Page 1 of 6

February 27, 2017

Mayor and City Council

City of Alhambra
111 South First Street
Alhambra, CA 91801

Subject: Agenda Item 16 Appeal Hearing for Alhambra Court Commercial Development

Dear Mayor and City Council:

We offer these comments in support of the appeal challenging the Planning Commissions
approval of the Alhambra Court Commercial Development.

There is a fair argument that the project will have significant impacts that are not avoided
altogether or adequately mitigated to a level of insignificance on the subject of air quality.

For example, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) states on page 53
that the analysis summarized on Table 3-2 indicates the operational (long-term) emissions will
be below SCAQMDs daily emissions thresholds. Table 3-2 erroneously indicates that the total
operational NO2 emissions will be 47.09 pounds per day, but that number assumes that mitigation
measures have been imposed. Table 3-2 on page 54 refers the reader to Appendix A, where at
pages 69-73 it is reported that the unmitigated emissions for NO2 will exceed the stated threshold
of 55 pounds per day in Table 3-2. Meanwhile, none of the mitigation measures listed in Appendix
A for mobile-source emissions or energy-related emissions are required under the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)1 or the Conditions of Approval (COAs). Thus, the
operational emissions are unmitigated and without mitigation will exceed the stated threshold.
Either the MMRP or the COAs need to be fixed, or an environmental impact report (EIR) must be
prepared, due to the potentially significant unmitigated air-quality impacts.

PL 7 and PL 54 in the COAs require the developer to implement the MNDs mitigation
measures and comply with the MMRP, but neither the MND nor the MMRP requires the mitigation
described in Appendix A to the MND and the COAs do not separately require implementation of
Appendix As mitigation measures. PL 27 requires a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program to be submitted after the administrative appeal before you is decided, so it is an

1
The MMRPs only air-quality mitigation measures are for activities during construction, not
during long-term operations of the Lowes.
 Page 2 of 6

improperly deferred mitigation measure in violation of CEQA; additionally, the mitigation

measures required by Appendix A are not all required by Alhambra Municipal Code Chapter
23.82. Nothing in Appendix A mentions the Citys TDM program, and nothing in the MND
analyzes the project with the measures required by Chapter 23.82 incorporated into it. In fact, the
MND states that the developer will be encouraged not required to implement a TDM program
and then lists some elements that could not shall be included . Compliance with Chapter
23.82 is left for the future (if at all), in violation of the Citys disclosure and analysis obligations
under CEQA.

Page 54 of the MND states that the projected long-term emissions are below thresholds
considered to be a significant impact except for NO2 emissions. That statement conflicts with the
information contained in Table 3-2 but is wholly consistent with the analysis in Appendix A. The
data clearly show that the project has the potential to cause significant impacts on air quality, and
the MMRP and COAs fail to require the mitigation measures necessary to bring those impacts to
a level of insignificance.

The air-quality analysis does not consider the synergistic effects of the operational
emissions from Lowes during the construction of the office buildings. Yet the projects
construction will be phased, with Lowes being completed before the office buildings start as
indicated on pages 113-114 and 118 of the Comments & Responses to Comments Part I
(Responses 3 and 6). There is no prohibition against Lowes opening for business while the
parking garage and offices are being built. The MND failed to analyze these potential synergistic
impacts.

Because the data behind the analysis show that the analysis is itself wrong, the MNDs
conclusions about the lack of air-quality impacts on sensitive receptors and the lack of cumulative
impacts are also incorrect and not supported by substantial evidence in the record. In other words,
there is the potential for significant impacts on humans and significant cumulative impacts both
of which require a mandatory finding of significance and an environmental impact report.

There is a fair argument that the project will have significant impacts that are not avoided
altogether or adequately mitigated to a level of insignificance on the subject of traffic.

For example, CalTrans requested further study of the projects impacts to I-10s nearby
on/off ramps. The Citys response politely blows off CalTrans despite its being particularly
interested in potential increased queuing forecasted at the aforementioned location. Without any
supporting evidence, the response claims that the Lowes will only serve the local community,
which will only use local streets. Meanwhile, Response 8 to Eric Sunadas January 7, 2017
comment letter states that the project advances General Plan Policy 4.1.10 by encouraging
commercial land uses that enhance the Citys share of the regional retail sales market. How can
the project increase the Citys share of regional sales if it is not drawing regional shoppers? The
Citys position on the sales issue undermines its position on the traffic issue identified by CalTrans
and belies the Citys response to CalTrans.

The MND recognizes on page 163 that off-site traffic improvements are required in order
to mitigate the projects otherwise significant traffic impacts. However, it states that the developer
 Page 3 of 6

will only pay for the required off-site traffic improvements necessary for mitigation on a fair-
share basis. Even though PL 8 in the COAs requires all off-site improvements to be completed
before an occupancy permit may be issued, PL 7 states that the MND takes precedence in the event
of a conflict between its mitigation measures and the COAs. Consequently, there is no guarantee
that the off-site improvements will be completed prior to Lowes opening for business.

The number of vehicle trips per day is understated, and it was improper to rely on traffic
counts from the Lowes in Poway. The Citys rationale seems to be that a stand-alone Lowes is
materially different from the type of home-improvement store covered by the ITE traffic models.
However, in places where an environmental impact report has been done for a Lowes, even the
non-ITE traffic models showed substantially more vehicle trips than the Poway model does. That
was the case in Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, 155 Cal. App. 4th 1214 (2007),
where the description of the store is similar to the store being considered by you tonight. The
traffic experts for that EIR believed it was necessary to factor in additional observations from two
other Bay Area Lowes locations, and in doing so came up with 5.01 trips per 1,000 square feet
which was the number used to analyze traffic impacts. See Exs. 1 & 2 attached to this letter
(Response to Comments for City of Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project;
EIR Chapter 4.12). Here, in contrast, Table 2 on page 17 of Kimley-Horns Traffic Impact
Analysis conveniently used the lower 2.99 trips per 1,000 square feet to estimate traffic. That
understates the traffic problem by at least 40 percent compared to what Lowes stores in other
cities expect.

Page 91 of the MND states: At no time will Meridian Avenue or Fremont Avenue be
completely closed to traffic. However, page 186 of the Comments & Response to Comments
Part III points out that the applicant has been conditioned to evaluate the feasibility of this closure
[i.e., Meridian Avenue]. This obvious conflict was confirmed at the planning commissions
meeting on January 17, 2017, when there was substantial discussion about closing Meridian
Avenue, the developer agreed to spend at least $300,000 to study that option, and the planning
commission voted to add two COAs that require future study after project approval. All of this is
problematic because the MND must study the impact of closing Meridian Avenue before the
project is approved, and the public is entitled to review and comment on the study; to evaluate this
mitigation measure later is an improper deferral of mitigation and cuts the public out of the
decision-making process. At the same time, the planning commissions view that it may be
necessary to close Meridian Avenue is substantial evidence that there is a potentially significant
traffic impact that requires further study in an EIR.

There is a fair argument that the project will have significant impacts that are not avoided
altogether or adequately mitigated to a level of insignificance on the subject of parking.

For example, Section 23.82.010 of the Alhambra Municipal Code requires 90 percent of
the parking spaces for industrial and manufacturing uses to be set aside for employees. The
agendas back-up materials and the Citys responses to comments both indicate that the Lowes is
a proper use within the Industrial Planned Development (IPD) Zone. That means that 373 of the
414 parking spaces for Lowes must be set aside for employees, leaving just 41 parking spaces for
customers. However, the (defective, artificially low) estimates of vehicle trips to Lowes show
that there will be well more than 41 customers every hour. If the project complied with Chapter
 Page 4 of 6

23.82 of the Alhambra Municipal Code, as PL27 in the COAs implies, the project will be grossly
under-parked.

There is a fair argument that the project will have significant impacts that are not avoided
altogether or adequately mitigated to a level of insignificance on the subject of land-use
incompatibility.

For example, Finding 2.1.6 in the Land-Use Element of the General Plan recognizes the
incompatibility of land uses where commercial and industrial uses abut residential uses. Policy
4.1.3 requires the City to minimize incompatibility between uses. Policy 4.1.4 requires the City
to mitigate conflicting uses through known techniques for eliminating conflicts for industrial and
commercial areas adjacent to residential areas. Policy 4.1.12 allows the City to encourage only
those land uses that meet the goals, objectives, policies and intent of the General Plan. Land-Use
Designation 4.2.3 indicates that the industrial category accommodates a variety of industrial
activities which are non-polluting and can co-exist with surrounding land uses.

The MND and supporting data demonstrate that the project conflicts with the Land-Use
Element an impact that has not been examined or even considered in the MND. The project will
be a source of air pollution from mobile sources. There is also the risk of soil contaminants being
released; and a risk of vapor migration away from the site and into residential areas, which would
be exacerbated by the proposed vapor mitigation for the project. Land-Use Designation 4.2.2
recognizes that uses in the office-professional commercial category are generally compatible
with most other land uses and are encouraged as buffer or transitional uses in sensitive areas.2
However, pages 113-114 and 118 of the Comments & Responses to Comments Part I (Responses
3 and 6) make it clear that the City has no idea when, if ever, the office component of the project
will ever be built since there is no pending application for the offices. The potential conflicts and
incompatibility in land uses is therefore significant, making it essential that the City prepare an
EIR before approving the project.

Your denial of the appeal and approval of the project would violate CEQA in other ways,
apart from the various fair arguments requiring preparation of an EIR. For example, the MMRP
was not available for public comment for a full 30 days, as was the MND; the MMRP was not
issued until December 27, 2016, and the comment period ended on January 3 and was extended to
January 17. The public should have been given the same amount of time to comment on the
MMRP as given to comment on the MND.3

2
The risk of harm caused to nearby sensitive receptors by pollution generated by the construction
and operation of Lowes is just one example of why the City must study the effects of the
incompatibility of adjacent uses.
3
The timing was so poor that the second set of comment responses was issued 21 days after the
MMRP became available for public review. The MMRP is not included in the MND; the two
documents are separate. According to Section 7.22 in a leading CEQA handbook by Messrs.
Kostka and Zischke, reviewers commenting on draft negative declarations should focus on the
proposed finding that the project (including any proposed mitigation measures) will not have a
 Page 5 of 6

Based on the environmental impacts and General Plan inconsistencies discussed above, the
City cannot make the findings required under Government Code Sections 66473.5 because there
is no substantial evidence to support the findings and, in fact, the evidence proves the opposite of
the findings.

The appellants are also being denied their due process and a fair hearing. The same law
firm that advises the planning commission Burke Williams Sorenson (BWS) advises the city
council. Due-process and fair-hearing violations arises from attorneys from the same firm serving
in the dual role of counselors to the decision-making body whose decision is being appealed and
of counselors to the city council sitting as the appellate body. In a quasi-judicial setting like this
appeal, it is a violation of due-process and fair-hearing requirements for the same attorneys to
advise the decision-making body while simultaneously aiding the staff members who are
essentially the appellants opponent without taking appropriate steps to ensure impartiality in the
proceeding and an appropriate separation of functions. See, e.g., Morongo Band of Mission
Indians v. California State Water Res. Control Bd., 45 Cal.4th 731 (2009). (The League of
California Cities has written some excellent materials both explaining the improprieties of having
attorneys simultaneously serving in advocacy and advisory roles, and giving recommendations for
avoiding due-process and fair-hearing violations.4 The city appears not to be following any of the
recommendations.)

As a final point, we wish to point out that the decision to hire BWS as advisor to the city
council and to the planning commission conflicts with the recommendation by the League of

significant environmental effect. How can the public comment on the adequacy of the MMRP if
it does not accompany the MND?
4
The items can be found on the Internet at <www.cacities.org/UploadedFiles/League
Internet/30/305958c5-80a8-473a-924b-b9e55e53c596.pdf>; and <http://www.cacities.org/
getattachment/d1d1adc0-fcac-40ce-bff0-a4f311c6de58/9-2009-Annual-ARIEL-PIERRE-
CALONNE_2009-Ad-Hoc-Due.aspx>.
 Exhibit 1
City of Santa Rosa - Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project Responses to Written Comments
Responses To Comments on the Draft EIR

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR

3.1 - List of Commentors

A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR is
presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each
communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses.
Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding
response.

Author Author Code

State Agencies
Department of Transportation ............................................................................................. CALTRANS
Governors Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit................... OPR
Native American Heritage Commission........................................................................................ NAHC
Public Utilities Commission............................................................................................................. PUC

Organizations
Accountable Development Coalition ...............................................................................................ADC

Individuals
Jenny Bard..................................................................................................................................... BARD
Joanne Brion..............................................................................................................................BRION.1
Joanne Brion..............................................................................................................................BRION.2
Carolyn Cantarutti ....................................................................................................... CANTARUTTI.C
Michael Cantarutti ...................................................................................................... CANTARUTTI.M
Barney and Linda Cargile........................................................................................................ CARGILE
Marsha Chevalier ...............................................................................................................CHEVALIER
Stephen Curley ......................................................................................................................... CURLEY
William Davidson............................................................................................................. DAVIDSON.1
William Davidson............................................................................................................. DAVIDSON.2
Dan Eddy....................................................................................................................................... EDDY
Janice Garner............................................................................................................................GARNER
David Grabill........................................................................................................................... GRABILL
Eleanor Guerin .......................................................................................................................... GUERIN
Forrest Jinks .................................................................................................................................. JINKS
Curt Johansen .......................................................................................................................JOHANSEN
Judy Kennedy ..................................................................................................................... KENNEDY.1

Michael Brandman Associates 3-1

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\RTC\24980004 Sec03_Written Comments.doc
Responses to Written Comments City of Santa Rosa - Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments

Judy Kennedy..................................................................................................................... KENNEDY.2

Adam Menconi....................................................................................................................... MENCONI
Dan Monte ..............................................................................................................................MONTE.D
Sara Monte .............................................................................................................................. MONTE.S
James Petersen ...................................................................................................................... PETERSEN
James Provost..........................................................................................................................PROVOST
David Rigby ................................................................................................................................. RIGBY
Ira Scholnick ......................................................................................................................SCHOLNICK
Gary Sciford.............................................................................................................................SCIFORD
John Shami...................................................................................................................................SHAMI
Scot Stegeman..................................................................................................................... STEGEMAN
Jerry Tierney ............................................................................................................................TIERNEY
Terry Watt..................................................................................................................................... WATT
Jim Wilkinson .................................................................................................................... WILKINSON
Phillip Wyatt ........................................................................................................................... WYATT.1
Phillip Wyatt ........................................................................................................................... WYATT.2

3.2 - Responses to Comments

3.2.1 - Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the
City of Santa Rosa, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2008022117) for the Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project and has
prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document
becomes part of the Final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

Note that certain comments submitted to the City of Santa Rosa contained lengthy attachments that
did not provide project-specific comments or analysis. For the purposes of keeping the length of this
document within reason, such attachments are incorporated by reference and can be viewed in print
form at the City of Santa Rosa Community Development Department, 100 Santa Rosa Avenue,
Room 3, Santa Rosa, CA, 95402. The Responses to Comments will identify specific attachments that
are incorporated by reference.

3.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses

The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the
List of Commentors.

3-2 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\RTC\24980004 Sec03_Written Comments.doc
'%086%27
4EKISJ

'%086%27

'%086%27

'%086%27

'%086%27

'%086%27
'%086%27
4EKISJ

'%086%27

'%086%27

'%086%27

'%086%27

'%086%27

'%086%27
'%086%27
4EKISJ

'%086%27
City of Santa Rosa - Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project Responses to Written Comments
Responses To Comments on the Draft EIR

State Agencies
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
Response to CALTRANS-1
The author provided introductory remarks to preface the letter, which included a boilerplate statement
asserting that the lead agency is responsible for project mitigation and that the Draft EIR should
identify fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, and implementation of all transportation
mitigation measures. The statement concludes by stating that all mitigation measures should be in
place prior to issuance of the proposed projects use permits.

The Draft EIR identifies fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, and implementation of all
transportation mitigation measures, to the extent that such information is available or applicable. All
of the transportation mitigation measures must be in place either prior to project occupancy or prior to
issuance of building permits, which is consistent with the authors request that mitigation should be in
place prior to issuance of use permits.

Response to CALTRANS-2
The author stated that unadjusted Saturday trips value in Table 4.12-10 should be 840 instead of 779.

