative projects is unknown, the following analysis is based on the cumulative study completed for the 2025 General Plan. This study, which assumes the use of ground water, is based on a worse case scenario in that. it assumes a greater amount of development than that projected to occur under the existing General Plan. In the analysis included in the,2025 General Plan, the cumulative water demand in Petaluma in 2025 is projected to be 5,139 mgy. The annual groundwater limit to avoid negatively affecting the aquifer for the City of Petaluma is estimated of 3,000 afy (973.2 mgy). The recommended supply/ offset program in the 2006 Water Supply and Demand' Analysis Report includes groundwater supply via City-owned wells as a minor program component. The recommended program would require the use of 25 percenfof the City's existing vvell capacity during the four summer months starting in Year 2024 to meet the City's potable water demands. The annual amount of potable water produced by the wells would be 60.75 MG/year.32 Policy 8-P-6 states that the City will use the Water Supply and Demand Analysis Report for improving the City's water supply. The Report shows that there would not be a-significant cumulative impact on groundwater resulting from growth anticipated under the 2025 .General Plan. This is because only 25 percent of the available groundwater supply would be used. Moreover,since the General Plan vvas adopted in May 2008, water conservation programs outlined in the Plan have started to produce results and, have resulted in considerable water savings. In addition, the recession in 2008-9 has resulted in far fewer anticipated developmenYprojects coming to fruition. These factors, together with the improvements to supply outlined above have ameliorated the situation and the City now does not now articipafe a shortfall in 2011 ( Email from Pamela Tuft, Petaluma Water Department; fo Steve Simmons, Michael Ban, and Remleh Scherzinge~, April 8, 2009.) TRAFFIC 1. Why does the EWP EIR assume The Rainer .Avenue Interchange Project Alternative 2 "partial cloverleaf' or Aternative 3 "tight diamond" design to be in place by 2025 When in fact these alternatives were rejected by CALTRANS? (See page 4.13-25 EWP DEIR . Roadway and Intersection Improvements (to be assumed in place by 2025):..,:. 2. What is the traffic impact of the Caltrans Preferred Rainer Avenue Interchange Project Alternative? The statement that "This issue has been the subject of adopted Overriding Considerations by the Petaluma .City Council'at a programmatic level in the General Plan EIR, in which the amount of the increased commercial and retail proposed by the East Washington Place project was a part of total buildouf General Plan assumptions. Thus, this finding does not need to be made again as part of this project-specific EIR." regarding the individual. and cumulative impacts the .project would contribute to freeway segments operating unacceptably at LOS F and to Highway 101 when in fact, the issue of traffic to freeway segments operating unacceptably at LOS F 1NAS NOT the subject of adopted Overriding Considerations by the Petaluma City Council at a programmatic level in the General Plan EIR. 3. Why does the DEIR say this if it is not true? The EWP EIR assumes The Rainer Avenue Interchange Project Alternative 2 '`partial cloverleaf' or Aternative 3 "tight diamond" design to be in place by 2025 (See page 4.13-25 EWP DEIR .Roadway and Intersection Improvements (to be assumed in place by 2025)..... roadway and intersection improvements assumed to be in place by year 2025. They include the following: • Rainier Extension and Overcrossing and Interchange: Construction of a four-lane divided arterial along Rainier Avenue from. North McDowell Boulevard to Petaluma Boulevard North with an overcrossing and Highway 101 "tight diarr~ond° or "partial cloverleaf" interchange design. This project has been under consideration for several decades; however, the City has not made a final decision on this project or dedicated funding for its construction. Page 3 of the DEVELOPMENT FEES NTATI2IX says '`NOTE: The 2 adopted, traffic impact fees reflect the cost differential between two design alternatives for the proposed Rainier Avenue Crosstown Connector and Highway 101 Interchange ("Caltrans Preferred"; "Locally Preferred"). Until a final determination is' made on a design alfernative, the City will collect the higher (the "Caltrans Preferred") of the 2 traffic impact fees on all projects subject to that fee. Should the "Locally Preferred" design. alternative ultimately be selected, the City will then charge the "Locally Preferred" traffic impact fee amount and refund the incremenfal difference between the two fees to those projects