Initial Study MND - Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONfor arterials. Both of these local street segments are not constrained by the volume of traffic,so analysis is not needed.Existing plus Project Conditions. Under existing plus proposed project volumes, the studyroadway segments are expected to operate at LOS D or better and with a volume to capacityratio of 0.56 or less, which is within the County’s acceptable range of a volume to capacity ratioof 1.20 or less for operations on Petaluma Hill Road. These results are summarized in TableB.3.14-11. As shown in the table, the change in roadway operations associated with theproposed project is minor and would not result in a change in LOS.Study SegmentsPetaluma Hill RdTable B.3.14-11. Summary of Existing and Existing plus Project Peak HourRoadway Segment LOS CalculationsExisting ConditionsExisting plus ProjectPM Peak Hour Mid Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mid Peak HourPTSF v/c LOS PTSF v/c LOS PTSF v/c LOS PTSF v/c LOSNorthbound 84.7 0.55 D 79.8 0.46 D 84.9 0.56 D 81.2 0.47 DSouthbound 81.5 0.55 D 62.2 0.42 C 81.9 0.56 D 63.7 0.43 CNotes: PTSF = percent time spent following; v/c = volume to capacity ratio ; LOS = Level of ServiceFuture plus Project Conditions – Cumulative Scenario. The Future plus project operatingconditions are summarized in Table B.3.14-12, with more details provided in the Traffic ImpactsAppendix. Cumulative conditions represent a slight decline in operating conditions, comparedto existing conditions. With project-generated traffic added to the anticipated future build-outvolumes on Petaluma Hill Road, and with the construction of the Farmers Lane Extension, thestudy roadway is expected to continue to operate at LOS E or better and with a volume tocapacity ratio of 0.81 or less, which is within the County’s acceptable threshold of 1.20 for theroad. As shown in the table, the decline in LOS and volume to capacity ratio is primarily due tobuildout development in the area, not the proposed project. The proposed project’scontribution to cumulative impacts is very minor and less than significant. The project does notcause LOS to drop to unacceptable levels at any location and does not cause a cumulativelyconsiderable increase in traffic.Study SegmentsPetaluma Hill RdTable B.3.14-12. Summary of Future and Future plus Project Peak HourRoadway Segment LOS CalculationsExisting Conditions Future Conditions Future plus ProjectPM Peak Hour Mid Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mid Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mid Peak HourPTSF v/c LOS PTSF v/c LOS PTSF v/c LOS PTSF v/c LOS PTSF v/c LOS PTSF v/c LOSNorthbound 84.7 0.55 D 79.8 0.46 D 92.4 E 0.80 88.4 0.61 E 92.5 0.81 E 89.1 0.63 ESouthbound 81.5 0.55 D 62.2 0.42 C 90.3 E 0.80 69.8 0.59 C 90.5 0.81 E 71.7 0.61 DNotes:PTSF = percent time spent following; v/c = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of ServiceFinal B-114 September 2012
Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONQualitative Analysis of Linwood Avenue and Panorama DriveGiven the low existing and projected traffic volumes on Panorama Drive and Linwood Avenue, afull quantitative analysis of these access points was not necessary. The following is a qualitativediscussion of these two proposed access routes.Linwood Avenue. There is access to the property from Linwood Avenue, which currently servesresidences and deadends at the Preserve. This access, once developed, would be designed andoperated as a minor staging area for pedestrians and bicyclists from the immediateneighborhood and surrounding area. For vehicle access to occur, upgrades to applicable publicroad standards are needed, as the eastern portion of Linwood Avenue is an unimproved roadranging in width between 10 and 20 feet that is not fully paved. The project is expected to addless than twenty vehicle trips on Linwood Avenue on a week day and 32 vehicle trips onweekends with no more than five trips in any given hour. This amount of traffic added wouldbe imperceptible to most users and would not alter the operations of Linwood Avenue.Panorama Drive (Bath-Watt). Panorama Drive is a narrow rural-type residential street withoutsidewalks, and with limited and informal on-street parking. Therefore, the Master Plan hasidentified this location for minor gated access to a small parking lot within the Preserve thatwould be restricted to visitors with disabled parking placards and special use permits only.Service, emergency and other authorized vehicles could use this access point, but no othervisitors would be allowed to park at the site. The project is expected to add no more than twovehicle trips during any hour, which would have a negligible impact to the operations ofPanorama Drive or adjacent streets.This access would be intended to primarily serve pedestrians and bicyclists coming from thesurrounding Bennett Valley residential area. To help ensure that the potential volume ofvehicle traffic at this access would be minor compared with the other access points, visitorliterature and signage would clearly state that parking is limited to disabled users and specialuse permit holders. Furthermore, the Master Plan includes a provision (Standard 195) todevelop a residential parking permit program to discourage park visitor parking at the end ofPanorama Drive. Given the parking restrictions, remote and unsigned location of this access,lack of amenities, the steepness of the hill and availability of easier access at several locations,vehicle drop off and pedestrian and bicyclist use from outside the neighborhood is expected tobe minimal.b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited toa level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards establishedby the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Traffic generated by implementation of the Master Plan would notresult in unacceptable operations at any of the study intersections or roadways and would notconflict with any congestion management program or transportation standards. See discussionin Item (a).September 2012 B-115 Final
Page 3:
Taylor Mountain Regional Park and O
Page 6:
Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGA
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76: Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGA
Page 125: Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGA
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
show all

Initial Study MND - Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?