Dowling Associates indicated that the Saturday peak-hour trip generation figure shown in Table
4.10-95.40 trips/1,000 square feetreflects the rate from ITE Trip Generation, 7th edition, rather
than the rate used in Table 4.10-9. The rate used in Table 4.10-9 was 5.01 trips/1,000 square feet.
This clarification is noted in the Errata. As described on page 4.12-32, the 5.01 trips/1,000 square
feet rate the Saturday peak-hour ITE rate (5.40 trips/1,000 square feet) averaged with traffic counts
taken at the existing Cotati and Vacaville Lowes stores. Dowling Associates used this approach
because the data for the available ITE Saturday peak-hour rate were from only two site studies;
therefore, Dowling Associates determined it was necessary to factor in additional observations from
two other Bay Area Lowes locations. The two locations were selected with the concurrence of the
Citys Traffic Engineering Division. When the rate of 5.01 trips/1,000 square feet is applied to
155,454 square feet, it yields 779 Saturday peak-hour trips. Accordingly, the values in Table 4.12-10
are correct as shown.

Further confirmation of the validity of this rate is provided in the ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition,
which was released in November 2008 after the publication of the Draft EIR. ITE indicates that,
based on 29 study sites, the Saturday peak-hour rate is 4.51 trips/1,000 square feet, or approximately
10 percent lower than the rate used in the Draft EIR.

Response to CALTRANS-3
The author requested that the scenarios of future trip distribution configurations be provided.

The project trip distribution was shown for all scenarios in Exhibit 4.12-8.

Michael Brandman Associates 3-7

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\RTC\24980004 Sec03_Written Comments.doc
Responses to Written Comments City of Santa Rosa - Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments

Response to CALTRANS-4
The author referenced a discussion of passby adjustments on page 4.12-33 and asserted that the ITE
Trip Generation, 5th Edition provides examples for such adjustments only for the 820 (Shopping
Center) land use code and not the 862 (Home Improvement Center) land use code.

Dowling Associates used ITEs recommended practice, the Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition
and the recommendation of the City of Santa Rosa Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering
Division as the basis for the passby adjustments identified on page 4.12-33. The ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, 2nd Edition provides instruction and guidance in the proper use of the data presented in the
informational report Trip Generation (in this case, 7th Edition), and it provides additional information
and data on supplemental issues of importance in estimating trip generation for development sites.
Examples of such guidance include passby trip rates for various land uses, when average trip rates
should be used instead of fitted-curve trip rate equations, and when the analyst should conduct his or
her own trip generation count. Refer to the passby trip rates for the 862 land use code in Table 5.15
on page 62 of Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition.

Note that ITE Trip Generation, 5th Edition was not used in the Draft EIRs traffic analysis and has
subsequently been replaced by 6th, 7th, and 8th editions of ITE Trip Generation.

Response to CALTRANS-5
The author requested traffic flow diagrams depicting how passby trips are assigned onto the road
network.

The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition provides an example of how such passby trips are
assigned onto the road network in Figure 5.1 on page 30. This figure is reproduced in Exhibit 3-1.

Response to CALTRANS-6
The author referenced the discussion of Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies guidance for applying internal capture adjustments on page 4.12-34 and noted that the same
document states that passby adjustments greater than 15 percent for retail-oriented development must
be accepted by Caltrans. The author questioned why this aspect of the guide was not followed.

The weekday and Saturday passby factors shown in Table 4.12-10 were arrived at after considerable
discussion with Walter Laabs, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of Santa Rosa Public Works
Department Traffic Engineering Division. Mr. Laabs approved the passby factors before use. They
were justified by the fact that the land use (Home Improvement Superstore) was exactly the type that
the project applicant proposes, and the best available data were from the recommended practice, ITE
Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition.

3-8 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\RTC\24980004 Sec03_Written Comments.doc
 238837'%0)
Michael Brandman Associates
'-8=3*7%28%637%7%28%637%03;)v7,31)-1463:)1)28;%6),397)
)2:-6321)28%0-14%'86)4368
City of Santa Rosa - Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project Responses to Written Comments
Responses To Comments on the Draft EIR

Finally, it should be noted that the City of Santa Rosa is the lead agency for the proposed project and
has the discretion to approve the methodology and adjustments for traffic analyses within its
jurisdiction. The City and Dowling Associates consulted the latest version of Caltrans Guide for the
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies; however, the City determined that other guidance (e.g., ITE
Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition) provided sufficient justification for trip generation
adjustments that were different from those set forth in the Caltrans document.

Response to CALTRANS-7
The author requested that queuing analysis be provided for the U.S. 101 northbound ramps at
Yolanda Avenue, the southbound ramps at Corby Avenue, and the northbound and southbound ramps
at Baker Avenue.

In accordance with the authors request, queuing analysis for the U.S. 101 northbound ramps at
Yolanda Avenue and the southbound ramps at Corby Avenue under Year 2020 conditions is provided
in Table 3-1. As shown in the table, all 95th percentile queue lengths could be accommodated by
available storage. The modeling data supporting this analysis is provided in Appendix N.

Table 3-1: Queuing Analysis

Year 2020 95th Percentile Queue

Existing Storage Lengths (feet)
U.S. 101 Ramp Movement
(feet)
AM PM Saturday
Peak Peak Peak
Yolanda Avenue Left 750 (2 lanes @ 375) 110 160 137
(Northbound)*
Through 420 22 45 38
Right 140 18 36 33
Corby Avenue (Southbound) Left 1,050** 358 205 202
Right 215 37 66 95
Notes:
*
175 feet of storage is available on the ramp curve, and an additional 2,000 lineal feet on the auxiliary lane beside the
freeway mainline.
**
Includes single lane storage upstream of split into left and right turn lanes.
Storage requirement is for 95th percentile condition, as calculated by Synchro. Length calculations are per lane.
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

Regarding the Baker Avenue ramps, the proposed projects trip distribution is based on the
assumption that drivers would follow the shortest routing in terms of time to and from the project site.
The closest U.S. 101 ramps to the project site are at Yolanda Avenue (northbound) and Corby
Avenue (southbound). The Baker Avenue ramps are approximately 0.75 mile north of the Yolanda
Avenue and Corby Avenue ramps, and using this routing would require a motorist to travel on Santa
Rosa Avenue. As such, a motorist would incur a significant time penalty using this routing rather
than entering or exiting U.S. 101 at the Yolanda Avenue or Corby Avenue ramps. Therefore, project
trips were not assumed to use the Baker Avenue ramps because they would be further away and

Michael Brandman Associates 3-11

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\RTC\24980004 Sec03_Written Comments.doc
Responses to Written Comments City of Santa Rosa - Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments

involve longer drive times; therefore, it can be concluded that they would not be significantly
impacted by the proposed project.

Response to CALTRANS-8
The author noted that the intersection operations analysis shown in Table 4.12-18 and Table 4.12-20
indicate that significant delays would occur under with project conditions at Hearn Avenue/Santa
Rosa Avenue, Hearn Avenue/Corby Avenue, and U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Corby Avenue. The
author stated that these intersections are in proximity to U.S. 101 ramp terminals, and mitigation
should be considered to lessen these impacts to the freeway system and prevent off-ramp queues from
backing up onto the freeway mainline.

As discussed in Response to CALTRANS-7, queue lengths at the Yolanda Avenue and Corby
Avenue ramps would not exceed available storage capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would
not cause off-ramp queues to back up onto the freeway mainline.

On a broader note, congestion at the three intersections referenced by the author is attributable to the
two-lane Hearn Avenue overcrossing bottleneck (refer to Master Response 1 for further discussion).
The long-term solution for congestion at these intersections is reconstructing the Hearn Avenue
overcrossing to provide additional lanes. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b requires the applicant to
pay all applicable traffic impact fees in accordance with current City Code requirements and the latest
adopted fee schedule. Such fees are anticipated to be used for planned improvements to the Hearn
Avenue overcrossing. Therefore, the proposed project would be contributing to the long-term
solution for this problem.

Response to CALTRANS-9
The author noted that Impact TRANS-3 acknowledged that the proposed project would contribute
new vehicle trips to a state highway facility operating at unacceptable levels and requested that the
freeway segment where this impact would occur be identified.

As shown in Table 4.12-21, the freeway segments where the impact would occur are identified (i.e.,
Todd Road to Yolanda Avenue; Yolanda Avenue to Baker-Corby Avenues). Note that unacceptable
operations would occur under the without project conditions in the future.

Response to CALTRANS-10
The author referenced the projects impacts on U.S. 101 and noted that project applicants in Santa
Rosa are required to pay traffic impact fees that are used primarily for City street improvements. The
author stated that the lead agency should consider working with other local governments and agencies
in the region to develop a regional traffic impact fee that addresses impacts on state highway
facilities, specifically U.S. 101. The author asserted that the monies collected by such a fee should be
used for both highway and non-highway improvements (e.g., bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit
facilities and services).

3-12 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\RTC\24980004 Sec03_Written Comments.doc
City of Santa Rosa - Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project Responses to Written Comments
Responses To Comments on the Draft EIR

Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b requires the project applicant to provide all applicable transportation
fee payments at the time building permits are sought. Although City of Santa Rosa traffic fees do go
primarily for city street improvements, the City of Santa Rosa has paid a portion of the cost of some
freeway-related improvements. A nearby example is the lengthening and widening of the Yolanda
Avenue ramps, which included the addition of an auxiliary lane on the freeway to increase queue
distance. The City actively participates in the Sonoma County Transportation Authoritys (SCTAs)
efforts to improve U.S. 101 traffic operations, and in the current Project Study Report efforts with
Caltrans for both the Hearn Avenue interchange reconstruction and a reliever interchange at Bellevue
Avenue. The Draft EIR noted on page 4.12-8 that the SCTA is collecting sales taxes in support of the
Hearn Avenue improvements.

Regarding the authors proposed regional traffic impact fee, such a measure is beyond the scope of
both the proposed project and the City of Santa Rosa. As acknowledged by the author, the City and
other local agencies in Sonoma County would have to mutually agree to implement and assess such a
fee on new development projects. Such a decision would require discretionary approval by each
agency, which is beyond the control of the City of Santa Rosa and the project applicant. Although the
authors proposed fee may be worthy of further consideration by the various agencies in Sonoma
County, it is not feasible mitigation for the proposed projects freeway operations impacts.

Response to CALTRANS-11
The author referenced the discussion of freeway impacts in Impact TRANS-3, which noted that
several public transit and bicycle-related mitigation measures would promote trip reduction, and
questioned why they would help to mitigate freeway operations.

As discussed in Impact TRANS-3, the proposed project would have a significant unavoidable impact
to freeway operations on U.S. 101 because it would contribute additional trips to freeway segments
projected to operate at unacceptable levels under without project conditions in 2030. No mitigation
that could be implemented by the project applicant or the City of Santa Rosa is available to directly
mitigate this impact (i.e., capacity improvements that would improve level of service to acceptable
levels). However, as explained on page 4.12-63, the proposed project would promote trip reduction
by implementing mitigation that would make the project accessible to public transit and bicycles.
Although the City of Santa Rosa is well aware that these measures would not fully mitigate the
impact, it was determined that acknowledging these measures was worthwhile because they are
consistent with local and regional strategies for reducing traffic congestion. Ultimately, the residual
significance of the impact after the implementation of these mitigation measures was determined to
be significant and unavoidable, a conclusion the authors agency does not dispute.

Response to CALTRANS-12
The author provided closing remarks to conclude the comment letter. No response is necessary.

Michael Brandman Associates 3-13

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\RTC\24980004 Sec03_Written Comments.doc
 Exhibit 2
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

4.12 - Transportation

4.12.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing transportation setting and potential effects from project
implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are
based on analysis prepared by Dowling Associates, which is wholly contained in this section.
Additional backup information, including source documents and calculation sheets, is provided in this
EIR as Appendix J. In addition, parking demand surveys conducted at San Francisco Bay Area home
improvement retailers by Kimley-Horn and Associates and Abrams Associaets are provided in
Appendix L.

4.12.2 - Environmental Setting

Roadway Network
The project site is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Santa Rosa. Below is a
description of the major roadways in the project vicinity. The roadway network in the project vicinity
is shown in Exhibit 4.12-1.

U.S. 101
U.S. 101 is the primary freeway providing regional access between the San Francisco Bay Area and
the North Coast. Between San Francisco and Eureka, U.S. 101 ranges from a multi-lane divided
freeway to a two-lane, undivided highway. In the project vicinity, U.S. 101 is a six-lane freeway,
with three travel lanes in each direction. The inside (median) lane is restricted to high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) use only during weekday commute hours. The nearest U.S. 101 interchange is at
Yolanda Avenue, with northbound on- and off-ramps, and southbound on- and off-ramps at Corby
Avenue (south of Hearn Avenue). The City of Santa Rosa General Plan designates U.S. 101 as a
Highway.

Santa Rosa Avenue

Santa Rosa Avenue is a north-south arterial roadway that parallels U.S. 101 from downtown Santa
Rosa to Rohnert Park. In the project vicinity, Santa Rosa Avenue is an undivided, four-lane roadway.
The three project site parcels abut Santa Rosa Avenue (2532, 2612, and 2620 Santa Rosa Avenue),
and all have existing driveways on Santa Rosa Avenue. The City of Santa Rosa General Plan
designates Santa Rosa Avenue as a Regional/Arterial Street.

Yolanda Avenue
Yolanda Avenue is approximately 0.5 mile in length, and is east-west roadway that extends between
Santa Rosa Avenue and Petaluma Hill Road. It is a two-lane, undivided facility. The Hulsman
Transportation Co. parcel (325 Yolanda Avenue) has four existing access points to Yolanda Avenue.
The City of Santa Rosa General Plan designates Yolanda Avenue as a Regional/Arterial Street.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-1

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Petaluma Hill Road

Petaluma Hill Road is a north-south roadway that extends from just south of downtown Santa Rosa to
the unincorporated community of Penngrove north of Petaluma. In the project vicinity, the roadway
is a two-lane, undivided facility. The City of Santa Rosa General Plan designates Petaluma Hill Road
as a Regional/Arterial Street.

Kawana Springs Road

Kawana Springs Road is an east-west roadway that extends between Santa Rosa Avenue and
Brookwood Avenue. The roadway is a two-lane, undivided facility. The City of Santa Rosa General
Plan designates Kawana Springs Road as a Regional/Arterial Street.

Hearn Avenue
Hearn Avenue is an east-west roadway that extends between Stony Point Road and Santa Rosa
Avenue. In the project vicinity, Hearn Avenue is a two-lane, undivided roadway with an
overcrossing of U.S. 101. The City of Santa Rosa General Plan designates Hearn Avenue as a
Regional/Arterial Street between Dutton Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue.

Programmed Street Improvements

The Citys 2007-2008 adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains several projects within
the Lowes study area that are yet to be completed. Programmed street improvements are listed
below. .Where a project is part of the current CIP, its project number is indicated below. It should be
noted that only the first year of the CIP is actually funded; subsequent years are used for planning and
programming purposes only. Proposed near-term traffic improvements (i.e., within the next 5 years)
are shown in Exhibit 4.12-2, and proposed long-term improvements are depicted in Exhibit 4.12-3.
The improvements are listed below, with the numbers corresponding to those shown on the exhibits.

Short Term Improvements

1. Santa Rosa Avenue between Yolanda Avenue and Kawana Springs Road - installation of turn
lanes.

2. Kawana Springs Road at Santa Rosa Avenue - the addition of a of a second, westbound left-
turn lane on Kawana Springs Road.

3. Santa Rosa Avenue at Kawana Springs Road - the addition of a northbound right-turn lane on
Santa Rosa Avenue.

4. Santa Rosa Avenue at Hearn Avenue - the addition of a second northbound left-turn lane and
third northbound thru lane on Santa Rosa Avenue that leads to a right-turn lane at Kawana
Springs Road.

5. Santa Rosa Avenue at Yolanda Avenue - extension of the existing southbound right-turn lane
from Santa Rosa Avenue onto the U.S. 101 northbound on-ramp.

4.12-2 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
1MGLEIP&VERHQER%WWSGMEXIW
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

6. Santa Rosa Avenue at Yolanda Avenue- the addition of a southbound second left-turn lane
into Yolanda Avenue.

7. Santa Rosa Avenue from Santa Rosa Marketplace main entrance to Kawana Springs Road -
the addition of a third southbound through lane by re-striping existing lanes.

8. Santa Rosa Avenue from Baker Avenue/Colgan Avenue to Santa Rosa Marketplace main
entrance - the addition of a third southbound through lane by re-striping lanes.