that had already paid the "Caltrans Preferred" traffic~`impact.fee http://cityofpetaluma.net/cdd/pdf/development-impact-fees-matrix.pdf S:\BUILDING\Development Impact Fees\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX Revised070109.doc 'T'raffic Im act Fee* (Caltrans Preferred) (Locall Preferred) Single Family Residential $19,451 Unit $15,877 Unit Multifamily Residential $11,86.5 Unit $ 9,685 Unit Senior Housing $ 5,058 Unit $ 4,128 Unit Office $18,675 1,000 sq ft of $15,242 1,000 sq ft of building space building space Hotel/Motel $13,422 Room $10,955 Room Commercial/Shopping $18,131 1,000 sq ft of $14,766 1,000 sq ft of building space building space Industrial/Warehouse $11,671 1,000 sq ft of $ 9,526 1,000 sq ft of building space building space Education $ 2,918 Student $ 2;382 Student Institution $ 8,364 1,000 sq ft of $ 6,827 1.,000 sq ft of building space building .space August 25, 2009 Dear Betsi, I may have additional comments but-feel "the Planning Commission needs to address the following comments on the EWP DEIR at tonight's meeting. I am "forwarding them to each Commissioner and a letter to Mr. 'Sartipi of Caltrans. Please accept the following as Comments on The City of Petaluma East Washington Place DEIR,(EWP DEIR). Thank you, Diane Reilly Torres The Traffic analysis is inadequate for the following main reasons: 1) The EWP DEIR shows that the. project would contribute traffic to freeway segments operating unacceptably at LOS F and in combination with cumulative projects will contribute to significant impacts to Highway 101 The statement that "This issue has been the subject of adopted Overriding Considerations by the Petaluma City Council at a programmatic level in the General Plan EIR, in which the amount of the increased commercial and retail proposed by the East Washington Place project was a part of total buildout General Plari assumptions. Thus; this'finding does riot need to be made again as part of this project_specific .EIR." regarding the individual and cumulative impacts the project would contribute to freeway segments operating unacceptably at LOS F and to Highway 101 when in fact, the issue of traffic to freeway segments .operating, unacceptably at LOS F WAS NOT the subject of adopted Overriding Considerations by the Petaluma City Council at a programmatic level in the General Plan EIR. Here are links to GP Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations please see that the Commissioners receive copies. http://Petaluma.aranicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=3&ctip id=664&meta id=150796 http://Petaluma.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=3&clip id=664&meta id=150797 Also see page 3.2-21 GP DEIR.---The transportation analysis included in this EIR does not include an evaluation of transportation. facilities outside the City limits. Land use data for projected levels of development within Petaluma was provided to Sonoma County for incorporation into the traffic modeling effort that was conducted for the Draft Sonoma County General Plan EIR (Sonoma County, January 2006). Based upon .anticipated levels of growth throughout the County, the Draft County General Plan EIR forecasts significant and unavoidable impacts to segments of Adobe Road, Main Street (Penngrove), Petaluma Boulevard and Petaluma Hill Road. The Draft County General Plan EIR also identifies significant and unavoidable impacts to several State highways, including portions of U:S. 1.01 in several areas between Cotati to north of Windsor. Growth anticipated to occur within Petaluma will contribute to these. significant and unavoidable impacts to County roads and highway segments. Since the County's traffic model already incorporates this growth in its analysis, no additional analysis is included in this EIR. 2) The EWP DEfR existing and future traffic volumes were obtained from the Draft U. S. 101/Rainier Avenue Interchange Traffic Operations Report, Fehr and Peers, May, 2008, which is the U.S. 101/Rainier Avenue Interchange Traffic Operations Report for the Supplemental Project Study Report, Page 4.13-41 EWP DEIR states Existing traffic volumes were obtained from the Draft U.S.101/Rainier Avenue Interchange Traffic Operations Report, Fehr and Peers, May, 2008 which provided Caltrans' AM and PM peak hour freeway volumes for year 2007. Saturday PM peak hour volumes were not available, however, the traditional design hour is the weekday PM peak hour, thus available data. is considered sufficient for freeway evaluation. Comment; As with Commercial projects, Saturday peak hour is substantially higher than that of AM or PM weekly peak hours. Saturday peak hour traffic analysis must be provided weekday peak hour is insufficient. The EWP DEIR uses 