Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.C 09/12/2016Agenda Item #5.0 DATE: September 12, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Emmanuel Ursu, Principal Planner REVIEWED BY: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinances to amend the Smart Code and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance Maps to rezone the properties located at 300, 314 and 322 Lakeville Street and 330 East D Street from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center Zone (T -5). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: • Introduce an Ordinance amending the Smart Code to rezone the subject parcels from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center Zone (T -5); and • Introduce an Ordinance amending the Implementing Zoning Ordinance Zoning Map to rezone the subject parcels from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center Zone (T -5). BACKGROUND Project Background and Description At its June 26, 2016 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending City Council approval of Zoning Map Amendments to both the Implementing Zoning Ordinance and the Smart Code to rezone three vacant parcels and one developed parcel located at the southeast corner of Lakeville Street and East D Street from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center Zone (T -5) (Attachments 3 and 4). According to testimony provided by the applicant, the sites were originally zoned D -2 to accommodate future rail related facilities which are no longer needed for the planned SMART and existing freight service. The proposed zoning expands the list of uses allowed on the site as described in the Discussion section below and is consistent with the underlying General Plan designation on the four parcels. All four properties are located within the boundaries of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) and are designated Mixed Use (MU) on both the General Plan Land Use Map and the 2003 CPSP Land Use Map. The newly adopted Smart Code identifies the zoning of the four properties as D -2 (Figures 2 and 3). The three vacant parcels (APNs: 007 -153 -006, -009, -013) are owned by Petaluma Riverfront, LLC and the site developed with existing auto - oriented services (APN: 007 - 153 -008) is owned by Kosewic/ Ko -Ri, Inc. The total land area of all four sites is approximately one acre (43,721 sq. ft.). There is no physical development proposal associated with this application. However, as a part of the separate Riverfront development, roadway improvements were approved over the subject sites but which may be removed in the future should adequate secondary access be provided by the planned southern crossing. The subject sites are along the northeasterly boundary of the CPSP area and are surrounded by retail, transit, and industrial uses. All surrounding properties are designated Mixed Use, except the Shamrock cement plant which is designated River Dependent Industrial. The Railroad (D -2) is intended to support transit and utility functions and allows other uses including structured parking facilities, telecommunication facilities, pipelines and utility transmission and distribution lines. All uses in the D -2 District are subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with the exception of utility infrastructure and rail facilities which are permitted by right. Additional detail regarding the project background is provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 5). Figure 1: Aerial Photo of project site (in blue outline) and surroundings 2 DISCUSSION The range of uses allowed in the T -5 District is much broader than those allowed in the D -2 District. The T -5 District allows all of the uses allowed in the D -2 District (except for dispatch facilities and rail facilities) plus assembly, lodging, residential, retail, service and industrial, manufacturing and processing and wholesaling uses. A list of the allowed uses and permit requirements for all zoning districts in CPSP, including the T -5 and D -2 Districts is included in Attachment 6. The Planning Commission adopted resolutions finding the requested amendments in conformance with the Petaluma General Plan, consistent with the CPSP, and a matter of public necessity, convenience and general welfare and recommend City Council approval of the rezoning request. (Attachments 3 and 4) The General Plan land use designation for the subject properties is Mixed -use and the General Plan refers to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) for the densities and FAR applicable to the subject properties (General Plan, Page 1 -7). The T -5 zoning is a mixed -use zone that is appropriate and consistent with the Mixed -Use land use designation in that it allows the mix of uses at the densities envisioned by the General Plan and CPSP. Petaluma General Plan 2025 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS' Rural Residential (0.1 A.6 hulac) Very Low Density Residential (0.6.2.5 hulac) Lav Density Residential (26 -8.0 hulac) 3 Diverse Low Density Residential (8.1 -12.0 hWac) Medium Density Residential (8.1 -18.0 hu/ao) NM High Density Residential (18.1 -30.0 hulac) Mobile Homes (8.0.18.0 hulac) Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Mixed Use Business Park -.' PublldSeml- Public Education Industrial Agriculture Support Industrial (CPSP) River Dependent Industrial (CPSP) Agriculture City Park Proposed City Park Open Space Regional Park `....,,,.:;.: Urban Separator Urban Separator Path River Plan Corridor Figure 2 — General Plan Land Use Map 3 Transect Zones Urban Core (T6) Urban Core - Open (T6 -0) Urban Center (TS) Urban General (T4) Historic Agricultural Services District (DI) Railroad District (132) River Dependent Industrial District (D3) Notes: I. The Open overlay (T6 -0) allows additional ground floor uses, See Section 3 (Building Func- tion Standards) for additional allowed uses. All other regulations shall be per the regulations of the base zone (T6). 1. The dimensions shown on this plan indicate the maximum and minimum distances from the ROW where the transition between two adjacen transect zones can occur. n� F1+ "T w ~ \\ ti s OaOd w�J� e.ad Figure 3 — Zoning Map Pertinent General Plan and CPSP policies and objectives are listed below and the Planning Commission's findings of consistency of the proposed amendments with each applicable policy and objective contained in the Planning Commission resolutions in. General Plan Policies: Policy 1 -P -2: Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. Policy 1 -P -6: Encourage mixed -use development, which include opportunities for increased transit access. Policy 1 -P -11: Allow land use intensification at strategic locations along the arterial corridors leading to Downtown and Central Petaluma, including aging commercial and industrial sites. Central Petaluma Specific Plan. The CPSP envisions retaining the commercial orientation for the area in which the subject parcels are located along Lakeville Street south of D Street with a focus "on attracting smaller national chains and creating a shopping corridor that serves the broader community." The plan also states that: "Two new transit centers are envisioned as catalysts to help establish a new role for Lakeville Street and reorient the commercial uses within the area." (CPSP, p. 27). There are five land use goals stated in the CPSP with several subarea - specific objectives and policies. Pertinent goals of the CPSP and objectives specific to the Lower Reach subarea in which the subject parcels are located are listed below and the Planning Commission's findings of consistency of the proposed amendments with each applicable goal and objective is contained in the resolutions in Attachment 3 and 4. Goal 2: Provide for a mix of new uses. New uses should be encouraged on vacant and underutilized parcels and on properties that are key in reorienting this area to the river. A broad spectrum of uses is envisioned, including those that are nontraditional, unique and unusual in nature, and which can contribute to the role of this area as the focal point of the community. Goal 3: Encourage intensification appropriate to the area's central location. The urban infzll of lands within Central Petaluma is a priority, with future development having an intensity that is higher than elsewhere in the city in order to create a greater focus within the area, support the investment in transit facilities, and provide for pedestrian and bicycle- oriented activities that are linked with the surrounding neighborhoods and districts. Objective 5: Expand the Lower Reach area as a center of employment, mixed use and region- serving commercial activity consistent with maintaining river - dependent industrial uses. PUBLIC COMMENT Public notice was published in the Argus Courier on September 1, 2016 and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site. On September 6, 2016, staff received a letter dated August 31, 2006 from Christopher Neary, Counsel for the North