9. Hearn Avenue at Corby Avenue - installation of a second westbound left-turn lane.

10. Yolanda Avenue wideningSanta Rosa Avenue to Petaluma Hill Road. Yolanda Avenue
will be widened to three lanes (one travel lane in each direction, along with a center two-way,
left-turn lane), along with bike lanes and a pedestrian path on the south side of the street. The
future configuration for Yolanda Avenue is three travel lanes (two eastbound, one
westbound); a center two-way, left-turn lane; bike lanes; a planter strip; and sidewalks on
both sides to be installed as development occurs.

11. Yolanda Avenueto include the installation of a traffic signal at Petaluma Hill Road. This
signal installation is a condition for both the Kawana Meadows Project and Santa Rosa
Village Project, and the construction timing is uncertain at this time. A temporary signal at
this location, along with a new, northbound left-turn lane, is in the design stage at present.

12. The installations of a traffic signal interconnect on Hearn Avenue from Corby Avenue to
Santa Rosa Avenue.

Long-Term Improvements
13. Hearn Avenue from Corby Avenue to Dutton Avenue - a complete widening to four lanes and
the addition of bike lanes.

14. A widening of the Hearn Avenue Overcrossing to four travel lanes, with sidewalk and bike
lanes.

15. Constructing the U.S. 101/Bellevue Avenue interchange to connect Corby Avenue to U.S.
101 and a future Northpoint Parkway to connect with a future Bellevue Avenue/Farmers Lane
Roadway Extension.

16. Implementing an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) along Santa Rosa Avenue, from
Maple Avenue to Burt Street, and along Hearn Avenue. The Citys Public Works
Department has installed an adaptive traffic control central software on College Avenue,
which was found to significantly reduce delays. This system could be expanded to Santa
Rosa Avenue in the future. The goal of the system is to improve the coordination of traffic
signals to reduce vehicle delay, including transit and emergency vehicle delay, and has shown
a considerable benefit in terms of delay reduction.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-7

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

17. Upgrading the Hearn Avenue railroad crossing.

18. Completing a plan line adoption and EIR for the Northpoint Parkway Extension between
Bellevue Avenue/U.S. 101 and Wright Road.

In addition, there is one nearby project included in the Measure M expenditure plan, administered by
the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA). Measure M is a quarter-cent sales tax
measure approved by Sonoma County voters in 2004. The statutory expenditure plan includes up to
$9 million for the replacement/improvement of the Hearn Avenue-Yolanda Avenue interchange on
U.S. 101. Measure M funds will also be used for widening U.S. 101 to six lanes (similar to the
current configuration in south Santa Rosa) from Petaluma to Windsor to relieve congestion. These
two improvements are shown as improvements No. 19 and 20 on Exhibit 4.12-3.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is currently developing a Project Study

Report for the Hearn Avenue-Yolanda Avenue project, which includes examination of a number of
different ramp and overcrossing (bridge) arrangements.

Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service

Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Average daily traffic (ADT) counts for city streets were obtained from the City of Santa Rosas
website and are shown in Exhibit 4.12-4. Counts for state highways were obtained from Caltrans.
Counts have been rounded to the nearest hundred. The highest street volumes in the study area occur
on Santa Rosa Avenue, between Petaluma Hill Road and Bennett Valley Road, and between the
Hearn Avenue/U.S. 101 overcrossing and Kawana Springs Road.

Additional traffic counts that included Friday and Saturday traffic were conducted in 2005 to assess
peak weekend traffic conditions, which are shown in Table 4.12-1. Generally, the Citys Traffic
Engineering Division accepts counts that are less than 3 years old at the time the Notice of
Preparation is released (February 25, 2008), so these are still considered current. In addition, they are
more for informational purposes and were not used as the basis of assessing the proposed projects
impacts on future traffic conditions.

Table 4.12-1: Existing Friday and Saturday Daily (24 Hour) Traffic Volumes

Friday Saturday
Roadway Segment Direction
(May 13, 2005) (May 14, 2005)
Santa Rosa South of Yolanda Avenue Northbound 16,700 15,600
Avenue
Southbound 16,100 15,700
Total 32,800 31,300

4.12-8 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 NOT TO SCALE
1MGLEIP&VERHQER%WWSGMEXIW
CITY OF SANTA ROSA SANTA ROSA LOWES HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
 NOT TO SCALE
1MGLEIP&VERHQER%WWSGMEXIW
CITY OF SANTA ROSA SANTA ROSA LOWES HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Table 4.12-1 (Cont.): Existing Friday and Saturday Daily (24 Hour) Traffic Volumes

Friday Saturday
Roadway Segment Direction
(May 13, 2005) (May 14, 2005)
Santa Rosa North of Yolanda Avenue Northbound 17,000 15,250
Avenue
Southbound 19,850 18,000
Total 36,850 33,250
Yolanda Approximately 300 feet east Eastbound 3,500 2,400
Avenue of Santa Rosa Avenue
Westbound 4,000 2,700
Total 7,500 5,100
Petaluma Hill North of Yolanda Avenue Northbound 8,500 6,300
Road
Southbound 8,350 6,550
Total 16,850 12,850
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

Peak-Hour Traffic Flows

Peak-hour intersection traffic movements generally occur between the hours of 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and
4:30 to 5:30 p.m. Traffic counts used in this EIR were taken in spring 2008. Throughout the project
area, the weekday afternoon peak-hour traffic volume occurring between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. in most
cases is greater than the weekday morning peak hour.

As might be expected, peak-hour traffic flows are not always directionally balanced, nor do the peak
60 minutes of traffic always occur during the same period at every intersection. According to
Caltranss surveys congestion on U.S. 101 occurs between 7:20 a.m. and 9:10 a.m. in the northbound
direction (Hearn to College Avenue), and from Todd Road to State Route 12 (SR-12) between 1:45
p.m. and 6:40 p.m. in the northbound direction. As of mid-2008, construction on U.S. 101 through
central Santa Rosa (SR-12 to Steele Lane) results in constricted lanes and capacity reductions; queues
created by this project at times back up in the northbound direction as far as Hearn Avenue, and
sometimes farther. This project is expected to be completed by 2009.

U.S. 101 was widened to add peak-hour HOV lanes between Wilfred Avenue and SR-12 and opened
in November 2002. These lanes are restricted to carpools (two or more persons) and buses between
7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 3 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, in both directions.

SR-12 (the Luther Burbank Memorial Freeway) generally is not congested, except near its
interchange with U.S. 101, where capacity constraints at the junction between the two freeways cause
backups onto SR-12. Even in peak commute hours, SR-12 generally operates at Level of Service
(LOS) C or better as explained further below, although traffic flows are heavy. SR-12 connects
Sebastopol and much of the populated west county to Santa Rosa, the Sonoma Valley, and eventually
links to the Interstate 80 corridor. SR-12 is a freeway from Fulton Road east to Farmers Lane, and it

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-13

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

is a two-lane conventional highway (with some center turn lanes) from Fulton Road west to the
Sebastopol city limits.

Intersection and Urban Street (Corridor) Levels of Service

There are three different analysis techniques used to compute level of service for city streets:
signalized intersections, two-way stop-controlled intersections, and urban street (arterial) system.
The City of Santa Rosa utilizes the urban street LOS to gauge the impact of additional traffic from a
project on the street system. However, the level of service on arterial streets is generally governed by
the level of service of the intervening intersections along the street. Hence, intersection LOS and
delay are estimated first. These estimates also can be utilized in proposing intersection improvements
at failing intersections as part of overall street mitigation measures. A clear understanding of all three
techniques is needed to develop effective mitigations and assess impacts. Table 4.12-2,

Table 4.12-3 and Table 4.12-4 provide an interpretation of the level of service results. All of the
techniques portray the estimated level of service in terms of a letter grade, which ranges from A (no
delay/excellent conditions) to F (major delays/poorest conditions).

The duration of intersection counts was 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on a weekday (not
Friday), and Saturday from noon to 2 p.m. The peak-hour traffic volumes, along with intersection
lane configuration (geometrics) and signal timing information were used to compute the
intersection LOS. All computations are based upon the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM
2000). It should be noted that the level of service computed for stop-controlled intersections is not
directly comparable to the same letter level of service for signalized intersections. The LOS ranges
are adjusted to reflect driver expectations that they will experience shorter delays at stop-controlled
intersections than at traffic signals. For example, 30 seconds of average delay is LOS C at a signal
but LOS D at a stop sign.

Table 4.12-2: Level of Service Definitions - Signalized Intersections

Letter Total Delay

Description
Grade (seconds)
Free Flow/Insignificant Delays - No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and
A 10.0
no vehicle waits longer than one red indication.
Stable Operation/Minimal Delays - An occasional approach phase is fully utilized.
B 10.1 to 20.0
Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles.
Stable Operation/Acceptable Delays - Major approach phases fully utilized. Most
C 20.1 to 35.0
drivers feel somewhat restricted.
Approaching Unstable/Tolerable Delays - Drivers may have to wait through more
D 35.1 to 55.0 than one red signal indication. Queues may develop but dissipate rapidly, without
excessive delays. Effective coordination of traffic signals becomes difficult.

4.12-14 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Table 4.12-2 (Cont.): Level of Service Definitions - Signalized Intersections

Letter Total Delay

Description
Grade (seconds)
Unstable Operation/Significant Delays - Assuming proper signal timing, volumes
are at or near capacity. Vehicles may wait though several signal cycles. Long
E 55.1 to 80.0
queues form upstream from intersection. Effective coordinate of traffic signals can
be very difficult.
Forced Flow/Excessive Delays - Represents unacceptable conditions. Intersection
operates below capacity with low volumes. Queues may block upstream
F > 80.0
intersections. Coordination of progressive traffic signals is usually useless; signals
may be set to go green at the same time to facilitate traffic flow at low speeds.
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000.

Table 4.12-3: Level of Service Definitions - Unsignalized Intersections

Letter Delay (seconds per

Description
Grade vehicle)
A 0-10 Little or no delay
B >10 to 15 Short traffic delay
C >15 to 25 Average traffic delays
D >25 to 35 Long traffic delays
E >35 to 50 Very long traffic delays
Extreme delays potentially affecting other traffic movements in
F >50
the intersection
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000.

Table 4.12-4: Level of Service Definitions - Urban Streets

Roadway Classification
Letter Grade
Class II - Suburban Class III - Intermediate Class IV - Urban
A > 35 > 30 > 25
B > 28 35 > 24 - 30 > 19 - 25
C > 22 28 > 18 - 24 > 13 - 19
D > 17 22 > 14 - 18 > 9 -13
E > 13 17 > 10 - 14 >7-9
F 13 10 7
Notes:
Street types are based on the degree of access control, speed limits, the presence of parking, and the posted speed limits.
Class I has been omitted because it does not apply to any situations in the study area. Class II (suburban) streets
typically have widely spaced driveways, posted speed limits of 35-45 mph, turn lane channelization, and no parking.
Class III represents intermediate streets, and Class IV represents urban streets.
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-15

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Table 4.12-5 presents the analysis of the three major arterial corridors in the study area. The
calculated values were determined from the Synchro 6 software analysis, accounting for traffic
volumes, link travel times, and delays due to congestion. Intersection levels of service, including
detailed calculation sheets, are shown in Appendix J.

Table 4.12-6 shows the mainline levels of service on U.S. 101. The table may portray a more
favorable picture of traffic conditions than reality, because a bottleneck caused by the existing four-
lane section in central Santa Rosa and associated construction activity creates a spillback of traffic
during peak periods to Baker Avenue, and at times as far as Yolanda Avenue in the northbound
direction. This problem has been reduced, but not eliminated, by the addition of the HOV lanes in
late 2002, which end near SR-12. This spillback problem is expected to be eliminated when the
widening through central Santa Rosa opens.

There is only a weak relationship between freeway level of service and travel speeds. Recent
research indicates that freeway speeds can be maintained near the posted speed limit (60-65 mph) up
to LOS E, when traffic flows may become unstable, and then vehicle speeds oscillate or quickly
decrease to stop-and-go conditions. However, comfort and maneuverability (ability to change lanes)
are good for drivers up to approximately LOS C. At LOS D and E, speeds may continue to be high,
but drivers will feel constrained and may find lane changing difficult. Caltrans attempts, as a desired
goal, to maintain peak-hour traffic operations at the transition between LOS C and D.

Table 4.12-5: Existing Urban Street Level of Service (2008)

Peak Hour
Roadway Segment Class Direction Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday
Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS

Santa Rosa Burt Street to IV Northbound 14.5 C 11.8 D 15.8 D

Avenue Colgan Avenue
Southbound 20.2 B 15.0 C 14.2 C
Santa Rosa Colgan Avenue to III Northbound 26.3 B 18.2 C 25.6 B
Avenue Petaluma Hill
Road Southbound 22.6 C 22.7 C 21.9 C

Petaluma Yolanda Avenue II Northbound 31.2 B 31.1 B 29.5 B

Hill Road to Colgan Avenue
Southbound 28.5 B 25.4 C 25.7 C
Hearn Dutton Avenue to III Eastbound 13.0 E 10.3 E 12.8 E
Avenue Santa Rosa
Avenue Westbound 18.7 C 20.8 C 16.3 D

Kawana Santa Rosa III Eastbound 26.1 B 23.2 C 27.4 B

Springs Road Avenue to
Petaluma Hill Westbound
22.3 B 17.9 D 19.0 C
Road
Notes:
Yolanda Avenue is not shown because it is too short to be analyzed using the Urban Street method. However, it is considered as part
of the Farmers Lane Extension project in the future traffic analyses. Bold indicates a level of service below the City of Santa Rosas
desired standard.
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

4.12-16 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Table 4.12-6: U.S. 101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service, Mixed Flow Lanes

7 AM to 8 AM Peak Hour 4 PM to 5 PM Peak Hour

Segment Direction
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Volume Volume
Ratio Ratio
Todd Road to Northbound 3,281 0.70 C 2,821 0.60 C
Yolanda Avenue
Southbound 3,760 0.80 D 3,010 0.64 C
Yolanda Avenue to Northbound 3,519 0.75 D 3,192 0.68 C
Baker Avenue
Southbound 4,097 0.87 D 3,437 0.73 D
Notes:
The volumes shown include the recommended HCM 2000 adjustment for trucks, which constitute approximately 6.3
percent of all vehicles on this portion of U.S. 101. The volumes shown are in passenger-car equivalents (pce).
Level of service calculated in accordance with Caltranss Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which
predicts a level freeway with two lanes in each direction has a capacity of 4,700 pce per hour in each direction.
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2005.

Table 4.12-7 and Exhibit 4.12-5 show signalized intersection levels of service. Typically, LOS D or
better is considered acceptable in urban areas during peak hours. Since the General Plan Update of
1991 was adopted, Santa Rosa bases its traffic level of service standard on the Urban Street (arterial)
level of service, using LOS D as the standard (Policy TD-1 of General Plan, 2020). This standard is
based upon traffic movement along a corridor, which may include several signalized intersections.
This approach focuses on the overall flow and speed of traffic, and not the delays at individual
intersections. It therefore represents an averaging of the travel speed/time along an Urban Street. As
discussed later in this section, the City of Santa Rosa has an established standard of maintaining LOS
of D or better on major corridors during peak traffic hours.

As indicated in Table 4.12-7, the intersection of Yolanda Avenue and Petaluma Hill Road is the only
one experiencing LOS E or worse in the peak hours. This is primarily due to the long delays in
making a left turn eastbound at this unsignalized intersection.