2025 for future conditions yet the Draft (l.S. 101/Rainier Avenue- Interchange Traffic ®perations Report, Fehr anc0 Peers, li/ay, 2®08 report year 2®40 was selected as the "Design Year" for the traffic operations analysis.. The EWP DEIR uses 2025 not 2040. (From Draft U.S._ 101/Rainier Avenue Interchange Traffic Operations Report, Fehr and Peers, May, 2008 Introduction page 1) "The City of Petaluma is planning to reconstruct the Rainier Avenue interchange overcrossing and associated freeway ramps on U.S. 101 in Petaluma, California. A Supplemental Project Study Report (SPSR) is being prepared to assess project alternatives and environmental constraints The City have retained Jacobs Carter Burgess to complete the Rainier Avenue Interchange SPSR. Fehr& Peers., as asub-consultant to Jacobs Carter Burgess, is tasked with the preparation of the Traffic Operations Report to support the PSR.") "The Rainer Avenue Interchange Project (The Project) proposes a new Rainier Avenue interchange on U.S. 1.01, 0.85 miles north of the Washington Street interchange; or a split interchange that integrates the Washington Street interchange and'the new Rainier Avenue. Interchange. The five alternatives studied include: • Alterative 7 - No Project. • Alternative 2 -Partial Cloverleaf (Par-Clo) • Alternative 3 -Full diamond interchange (Tight Diamond) • Alternative 4 -Split interchange with parallel street system (Split. Diamond) • Alternative 5 -Undercrossing only (no freeway ramps) "The City submitted to Caltrans for review the PSR and corresponding studies for the Cross-Town Connector Interchange Project. Throughout the process Caltrans has stated they do not support Alternatives 2 (Modified Diamond with Loop Ramp} or 3 (Full Diamond} of the Cities five alternatives. The attached letter of October 30t" confirms their previous support of only Alternative 1 (No Project), Alternative 4 (Split Diamond) and Alternative 5 (Undercrossing only)." (See Vincent Marango, Director Public Works 10-31-08 memo, subject Cross-town Connector Interchange Project to City Mariager, John Brown and 10-30-08 letter from Caltrans Deputy District director to Vincent Marango) The EV1IP EIR assumes The Rainer Avenue Interchange Project Alternative 2 "partial cloverleaf' or Aternative 3 °tight diamond" design to be in place by 2025 (See page 4.13-25 EWP DEIR .Roadway and Intersection Improvements (to be assumed in place by 2025)..... roadway and intersection improvements assumed to be in place. by year 2025. They include the following: o Rainier Extension and Overcrossing and Interchange: Construction of a four-lane divided arterial along Rainier Avenue from North McDowell Boulevard to Petaluma Boulevard North with an overcrossing and Highway 101 "tight diamond" or "parnal cloverleaf" interchange design. This project has been under consideration for several decades; however, the City has not made a final decision on this project or dedicated funding for its construction. ® Widening of Highway 101:1111idening from four to six lanes to include a new high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane as part of the Sonoma-Marin Narrows Project s D Street Extension: Construction of D Street extension eastbound to connect with the Kenilworth Drive-Ellis Street intersection. This connection is anticipated to accompany buildout of the fairgrounds and surrounding areas. ® Caulfield Lane Extension: Construction of a southern crossing of the Petaluma River to connect Petaluma Boulevard South from below the Highway 101 bridge over the Petaluma River, to Lakeville Street near Caulfield Lane. This project has also been under consideration for several .decades; however, the City has not made a final decision on this project or dedicated funding for its construction) The EWP DEIR traffic analysis is based almost entirely from this report with the assumption the Rainer Avenue Interchange Project Alternative 2 "partial cloverleaf' or Aternative 3 "tight diamond" design to be in place by 2025, even though there were five Rainer Avenue Interchange Project alternatives studied and The City received a letter from Caltrans advising that the Modified Diamond with Loop Ramp and the Full Diamond alternatives favored by Petaluma will not be supported by Caltrans. The Caltrans letter says that these two approaches "...would involve technical and operational challenges and may have more potential adverse effects on the mainline. For most effective: use of available funds, the project sponsor (Petaluma) 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." The EWP DEIR traffic analysis assumes Rainier overcrossing and Highway 101 "tight diamond" or "partial cloverleaf' interchange design. These are the two alternatives that Caltrans will not