Coast Railroad Authority ( "NCRA ") objecting to the proposed rezone. (Mr. Neary's letter is included as Attachment 10 to this item.) The basis for Mr. Neary's objection is a memorandum of understanding ( "MOU ") executed by the former Petaluma Community Development Commission, ( "PCDC "), Riverfront LLC, ( "Riverfront "), Northwestern Pacific Railways Company LLC, ( "NPRC "), NCRA, and Northwestern Pacific Railroad Authority ( "NPRA ") on June 13, 2003. (The The MOU is included as Attachment 11 to this item.) The MOU required the former PCDC to provide NCRA and NPRA, at PCDC expense, temporary office and freight storage facilities, and to require and coordinate construction of new team track, administrative facilities and storage facilities ( "Freight Improvements ") at the site owned by Riverfront at Lakeville and D streets. The MOU required Riverfront, upon receiving PUC approval for a new crossing at Caulfield Lane and elimination of the Hopper Street crossing, and upon obtaining all necessary project approvals for the Freight Improvements and a mixed use development project consistent with the CPSP, to construct the Freight Improvements on the Riverfront property at Lakeville and D streets and : transfer title to NPRA or SMART, its successor. According to Mr. Neary, since the City has granted most of the Riverfront approvals, it is timely for Riverfront to deed over the property at Lakeville and D and to construct the Freight Improvements. Mr. Neary maintains that Riverfront's application to rezone the Lakeville and D property is a breach of the MOU. Mr. Neary also asserts that as a parry that received consideration under the MOU, the City should not take actions that would contribute to Riverfront's alleged breach. In response to Mr. Neary's correspondence, staff notes the following. The City was never party to the MOU. The former PCDC was. Although the City Council members sat as the legislative body of both agencies, they were legally separate and independent bodies, with different powers and separate budgets. As Mr. Neary acknowledges, the former PCDC honored its obligation under the MOU to provide NCRA and NPRA temporary space, until NCRA indicated such space was no longer needed. Regarding requiring and coordinating construction of the Freight Improvements contemplated under the MOU, since the former PCDC was never a regulatory or entitling body like the City, presumably the MOU parties contemplated that the former PCDC would require such improvements using the means at its disposal, namely development agreements, such as owner participation agreements ( "OPAs ") and development and disposition agreements ( "DDAs "). It appears that the MOU'parties anticipated that the former PCDC and the redevelopment funding it controlled would play a role in development of the Riverfront project. However, California redevelopment agencies, including the former PCDC, were dissolved in June, 2011. Although the City formed a Successor Agency to the former PCDC, also a separate legal entity, to help wind down the former PCDC, the Successor Agency has been generally unable to enter new agreements such as OPAs and DDAs. Therefore, it appears that the dissolution of redevelopment agencies has frustrated the MOU parties' ability to rely on the PCDC to participate in the Riverfront project. Other conditions to completion of performance under the MOU remain unsatisfied. Regarding Riverfront's obligations under the MOU, although the PUC has approved relocation of the Hopper Street crossing, earlier versions of the Riverfront project did not obtain approval. Only the most recent Riverfront project iteration has succeeded in obtaining approvals, in part due to additional grade crossing and access improvements ( "Crossing Improvements ") required by the City on the Riverfront property at Lakeville and D. Such improvements were the subject of an application the City submitted to the PUC in December, 2015. The application was signed on behalf of both SMART, as successor to the NPRA, and the NCRA. (A copy of the application is included as Attachment 12.) The PUC approved the application that same month. (A copy of the PUC approval is included as Attachment 13.) City staff indicates that the Crossing Improvements approved in December 2015 as part of the Riverfront project conflict with the Freight Improvements contemplated under the MOU. Also, such Freight Improvements have not been approved as part of the Riverfront project. Accordingly, it appears that some of the MOU conditions to completion of the Freight Improvements cannot be satisfied, and that the Freight Improvements contemplated under the MOU are no longer feasible. It also appears that NCRA was or should have been aware of these impediments to completion of the MOU since 2011, in the case of dissolution of the former PCDC, and at least since December, 2015 regarding the Freight Improvements, when NCRA 0 approved of the PUC crossing application. One member of the public spoke at the Planning Commission meeting expressing concern with the roadway improvements to be constructed over the subject site which were approved as a part of the Riverfront project. No other public comment was received prior to preparation and distribution of this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No physical development of the project site is proposed under the current application. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section.21065 defines, in relevant part, a "project," as, "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." In considering whether the project would result in any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes to the enviromment, staff concluded, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, that it was speculative to make such a determination. The potential environmental effects of applying a General Plan Mixed -Use land use designation to the project site were analyzed, in programmatic sense, in the General Plan EIR adopted by City Council on April 7, 2008 via Resolution No2008 -058 N.C.S. (Attachment 7). That prior CEQA document adequately addressed reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes at the project site (without being speculative) and is considered adequate for the current application. Should an actual physical development proposal be submitted at a future date for the project site, it will require full environmental review consistent with CEQA. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The project is subject to cost recovery with all expenses paid by the applicant. The applicant has paid $5,951 cost recovery fees to date. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance amending,the SmartCode Attachment 2: Draft Ordinance amending the IZO Zoning Map Attachment 3: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -XX Attachment 4: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -XX Attachment 5: Planning Commission Staff Report, July 26, 2016 Attachment 6: Allowed Building Functions and Permit Requirements, SmartCode Table 3.1 Attachment 7: General Plan EIR Resolution Attachment 8: Applicant's Cover Letter, March 10, 2016 Attachment 9 Project plans, half size Attachment 10: Letter from North Coast Railroad Authority Attachment 11: Memorandum of Understanding dated 5/30/03 Attachment 12: PUC Application Attachment 13 PUC Approval Letter 7 ATTACHMENT I ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AMENDING THE SMARTCODE TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 300, 314, and 322 LAKE VILLE STREET AND 330 D EAST D. STREET FROM RAILROAD DISTRICT (D -2) TO URBAN CENTER (T -5). APN 007 - 153 -0069 -008,-009, and -013 File No.:.PLZM -16 -001 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2016, Petaluma Riverfront LLC submitted an application on behalf of Kosewic /Ko -Ri, Inc and Petaluma-Riverfront LLC to amend the zoning on four parcels located at the southeast corner of Lakeville Street and East D Street, from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center (T -5) (herein "Project "); and , WHEREAS, all four properties are designated Mixed Use (MU) in the General Plan Land Use Map and in the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning is consistent with the Mixed -Use land use designation of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning is consistent with the Mixed -Use land use designation of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 25.050, to consider the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the staff report dated July 26, 2016 analyzing the application, including the California Envirom- rental Quality Act (CEQA) determination therein; and WHEREAS, at said hearing the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2016 -11 recommending City Council approval of the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 — Findings. The City Council approves the Project based on the findings made below: 1. The proposed SmartCode amendment is consistent with the following policies