Table 4.12-7: Existing Intersection Level of Service (2004/2005)

Peak Hour (Highest Peak 60-Minute Period)

No. Intersection Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
1 Petaluma Hill Road/
B 15.4 B 17.0 B 14.7
Santa Rosa Avenue
2 Colgan Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road A 8.9 B 15.4 B 12.1
3 Baker Avenue Overcrossing/
B 14.7 C 31.1 B 19.9
Santa Rosa Avenue
4 Colgan (Baker) Avenue/
C 21.7 C 30.0 C 23.4
Santa Rosa Avenue

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-17

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Table 4.12-7 (Cont.): Existing Intersection Level of Service (2004/2005)

Peak Hour (Highest Peak 60-Minute Period)

No. Intersection Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
5 Kawana Springs Road/
B 16.2 C 28.0 C 25.4
Santa Rosa Avenue
6 Kawana Springs Road/
B 15.7 C 27.9 B 18.4
Petaluma Hill Road
7 Hearn Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue C 31.6 D 47.6 C 34.8
8 Hearn Avenue/Dutton Avenue B 12.5 B 19.5 B 12.5
9 Hearn Avenue/Corby Avenue C 24.9 D 45.5 D 37.4
10 Yolanda Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound
C 27.4 C 39.8 C 26.8
Ramps/Santa Rosa Avenue
11 Yolanda Avenue/ Right turn B 14.6 F 54.3 A 9.0
Petaluma Hill Road* **
Left turn D 33.0 F F 57.2
12 Aston Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road C 20.7 C 20.6 B 17.0
13 U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/
B 17.7 B 14.4 B 13.1
Corby Avenue
14 Southside Shopping Center/
A 4.8 A 8.8 B 15.5
Santa Rosa Avenue
15 Burt Street/Santa Rosa Avenue B 11.3 B 20.0 C 29.7
16 Santa Rosa Marketplace/
C 20.7 C 21.4 C 28.5
Santa Rosa Avenue
Notes:
The City of Santa Rosa circulation level of service standard is based on urban street corridors, not intersections.
Therefore, tables in this study providing intersection level of service are for informational purposes only, and are not
used in determining whether a significant impact exists.
* Unsignalized, two-way, stop-controlled intersection.
** Delay is greater than 100 seconds and cannot be accurately calculated.
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

Traffic Generation from Existing Site Uses

The existing site uses are described in Section 3, Project Description. Table 4.12-8 below shows the
trip generation for the existing uses. Because the existing uses produce a relatively low intensity of
trips during peak hours (as shown in Table 4.12-8), and because of the difficulties inherent in trying
to geographically distribute these trips, it was decided to include the existing traffic from the existing
site when preparing this analysis. In effect, this results in a more conservative analysis, because
traffic from the existing site uses is added to the proposed project, effectively double counting the
trips and making the projected future level of service slightly worse than it would actually be.

4.12-18 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 NOT TO SCALE
1MGLEIP&VERHQER%WWSGMEXIW
CITY OF SANTA ROSA SANTA ROSA LOWES HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Table 4.12-8: Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for Existing Site Uses

Trip Generation per Unit

Saturday
ITE Land Use Code Units Weekday (ITE Rates)
(ITE Rates)
AM Peak PM Peak Midday
Daily Daily
Hour Hour Peak Hour
110 General Light 1,000 square 6.97 0.92 0.98 1.32 0.14
Industrial feet
Source: Dowling Associates; Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.

Since the existing site use is approximately 39,262 square feet of building area, the total weekday
(24 hour) vehicle trips would be 274 (39,262 square feet multiplied by 6.97 trips per 1000 square
feet), and 52 trips on a Saturday. In the weekday morning peak hour, there are 36 trips (32 in and 4
out), and on a weekday afternoon peak hour, 38 trips (5 in and 33 out). On a Saturday, 5 vehicle trips
are estimated to be generated during the peak hour. This is a relatively small amount of traffic when
compared with the traffic generation potential of the proposed project.

Public Schools in the Study Area

There is only one school within the study area, Kawana (Elementary) School, at 2121 Moraga Drive.
The school serves grades K-6, and has approximately 590 students. Santa Rosas General Plan calls
for two additional schools in the southeast area: another elementary school on Bellevue Avenue east
of Santa Rosa Avenue and a proposed middle school south of Bellevue Avenue (but inside the urban
growth boundary).

Public Transit
Three transit agencies provide bus service to the project vicinity: Santa Rosa CityBus, Sonoma
County Transit, and Golden Gate Transit. Each agencys service is discussed below.

Santa Rosa CityBus

The Santa Rosa Department of Transit and Parking operates CityBus, and routes provide service
within the City of Santa Rosa plus some areas immediately adjacent to the City. Most routes
converge on the Second Street Transit Mall (between B Street and Santa Rosa Avenue) in the
downtown, where connections can be made with other CityBus routes, as well as intercity and inter-
regional transit services. CityBus services generally operate on the timed transfer concept, so that
the waiting time for transfer to other CityBus routes is minimized. Three CityBus routes serve the
project vicinity: Route 5, Route 18, and Route 19. These routes are shown on Exhibit 4.12-6 and are
discussed below.

Route 5 - South Park

This route connects the southeastern portion of the City with the downtown using Petaluma Hill
Road, Kawana Springs Road, and Santa Rosa Avenue. In the south, Route 5 terminates near Elsa

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-21

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Drive and Santa Rosa Avenue, just south of the Santa Rosa Town Center shopping center. The route
also circulates through the downtown, and connects to the 2nd Street Transit Mall. Service is
provided every 30 minutes Monday through Friday, from 6:20 a.m. to 7:45 p.m. and every 60 minutes
on Saturdays and Sundays. On Saturdays, service is operated 6:50 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., and on Sundays
from 10:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. The route takes 40 minutes to make a complete loop.

Route 5 serves two bus stops within walking distance of the project site:

Eastbound (northbound): Santa Rosa Avenue, just north of the Hearn Avenue overcrossing of
U.S. 101

Westbound (southbound): Kawana Springs Road, just east of Santa Rosa Avenue

Route 18 - Southeast Circulator

This route operates in a north-south direction along Santa Rosa Avenue, making two clockwise loops
using Colgan Avenue, Kawana Springs Road, Petaluma Hill Road, and Yolanda Avenue. The
northbound buses (inbound to downtown) stop almost directly in front of the proposed project site,
although southbound passengers would have to exit at Kawana Springs Road near Santa Rosa
Avenue. Buses run hourly from 6:55 a.m. to 5:50 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 9:55 a.m.
to 3:50 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays (except that there is no 12:50 p.m. departure on weekends).
The route takes 50 minutes to make a complete loop.

Route 18 serves two bus stops within walking distance of the project site:

Eastbound (northbound): Kawana Springs Road, just west of Santa Rosa Avenue

Westbound (southbound): Yolanda Avenue, just west of Santa Rosa Avenue (McDonalds
restaurant), near project site

Route 19 - South City Connector

This route provides a direct connection between Roseland and downtown Santa Rosa via the Santa
Rosa Avenue corridor. Buses run hourly from 6:05 a.m. to 8:10 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
from 7:30 a.m. to 7:10 p.m. on Saturdays, and from 10:35 a.m. to 5:10 p.m. on Sundays. The route
takes 35 minutes to make a complete circuit.

In the project vicinity, Route 19 stops at the same bus stops as Route 5.

Sonoma County Transit

Sonoma County Transit, a division of the Sonoma County Transportation and Public Works
Department, operates two intercity bus lines on Santa Rosa Avenue: Routes 44 and 48. Both routes
begin at the Coddingtown shopping center, stop at the 2nd Street transit mall in downtown, and
terminate in Petaluma, but use somewhat different paths. Route 44 uses Petaluma Hill Road and

4.12-22 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 NOT TO SCALE
1MGLEIP&VERHQER%WWSGMEXIW
CITY OF SANTA ROSA SANTA ROSA LOWES HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

serves Penngrove and Petalumas eastside, while Route 48 travels on Old Redwood Highway, serving
Cotati and Petalumas west side. Service frequency is irregular, but on a weekday the combined
44/48 service has 22 buses in each direction, from approximately 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. On weekends,
there are nine buses in each direction.

Golden Gate Transit

Golden Gate Transit (GGT), a division of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation
District, provides regional (i.e., inter-county) bus service on Santa Rosa Avenue. There are three
routes nearby (72, 73, and 75), but the schedules are oriented toward the inter-county commuters, i.e.,
to those traveling southbound early in the morning and returning northbound in the evening, to jobs in
Marin and Sonoma counties.

Bicycles
The three types of bikeways are summarized below.

Class I: Dedicated bicycle/pedestrian path

Class II: Striped bicycle lane and corresponding signs for bicycle-only use
Class III: Signed routes shared by either vehicles or pedestrians

Existing and planned bicycle facilities in the project study area are described below and are depicted
in Exhibit 4.12-7. Route numbers in this figure correspond to those used in the Update of the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2001.

Santa Rosa Avenue

Bike lanes extend from the City limits on Santa Rosa Avenue in the south to Colgan Avenue. North
of Colgan Avenue to downtown, Santa Rosa Avenue is a Class III bike route. The Citys bicycle plan
calls for bike lanes to be extended into the downtown. Most of the traffic signals on Santa Rosa
Avenue have been equipped with bicycle-sensitive detection loops.

Kawana Springs Road

Class II bike lanes exist from Santa Rosa Avenue east to Petaluma Hill Road. Kawana Springs Road
east of Petaluma Hill Road is also proposed for bike lanes; ultimately extending to Farmers Lane
Extension, which is yet to be constructed.

Colgan Creek Path

The Colgan Creek bike path is a Class I bike path along the creek from Colgan Avenue to Petaluma
Hill Road. The path will ultimately be extended from Petaluma Hill Road to Farmers Lane
Extension.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-25

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Petaluma Hill Road

Class II bike lanes exist from Yolanda Avenue north to Colgan Avenue along Petaluma Hill Road.
Between Colgan Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue, Petaluma Hill Road is designated as a Class III
signed bike route. The Citys bicycle plan calls for extension of the bike lanes south of Yolanda
Avenue to the city limit, continuing along Petaluma Hill Road (in the Countys jurisdiction) to the
City of Rohnert Park.

Yolanda Avenue
Yolanda Avenue has no bicycle facilities today, but the bicycle plan calls for Class II bike lanes
between Santa Rosa Avenue and Petaluma Hill Road along Yolanda Avenue, along with bike lanes
on Farmers Lane Extension between Petaluma Hill Road and Bennett Valley Road.

Pedestrian Access
The City of Santa Rosa has sidewalks along most streets in the City. In the project vicinity, a partial
sidewalk is present along the project site frontage with Santa Rosa Avenue, but no sidewalk along the
Yolanda Avenue frontage exists. The partial sidewalk along the Santa Rosa Avenue consists of a
concrete sidewalk along the 2532 Santa Rosa Avenue parcel and a paved asphalt surface along the
2612 and 2620 Santa Rosa Avenue parcels. The asphalt surface is located at a higher grade than the
concrete sidewalk and is not considered an actual sidewalk; however, it does facilitate pedestrian
mobility.

4.12.3 - Regulatory Framework

State
Caltrans
Caltrans has jurisdiction over all freeway ramp and mainline segments. Caltrans endeavors to
maintain a minimum peak-hour LOS on its facilities of between LOS C and D, which represents a
volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.71.

Local
City of Santa Rosa
General Plan
The General Plan establishes the following goals and policies related to transportation that are
applicable to the proposed project:

Goal LUL-A: Foster a compact rather than a scattered development pattern.

Policy LUL-A-1: As part of Plan implementationincluding development review, capital
improvements programming, and preparation of detailed area plansfoster close land
use/transportation relationships to promote use of alternative transportation modes and
discourage travel by automobile.

4.12-26 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 NOT TO SCALE
1MGLEIP&VERHQER%WWSGMEXIW
CITY OF SANTA ROSA SANTA ROSA LOWES HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Goal UD-D: Avoid strip patterns of commercial development. Improve the appearance and
functioning of existing commercial strip corridors, such as Santa Rosa Avenue and Sebastopol
Road.
Policy UD-D-1: Restructure existing strip developments to cluster commercial uses in
neighborhood nodes, with higher density housing included in the mix where possible.
Residential, office, or institutional uses that generate less traffic should be located between the
nodes.
Policy UD-D-2: Maintain a uniform setback of structures from the street. Require parking
areas to be placed to the side or rear of structures, not in front.
Policy UD-D-3: Minimize curb cuts through shared access and width reduction.
Excessive curb cuts reduce or completely eliminate pedestrian space and the possibility of
curbside parking.
Policy UD-D-4: Provide continuous sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides of major
regional/arterial streets.
Policy UD-D-5: Provide planting strips with large canopy trees between the road and sidewalk
to buffer pedestrians from traffic, and help define the street space along commercial streets.
Install pedestrian amenities in the planting strip such as:
- Street lighting,
- Seating,
- Bus stop shelters,
- Bicycle racks, and
- Mailboxes.
Goal T-A: Provide a safe and sustainable transportation system.
Policy T-A-1: Expand Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs for employers,
and reduce peak hour single-occupancy automobile trips through the following techniques:
- Promotion of transit service;
- Staggering of work shifts;
- Flextime (e.g. 9/80 work schedule);
- Telecommuting;
- Carpool and vanpool incentives,
- Provision of bicycle facilities; and
- Parking disincentives for single-occupant vehicles.
Goal T-B: Provide a safe, efficient, free-flowing circulation system.
Policy T-B-1: Require site design to focus through-traffic on regional/arterial streets. Promote
the following design techniques to increase driver safety and traffic efficiency:
- Reduce the number of driveways and intersections;
- Combine driveways to serve numerous small parcels;
- Avoid residential access;
- Install street lights;
- Install and facilitate timing of traffic signals, and

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-29

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

- Ensure continuous sidewalks.

Policy T-B-2: Locate uses generating heavy traffic so that they have direct access or
immediate secondary access to regional/arterial streets or highways.
Goal T-C: Reduce traffic volumes and speeds in neighborhoods.
Policy T-C-1: Minimize through traffic in residential neighborhoods and avoid excessive
traffic volumes greater than that dictated by street design and classification, by providing
attractive regional/arterial streets to accommodate cross-town traffic.
Policy T-C-4: Improve traffic flow and reduce neighborhood traffic impacts in all quadrants of
the City by completing needed improvements, such as road widening and traffic calming. Seek
innovative funding mechanisms in order to maximize the number of projects completed.
Goal T-D: Maintain acceptable traffic flows.
Policy T-D-1: Maintain a Level of Service (LOS) D or better along all major corridors.
Exceptions to meeting the standard include:
- Within downtown;
- Where attainment would result in significant environmental degradation;
- Where topography or environmental impacts makes the improvement impossible; or
- Where attainment would ensure loss of an areas unique character.
The LOS is to be calculated using the average traffic demand over the highest 60-minute
period.
Policy T-D-2: Monitor LOS at intersections to assure that improvements or alterations to
improve corridor LOS do not cause severe impacts at any single intersection.
Policy T-D-3: Require traffic studies for development projects that may have a substantial
impact on the circulation system.
Policy T-D-4: Monitor regional/arterial street LOS at regular intervals to determine if the LOS
goal is being met, and provide information needed to maintain a calibrated citywide traffic
model.
Goal T-E: Complete needed transportation improvements in a timely manner.
Policy T-E-1: Complete the projected street and highway improvements in time to
accommodate the traffic that will be generated by future development.
Policy T-E-2: Require development projects to pay a fair share of costs for transportation
system improvements. Periodically update the Citys impact fees to assure the adequacy of
funding for needed transportation system improvements.
Policy T-E-3: Evaluate the costs and benefits of delaying or diverting development in areas
where traffic mitigation requires costly improvements that are beyond near-term funding
capability, until the construction of the needed improvements can be assured.
Goal T-H: Expand the existing transit network to provide convenient and efficient public
transportation to workplaces, shopping, and other destinations.
Policy T-H-1: Provide convenient, efficient routes to major employment centers throughout
the City.

4.12-30 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Policy T-H-3: Require new development to provide transit improvements, where a rough
proportionality to demand from the project is established. Transit improvements may include:
- Direct and paved pedestrian access to transit stops;
- Bus turnouts and shelters; and
- Lane width to accommodate buses.
Goal T-J: Provide attractive and safe streets for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy T-J-1: Pursue implementation of walking and bicycling facilities as envisioned in the
Citys Updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Goal T-K: Develop a safe, convenient, and continuous network of pedestrian sidewalks and
pathways that link neighborhoods with schools, parks, shopping areas, and employment
centers.
Policy T-K-1: Link the various citywide pedestrian paths, including street sidewalks,
downtown walkways, pedestrian areas in shopping centers and work complexes, park
pathways, and other creekside and open space pathways.
Policy T-K-3: Orient building plans to allow for easy pedestrian access from street sidewalks,
transit stops, and other pedestrian facilities, in addition to access from parking lots.
Policy T-K-4: Require construction of attractive pedestrian walkways and areas in new
residential, commercial, office and industrial developments. Provide landscaping or other
appropriate buffers between sidewalks and heavily traveled vehicular traffic lanes, as well as
through and to parking lots.
Goal T-L: Develop a citywide system of designated bikeways that serves both experienced
and casual bicyclists, and which maximizes bicycle use for commuting, recreation, and local
transportation.
Policy T-L-1: Provide bicycle lanes along all regional/arterial streets and high volume
transitional/collector streets.
Policy T-L-3: Improve bicycle networks by finishing incomplete or disconnected bicycle
routes.
Policy T-L-8: As part of the Citys Capital Improvement Program, or street and intersection
projects constructed by private developers, install and construct bicycle facilities, including:
- Class I paths, Class II lanes, or Class III route signs;
- Signal detectors;
- Showers;
- Lockers;
- Bicycle parking; and/or
- Other facilities.
Implementation shall occur as opportunities arise throughout the entire bikeway network.
Policy T-L-9: Require new development to dedicate land and/or construct/install bicycle
facilities for project users, where a rough proportionality to demand from the project is
established.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-31

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

City Code
Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 20-36 establishes off-street vehicular parking for new development
projects. The proposed project would be classified as a Shopping Center by the City Code for
parking analysis purposes and, therefore, would be required to provide off-street parking at a ratio of
one space per 250 square feet of gross leasable area.