support. The correct assumption should be the Split diamond design that proposes frontage roads between Washington Street and Rainier Avenue interchanges and also a Rainier Undercrossing only. Below is the memo and letter from CALTRANS regarding the "tight diamond" or "partial cloverleaf" interchange design the EWP DEIR assumes to be in place by 2025, which I have also attached in this email. City of Petaluma, California 0C'[ ~ T 2008 1Vlemorandum ~1-~,,, l~a~~l~~~~t Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 61, Petaluma, CA 94953 (707} 778-4474 Fax (707) 776-3602 E--mail: pu6licworks@cipetaluma.ca.us DATE: October 31, 2008 TO: John Brown, City Manager FROM: Vincent Marengo, Director of Public Works ~~/ SUBJECT: Cross-Town Connector Interchange Project The City submitted to Caltrans for review the PSR and corresponding studies for the Cross-Town Connector Interchange Project, Throughout the process, Caltrans has stated that they do not support Alternatives 2 (Modified Diamond with Loop Ramp) or 3 (Full Diamond) of the City's five alternatives. The attached letterof October 3U`" confirms their previous support of only Alternative 1 (No Project}, Alternative 4 (Split Diamond); and Alternative 5 (Undercrossing Only). Caltrans' intention in sending this letter is to provide direction to the City so that it can focus its resources on Alternatives l; 4 and 5, for study, thereby saving further design study costs on Alternatives 2 and 3. Although staff could support all of the alternatives, the City CounciC has indicated that its preferred alternatives are 2 and 3, in that order. Caltrans states that all proposed projects on the; State Highway System are required to maintain and. improve the integrity and operation of the mainline corridor as a whole. They continue to assert that Alternatives 2 and 3 "would involve technical and operational challenges and may have more.potential adverse effects on the mainline". This is contrary to our previous understanding that the project's purpose and need must not degrade the mainline corridor level of service (which our consultant is in the process of confirming, using design year 2040 as the baseline). The purpose and need of the Rainier Project has been to improve local traffic circulation while maintaining the mainline corridor. In their previous comments to the City, Caltrans has continually indicated that they will require advance structure studies for all alternatives, even though these are very costly, and are typically performed at a later stage of the process. At this time, our concern is that if structure studies are prepared for Alternatives 2 and 3, Caltrans wilt not consider them viable.. Public Works will continue to proceed as directed by City Council until such time it is determined otherwise. JrAIT OF C'.li.;YlMf;{A-tiL'~11 A't.\l,'. I1L~v'J'I'1)N f'r\71 \1\U Hi'I '_ 'i' ___ aHn(]I,J75S,hIH'Aft%FM1'I~(iCf:R Gov~er UE}?A12TA~lE1VT OF TRANSPOR"TATLOi\i I tt ca.n~n ,ivi;~tn P. O.~F30X 23360 ~ OAKI,nVD,CA )4G12 PHQi;E (510)236-5100 3=AX 5)0) 2RG-5903' I7ac)x;rrr pon•rr: { - Bc enarty eQiriertr.~ I`rY (R001735-2929 Chaoher3Q, 2008 Mr_ Vince Marengo Director of Public Works City of Petaluma P. O. T3ox 61 Petaluma, CA 94953-0061 bear Mr. Marengo: Pursuant to the October 2?, 2008 phone conference between the Cityof Petaluma (City) and California Depattment of Transportation (DeparaneriQ regarding the Draft Project Study Report (PSR) for the U.S. 10}(Rainier Avcnuc Project and City's'desiie io proceed with-most ~~iable improvements given'availablefunds, below are the Department's comments on the current build attematives. Per our October 25, 2007 letter, Department is required io ensure aiLproposed projects art the State Highway System maintain and improve the intcgrityand operation of the mainline cnrridor as whole. As such, local. improvements can proceed on the Route l01 ntairiline as Inag as they dq not jeopardize the trrvmendous investments and`lx-Hefts-ol'cutrent and planned improvements along the corridor. C)r) October 25, 200$ the Department received City's preliminary responses toseview comments on the fitst Draft Tragic Operations Report. I[ is Department's undershtndin,~ that City will incorporate ihe.revisions and. submit the second Draft Traffic Operations Report in mid-November. [3ased on current preliminary inlorruation in the Drat[ PSR, build Alternatives 4 (Split Diamond) and 5 ([Jndercrbssing) are consistentwith ttic Department's requirements and standards. Ahcrnaiive 2 (,Modi6ed'i)iamond Interchange with Loop Ramp) and 3 (l=ull Diamond interchange} would involve technical and operational challenges and may have more potential adverse effccfs on the mainline. 