of the Petaluma General Plan: a. Use land efficiently by pr°onioting infill development, at equal or° higher• density and intensio) than surrounding uses. (Petaluma General Plan Policy I -P -2) The subject sites are vacant and underutilized infill sites near the center of Petaluma and the proposed T -5 zoning would allow use of the sites with higher density and intensity than the existing uses allowed by the D -2 zoning and at density and intensity equal to that allowed on surrounding properties. In addition, the 2013 Station Area Master Plan identifies the three subject vacant sites, among others, as priority opportunity sites to "complement the development of the catalyst sites and reinforce the goals and vision for the Station Area." The intent of identifying the priority opportunity sites is "that over time cis the area develops, pedestrian oriented mixed -use- development ivill become the highest and best use for these parcels, providing the laid owners ivith the opportunity and economic incentive to redevelop." (Station Area Master Plan, June 2013 p. 2 -7) The proposed zoning amendment would allow development on the subject sites consistent with this intent of the Station Area Master Plan whereas the existing Railroad District zoning precludes such development. b. Encourage mixed -use development, u- >>hich include opportunities for increased transit access. (Petaluma General Plan Policy I -P -6) The subject sites are across D Street from the Central Petaluma SMART Station and the proposed T -5 zoning would allow mixed -use development within a short walls of transit. The existing D -2 zoning does not allow mixed -use development. c. Allot -n land use intensification at strategic locations along the arterial corridors leading to Dou>>n1mvii and Central Petaluma, including aging commercial and industrial sites. (Petahiina General Plan Policy I -P -11) Intensification of the land uses allowed on the subject sites would be allowed and encouraged by the proposed change in zoning. The sites are at a strategic intersection of two primary arterials leading to Downtown and Central Petaluma and three of the sites are vacant and one is developed with an older single -story auto - oriented service building. 2. The SmartCode amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan: a. Provide for a mix of neii) uses. Neii, uses should be encouraged on vacant and underutilized parcels and on properties that are key in reorienting this area to the river. A broad spectrum of uses is envisioned, including those that are nontraditional, unique and unusual in nature, and ii)hich can contribute to the role of this area as the focal point of the community. (Goal 2) The SmartCode amendment would allow a mix of uses not currently allowed on the subject parcels and would allow development that could contribute as a gateway connecting the Lakeville Corridor and new SMART station to the river. b. Encourage intensification appropriate to the area's central location. The urban infill of lands within Central Petaluna is a priorio), i0th future development having an intensity) that is higher than elseivhere in the cite in order to create a greater focuts ivithin the area, support the investment in transitfacilities, and provide for pedestrian cord Uicycle- oriented activities that are linked with the surrounding neighborhoods and districts. (Goal 3) The subject sites are centrally located and adjacent to the SMART Station and along a significant commercial corridor. T -5 zoning will allow and encourage more intense use of the sites and help implement the stated purposes of this goal. c. Expand the Louver Reach area cis a center of employment, mixed use and region - serving coinrnercicil activity consistent ii,ith maintaining rifer- dependent industrial uses. (Objective 5) _. Given the location of the subject sites at the intersection of Lakeville Street and D Street adjacent to the SMART. station, the mix of uses allowed by the proposed T- 5 zoning is appropriate and can be consistent with maintaining river- dependent industrial uses. 3. The project is consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare in that it promotes mixed -use, transit - oriented development of an in -fill site consistent with the Petaluma General Plan and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. 4. No physical development of the project site is proposed under the current application. CEQA Section 21065 defines, in relevant part, a "project," as, "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." In considering whether the project would result in any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes to the environment, the City Council concluded, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, that it was speculative to make such a determination. The potential environmental effects 'of applying a General Plan Mixed -Use land use designation to the project site were analyzed, in programmatic sense, in the General Plan EIR adopted by City Council on April 7, 2008 via Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S. That prior CEQA document adequately addresses reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes at the project site (without being speculative) and is considered adequate for the current application. Should an actual physical development proposal be submitted at a future date for the project site, it will require full environnental review consistent with CEQA. Section 2. The Zoning Map contained in the Petaluma SmartCode is hereby amended to modify the zoning district of the properties located at 300, 314, and 322 Lakeville Street and 330 East D Street from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center (T -5). Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in frill force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, l -� paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption by the Petaluma City Council. Section 5. Posting/Publishing of Notice. * The City Clerk is hereby directed to post and /or publish this ordinance or a synopsis of it for the period and in the mamzer required by the City Charter. I'H ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 300, 314, and 322 LAKEVILLE STREET AND 330 D EAST D STREET FROM RAILROAD DISTRICT (D -2) TO URBAN CENTER (T -5). APN 007 - 153 -006, -008, -009, and -013 File No.: PLZM -16 -001 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2016, Petaluma Riverfront LLC submitted an application on behalf of Kosewic /Ko -Ri, Inc and Petaluma Riverfront LLC to amend the zoning on four parcels located at the southeast corner of Lakeville Street and East D Street, from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center (T -5) (herein "Project "); and WHEREAS, all four properties are designated Mixed Use (MU) in the General Plan Land Use Map and in the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning is consistent with the Mixed -Use land use designation of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning is consistent with the Mixed -Use land use designation of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Plamling Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to Iimplementing Zoning Ordinance Section 25.050, to consider the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Plamzing Commission considered the staff report dated July 26, 2016 analyzing the application, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination therein; and WHEREAS, at said hearing the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2016 -12 recommending City Council approval of the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1— Findings. The City Council approves the Project based on the findings made below: 1. The proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the following policies of the Petaluma General Plan: a. Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding arses. (Petaluma General Plan Policy I -P -2) The subject sites are vacant and underutilized infill sites near the center of M Petaluma and the proposed T -5 zoning would allow use of the sites with higher density and intensity than the existing uses allowed by the D -2 zoning and at density and intensity equal to that allowed on surrounding properties. In addition, the 2013 Station Area Master Plan identifies the three subject vacant sites, among others, as priority opportunity-sites to "complement the development of the catalyst sites and rehgforce the goals and vision fog° the Station Area." The intent of identifying the priority opportunity sites is "that over time as the area develops, pedestrian oriented mixed -use development will become the highest and best use for these parcels, providing the land owners with the opportunio� and economic incentive to 7•edevelop." (Station Area Master Plan, June 2013 p. 2 -7) The proposed zoning amendment would allow development on the subject sites consistent with this intent of the Station Area Master Plan whereas the existing Railroad District zoning precludes such development. b. Encourage mixed -use development, i,Mich include opportunities for increased transit access. (Petaluma General Plan Policy 1 -P -6) The subject sites are across D Street from the Central Petaluma SMART Station and the proposed T -5 zoning would allow mixed -use development within a short walls of transit. The existing D -2 zoning does not allow mixed -use development. c. Allot -t) land use intensification at strategic locations along the arterial corridors leading to Doi,mtoum and Central Petaluma, including aging conunercial and industrial sites. (Petaluma General Plan Policy I -P -11) Intensification of the land uses allowed on the subject sites would be allowed and encouraged by the proposed change in zoning. The sites are at a strategic intersection of two primary arterials leading to Downtown and Central Petaluma and three of the sites are vacant and one is developed with an older single -story auto - oriented service building. 