The chapter also establishes bicycle parking standards for new development projects. Commercial
retail projects must provide bicycle parking spaces equivalent to 5 percent of the required off-street
vehicular spaces.

4.12.4 - Methodology
Arterial Operations Analysis
Dowling Associates evaluated the proposed projects impacts on arterial operations. The analysis is
wholly contained in this section and the modeling output is provided in Appendix J. The analysis
included counts of traffic volumes on roadways to identify existing conditions and modeling
projections of future conditions under near-term and long-term scenarios. The analysis involved the
following steps:

Trip Generation
Reviewed other available trip generation information on similar Lowes stores.

- Estimated weekday daily and peak-hour trips and Saturday daily trips for Lowes store
utilizing the ITEs Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition rates for land use category 862,
which is called Home Improvement Superstore. The rate is based on a freestanding
(isolated) store and is shown in Table 4.12-9.

The Saturday Mid Day Peak Hour trips for a Home Improvement Store were estimated from
rates developed from the manual traffic counts conducted during Saturday midday peak hour at
existing Lowes stores in Cotati and Vacaville. This was necessary because of the small
number (only three studies) of published observations by ITE for this time period. A weighted
average was developed that combined the three ITE observations with the two stores that were
surveyed by Dowling Associates, to create the average Saturday peak trip generation rate used
in Table 4.12-15.

4.12-32 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Table 4.12-9: Vehicle Trip Generation Rates

Trip Generation per Unit

Saturday
ITE Land Use Code Units Weekday (ITE Rates) (ITE Rate Averaged
with Traffic Counts)
AM Peak PM Peak Midday
Daily Daily
Hour Hour Peak Hour
862 - Home 1,000 square feet 28.11 1.20 2.45 45.67 5.40
Improvement Center
932 - High-Turnover 1,000 square feet 127.15 11.52 10.92 158.37 20.00
Sit-Down Restaurant
Notes:
This rate is the average based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) fitted curve equation, which is ITEs
recommended practice.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.

Potential tenants for the two 4,500-square-foot retail/restaurant spaces are unknown. Based on
discussions with City staff, it could be assumed that half the space would be occupied by a
non-fast-food restaurant (e.g., sandwich shop), and the other half would be a coffeehouse (e.g.,
Starbucks, Peets, etc.). However, because of the uncertainty of the land use for this space, a
high trip-generating land use, High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (Code 932) was utilized
for trip generation purposes for the retail pad. This would present the worst-case scenario in
terms of trip generation for the two 4,500-square-foot spaces. The actual final land use then is
not relevant so long as the actual use does not generate more trips than the numbers in Table
4.12-10, and there would be no significantly different impact than presented in this EIR.

Applied a reduction of 44 percent and 34 percent for pass-by trips on the adjacent streets for
trips generated by the proposed project on a weekday and Saturday respectively based on ITEs
Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition recommended practice, and the recommendation of the
Citys Traffic Engineering Division. The relevant pages from the ITEs Trip Generation
Handbook, 2nd Edition are included in the technical appendices to this Transportation section of
the EIR. Pass-by trips are trips that are already in the existing traffic stream that pass by the
site and that would be attracted to the project when it is completed, i.e., customers attracted
from the existing traffic on Santa Rosa Avenue or Yolanda Avenue to stop at the Lowes store.
For example, Table 4.12-10 shows that on a weekday, the proposed project would generate 291
morning and 479 afternoon trips in and out of the site (i.e., the unadjusted trip generation total).
With the 44-percent pass-by reduction, the row below this shows that 161 net new trips would
be added to surrounding streets in the morning, and 266 new net trips would be added in the
afternoon (i.e., the adjusted trip generation total). These figures are arrived at by multiplying
the peak-hour trip ends by 0.56 (100 percent minus 44 percent). Table 4.12-10 shows that the
greatest relative impact of the project is on a Saturday, not only because there are more trips
during the peak hour at the project driveways (959 unadjusted trips) but also because the pass-

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-33

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

by factor is lower (34 percent ). On Saturday, it is expected more people would make trips
directly to or from home, whereas on a weekday, during the peak commute periods, people are
more likely to make a stop as part of a trip already being made for commuting, school,
shopping, etc. In addition, the distribution of trips is different on weekends (see discussion
under Trip Distribution, below).

Applied internal capture rate of 5 percent for trips to/from the two 4,500-square-foot
retail/restaurant spaces adjacent to Santa Rosa Avenue, based on Caltranss Traffic Impact
Study Guidelines, which is available online.

Diverted link trips were also considered. These are trips that are attracted from the traffic
volume on roadways within the vicinity of the proposed Lowes but require a diversion from
that roadway to gain access to the site. Most of these trips are expected to be from U.S. 101.
Diverted linked trips add traffic to streets adjacent to a site but may not add traffic to the areas
major travel routes. For example, someone driving home from a job in Petaluma to home in
north Santa Rosa, who stops at Lowes on the way home, is a diverted trip. This does not add
new traffic to U.S. 101, but this does add a new trip to Yolanda Avenue (including the freeway
off- and on-ramps). Based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition
recommendation, the diverted link trips are treated similar to trips with Lowes as the primary
destination/origin, due to the difficulty in insolating such trips and the fact that they contribute
to impacts at nearby intersections.

4.12-34 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

An approved and pending projects list was obtained from the Citys Community Development
Department. This included many projects in the southeastern area, although the most relevant
to this EIR were those projects along Santa Rosa Avenue. These projects are listed in Table
4.12-11. Trips generated by the approved and proposed projects based on ITE trip generation
rates can be found in Appendix J.

Table 4.12-11: Approved and Proposed Projects

City
Quadrant Project Site Address/Name Description Status
No.
Southeast 1 706 Aston Avenue 28 multi-family units Approved
908 Aston Avenue 33 single-family attached Approved
2
units
3 532 Aston Avenue 15 single-family units Approved
4 537 Aston Avenue 7 apartments Approved
1900 Santa Rosa Avenue/Costco 7,500-square-foot retail Approved
7
expansion
9 1650- 1800 Meda Avenue 30 single-family units Proposed
1162 Kawana Springs Road/2660 69 single-family Approved
10 Petaluma Hill Road/Kawana detached units; 161
Meadows multi-family units
2800 Kawana Springs Road/Kawana 30 multi-family units Approved
11
Meadows Apartments
1835 Kawana Springs Road/Kawana 94 single-family Approved
12
Springs 6 detached units
1346 Kawana Springs Road/Kawana 11 single-family Approved
13
Terrace detached units
2450 Brookwood Avenue/Kawana 129 single-family Approved
Town Center attached units; 10 multi-
14
family units; 10,000
square feet retail
1150-1310 Kawana Springs 39 single-family units Proposed
15
Road/Kawana Village
2859 Linwood Avenue/Linwood 9 single-family detached Proposed
16
Village units
1820 Meda Avenue/Meda Village 30 single-family Proposed
18
detached units
1275 Santa Rosa Avenue/Nissan of 32,800 square feet retail Proposed
20
Santa Rosa
21 1511-1533 Petaluma Hill Road 93 apartments Proposed

4.12-36 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Table 4.12-11 (Cont.): Approved and Proposed Projects

City
Quadrant Project Site Address/Name Description Status
No.
cont. 468 Yolanda Avenue 10,000 square feet retail; Proposed
22 22,700 square feet light
industrial
1130 Gordon Lane/Sandalwood 17 single-family Approved
25 detached units; 2 multi-
family units
2630-2660 Petaluma Hill Road/Santa 126 single-family Approved
27 Rosa Village attached units; 98,500
square feet retail
1835 Kawana Springs Road/Sonoma 170,000 square feet Approved
29
Academy private school
965 South A Street; South A Lofts 20 single-family attached Proposed
31
units
766 Kawana Springs Road/The 30 multi-family units Approved
35
Bungalows
Southwest 3000 Dutton Meadow - Colgan 84 multi-family units Approved
5
Meadows
3011 Dutton Meadow - Colgan 64 single-family units Proposed
6
Village
2641 Dutton Meadow - Dutton 12 single-family units Proposed
8
Meadow Subdivision
2650-2684 Dutton Meadow - Dutton 65 single-family Approved
Meadows detached units; 471
single-family attached
units; 50 multi-family
9
units; 84,000 square feet
retail; 10,000 square feet
office; 3,000 square feet
public/institutional
2740 Dutton Meadow - Dutton 150 single-family Approved
10
Village attached units
251 Bellevue Avenue/G&C Auto 20,800-square-foot retail Approved
11
Body expansion
1466 Hearn Avenue/Hearn Village 11 single-family attached Proposed
15 units; 2 single-family
detached units
2803 Dutton Meadow/Lone Star 24 single-family Proposed
18
detached units
2630 Stony Point Road/Makara 6 single-family detached Proposed
19
Courts units; 4 secondary units

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-37

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Table 4.12-11 (Cont.): Approved and Proposed Projects

City
Quadrant Project Site Address/Name Description Status
No.
cont. 2853-2875 Dutton 82 single-family Proposed
20 Meadow/Meadowood Ranch detached units; 82
secondary units
2727 Dutton Meadow/Somerset Place 32 single-family Proposed
21
detached units
1112 Hearn Avenue/Minoia 66 single-family Approved
23
detached units
2542 Old Stony Point Road/Old Stony 64 single-family attached Proposed
24
Point units
1550-1590 Hearn Avenue/Park 16 single-family Proposed
26 Village detached units; 74 multi-
family units
2384-2410 Stony Point Road/Ridge 56 apartments Approved
28
Point Apartments
2786 Dutton Meadow/Somerset Place 32 single-family Proposed
30
detached units
1250 Aloise Avenue/Southern 14 single-family Approved
31
Gardens detached units
533 Bellevue Avenue/Southwest 48 single-family Proposed
32
Estates detached units
2733 Stony Point Road/Stony Village 44 single-family attached Proposed
33
units
2872-2882 Stony Point Road/Stony 151 single-family Proposed
34
Village South detached units
Burbank Elementary School Elementary school Proposed
Source: City of Santa Rosa, 2008.

The cumulative analysis (year 2020) was based on the Citys most recently adopted General
Plan land development potential. The traffic includes all project land development through
2020, as well as proposed traffic improvement projects in the General Plan. Cumulative
development outside the City was considered using data from the Sonoma County General
Plan and the Association of Bay Area Governments.

Level of service was analyzed utilizing techniques in the latest Highway Capacity Manual (the
HCM 2000) and using the Synchro 6 software program.

The arterial operations analysis addresses two periods in time. First, near-term impacts are examined,
including Existing, Existing Condition Plus Approved Developments, Existing Plus Approved
Development Plus Proposed Project, and Existing Conditions Plus Approved Development Plus

4.12-38 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Proposed Development Plus Proposed Project. Second, Cumulative Development impacts to the year
2020 are examined, including Cumulative Development Without the Project and Cumulative
Development With the Project.

Trip Distribution
Trip distribution refers to the locations from where or to where trips would travel. Trip distribution
for the Lowes project was developed from an examination of the existing turning movement counts
near the project site, as well as the Citys current traffic model. A summary of the trip distribution is
shown in Table 4.12-12 and in Exhibit 4.12-8.

Table 4.12-12: Project Trip Distribution of Non-Pass-by Trips

Percent of Total Traffic

Roadway Segment
Weekday Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour

U.S. 101 north of SR-12 26 10

Hearn Avenue west of Corby Avenue 17 24
Santa Rosa Avenue south of Bellevue Avenue 5 5
U.S. 101 south of Bellevue Avenue 19 6
Farmers Lane/Northeast Santa Rosa 7 15
Santa Rosa Avenue north of SR-12 6 3
SR-12 west of U.S. 101 14 22
Bennett Valley Road east of Farmers Lane 1 2
Hoen Avenue west of Farmers Lane 2 5
South E Street north of SR-12 1 2
Corby Avenue south of Hearn Avenue (auto row) 1 2
Petaluma Hill Road south of Yolanda Avenue 1 4
Total 100 100
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

On a typical weekday, a considerable amount of the traffic (45 percent) comes from U.S. 101, as
people make stops at the store going to or from work. The table excludes pass-by traffic but includes
diverted trips. On a Saturday, traffic is much more east-west oriented; people are running errands and
are less likely to be traveling on U.S. 101 than on a weekday; specific market areas for the store,
considering the location of competitive stores, would be southwestern Santa Rosa (mainly via Hearn
Avenue) and southeastern Santa Rosa, north of Todd Road. On a Saturday, only 16 percent of the
traffic is assumed to be coming from or going to the U.S. 101 freeway.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-39

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

It is possible that some traffic that otherwise would have driven to Lowes existing store in Cotati
would be intercepted by the new store, reducing the length (miles traveled) for some trips.
However, this would depend on many factors and is difficult to estimate with any certainty.

Road Improvements Included in the General Plan Traffic Forecasting Model

Scenarios and City Streets
The Citys Traffic Engineering Division requested that the arterial operations analysis consider the
following improvements under each of the scenarios listed in Table 4.12-13.

Table 4.12-13: Street Improvement Assumptions for Scenarios Evaluated

Analysis
Scenario City Streets (Geometrics)
Period
Near- Existing (2008) Existing
Term
Existing Plus Approved Existing with Yolanda Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road
Development signalized and second southbound through lane at Kawana
Springs Road/Petaluma Hill Road (existing right-turn-only
lane on Petaluma Hill Road converted to a through/right-
turn shared lane)
Existing Plus Approved Existing Plus Approved Development network plus a two-
Development Plus Proposed way left-turn lane along the project frontage on Yolanda
Project Avenue, and a right-turn-only restriction in/out of the site
on Santa Rosa Avenue driveways.
Existing Plus Approved Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed
Development Plus Proposed Project network plus all Capital Improvement Program
Development Plus Proposed projects (includes Yolanda Avenue widening) plus
Project Measure M projects
Long- 2020 Cumulative Development Roadway improvements contemplated by General Plan
Term without the Project
2020 Cumulative Development Roadway improvements contemplated by General Plan
with the Project
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

To forecast future traffic flows, assumptions regarding the number of mid-block lanes on streets
needed to be made prior to running the model. For near-term scenarios, the street improvements
listed previously under Short-Term Improvements were included as possible in the analysis. For the
cumulative analysis, all the General Plan projects (General Plan Chapter 5, Transportation Appendix,
pages 5-25 through 5-29), including the short-term and longer-term projects, were included in the
analysismost notably, Farmers Lane Extension and the Bellevue Avenue connection to the south.
All the street improvements included in one scenario were also included in each successive scenario.

Intersections
The study intersections are analyzed assuming future lane configurations shown in Table 4.12-13,
with more detail provided in the technical appendix. These improvements are consistent with the

4.12-40 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 NOT TO SCALE
1MGLEIP&VERHQER%WWSGMEXIW
CITY OF SANTA ROSA SANTA ROSA LOWES HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

improvements proposed in other plans, such as the Southeast and Southwest Area Plans. There are no
2020 traffic model projections available for the morning peak hour, although in most cases, providing
sufficient capacity to accommodate the weekday afternoon and Saturday traffic should also provide
adequate traffic level of service for the weekday morning peak hour.

Truck Trips
Lowes delivers its entire product line via company-owned regional distribution centers. Individual
vendors deliver product to the distribution centers and the product is managed and tracked from these
locations and delivered to individual Lowes stores by leased trucking companies. The trucks are
loaded with multiple types of merchandise. Semi trucks with flatbed trailers deliver lumber and
garden plant products, and regular semi trailer trucks deliver the remaining product to the stores.
Each store receives, on average, 15 to 20 truck deliveries per day. In addition, there are typically six
to 10 flatbed truck deliveries per week of lumber products, and four to eight flatbed truck and panel
van deliveries per week of garden items.