'For most effective use of available timds, the project sponsor may elect to proceed with Alternative 1 (No Project} or only build alternatives thatare most consistent with Department's requirements and project's putpase and need. '[ irlVanv impro,ra mahE/try; <rcnua L'a1 f u~nia •. ~'fr. Vince Ma.renflct 4~ctoT~r ~0, 2G08~ T'agc The Th.pat~f~7ent 9T~l~reci:jies,the t`,ity's coo(~ersli~~n aid ~u~rtnershi}~ t+~ .ieten~irr, a mutt.tally beneficial improvement sic Slate Kout€ 1G1 and i~ainier.lvenue. I#~you have I'urthE~x gttestions,or Loncern.s, plcttse eoniact me nt (51Gj 28b-5)G8. ~in~:taly„ '~ t'; if .~ ~: ~ _ gzT __- T T"'i `T ~4i~)f ('Ul^:C'K, M.S., P:E_ ©~puty Dt ~ r c,t D'sreitor s "T'i-anspc~rl~lion Pitutnin~ and Local t~ssistttnce G: I3ijun 5urt~ipi, C:~lifarniii I)epa~Ktnent o#. ~#~ranspcinati.on - Di5'ti-ict ~ Dit-c~ctor Suzaiuae 5:uzith, Sonoana C~uniy 1'rars#xtrtatian Au*hority - I_xc.r~~tive Director 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 aai-ramp, and realign the existing northbound loop on- ramp and northbound off-xanZp. 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. Tliterchange 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 Altenzatve. ~, 'I i '~ ~~~ i ~~~s~~~ ~~ J~~Lti~.~ r ~s`~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?'' ~__.__ _ -~Er, ~~~. 9 ~ C~r~~e- ~ur~LSS CITY t?F P~TALUMA, CACI~UI,~JI1 ;2AINTFf~ AVCNt~~E illrTEfZCH1?;NGE PSR Alternative 4 -Split Interchange (Type L-5 Configuration) with Parallel Street System This alternative also includes: the construction of a new cross-town connector, an extension. of Rainuer Avenue from Mcpowell 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 hitercliange and Rainier Avenue Interchange. The proposed design requires :converting the existing loop ramp configuration on the east side of US 10.1 .at the East Washington Interchange to a tight.diainond.confi'gurafion. Two one-way ramp extensions that parallel US 101, one in the northbound directiou and one in the southbound direction, would be constructed. Ili 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, 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 101 traffic. destined for East Washington Street, would take the off-ranip from US 1.01 and proceed to the Rainier Avenue ramp intersection, cross the intersection, a~~d .enter the on-ranlp, opposite of the off-ramp, to connect fo the East Washington Street Interchange. Additional comments Page 1-1 The Applicant redesigned the project at the suggestion of the City due to the findings of significant, unavoidable impacts from the residential portion of the original proposal. Although the revised, project did not require the preparation of an EIR under CEQA, the applicant decided to go ahead and have a revised EIR prepared. Comment- If the revised project did not require the preparation of an EIR under CEQA,what is the difference in the process if an ELR was required? The new project contained less development than that described for the site in the certified EIR for the Petaluma General Plan. Comment-What is meant by less development? What is the difference of the new project compared to development described for the site in the certified EIR for the Petaluma General Plan? Page 2-2 E. Unavoidable Significant .Impacts The proposed project would cause unavoidable significant impacts with respect to air, traffic, and utilities as follows:. ® Impact AQ=1: Although. the project is accounted for in the City's new General Plan, the project exceeds the level of development anticipated in the regional clean air plan (2005 Ozone Strategy);, which was based on the City's previous General Plan and its less-intense development assumptions. ®lmpact AQ-3: The project would generate .new emissions.that would affect long-term air quality.A majority of the emissions generated by full buildout of the project would be produced by traffic. Comment-What does full buildout of the project mean? What year? If the project was scaled down (less square feet) would that lower the emissions produced by traffic? Impact-HYDRO-3: There would be a net increase in runoff from the site during. 10- and 100-year storm events. Because the final design for the storm drain system, including any potential off-site downstream drainage improvements, has not been finalized or approved by Sonoma County Water Agency or the City of Petaluma Water Resources and Conservation Department; the increase in off-site flows would. be a significant impact Mitigation-HYDRO-3a: The applicant-shall secure approval from the Sonoma.County Water Agency and the City of. Petaluma Water Resources and Conservation Department for the proposed storm drainage .plans before a building permit can be issued. Comment--- The SCWA does not approve The City of Petaluma project drainage plans.