2. The zoning map amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan: a. Provide for a nix of new uses. Neia, uses should be encouraged on vacant and underutilized parcels and on properties that are key in reorienting this area to the river. A broad spectrun of uses is envisioned, including those that are nontraditional, unique and unusual in nature, and i,Mich can contribute to the role of this area as the focal point of the coinmmnioJ , (Goad 2) The zoning map amendment would allow a mix of uses not currently allowed on the subject parcels and would allow development that could contribute as a gateway connecting the Lakeville Corridor and new SMART station to the river. b. Encourage intensification appropriate to the area's centred location. The urban inf ll of lands i-nithin Central Petadmna is a prioriOJ, 1i�ith future development having an intensity that is higher than else~ -Where in the city in order to create a greater focus within the area,. support the investment in transitfacilities, and provide for pedestrian and bicycle- oriented activities that are linked 1 -pith the surrounding neighborhoods and districts. (Goal 3) The subject sites are centrally..located and adjacent to the SMART Station and along a significant commercial corridor. T -5 zoning will allow and encourage more intense use of the sites and help implement the stated purposes of this goal. c. Expand the Loii,er Reach area cis a center of employment, mixed use and region - serving commercial actiWly consistent i3Oth maintaining river- dependent industrial uses. (Objective 5) Given the location of the subject sites, at the intersection of Lakeville Street and D Street adjacent to the SMART station, the mix of uses allowed by the proposed T- 5 zoning is appropriate and can be consistent with maintaining river - dependent industrial uses. 3. The Project is consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare in that it promotes mixed -use, transit - oriented development of an in -fill site consistent with the Petaluma General Plan and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. 4. No physical development of the project site is proposed under the current application. CEQA Section 21065 defines, in relevant part, a "project," as, "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." In considering whether the project would result in any reasonably foreseeable-indirect physical changes to the environment, the City Council concluded, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, that it was speculative to make such a determination. The potential environmental effects of applying a General Plan Mixed -Use land use designation to the project site were analyzed, in programmatic sense, in the General Plan EIR adopted by City Council on April 7, 2008 via Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S. That prior CEQA document adequately addressing reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes at the project site (without being speculative) and is considered adequate for the current application. Should an actual physical development proposal be submitted at a future date for the project site, it will require frill environmental review consistent with CEQA. Section 2. The Zoning Map of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to modify the zoning district of the properties located at 300, 314, and 322 Lakeville Street and 330 East D Street from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center (T -5). Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or I circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption by the Petaluma City Council. Section 5. Posting/Publishing of Notice. The City Clerk is hereby directed to post and /or publish this ordinance or a synopsis of it for the period and in the manner required by the City Charter. —1 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION 2016 -11 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SMARTCODE TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 300, 314, and 322 LAKEVILLE STREET AND 330 EAST D STREET FROM RAILROAD DISTRICT (D -2) TO URBAN CENTER (T -5). APN 007 - 153 -006, -008, -009, AND -013 File No. PLZM -16 -001 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2016, Petaluma Riverfront LLC submitted an application on behalf of Kosewic /Ko -Ri, Inc and Petaluma Riverfront LLC to amend the zoning on four parcels located at the southeast corner of Lakeville Street and East D Street, from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center (T -5) (herein "Project "); and WHEREAS, all four properties are designated Mixed Use (MU) in the General Plan Land Use Map and the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP); and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning is consistent with the Mixed -Use land use designation of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning is consistent with the Mixed -Use land use designation of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Section 25.050, to consider the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the staff report dated July 26, 2016 analyzing the application, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination therein; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A. Pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050(8), the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt proposed amendment to the SmartCode, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed SmartCode amendment is consistent with the following policies of the Petaluma General Plan: a. Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. (Petaluma General Plan Policy I -P -2) The subject sites are vacant and underutilized infill sites near the center of Petaluma and the proposed T -5 zoning would allow use of the sites with higher density and intensity than the existing uses allowed by the D -2 zoning and at density and intensity equal to that allowed on surrounding properties. In addition, the 2013 Station Area Master Plan identifies the three subject vacant sites, among others, as priority opportunity sites to "complement the development of the catalyst sites and reinforce the goals and vision for the Station Area." The intent of identifying the priority opportunity sites is "that over time as the area develops, pedestrian oriented mixed -use development will become the highest and best use for these parcels, providing the land owners with the opportunity Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -11 Page 1 and economic incentive to redevelop." (Station Area Master Plan, June 2013 p. 2 -7) The proposed zoning amendment would allow development on the subject sites consistent with this intent of the Station Area Master Plan whereas the existing Railroad District zoning precludes such development. b. Encourage mixed -use development, which include opportunities for increased transit access. (Petaluma General Plan Policy 1 -P -6) The subject sites are across D Street from the Central Petaluma SMART Station and the proposed T -5 zoning would allow mixed -use development within a short walk of transit. The existing D -2 zoning does not allow mixed -use development. C. Allow land use intensification at strategic locations along the arterial corridors leading to Downtown and Central Petaluma, including aging commercial and industrial sites. (Petaluma General Plan Policy 1 -P -11) Intensification of the land uses allowed on the subject sites would be allowed and encouraged by the proposed change in zoning. The sites are at a strategic intersection of two primary arterials leading to Downtown and Central Petaluma and three of the sites are vacant and one is developed with an older single -story auto - oriented service building. 