With respect to concerns about excessive pavement wear by trucks, most modern pavements are
designed to withstand the wear occasioned by truck traffic over the pavements life. The 32 to 46
one-way daily truck trips generated by the projectin either the construction or normal operating
periodare not expected to create any undue wear and tear on surrounding pavements.

Evaluation of Impacts on Alternative Transportation

Bicycle Projects
The Citys most recent Update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (August 2001) calls for bike
lanes (Class II) on both Santa Rosa Avenue and Yolanda Avenue. Upon completion of the widening
projects planned for Santa Rosa Avenue, Yolanda Avenue, and the Farmers Lane Extension project,
bike lanes will be added along both Santa Rosa Avenue and Yolanda Avenue. These bike lanes
would facilitate bicycle travel throughout the southeastern portion of the City and would allow for
connectivity to other existing or planned bicycle facilities. They could provide routes for Lowes
employees to travel to and from work. The City is currently developing a new Update of the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan and is seeking input at public workshops being held throughout the City.

Public Transit
The Citys basic planning document, called a Short Range Transit Plan, or SRTP, was recently
updated. The most recent version covers 2008-2017. Because of budget constraints, no major transit
service additions are contemplated in the short term. The SRTP notes (p. 153) that, with the
exception of the purchase of six new buses in early 2008 to enable improved service and a reserve
level of vehicles, CityBus has no imminent plans for major service restructuring.

Walking and Pedestrian Travel

The City of Santa Rosa Public Works Department has produced two reports on pedestrian needs. The
latest versions are Pedestrian Needs in Santa Rosa, (December 2002), and School Pedestrian Needs in

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-43

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Santa Rosa, (May 2003). These reports list projects that the City would like to accomplish to
improve pedestrian circulation and safety.

Currently there are traffic signals that allow for a controlled crossing of Santa Rosa Avenue near the
site at Yolanda Avenue, and at the Hearn Avenue overcrossing. The sidewalk on the Hearn Avenue
overcrossing is narrow, but the overcrossing is proposed for demolition/reconstruction in the future
and is included in the list of projects for the Measure M sales tax.

4.12.5 - Thresholds of Significance

According to the Environmental Checklist of the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), transportation
impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if
the project would:

a.) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b.) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c.) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Refer to Section 7, Effects Found
Not To Be Significant.)

d.) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e.) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f.) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

The City Code does not define a threshold of significance. However, since the General Plan Update
of 1991 was adopted, Santa Rosa bases its traffic level of service standard on the Urban Street
(arterial) level of service, using LOS D as the standard (Policy TD-1 of General Plan, 2020). Thus, it
is standard practice for the City to assume that a project causes significant impact to an urban street
(arterial) if the traffic it adds to the urban street causes the LOS to deteriorate from a LOS D or better
to failing LOS, LOS E, or LOS F. It is standard practice for the City to assume that a project causes
significant impact to a street if it adds any traffic to that street that would be LOS E or F without the
project.

Caltrans endeavors to maintain state highway facilities at no worse than the transition between LOS C
and D, with no more than 71 percent of the capacity of the facility being utilized during peak hours.
This is discussed later under impacts on US 101.

4.12-44 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

4.12.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides
mitigation measures where appropriate.

Near-Term Arterial Operations

Impact TRANS-1: The proposed project would contribute vehicle trips to surrounding roadways that
would contribute to unacceptable arterial operations under near-term conditions.

Impact Analysis
Near-term arterial operations were evaluated under four scenarios, listed below. Each is discussed
separately.

Existing
Existing Plus Approved Development
Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Project
Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Development Plus Proposed Project

Existing Conditions
The Existing scenario represents existing traffic conditions on the existing roadway network. The
purpose of this scenario is to establish a baseline and identify existing unacceptable arterial
operations. Existing arterial operations are shown in Table 4.12-14, which also shows that the only
arterial segment that operates at unacceptable levels is the eastbound Hearn Avenue between Dutton
Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue during weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. This deficiency
is the result of this segment of Hearn Avenue being restricted to a two-lane overcrossing of U.S. 101,
close intersection spacing, and signal timing necessary to optimize traffic flow at the intersection with
Santa Rosa Avenue.

Table 4.12-14: Arterial Operations - Existing Conditions

Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday

Roadway Segment Class Direction
Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS

Santa Rosa Burt Street to Northbound 14.5 C 11.8 D 15.8 D

Avenue Colgan Avenue IV
Southbound 20.2 B 15.0 C 14.2 C
Santa Rosa Colgan Avenue to Northbound 26.3 B 18.2 D 25.5 C
Avenue Petaluma Hill Road III
Southbound 22.6 C 22.7 C 21.9 C
Petaluma Hill Yolanda Avenue to Northbound 31.2 B 31.1 B 29.5 B
Road Colgan Avenue II
Southbound 28.5 B 25.4 C 25.7 C
Petaluma Hill Colgan Avenue to Northbound 20.7 D 19.4 D 18.7 D
Road Santa Rosa Avenue II
Southbound 26.1 C 25.8 C 20.2 D

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-45

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Table 4.12-14 (Cont.): Arterial Operations - Existing Conditions

Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday

Roadway Segment Class Direction
Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS

Hearn Avenue Dutton Avenue to Eastbound 13.0 E 10.3 E 12.8 D

Santa Rosa Avenue III
Westbound 18.7 C 20.8 C 16.3 D
Kawana Santa Rosa Avenue Eastbound 26.1 B 23.2 C 27.4 B
Springs Road to Petaluma Hill III
Road Westbound 22.3 B 17.9 D 19.0 C
Notes:
Bold denotes unacceptable arterial operation
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

Existing Plus Approved Development

The Existing Plus Approved Development scenario represents traffic conditions during the opening
year of the proposed project but without the addition of the proposed projects trips. It includes
traffic from the approved developments listed in Table 4.12-11. The trips generated by these projects
can be found in the Appendix J. The roadway network modeled in this scenario includes the existing
roadways along with the signalization of Yolanda Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road intersection.
Additional improvements included a second southbound through lane at Kawana Springs
Road/Petaluma Hill Road (converting the existing southbound right-turn lane to a thru/right lane).

The purpose of this scenario is to establish a baseline condition against which to compare the
proposed projects impacts. Existing Plus Approved Development arterial operations are shown in
Table 4.12-15, which indicates that the following four arterial segments would operate at
unacceptable levels during peak hours:

Eastbound Hearn Avenue between Dutton Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue performs poorly in
the existing condition and continues to perform unsatisfactorily in this scenario during the
weekday afternoon peak hour. However, this segment of eastbound Hearn Avenue performs
satisfactorily in the weekday morning peak hour in this scenario. This segment also performs
poorly during the Saturday midday peak hour.

Westbound Hearn Avenue between Dutton Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue performs poorly
during the weekday afternoon peak hour. All three intersections on Hearn Avenue perform
unsatisfactorily in the weekday afternoon peak hour.

Southbound Petaluma Hill Road between Yolanda Avenue and Colgan Avenue performs
poorly during the weekday afternoon peak hour. This segment performs poorly even after the
signalization of Yolanda Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road intersection (which performs
satisfactorily in this scenario). In this scenario, Kawana Springs Road/Petaluma Hill Road
intersection fails during the weekday afternoon peak-hour scenario.

4.12-46 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Southbound Petaluma Hill Road between Colgan Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue fails during
the weekday afternoon peak hour.

Table 4.12-15: Arterial Operations - Existing Conditions Plus Approved Development

Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday

Roadway Segment Class Direction
Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS

Santa Rosa Burt Street to Northbound 13.9 C 10.5 D 14.4 D

Avenue Colgan Avenue IV
Southbound 17.7 C 13.8 C 12.7 D
Santa Rosa Colgan Avenue to Northbound 25.3 B 18.1 C 24.7 B
Avenue Petaluma Hill Road III
Southbound 20.8 C 19.8 C 20.4 C
Petaluma Hill Yolanda Avenue to Northbound 28.6 B 24.7 C 27.0 C
Road Colgan Avenue II
Southbound 21.5 D 12.5 F 20.0 D
Petaluma Hill Colgan Avenue to Northbound 17.3 D 17.5 D 17.3 D
Road Santa Rosa Avenue II
Southbound 22.2 C 10.9 F 19.6 D
Hearn Avenue Dutton Avenue to Eastbound 14.1 D 7.8 F 11.6 E
Santa Rosa Avenue III
Westbound 16.5 D 9.5 F 16.0 D
Kawana Santa Rosa Avenue Eastbound 21.6 C 16.9 D 22.0 C
Springs Road to Petaluma Hill III
Road Westbound 23.1 C 21.2 C 19.7 C
Notes:
Bold denotes unacceptable arterial operation
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Project

The Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Project scenario represents traffic
conditions during the opening year of the proposed project with the addition of the proposed projects
trips. This scenario has the same roadway network as the Existing Plus Approved Scenario with the
addition of assumed mitigation measures that the project might be required implement before the
projects opening. This includes a two-way left-turn lane along the project frontage on Yolanda
Avenue and a right-turn-only restriction in/out of the site on Santa Rosa Avenue project driveways.

The purpose of this scenario is to identify significant impacts that would occur as a result of the
traffic from the proposed project utilizing the above discussed roadway network. Existing Plus
Approved Development Plus Proposed Project arterial operations are shown in Table 4.12-16.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-47

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Table 4.12-16: Arterial Operations - Existing Conditions Plus Approved Development Plus
Proposed Project

Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday

Roadway Segment Class Direction
Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS

Santa Rosa Burt Street to IV Northbound 13.8 C 10.6 D 11.6 D

Avenue Colgan Avenue
Southbound 17.6 C 13.6 C 13.5 C
Santa Rosa Colgan Avenue to III Northbound 25.3 B 17.9 D 21.9 C
Avenue Petaluma Hill Road
Southbound 20.7 C 19.4 C 20.8 C
Petaluma Hill Yolanda Avenue to II Northbound 28.6 B 24.7 C 27.9 C
Road Colgan Avenue
Southbound 21.5 D 12.5 F 19.9 D
Petaluma Hill Colgan Avenue to II Northbound 17.3 D 17.5 D 17.6 D
Road Santa Rosa Avenue
Southbound 22.2 C 10.9 F 24.6 C
Hearn Avenue Dutton Avenue to III Eastbound 13.5 E 7.8 F 10.5 E
Santa Rosa Avenue
Westbound 16.4 D 9.1 F 13.9 E
Kawana Santa Rosa Avenue III Eastbound 21.6 C 16.9 D 22.0 C
Springs Road to Petaluma Hill
Road Westbound 23.1 C 21.2 C 20.8 C
Notes:
Bold denotes unacceptable arterial operation.
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

As stated previously, the standard practice that the City employs to identify significant impact by a
project on urban streets (arterial) are:

Deterioration of arterial operations from LOS D or better to LOS E or LOS F

For roadways already operating at LOS E or LOS F, the additional of any new trips

Based on the above criteria, the project causes significant impact on four segments identified below.
The same four segments produce undesirable LOS in the Existing Plus Approved Development
scenario.

Eastbound and westbound Hearn Avenue segments between Dutton Avenue and Santa Rosa
Avenue. These segments continue to perform unsatisfactorily during most peak hours in this
scenario. All intersections on Hearn Avenue continue to perform unsatisfactorily in the
weekday afternoon peak hour.

Southbound Petaluma Hill Road segments between Yolanda Avenue and Colgan Avenue and
between Colgan Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue continue to perform unsatisfactorily during
weekday PM peak hour. Although Kawana Springs Road/Petaluma Hill Road and Colgan
Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road intersections perform unsatisfactorily in this scenario during the
weekday afternoon peak hour, the project does not add any traffic to these intersections. The
proposed Lowes driveway/Yolanda Avenue intersection would perform unsatisfactorily

4.12-48 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

during the Saturday midday peak hour. The driveway exit is proposed for stop-sign control;
the longest waits here would be for left turns out of the site, which is not the predominant
movement pattern.

As stated before, the Yolanda Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road intersection would perform poorly in
existing condition as a stop-controlled intersection. Addition of a maximum of 35 vehicles from/to
the project during the Saturday midday peak hour to this failing stop-controlled intersection would
cause significant impact to the intersection. Signalizing this intersection would allow it to perform
satisfactorily in this scenario and in the Existing Plus Approved Development scenario. Thus,
signalization of this intersection before project occupancy is important for its satisfactory
performance. However, the project contributes a maximum of only 2 percent of the total traffic at this
intersection.

Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Development Plus Proposed Project
The Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Development Plus Proposed Project
scenario represents traffic conditions during the opening year of the proposed project if all the
approved and proposed developments and the proposed project are built and Capital Improvement
Program and Measure M roadway improvements associated with this scenarios development are in
place. It includes traffic from the approved and proposed developments listed in Table 4.12-11. The
trips generated by these projects can be found in the Appendix J. The purpose of this scenario is to
identify arterial impacts with and without project traffic after the Capital Improvement Program and
Measure M roadway improvements listed under Programmed Street Improvements listed previously
are implemented. Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Development Plus Proposed
Project arterial operations are shown in Table 4.12-17.

Table 4.12-17: Arterial Operations - Existing Conditions Plus Approved Development Plus
Proposed Development Plus Proposed Project

Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday

Roadway Segment Class Direction
Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS

Santa Rosa Burt Street to Northbound 13.7 C 10.1 D 11.1 D

Avenue Colgan Avenue IV
Southbound 17.5 C 13.5 C 13.5 C
Santa Rosa Colgan Avenue to Northbound 24.6 B 17.6 D 22.4 C
Avenue Petaluma Hill Road III
Southbound 20.5 C 19.0 C 19.9 C
Petaluma Hill Yolanda Avenue to Northbound 28.3 B 24.2 C 26.0 C
Road Colgan Avenue II
Southbound 23.3 C 20.3 D 24.4 C
Petaluma Hill Colgan Avenue to Northbound 18.8 D 18.1 D 17.6 D
Road Santa Rosa Avenue II
Southbound 23.9 C 21.2 D 25.8 C
Hearn Avenue Dutton Avenue to Eastbound 11.4 E 3.7 F 5.4 F
Santa Rosa Avenue III
Westbound 16.2 D 11.5 E 16.0 D

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-49

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Table 4.12-17 (Cont.): Arterial Operations - Existing Conditions Plus Approved

Development Plus Proposed Development Plus Proposed Project

Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday

Roadway Segment Class Direction
Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS

Kawana Santa Rosa Avenue Eastbound 24.3 B 21.6 C 27.1 B

Springs Road to Petaluma Hill III
Road Westbound 23.0 C 20.9 C 20.7 C
Notes:
Bold denotes unacceptable arterial operation.
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

Fewer segments perform unsatisfactorily in this scenario compared with the Existing Plus Approved
Development and the Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Project scenarios. This
improvement in performance can be attributed to the extensive roadway improvements incorporated
into the level of service calculations for this scenario.

Eastbound Hearn Avenue between Dutton Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue would continue to
perform unsatisfactorily during most peak hours in this scenario as well. Westbound Hearn Avenue
would only fail in the weekday afternoon peak hour. The Hearn Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue and
Hearn Avenue/Corby Avenue intersections would continue to perform unsatisfactorily during peak
hours. Both southbound segments of Petaluma Hill Road would perform satisfactorily for the first
time in this scenario. None of the intersections on Petaluma Hill Road would be worse than LOS D
overall in this scenario, because some improvements are included here.

Intersection Operations
Although the City of Santa Rosa utilizes the Urban Street LOS to determine the significance of
additional traffic from a project under CEQA, understanding the intersection LOS along a street that
performs poorly is essential for proposing intersection improvements at failing intersections as part of
overall traffic mitigation. Table 4.12-18 shows the intersection operations LOS for all study
intersections in the study area for all the near-term scenarios analyzed. When an individual traffic
signal operates poorly (e.g., LOS E or F), it can be difficult to coordinate with other adjacent signals,
and vehicle queues upstream of the intersection can potentially block other intersections.

4.12-50 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Summary of Impacts
Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Project
Under the Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Project scenario, the following
arterial segments would experience substantial degradation as result of the proposed projects trip
generation:

Petaluma Hill Road: Yolanda Avenue to Colgan Avenue - Southbound

Petaluma Hill Road: Colgan Avenue to Santa Rosa Avenue - Southbound
Hearn Avenue: Dutton Avenue to Santa Rosa Avenue - Eastbound
Hearn Avenue: Dutton Avenue to Santa Rosa Avenue - Westbound

In addition, all intersections on Hearn Avenue would continue to experience substantial degradation
as result of the proposed projects trip generation. The proposed stop-controlled Lowes
Driveway/Yolanda Avenue intersection also would have some long delays for traffic turning left out
of the driveway in this scenario, although mitigated by the presence of a proposed center two-way
left-turn lane (TWLTL). This scenario assumes (as do all others, except the Existing scenario) that
the intersection of Yolanda Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road is signalized.