2. The proposed SmartCode amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan: a. Provide for a mix of new uses. New uses should be encouraged on vacant and underutilized parcels and on properties that are key in reorienting this area to the river. A broad spectrum of uses is envisioned, including those that are nontraditional, unique and unusual in nature, and which can. contribute to the role of this area as the focal point of the community. (Goal 2) The proposed SmartCode zoning amendment would allow a mix of uses not currently allowed on the subject parcels and would allow development that could contribute as a gateway connecting the Lakeville Corridor and new SMART station to the river. b. Encourage intensification appropriate to the area's central location. The urban infill of lands within Central Petaluma is a priority, with future development having an intensity that is higher than elsewhere in the city in order to create a greater focus within the area, support the Investment in transit facilities, and provide for pedestrian and bicycle- oriented activities that are linked with the surrounding neighborhoods and districts. (Goal 3) The subject sites are centrally located and adjacent to the SMART Station and along a significant commercial corridor. T -5 zoning will allow and encourage more intense use of the sites and help implement the stated purposes of this goal. c. Expand the Lower Reach area as a center of employment, mixed use and region - serving commercial activity consistent with maintaining river - dependent industrial uses. (OBJECTIVE 5) Given the location of the subject sites at the intersection of Lakeville Street and D Street adjacent to the SMART station, the mix of uses allowed by the proposed T -5 zoning is appropriate and can be consistent with maintaining river - dependent industrial uses. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -11 Page 2 '3 '2 3. The project is consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare in that it promotes mixed -use, transit - oriented development of an in -fill site consistent with the Petaluma General Plan and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. No physical development of the project site is proposed under the current application. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21065 defines, in relevant part, a "project," as, an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." In considering whether the project would result in any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes to the environment, the Planning Commission concluded, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, that it was speculative to make such a determination. The potential environmental effects of applying a General Plan Mixed -Use land use designation to the project site were analyzed, in programmatic sense, in the General Plan EIR adopted by City Council on April 7, 2008 via Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S.. That prior CEQA document adequately addressing reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes at the project site (without being speculative) and is considered adequate for the current application. Should an actual physical development proposal be submitted at a future date for the project site, it will require full environmental review consistent with CEQA. ADOPTED this 261h day of July, 2016, by the following vote: Commission Member Aye No Absent Abstain Councilmember King X Vice Chair Benedefti- Petnic X Gomez X Chair Lin X Marzo X Pierre X Wolpert X ATTEST: ,�.`'�z` J�ek Lin, C it ` APPROVED AS TO FORM: H ther Hines, C' Fnmission Secretary Lisa Tennenb m, Assistant City Attorney Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -11 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION 2016 -12 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING MAP OF THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 300, 314, and 322 LAKEVILLE STREET AND 330 EAST D STREET FROM RAILROAD DISTRICT (D -2) TO URBAN CENTER (T -5). APN 007 - 153 -006, -008, -009, AND -013 File NO, PLZM -16 -0001 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2016, Petaluma Riverfront LLC submitted an application on behalf of Kosewic /Ko -Ri, Inc and Petaluma Riverfront LLC to amend the zoning on four parcels located at the southeast corner of Lakeville Street and East D Street, from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center (T -5) (herein "Project "); and WHEREAS, all four properties are designated Mixed Use (MU) in the General Plan Land Use Map and the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP); and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning is consistent with the Mixed -Use land use designation of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning is consistent with the Mixed -Use land use designation of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Section 25.050, to consider the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the staff report dated July 26, 2016 analyzing the application, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination therein; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A. Pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §25.050(8), the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Zoning Map amendment is consistent with the following policies of the Petaluma General Plan: a. Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. (Petaluma General Plan Policy I -P -2) The subject sites are vacant and underutilized infill sites near the center of Petaluma and the proposed T -5 zoning would allow use of the sites with higher density and intensity than the existing uses allowed by the D -2 zoning and at density and intensity equal to that allowed on surrounding properties, in addition, the 2013 Station Area Master Plan identifies the three subject vacant sites, among others, as priority opportunity sites to "complement the development of the catalyst sites and reinforce the goals and vision for the Station Area." The intent of identifying the priority opportunity sites is "that over time as the area develops, pedestrian oriented mixed -use development will become the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -12 Z_/® f Page 1 highest and best use for these parcels, providing the land owners with the opportunity and economic incentive to redevelop." (Station Area Master Plan, June 2013 p. 2 -7) The proposed zoning amendment would allow development on the subject sites consistent with this intent of the Station Area Master Plan whereas the existing Railroad District zoning precludes such development. b. Encourage mixed -use development which include opportunities for increased transit access. (Petaluma General Plan Policy I -P -6) The subject sites are across D Street from the Central Petaluma SMART Station and the proposed T -5 zoning would allow mixed -use development within a short walk of transit. The existing D -2 zoning does not allow mixed -use development. C. Allow land use intensification at strategic locations along the arterial corridors leading to Downtown and Central Petaluma, including aging commercial and industrial sites. (Petaluma General Plan Policy 1 -P -11) Intensification of the land uses allowed on the subject sites would be allowed and encouraged by the proposed change in zoning. The sites are at a strategic intersection of two primary arterials leading to Downtown and Central Petaluma and three of the sites are vacant and one is developed with an older single -story auto - oriented service building. 2. The proposed zoning map amendments is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan: a. Provide for a mix of new uses. New uses should be encouraged on vacant and underutilized parcels and on properties that are key in reorienting this area to the river. A broad spectrum of uses is envisioned, including those that are nontraditional, unique and unusual in nature, and which can contribute to the role of this area as the focal point of the community. (Goal 2) The proposed zoning amendment would allow a mix of uses not currently allowed on the subject parcels and would allow development that could contribute as a gateway connecting the Lakeville Corridor and new SMART station to the river. b. Encourage intensification appropriate to the area's central location. The urban infill of lands within Central Petaluma is a priority, with future development having an intensity that is higher than elsewhere in the city in order to create a greater focus within the area, support the investment in transit facilities, and provide for pedestrian and bicycle- oriented activities that are linked with the surrounding neighborhoods and districts. (Goal 3) The subject sites are centrally located and adjacent to the SMART Station and along a significant commercial corridor. T -5 zoning will allow and encourage more intense use of the sites and help implement the stated purposes of this goal. c. Expand the Lower Reach area as a center of employment, mixed use and region - serving commercial activity consistent with maintaining river - dependent industrial uses. (OBJECTIVE 5) Given the location of the subject sites at the intersection of Lakeville Street and D Street adjacent to the SMART station, the mix of uses allowed by the proposed T -5 zoning is appropriate and can be consistent with maintaining river - dependent industrial uses. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -12 Page 2 lz/_�L 3. The project is consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare in that it promotes mixed -use, transit - oriented development of an in -fill site consistent with the Petaluma General Plan and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. No physical development of the project site is proposed under the current application. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21065 defines, in relevant part, a "project," as, an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." In considering whether the project would result in any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes to the environment, the Planning Commission concluded, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, that it was speculative to make such a determination. The potential environmental effects of applying a General Plan Mixed -Use land use designation to the project site were analyzed, in programmatic sense, in the General Plan EIR adopted by City Council on April 7, 2008 via Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S.. That prior CEQA document adequately addressing reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes at the project site (without being speculative) and is considered adequate for the current application. Should an actual physical development proposal be submitted at a future date for the project site, it will require full environmental review consistent with CEQA. ADOPTED this 26th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: Commission Member Aye No Absent Abstain Councilmember King X Vice Chair Benedetti- Petnic X Gomez X Chair Lin X Marzo X Pierre X Wolpert X ATTEST: 4 Joel n Lin, air APPROVED AS TO FORM: H t er Hines, Co 'mission Secretary Lisa Tennenb um, Assistant City Attorney Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -12 Page 3 —3 ATTACHMENT 5 t AGENDA ITEM: 8A DATE: July 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Emmanuel Ursu, Principal Planner REVIEWED BY: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: KOSEWIC REZONING SMART CODE AMENDMENT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 300, 314 and 322 Lakeville Street and 330 East D Street RECOM I[ENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the following: A Resolution Recommending the City Council introduce approve a SmartCode Amendment to rezone the subject parcels from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center Zone (T -5) (Attachment A); and • A Resolution Recommending the City Council approve a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the subject parcels from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center Zone (T -5) (Attachment B). BACKGROUND Project Background and Description In March 2016, the City received an application to amend the zoning of three vacant parcels and one developed parcel located at the southeast corner of Lakeville Street and East D Street from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center Zone (T -5). All four properties are located within the boundaries of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) and are designated Mixed Use (MU) on both the General Plan Land Use Map and the 2003 CPSP Land Use Map. The newly adopted SmartCode, identifies the zoning of the four properties as D -2. (Figures 2 and 3) The three vacant parcels (APNs: 007 - 153 -006, -009, -013) are owned by Petaluma Riverfront, LLC and the site developed with existing auto - oriented services (007- 153 -008) is owned by Kosewic/ Ko -Ri, Inc. The total land area of all four sites is approximately one acre (43,721 sq. ft.). There is no physical development proposal associated with this application 5-1 Vehicular access to all four of the properties is via the one -way east - bound segment of Hopper Street which is separated from Lakeville Street along the subject property frontage by the SMART rail line. Access to the vacant corner site is possible from either Hopper Street or from East D Street. Currently, a perimeter security fence encloses the vacant sites. There is no physical development proposal associated with the subject zone change application. However, the separate Riverfront development located approximately' /2 mile east of the project site (500 Hopper Street) includes off -site infrastructure improvements along the frontage of the developed site (322 Lakeville Street) and over the three vacant sites (300 and 314 Lakeville Street and 330 East D Street). These improvements are unrelated to subject application and included on the plans for reference purposes only. The purpose of the improvements are to provide secondary two -way ingress /egress for the Riverfront project which currently has egress limited to one location via Caulfield Lane. After the Caulfield Bridge over the Petaluma River is constructed, the secondary egress in front of the project site will no longer be necessary and the roadway "swoop" over the vacant sites may be removed. The subject sites are along the northeasterly boundary of the CPSP area and are surrounded by a mix of uses in a variety of zoning districts as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. All of the sites listed in Table 1 are in the CPSP area except properties north of the subject sites. Table 1: Surrounding Land uses and Zoning Districts Location Relative Existing Use(s) Zoning General Plan to Subject Sites Desi nation North Wilibees Wines and Spirits Mixed Use lA (MUlA) Mixed Use and Adobe Creek Funeral Home West SMART Station (under Railroad District (D -2) Mixed Use construction) South SMART rail spur Urban Center (T -5) Mixed Use East Shamrock Cement Plant River Dependent River Dependent (across SMART rail spur) Industrial (D3) Industrial The subject properties are all currently zoned under the Railroad (D -2) district which is intended to support transit and utility functions. The D -2 zoning district allows the following uses: • Emergency shelter • Ambulance, taxi, or limousine dispatch facility • Structured parking facility, public or commercial • Pipeline, utility transmission or distribution line • Telecommunications facility • Transit station or terminal • Utility facility (underground and alleys only) • Utility infrastructure (underground and alleys only) • Rail facility (Freight handling and track maintenance) 5— 2 All uses in the D -2 District are subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with the exception of utility infrastructure and rail facilities which are permitted by right. According to the project applicant, the site was zoned D -2 to accommodate rail related facilities which are no longer needed. The proposed zoning expands the list of uses allowed on the site as described below. Figure 1: Aerial Photo of project site (in blue outline) and surroundings DISCUSSION The requested zoning map and SmartCode amendment would rezone the subject properties to T- 5. The range of uses allowed in the T -5 District is much broader than those allowed in the D -2 District. The T -5 District allows all of the uses allowed in the D -2 District (except for dispatch facilities and rail facilities) plus assembly, lodging, residential, retail, service and industrial, manufacturing and processing and wholesaling uses. Attachment C lists the allowed uses and permit requirements for all zoning districts in CPSP including the T -5 and D -2 Districts. Zoning Map amendments are governed by Chapter 25 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance 5-- 3 and by CA Government Code Section 65853. The SmartCode does not address procedures for amendments and therefore, the requirements of IZO Chapter 25 and State law are followed for amendment of the SmartCode. For the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation for the requested amendment to the City Council for consideration, the Commission must find that the amendment is in conformance with the Petaluma General Plan, consistent with the CPSP, and a matter of public necessity, convenience and general welfare. The General Plan land use designation for the subject properties is Mixed -use and the General Plan refers to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) for the densities and FAR applicable to the subject properties (General Plan, Page 1 -7). The T -5 zoning is a mixed -use zone that is appropriate and consistent with the Mixed -Use land use designation in that it allows the mix of uses at the densities envisioned by the General Plan and CPSP. Petaluma General Plan 2025 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS' Rural Residential (0.1.0.6 hu/ac) Very Lars Density Residential (0.6.2.5 hurao) Low Density Residential (2. &8.0 hu/ao) Diverse lax Density Residential (8.1 -12.0 hu/ac) . Medium Density Residential (8.1 -18.0 hurac) High Density Residentiat (18.1 -30.0 hu/ac) Mobile Homes (8.0 -18.0 hu/ac) Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Mixed Use Business Park Public/Seml- Public Education Industrial Agriculture Support Industrial (CPSP) River Dependent Industrial (CPSP) Agriculture .P City Park ..�g Proposed City Park ,.. Open Space Regional Park Urban Separator Urban Separator Path River Plan Corridor Figure 2 — General Plan Land Use Map �; — 4 Transect Zones Urban Core (T6) Urban Core - Open (T6 -0) Urban Center (T5) Urban General (T4) Historic Agricultural Services District (DI) Railroad District (D2) River Dependent Industrial District (D3) Notes: I. The Open overlay (T6 -0) allows additional ground Floor uses, See Section 3 (Building Func- tion Standards) for additional allowed uses. All other regulations shall be per the regulations of the base zone (T6). 2. The dimensions shown on this plan indicate the maximum and minimum distances from the ROW where the transition between two adjacen transect zones can occur. raj�c XXVT a 'ae o -11 \ s, 2V kfi;1 °a sa�awa�6ak �. Figure 3 — Zoning Map Pertinent General Plan and CPSP policies and objectives are listed below in bold typeface followed by a brief discussion of the proposed zoning map amendment as it relates to each policy and objective. General Plan Policies: Policy 1 -P -2: Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. The subject sites are vacant and underutilized infill sites near the center of Petaluma and as noted above and illustrated in Attachment C, the proposed T -5 zoning would allow use of the sites with higher density and intensity than the existing uses allowed by the D -2 zoning and at density and intensity equal to that allowed on surrounding properties. In addition, the 2013 Station Area Master Plan identifies the three subject vacant sites, among others, as priority opportunity sites to "complement the development of the catalyst sites and reinforce the goals and vision for the Station Area." The intent of identifying the priority opportunity sites is "that over time as the area develops, pedestrian oriented mixed -use development will become the highest and best use for these parcels, providing the land owners with the opportunity and economic incentive to redevelop." (Station Area Master Plan, June 2013 p. 2 -7) The proposed zoning amendment would allow development on the subject sites consistent with this intent of the Station Area Master Plan whereas the existing Railroad District zoning precludes such development. Policy 1 -P -6: Encourage mixed -use development, which include opportunities for S— 5 increased transit access. The subject sites are across D Street from the Central Petaluma SMART Station and the proposed T -5 zoning would allow a mix -of uses to develop along the Lakeville corridor within a short walk of transit. However, given the relatively small size of each individual parcel, without consolidation of two or more of the subject sites, it is not likely that mixed -use development would occur on each parcel. Existing D -2 zoning does not allow mixed -use development. Policy 1 -P -11: Allow land use intensification at strategic locations along the arterial corridors leading to Downtown and Central Petaluma, including aging commercial and industrial sites. Intensification of the land uses allowed on the subject sites would be facilitated and encouraged by the proposed change in zoning. The sites are at a strategic intersection of two primary arterials leading to Downtown Petaluma and three of the sites are vacant and one is developed with an older single -story auto - oriented service building. Central Petaluma Specific Plan. There are four subareas in the CPSP and the subject parcels are in the far northeasterly corner of the Lower Reach subarea, and across D Street from the Turning Basin subarea. The CPSP envisions retaining the commercial orientation for the area in which the subject parcels are located along Lakeville Street south of D Street with a focus "on attracting smaller national chains and creating a shopping corridor that serves the broader community." The plan also states that: "Two new transit centers are envisioned as catalysts to help establish a new role for Lakeville Street and reorient the commercial uses within the area." (CPSP, p. 27). There are five land use goals stated in the CPSP with several subarea - specific objectives and policies. Pertinent goals of the CPSP and objectives specific to the Lower Reach subarea are listed below in bold and italic typeface. Staff analysis follows each goal and objective. Goal 2: Provide for a mix of new uses. New uses should be encouraged on vacant and underutilized parcels and on properties that are key in reorienting this area to the river. A broad spectrum of uses is envisioned, including those that are nontraditional, unique and unusual in nature, and which can contribute to the role of this area as the focal point of the community. The proposed zoning amendment would allow a mix of uses not currently allowed on the subject parcels and would allow development that could contribute as a gateway connecting the Lakeville Corridor and new SMART station to the river. ' Goal 3: Encourage intensification appropriate to the area's central location. The urban infill of lands within Central Petaluma is a priority, with future S— 6 development having an intensity that is higher than elsewhere in the city in order to create a greater focus within the area, support the investment in transit facilities, and provide for pedestrian and bicycle - oriented activities that are linked with the surrounding neighborhoods and districts. The subject sites are centrally located and adjacent to the SMART Station and along a significant commercial corridor. T -5 zoning will allow and encourage more intense use of the sites and help implement the stated purposes of this goal. OBJECTIVE S: Expand the Lower Reach area as a center of employment, mixed use and region - serving commercial activity consistent with maintaining river - dependent industrial uses. Given the location of the subject sites at the intersection of Lakeville Street and D Street adjacent to the SMART station, the mix of uses allowed by the proposed T -5 zoning seems appropriate and can be consistent with maintaining river - dependent industrial uses. With regard to the Mixed Use designation, the CPSP states that: "This designation allows for a variety of residential, commercial office, retail and industrial uses consistent with the respective development regulations established within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area. The intent of this designation is to promote mixed use throughout the area and, depending on the parcel and its surroundings, vertical mixed use (i.e., a mix of uses within the same structure) wherever possible." PUBLIC COMMENT Public notice was published in the Argus Courier on July 14, 2016, 2015, and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site. No public comment was received prior to preparation and distribution of this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No physical development of the project site is proposed under the current application. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21065 defines, in relevant part, a "project," as, "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." In considering whether the project would result in any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes to the environment, staff concluded, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, that it was speculative to make such a determination. The potential environmental effects of applying a General Plan Mixed -Use land use designation to the project site were analyzed, in programmatic sense, in the General Plan EIR adopted by City Council on April 7, 2008 via Resolution No2008 -058 N.C.S. (Attachment D). That prior CEQA document adequately addressed reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes at the project site (without being speculative) and is considered adequate for the current application. Should an actual physical development proposal be submitted at a future date for the project site, it will require full environmental review consistent with CEQA. S_ 7 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Resolution Recommending Council approval of amendment of the SmartCode Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance Attachment B: Draft Resolution Recommending Council approval of amendment of the Zoning Map Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance Attachment C: Allowed Building Functions and Permit Requirements, SmartCode Table 3.1 Attachment D: General Plan EIR Resolution Attachment E: Applicant's Cover Letter, March 10, 2016 Attachment F: Project plans, half size ATTACHMENT 6 Section 3 - Building Function Standards Bar /tavern /night club CUP CUP CUP CUP — — — CUP Commercial recreation facility P P P - - - P Live /work unit (See Section 4.70.020) P P CUP2 MUP - - - P Multi - family housing P2 P2 Indoor, s 5,000 sf CUP MUP2 MUP2 MUP - - CUP Indoor, > 5,000 sf CUP CUP2 CUP2 CUP - - - CUP