Several intersections would operate at LOS E or F during one or more peak periods. However, the
proposed projects traffic impacts only the following intersections:

Hearn Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue

Hearn Avenue/Dutton Avenue
Hearn Avenue/Corby Avenue

Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Development Plus Proposed Project
Under the Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Development Plus Proposed Project
scenario, the following arterial segments would experience substantial degradation as result of the
proposed projects trip generation:

Hearn Avenue: Dutton Avenue to Santa Rosa Avenue - Eastbound

Hearn Avenue: Dutton Avenue to Santa Rosa Avenue - Westbound

The level of service at Colgan Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road (intersection #2) improves in this scenario
(from LOS E to LOS C), because of the inclusion of an added northbound and southbound thru travel
lane on Petaluma Hill Road in this scenario. In addition, the following intersections continue to
experience substantial degradation as result of the proposed projects trip generation:

Hearn Avenue/Corby Avenue

Hearn Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue
Lowes Driveway/Yolanda Avenue

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-55

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Potential Mitigation
The Yolanda Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road intersection is in the vicinity of the proposed Lowes Home
Improvement Store project with one of the proposed driveway accessing Yolanda Avenue. The
project traffic would constitute a maximum of 2 percent of the total vehicles at the intersection. This
stop-controlled intersection performs unsatisfactorily in the existing condition from long delays
experienced by eastbound traffic on Yolanda Avenue that must wait for suitable gaps in traffic on
Petaluma Hill Road to turn, especially left, into northbound Petaluma Hill Road. The small increase
in volume due to project vehicles could cause further deterioration in the performance of this
unsignalized intersection. Signalization of this intersection would help mitigate this impact. The
intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection in the Existing Plus Approved Development Plus
Proposed Project scenario and performs satisfactorily. Thus, signalization of this intersection can be
an effective mitigation measure, and the project would provide contributions to the City of Santa
Rosa for the signalization improvement of the intersection. The signalization of this intersection also
mitigates the impact of project traffic on southbound Petaluma Hill Road between Yolanda Avenue
and Colgan Avenue. This mitigation has been incorporated into the proposed project as Mitigation
Measure TRANS-1a.

No improvement is proposed to mitigate the project impact on Hearn Avenue and Hearn Avenue
intersections in the near-term (Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed Project
mitigations) because there are no feasible mitigations in the near-term. Solution of traffic problems
along Hearn Avenue will have to await the long-term measures consisting of improving the
interchange, and widening to four thru travel lanes between Dutton Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue.

From a long-term perspective, the widening of the Hearn Avenue overcrossing would result in
substantial improvement to arterial operations on this roadway and Santa Rosa Avenue. As
previously discussed, this improvement is currently programmed into Measure M, and Caltrans is
currently undertaking a Project Study Report to evaluate the feasibility of improving or reconstructing
this overcrossing. Because this is a regional transportation improvement, it is not considered
mitigation that could be solely implemented by the project applicant. However, because local
matching funds are anticipated to be used in overcrossing widening or reconstruction, the proposed
project can contribute to this improvement through payment of all applicable impact fees in
accordance with current City Code and the latest adopted Capital Facilities Fee Schedule, which
would be used for future transportation improvements. This improvement would also help in
mitigating the project traffic impact on Hearn Avenue/Corby Avenue and Hearn Avenue/Santa Rosa
Avenue intersections. This mitigation has been incorporated into the proposed project as Mitigation
Measure TRANS-1b.

The proposed project can also contribute to reducing the severity of arterial operations impacts by
increasing accessibility to public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians, and reducing vehicle miles travel
by customers and employees. Mitigation Measures TRANS-7a and TRANS-7b and several project
design features would accomplish such objectives. However, even with the implementation of these

4.12-56 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

mitigation measures and design features, the proposed project would contribute to unacceptable
arterial operations that would be worse than what would occur without the proposed project. No
further mitigation is available to mitigate project impacts to a level of less than significant, as the
maximum roadway improvements possible based on the effectiveness of mitigation and financial
constraints have already been modeled in the Existing Plus Approved Development Plus Proposed
Development Plus Proposed Project. Accordingly, near-term arterial operations impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation

Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-1a Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide contributions
to the City of Santa Rosa for the temporary signalization improvement of the
intersection of Petaluma Hill Road and Yolanda Avenue. The temporary
signalization improvement shall be in place and functioning prior to final occupancy
of the first building.

MM TRANS-1b Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall provide payment
of all applicable impact fees in accordance with current City Code and the latest
adopted Fee Schedule. The impact fees will be used for future transportation
improvements to mitigate project transportation impacts.

Level of Significance After Mitigation

Significant unavoidable impact.

Long-Term Arterial Operations

Impact TRANS-2: The proposed project would contribute vehicle trips to surrounding roadways that
would contribute to unacceptable arterial operations under long-term conditions.

Impact Analysis
As shown in Table 4.12-19, long-term arterial operations were evaluated under Year 2020 conditions,
which represent projected growth in accordance with the City of Santa Rosa General Plan. Year 2020
arterial conditions are shown under without project and with project conditions. The 2020
General Plan road improvements are described in the Transportation section of the current General
Plan (adopted 2002); the most significant ones assumed are the Farmers Lane Extension (from
Yolanda Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road, curving northeasterly to the existing intersection of Farmers
Lane /Bennett Valley Road) and the widening Hearn Avenue to four lanes, from Dutton Avenue to
U.S. 101.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-57

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Intersection Operations
As previously discussed in Impact TRANS-1, intersection operations LOS is presented for the
purpose of identifying potential roadway improvements. Table 4.12-20 shows the intersection
operations LOS for all study intersections in the study area under long-term conditions.

Table 4.12-20: Intersection Operations with 2020 General Plan Land Uses and Traffic
Improvements

Scenario
Peak
No. Intersection Traffic Control Without Project With Project
Hour
LOS Delay LOS Delay
1 Petaluma Hill Road/ Signal AM B 13.5 B 13.5
Santa Rosa Avenue
PM B 17.2 B 17.2
SAT B 11.1 B 17.3
2 Colgan Avenue/Petaluma Signal AM A 4.4 A 4.4
Hill Road
PM B 19.2 B 19.2
SAT B 12.6 C 23.9
3 Baker Avenue Signal AM B 14.2 B 14.1
Overcrossing/
PM C 32.7 C 32.8
Santa Rosa Avenue
SAT C 22.5 C 29.3
4 Colgan (Baker) Avenue/ Signal AM C 24.6 C 24.6
Santa Rosa Avenue
PM D 38.3 D 38.3
SAT D 45.7 D 45.7
5 Kawana Springs Road/ Signal AM B 11.0 B 10.9
Santa Rosa Avenue
PM B 19.2 B 18.7
SAT B 19.5 C 20.0
6 Kawana Springs Road/ Signal AM B 17.2 B 17.2
Petaluma Hill Road
PM D 46.6 D 46.6
SAT C 23.4 D 45.3
7 Hearn Avenue/Santa Rosa Signal AM C 22.7 C 22.5
Avenue
PM D 47.6 D 49.9
SAT F 122.7 E 71.6
8 Hearn Avenue/Dutton Signal AM B 12.9 B 13.0
Avenue
PM F 85.7 F 81.3
SAT F 95.2 F 108.0

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-59

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Table 4.12-20 (Cont.): Intersection Operations with 2020 General Plan Land Uses and
Traffic Improvements

Scenario
Peak
No. Intersection Traffic Control Without Project With Project
Hour
LOS Delay LOS Delay
9 Hearn Avenue/Corby Signal AM C 21.9 C 22.2
Avenue
PM D 38.7 D 40.3
SAT E 59.4 D 53.6
10 Yolanda Avenue/U.S. 101 Signal AM C 25.2 C 26.0
Northbound Ramps/Santa
PM D 40.6 D 42.7
Rosa Avenue
SAT C 25.8 D 44.2
11 Yolanda Avenue/ Signal AM A 7.8 B 10.1
Petaluma Hill Road
PM B 11.3 B 11.4
SAT A 9.2 A 9.9
12 Aston Avenue/Petaluma Signal AM C 25.7 C 25.7
Hill Road
PM C 31.7 C 31.7
SAT C 20.0 D 36.6
13 U.S. 101 Southbound Signal AM C 20.2 C 20.0
Ramps/Corby Avenue
PM B 13.5 B 13.5
SAT B 14.1 B 14.0
14 Southside Shopping Signal AM A 5.3 A 5.3
Center/Santa Rosa
PM B 11.0 B 11.3
Avenue
SAT B 19.7 B 12.2
15 Burt Street/Santa Rosa Signal AM B 10.5 B 10.5
Avenue
PM B 19.6 B 20.0
SAT C 29.3 C 21.3
16 Santa Rosa Marketplace/ Signal AM B 17.5 B 17.1
Santa Rosa Avenue
PM C 20.3 C 20.3
SAT C 32.9 C 20.4
17 Lowes Driveway/Santa Stop-control AM * * A/B 0.3/9.8
Rosa Avenue
PM * * A/B 0.3/11.2
(Right turn in/right out
only) SAT * * A/B 0.5/12.3
18 Lowes Driveway/ Stop-control AM * * A/B 2.3/12.5
Yolanda Avenue
PM * * A/B 3.8/12.5
SAT * * C/F 18.0/50.9

4.12-60 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Table 4.12-20 (Cont.): Intersection Operations with 2020 General Plan Land Uses and
Traffic Improvements

Scenario
Peak
No. Intersection Traffic Control Without Project With Project
Hour
LOS Delay LOS Delay
Notes:
Bold denotes unacceptable intersection operation
*indicates no driveway in this alternative.
For stop-controlled intersections, the first LOS or delay figure is the average for all movements at the intersection; the
second figure is the LOS or delay for the worst turning movement at the intersection.
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008, Synchro 6 reports dated 6/4/08.

Summary of Impacts
Under the Year 2020 Without Project Scenario, the following arterial segments would experience
significant impacts on Saturdays as result of the proposed projects trip generation:

Northbound Petaluma Hill Road: Colgan Avenue to Santa Rosa Avenue

Eastbound Hearn Avenue: Dutton Avenue to Santa Rosa Avenue

The same segments perform poorly in the Year 2020 With Project Scenario as well, although there
are some decreases in speeds that are due to project traffic. Where increases in speeds are shown with
project traffic, this is usually a result of the Synchro software attempting to re-optimize the signal
timing at individual intersections with the project traffic.

Several intersections would operate at LOS E or F during one or more peak hours. They include:

Hearn Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue

Hearn Avenue/Dutton Avenue
Hearn Avenue/Corby Avenue

The proposed project would cause a significant impact to the Hearn Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue and
Hearn Avenue/Dutton Avenue intersections. The average delay per vehicle at Hearn Avenue/Corby
Avenue improves with the proposed project, because the project adds traffic mostly to movements
with lower delay (e.g., the westbound through movement), thereby bringing down the average delay
per vehicle at the intersection.

Potential Mitigation
The Year 2020 scenario assumes that the Hearn Avenue segment has been widened to four lanes;
however, even with the widening, the roadway and intersections on Hearn Avenue would still operate
at deficient levels in both the Without Project and With Project scenarios. Additional widening and
intersection improvements are not financially or physically possible given the constraints adjacent to
the intersection.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-61

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

The proposed project can also contribute to reducing the severity of arterial operations impacts by
increasing accessibility to public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians, and reducing vehicle miles travel
by customers and employees. Mitigation Measures TRANS-7a and TRANS-7b and several project
design features would accomplish such objectives. However, even with the implementation of these
mitigation measures and design features, the proposed project would contribute to unacceptable
arterial operations that would be worse than what would occur without the proposed project. No
further mitigation is available to mitigate project impacts to a level of less than significant.
Accordingly, long-term arterial operations impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation

Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures TRANS-7a and TRANS-7b.

Level of Significance After Mitigation

Significant unavoidable impact.

Freeway Operations
Impact TRANS-3: The proposed project would generate vehicle trips that would contribute to
unacceptable freeway operations.

Impact Analysis
U.S. 101 mainline operations in the project vicinity were modeled using Year 2030 volumes,
consistent with Caltrans guidance. Table 4.12-21 shows the freeway mainline LOS results.

Table 4.12-21: Year 2030 U.S. 101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service (Excluding HOV Lanes)

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Segment Direction Scenario
V/C V/C
Volume LOS Volume LOS
Ratio Ratio

Todd Road to Northbound Without Project 4,925 0.91 E 3,770 0.80 D

Yolanda Avenue
With Project +29 +45
4,324 0.92 E 3,815 0.81 D
Southbound Without Project 3,653 0.78 D 3,781 0.80 D
With Project +26 +45
3,679 0.78 D 3,826 0.81 D
Yolanda Avenue Northbound Without Project 4,994 1.06 F 4,277 0.91 E
to Baker-Corby
Avenue With Project +35 +62
5,029 1.07 F 4,339 0.92 E

4.12-62 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Table 4.12-21 (Cont.): Year 2030 U.S. 101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service (Excluding
HOV Lanes)

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Segment Direction Scenario
V/C V/C
Volume LOS Volume LOS
Ratio Ratio

cont. Southbound Without Project 4,040 0.86 D 3,810 0.81 D

With Project +40 +62
4,072 0.87 D 3,872 0.82 D
Notes:
First value represents without project volumes; second volume represents with project volumes.
Volume = vehicles per hour; volumes shown are in passenger car equivalents (pce).
V/C Ratio = Volume to capacity ratio
LOS = Level of service; LOS calculated using Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which assumes a level
freeway with two lanes in each direction has a capacity of 4,700 vehicles per hour in each direction. Traffic forecasts indicate that the
HOV lanes would operate at less than their capacity, which is typically considered to be 1,500 vehicles per hour per lane when there is
no physical separation with mixed flow lanes.
The volumes shown include the recommended Highway Capacity Manual adjustments for trucks, which constitute 5.1 percent of all
vehicles on this portion of U.S. 101.
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008.

Summary of Impacts
As shown in Table 4.12-21, all freeway mainline segments would operate at LOS D or worse and V/C
ratios of 0.78 or greater under the without project condition in Year 2030. The proposed project
would contribute additional trips to these freeway mainline segments and, therefore, would worsen
the less-than-acceptable mainline operations. This additional project traffic volume causes an
increase in V/C ratios on US 101 by 0.01. Thus, the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the freeway.

Potential Mitigation
Various options are available for Caltrans to mitigate this impact, including activating the existing
ramp meters to the freeway on-ramps in south Santa Rosa. However, such a decision is outside of the
control of the City of Santa Rosa and, therefore, is not considered a possible mitigation measure for
the proposed project.

The proposed project can also contribute to reducing the severity of freeway mainline operations
impacts by increasing accessibility to public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians, and reducing vehicle
miles travel by customers and employees. Mitigation Measures TRANS-7a and TRANS-7b and
several project design features would accomplish such objectives. However, even with the
implementation of these three mitigation measures and design features, the proposed project would
contribute to unacceptable freeway mainline operations that would be worse than what would occur
without the proposed project. No further mitigation is available to mitigate project impacts to a level
of less than significant. Accordingly, freeway mainline operations impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-63

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Level of Significance Before Mitigation

Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures TRANS-7a and TRANS-7b.

Level of Significance After Mitigation

Significant unavoidable impact.

Parking
Impact TRANS-4: The proposed project may result in inadequate off-street parking.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would provide 510 off-street vehicular parking spaces. Because the proposed
project would contain at least three separate tenant spaces, it is considered a shopping center under
the Zoning Code and, therefore, is required to provide off-street parking at a rate of one space per 250
square feet of building floor area. Table 4.12-22 evaluates project consistency with this Zoning Code
parking standard. As shown in the table, the proposed project would fall 148 spaces short of the
Zoning Code requirements.

Table 4.12-22: Parking Analysis Based on Zoning Code

Square Zoning Code

Project Component Spaces
Footage Requirement
Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse 155,454 One space per 250 feet 622
Retail/Restaurants (multiple tenants) 9,000 One space per 250 feet 36
Total Required Spaces Under Zoning Code 658
Proposed Project Parking Spaces Supplied (Applicants Proposal) 510
Difference (148)
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2008.

For projects seeking a Conditional Use Permit, City Code Section 20-36.050(C) allows for a parking
reduction of up to 25 percent of the required parking total. The project applicant is seeking a
Conditional Use Permit for the shopping center and, through the Conditional Use Permit, the
applicant is also requesting a parking reduction of 22.5 percent (the difference between 510 spaces
and 658 spaces) in order to comply with the Zoning Codes parking requirements.

To assess the adequacy of off-street parking supply using a reduced parking requirement, two
approaches have been used: peak parking demand rates provided by ITE and surveys of observed
peak parking rates at home improvement retailers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Each approach is
discussed below.

4.12-64 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

ITE Peak Parking Demand Rates

Peak parking demand rates published by ITE were used to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed
projects off-street parking supply. For home improvement retail uses, mid-day Saturday is the
period of highest parking demand. Table 4.12-23 summarizes the mid-day Saturday peak parking
demand for the proposed project using ITE rates. The calculations shown in the table include a 10-
percent allowance for coverage or reserve, which is intended to permit shoppers to find spaces
without excessive hunting for a vacant spot. The coverage provides for convenience and reduces
excessive driving and idling while looking for a space. As shown in the table, 618 spaces would be
necessary to provide adequate off-street parking.

Table 4.12-23: ITE Peak Parking Demand Rates

ITE Peak Parking Demand Peak Parking

Demand With
Project Square Peak Parking Addition for
Rate
Footage Demand Coverage
Use Day (spaces per 1,000
square feet) (Peak Parking
Demand/0.9)
Home Saturday 3.40 155,454 529 588
Improvement
Retail
Retail/Restaurant Saturday 2.97 9,000 27 30
Buildings
Total 164,454 556 618
Notes:
Values rounded up to nearest whole number.
Saturday represents the period of highest parking demand rate for home improvement retail land uses.
Source: Dowling Associates, 2008; Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004; Michael Brandman Associates, 2008.

Surveyed Peak Parking Demand Rates at Bay Area Home Improvement Retailers
Kimley-Horn and Associates conducted parking occupancy surveys at four existing home
improvement retailers in Sonoma County on Saturday, August 23, 2008, which were subsequently
submitted to the City of Santa Rosa. The parking occupancy surveys included the two existing home
improvement retailers in Santa Rosa (Friedmans and Home Depot), the Cotati Lowes, and the
Windsor Home Depot. The parking occupancy survey findings are summarized in Table 4.12-24. In
addition, Saturday parking occupancy surveys conducted by Abrams Associates at three other San
Francisco Bay Area Lowes locations in 2002 and 2004 are referenced in Table 4.12-24. The
Kimley-Horn and Abrams Associates surveys are provided in Appendix L.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-65

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Table 4.12-24: Surveyed Peak Parking Demand Rates - Bay Area Home Improvement Stores

Parking Spaces Peak

Square Survey Occupancy Occupancy
Location Store Rate
Footage Date Peak (Percent)
Supply (spaces/1,000
Occupied
square feet)

Santa Rosa Home Depot 152,097 8/23/2008 278 174 62.6 1.14
Santa Rosa Friedmans 80,000 8/23/2008 249 150 60.2 1.88
Cotati Lowes 170,000 8/23/2008 591 205 34.7 1.21
Windsor Home Depot 110,000 8/23/2008 617 188 30.5 1.71
2008 Average 41.3 1.40
Antioch Lowes 152,183 4/2004 548 301 54.9 1.98
Livermore Lowes 164,000 9/2002 510 259 50.7 1.58
Union City Lowes 160,400 9/2002 512 298 58.2 1.86
2002-2004 Average 54.6 1.80
Notes:
Kimley-Horn performed the August 2008 parking occupancy surveys; Abrams Associates performed the 2002 and 2004 parking
occupancy surveys.
Occupancy counts at the Sonoma County home improvement stores occurred at three separate times between 11:00 a.m. and 2 p.m. on
Saturday, August 23, 2008; the highest observed rate is shown in the table.
The three Abrams Associates parking occupancy surveys were all conducted on Saturdays.
Store square footage includes garden centers.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2008.

As shown in Table 4.12-24, the 2008 surveys found a combined average Saturday peak occupancy
rate of 1.40 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and the 2002-2004 surveys found a combined average
Saturday peak occupancy rate of 1.80 spaces per 1,000 square feet. These surveyed rates were
substantially below the ITE peak parking demand rate shown in Table 4.12-23 and suggest that the
ITE rates may overstate actual peak parking demand for home improvement stores in the San
Francisco Bay Area region.

However, there are some concerns with the peak parking demand rates shown in Table 4.12-24. First,
the peak Saturday rates identified in the study were well below ITE Saturday peak standards, which
could be a result of any number of factors but in any event should be reconfirmed before they are
accepted. Second, there are concerns about the timing of the parking occupancy surveys. Four stores
were surveyed during the same Saturday peak hours in 2008, while the other three stores were
surveyed during separate Saturday peak hours during a 19-month period between 2002 and 2004. It
would be more preferable from a data reliability perspective if all the stores had been surveyed within
relatively short period. Finally, the stores surveyed were a mixture of single-purpose home
improvement store sites (e.g., Friedmans, Cotati Lowes, Antioch Lowes, etc.) and home
improvement stores located within larger retail developments (e.g., Santa Rosa Home Depot, Windsor
Home Depot, Livermore Lowes, and Union City Lowes). Home improvement stores located within
larger retail developments may share parking with other uses; therefore, parking occupancy rates
could be more difficult to accurately determine. For these reasons, further study of peak parking

4.12-66 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

occupancy rates at Bay Area home improvement retailers should be conducted to address the
aforementioned concerns.

Summary of Impacts
The project applicant is proposing 510 off-street parking spaces, which would not comply with the
Zoning Codes parking requirement of one space per 250 square feet of floor area requirement. The
City of Santa Rosa does allow reductions of up to 25 percent from Zoning Code parking requirements
if the following specific findings can be made:

Due to special circumstances associated with the operation of the use at its location, the
proposed use will generate a parking demand different from the standards specified in Table 3-
4 of the Santa Rosa Zoning Code (Parking Requirements by Land Use Type)

The number of parking spaces approved will be sufficient for its safe, convenient, and efficient
operation of the use.

In this instance, two approaches were employed to determine if these findings could be satisfied. The
evaluation using ITE peak parking rates indicated that 618 spaces would be sufficient to provide
adequate parking. The parking occupancy surveys indicated that a lower parking requirement than
ITE rates may be justified, based on peak parking demand observations at San Francisco Bay Area
Home Improvement retailers. However, there are some concerns about the findings of the parking
occupancy surveys, and it is the position of the City of Santa Rosa that further evaluation is necessary
to justify a lower rate than identified by ITE.

Because there are differing conclusions about how much off-street parking supply would be
considered adequate, mitigation is proposed requiring the project applicant to implement one of two
strategies for providing off-street parking. The first strategy requires compliance with the Zoning
Codes parking requirement by revising the site plan in a manner that either maintains the existing
building square footages or reduces it to achieve compliance. The second strategy allows the
proposed project to obtain approval for a parking reduction from the City, with the condition that the
proposed reduction must be supported by a parking analysis prepared by a qualified transportation
engineer. Either approach would result in a sufficient off-street parking for the proposed project that
is consistent with Zoning Code requirements and provides parking in accordance with peak parking
demand rates. Therefore, with the implementation of this mitigation, adequate off-street parking
would be provided and impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation

Potentially significant impact.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-67

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall do one of the
following:

Maintain or reduce the proposed building square footages and revise the site
plan to provide off-street parking at a rate in accordance with the City of Santa
Rosas Zoning Code parking requirement.
Obtain approval from the City of Santa Rosa as part of the Conditional Use
Permit process for a parking reduction at a lower rate as set forth in Santa Rosa
Zoning Code Section 20-36.050(C). The applicant shall submit documentation
prepared by a qualified transportation engineer demonstrating that:
- Due to special circumstances associated with the operation of the use at
its location, the proposed use will generate a parking demand different
from the standards specified in Table 3-4 (Parking Requirements by
Land Use Type) of the Zoning Code; and
- The number of parking spaces approved will be sufficient for its safe,
convenient, and efficient operation of the use.

The City of Santa Rosa shall review and approve the study. The parking requirement
identified in the approved study shall be incorporated into the project plans.

Level of Significance After Mitigation

Less than significant impact.

Roadway Safety
Impact TRANS-5: The proposed project may create the potential for unsafe turning movements on
Santa Rosa Avenue.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would provide two unsignalized access points to Santa Rosa Avenue.
Signalization of one or both of these points is not possible because of the proximity of the Santa Rosa
Avenue/Yolanda Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps intersection. Mid-block, left-turn movements
into and out of these two access points have the potential to cause collisions because of the high
volume of traffic that occurs on this roadway segment. Traffic volumes in this area are very high
(more than 37,000 vehicles on a Friday), and left-turning vehicles would have to cross a bike lane and
at least four lanes of traffic to safely make a turn. In addition, the driveways would be closely spaced
to the Yolanda Avenue intersection, creating more opportunity for conflicts with turning movements
at that intersection, and allowing mid-block left-turn movements may also create excessive queuing
delays on the project site, causing queue lengths to block drive aisles.

Mitigation is proposed that would require the project applicant to install control devices at both Santa
Rosa Avenue access points that would limit turning movements to right-in, right-out. This mitigation

4.12-68 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

measure would prevent mid-block, left-turn movement to and from the project site on Santa Rosa
Avenue, which would eliminate the potential for collisions associated with such movements.
Therefore, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation

Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-5 Prior to project occupancy, the project applicant shall install raised islands (or other
channelization acceptable to the Citys Traffic Engineering Division) at both project
access points to Santa Rosa Avenue that limit turning movements to right-in, right-
out. Signage shall be posted at these access points advising motorists that outbound
turning movements are limited to right turns only.

Level of Significance After Mitigation

Less than significant impact.

Emergency Access
Impact TRANS-6: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access to the
project site or surroundings.

Impact Analysis
The project site abuts both Santa Rosa Avenue and Yolanda Avenue, both of which are arterial
roadways that can accommodate emergency response vehicles. The proposed project does not
propose any roadway modifications that would impede emergency access to the project site or
vicinity (e.g., permanent road closures, roundabouts, hairpin turns, etc). Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in inadequate emergency access to the project site or surroundings. Impacts
would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation

Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance After Mitigation

Less than significant impact.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-69

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Public Transit, Bicycles, and Pedestrians

Impact TRANS-7: The proposed project may adversely affect accessibility for public transit, bicycles,
and pedestrians.

Impact Analysis
This impact addresses accessibility to the project site for public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.
Each issue is discussed separately.

Public Transit
Three public transit agencies provide bus service in the project vicinity: Santa Rosa CityBus (Routes
5, 18, and 19), SCT (Routes 44 and 48), and Golden Gate Transit (Routes 72, 73, and 75). The
proposed project would employ an estimated 218 workers and its retail offerings would attract
customers from Santa Rosa and surrounding unincorporated areas. Given these characteristics, it
would be expected that some employees and customers would travel to the proposed project by bus.
The City of Santa Rosa Transit and Parking Department indicated that an enhanced bus stop and
turnout would be necessary to serve the proposed project. Accordingly, mitigation is proposed that
would require the project applicant to install an enhanced bus stop and turnout on the project frontage
that would include amenities such as a shelter, signage, transit information, lighting, and a trash
receptacle. The implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that adequate access to
public transit is provided. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be less
than significant.

Bicycles
Both Santa Rosa Avenue and Yolanda Avenue are designated for Class II bicycle routes. Santa Rosa
Avenue has existing Class II bicycle lanes, while Yolanda Avenue does not. Class II bicycle lanes
are anticipated to be installed on Yolanda Avenue as part of the widening of the roadway, and would
ultimately be extended further on the planned Farmers Lane Extension. The proposed project would
provide half-width improvements to both Santa Rosa Avenue and Yolanda Avenue that would
include the dedication of additional right-of-way to the City to maintain the existing bicycle lanes on
Santa Rosa Avenue and to install new lanes on Yolanda Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project
would enhance bicycle mobility on adjacent city streets.

Given the proximity of existing and planned bicycle facilities, it would be expected that some
customers and employees would use bicycles to travel to the proposed project. The Zoning Code
requires that bicycle parking be provided at a rate equal to a minimum of 5 percent of the required
vehicle spaces. To ensure that bicycle parking is provided, mitigation is proposed that would require
both customer and employee bicycle storage to be provided in accordance with Zoning Code
requirements. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be less than
significant.

4.12-70 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Draft EIR Transportation

Pedestrians
The project frontage with Santa Rosa Avenue has a partial sidewalk, and sidewalks exist north and
south of the project site. There are no existing sidewalks on the project frontage with Yolanda
Avenue.

The proposed project would implement half-width improvements along both roadway frontages that
would include the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalks. This would create a continuous
sidewalk along the east side of Santa Rosa Avenue between Yolanda Avenue and Kawana Springs
Road and an approximately 400-foot segment of sidewalk along the north side of Yolanda Avenue
between Santa Rosa Avenue and the Redwood Coast Petroleum property line. Curb, gutter, and
sidewalk are anticipated to be extended the entire length of Yolanda Avenue as part of the roadway
widening project.

The project site plan identifies two direct, crow flies pedestrian connections between the Lowes
Home Improvement Warehouse entrance and the 9,000-square-foot retail/restaurant structure, which
also provide access to Santa Rosa Avenue. In addition, a direct pedestrian connection is shown
between the Lowes entrance and Yolanda Avenue. The site plan indicates that drive aisle crossings
would be marked with pavement treatments. Accordingly, the proposed project would provide
reasonably safe and convenient pedestrian access between the Santa Rosa Avenue and Yolanda
Avenue sidewalks. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation

Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-7a Prior to project occupancy, the project applicant shall install an enhanced bus stop
and turnout on the project frontage with either Santa Rosa Avenue or Yolanda
Avenue, depending on the preference of the City of Santa Rosa. The bus stop shall
include, at a minimum: a shelter, signage, transit information, lighting, and a trash
receptacle. The turnout shall provide capacity for a minimum of two 40-foot buses.

MM TRANS-7b Prior to occupancy, the project applicant shall install bicycle racks near the store
entrance for customer use and provide a bicycle storage facility in an employee-
only area of the store for employee use. The number of bicycle parking spaces shall
be equivalent to 5 percent of the proposed projects vehicular parking requirement.
The employee bicycle storage facilities shall be provided in a secure area (i.e., non-
publicly accessible) in recognition that employees will require bicycle storage for
longer periods than customers.

Level of Significance After Mitigation

Less than significant impact.

Michael Brandman Associates 4.12-71

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc
 Santa Rosa Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Project
Transportation Draft EIR

Construction Traffic Impacts

Impact TRANS-8: Construction activities associated with the proposed project may adversely affect
traffic and circulation.

Impact Analysis
Project construction would require the use of heavy machinery for site clearing (demolition), grading,
and utility and building construction. In addition, construction would require the delivery of building
materials and construction workers on a daily basis throughout the project site, potentially disrupting
local traffic flow. This would be a potentially short-term significant impact lasting throughout the
construction period.

The proposed project would require building demolition, site clearance, delivery of new building
materials, and project construction. Additionally, construction workers would need to travel to and
from the project site; typically, the estimated construction period for this type of building is nine to 12
months. Much of the construction traffic, especially trucks and equipment delivery vehicles, would
be expected to travel via U.S. 101 in lieu of local roadways, which would minimize potential
congestion on the local street system.

Mitigation is proposed requiring the project applicant to implement a Construction Traffic Control
Plan during demolition and construction activities to minimize impacts on surrounding roadways.
The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to a level of less than
significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation

Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-8 Prior to commencement of demolition activities, the project applicant shall submit a
Construction Traffic Control Plan to the City of Santa Rosa for review and approval.
The plan shall identify the timing and routing of all major construction equipment
and trucking to avoid potential traffic congestion and delays on the local street
network, such as Santa Rosa Avenue, Yolanda Avenue, and area streets, and
encourage the use of U.S. 101. If necessary, construction activities and materials
delivery shall be limited to off-peak hours or determine access to particular areas of
the project site to avoid conflicts with local traffic circulation. In addition, the
project applicant shall consult with the City to schedule truck activities so project
truck traffic would not coincide unfavorably with other road projects scheduled to
occur in the project vicinity.

Level of Significance After Mitigation

Less than significant impact.

4.12-72 Michael Brandman Associates

H:\Client (PN-JN)\2498\24980004\DEIR\24980004_Sec04-12 Transportation.doc