Outdoor - - - - - - - CUP Community meeting facility 510,000 sf CUP P MUP2 MUP - - - >10,000 sf CUP CUP CUP2 CUP - - - - Conference /convention facility 510,000 sf P P2 MUP2 MUP - - - P >10,000 sf CUP CUP CUP2 CUP - - - CUP Fitness /health facility , P P P2 P - - - P Library, museum P P P2 P - - - School - Specialized education /training P2 P2 P2 P2 - - - CUP Sports and entertainment assembly facility - - - - - - CUP Studio - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. P P MUP P - - - P Theater Movie (See Chapter 19.70, Theater Combining - P2 P2 P2 - - - - District, Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance) Live Performance CUP CUP MUP2 MUP - - - CUP Bed and breakfast inn P P P2 P2 - - - - Hotel or motel - P2 p2 p2 - - - P Emergency shelter CUP CUP CUP CUP - CUP - CUP Home occupation P P P P - - - P Live /work unit (See Section 4.70.020) P P CUP2 MUP - - - P Multi - family housing P2 P2 Residential in mixed use building P (See Section 4.70.030) P P P - - - P Single- family dwelling P2 P2 - - - - - - Work /live unit (See Section 4.70.020) MUP MUP CUP MUP - - P Key P Permitted MUP Minor Use Permit CUP Conditional Use Permit - Prohibited ' See Section 9 (Glossary) for use type definitions 2 On a frontage where shopfronts are required, use is allowed only on upper floor(s) or behind an allowed ground floor use per the permit requirement indicated. 3 Permitted use (per the permit requirement indicated) if limited to a maximum of 5,OOOsf on ground floor 4 Permitted use (per the permit requirement indicated) in spaces of greater then 8,OOOsf on ground floor 16 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan (�-I Section 3 - Building Function Standards Alcoholic beverage sales CUP CUP CUP CUP — — CUP Artisan shop P P P I P — — — CUP Auto parts sales — MUP MUP MUP — — — P Building and landscape materials sales Indoor MUP MUP — — — — — P Outdoor — — — — — — CUP Drive- through retail — — — — — — — — Farm supply and feed store MUP MUP — — — — — P Gas station — CUP — — — — P General retail - 510,000 sf MUP P P P -- — — P >10,000 sf, 550,000 sf — CUP CUP CUP — — — P >50,000 sf — — — — — — CUP Groceries, specialty foods 510,000 sf P P P P — — — P >I0,000 sf CUP MUP MUP MUP — — — P Restaurant, cafe, coffee shop P P P P — — — P Shopping center CUP CUP CUP CUP — — — CUP Services - Adult day care 6 or fewer clients, provided in a home P P P, P P — — P 7 or more clients CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP — — P ATM CUP MUP MUP MUP P — — P Bank, financial services P P P P P — — P Business support service P P P, P P — — P Catering service P P P P P — — P Child day care Large or small family day care home P P P, P P — - P Child day care center CUP, MUP, MUP, MUP CUP — — P Community service organization CUP MUP, MUPz MUP CUP — — P Drive- through service Key P Permitted MUP Minor Use Permit CUP Conditional Use Permit — Prohibited 1 See Section 9 (Glossary) for use type definitions , On a frontage where shopfronts are required, use is allowed only on upper floor(s) or behind an allowed ground floor use per the permit requirement indicated, 3 Permitted use (per the permit requirement indicated) if limited to a maximum of 5,000sf on ground floor 4 Permitted use (per the permit requirement indicated) in spaces of greater then 8,000sf on ground floor Petaluma Station Area Master Plan 17 Section 3 - Building Function Standards Equipment rental — — — — — — P Kennel, animal boarding — — — — — — CUP Maintenance /repair service Equipment, large appliances, etc. — CUP — — CUP — — P Client site services CUP MUP2 MUP2 MUP2 P — — P Medical services — — — Non- restricted P P Clinic, lab, urgent care — P2 — — P — — P Doctor office P2 PZ MUP2 P — - — Mortuary, funeral home — — — - CUP - CUP Office — CUP — - CUP — — CUP Veterinary clinic, animal hospital — CUP Business /service /government CUP P PZ P P — — P Office - Processing — CUP2 MUP'. MUP CUP — — CUP Professional P2 P2 P2 P P — P Personal services — — — Non- restricted P P MUP P P — — P Restricted — — — — CUP — — P Public safety facility CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP — — CUP Vehicle services P CUP CUP Major repair /body work — — — — — — — CUP Minor maintenance /repair — CUP — - CUP — — CUP Veterinary clinic, animal hospital — CUP — CUP CUP — — CUP Ambulance, taxi, or limousine dispatch facility — — — CUP CUP — CUP Broadcasting studio — CUP CUP, CUP CUP — — CUP Structured parking facility, public or commercial P P P2 P CUP CUP CUP CUP Pipeline, utility transmission or distribution line CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Telecommunications facility — CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Transit station or terminal — CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP — CUP Utility facility (underground and alleys only) — CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Utility infrastructure (underground and alleys only) P P P P P P P P Rail Facility (Freight handling & track maintenance) — — — — — P — — Key P Permitted MUP Minor Use Permit CUP Conditional Use Permit — Prohibited 1 See Section 9 (Glossary) for use type definitions 2 On a frontage where shopfronts are required, use is allowed only on upper floor(s) or behind an allowed ground floor use per the permit requirement indicated. 3 Permitted use (per the permit requirement indicated) if limited to a maximum of 5,000sf on ground floor 4 Permitted use (per the permit requirement indicated) in spaces of greater then 8,000sf on ground floor 18 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Section 3 - Building Function Standards Agricultural product processing — CUP2,4 — — P — P — Artisan /craft product manufacturing P3 MUP2,3 MUP2.3 MUP213 — — P — Chemical product manufacturing — — — — — CUP — Clothing and fabric product manufacturing CUP MUP2,3 — — P — P — Concrete, gypsum, and plaster product manufacturing — — — — — — P — Electronics, equipment, and appliance manufacturing CUP CUP2,3 — — CUP — P — Food and beverage product manufacturing CUPS CUP2.3 — — CUP — P — Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet shop — CUP2 — — CUP — P — Glass product manufacturing CUPS CUP2,3 — — — — P — Laboratory - Medical, analytical, research & development — P2 — — P — P — Laundry, dry cleaning plant — — - — CUP — CUP — Lumber and wood product manufacturing — CUP2,4 — — CUP — CUP — Machinery manufacturing — CUP2.4 — — — — P — Media production P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 — P P Metal products fabrication, machine or welding — CUP2,4 — — — — CUP — Motor vehicles and transportation equipment — — — — — — CUP — Paper product manufacturing — — — — — — P — Photo /film processing lab — CUP2 — — — — CUP — Plastics, synthetics, rubber product manufacturing — - — — — CUP — Printing and publishing . P2 P2 — — P — P P Recycling - Small collection facility — — — — — CUP Research and development P P2 P2 PZ P — P P Small product manufacturing — MUP2 MUP2,4 MUP2.4 P2 — P — Stone and cut stone product manufacturing — — — — — — P Storage Outdoor storage yard as a primary use — — — — — CUP — Warehouse, Indoor storage — — — — — P — Structural clay and pottery product manufacturing — — — — — — P — Textile and leather product manufacturing — CUP2 — — — — P — Wholesaling and distribution — CUP2.4 — — — — P CUP Key P Permitted MUP Minor Use Permit CUP Conditional Use Permit — Prohibited 1 See Section 9 (Glossary) for use type definitions 2 On a frontage where shopfronts are required, use is allowed only on upper floor(s) or behind an allowed ground floor use per the permit requirement indicated. 3 Permitted use (per the permit requirement indicated) if limited to a maximum of 5,OOOsf on ground floor 4 Permitted use (per the permit requirement indicated) in spaces of greater then 8,000sf on ground floor Petaluma Station Area Master Plan 19 ('--9 ATTACHMENT 7 Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF PETALUMA GENERAL PLAN 2025 WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for-the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 ( "the Project ") was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on August 11, 2004, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guidelines Section 15082; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "Draft EIR ") was prepared for the Project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between September 12, 2006 and May 7, 2007. A notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR was given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085. WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, WHEREAS, noticed public meetings were held on September 26; October 2, 10, 16, and 24; November 6, 14, 20, and 28; December 4, 12, and 18, 2006; January 9, 22, 23; February 5, 12, 20, 22, 26, and 27; March 5, 13, 19, and 27; April 16 and 23; May 7 and 21, 2007 at which the Planning Commission and City Council considered the Draft EIR and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS, a Revised Draft EIR — Greenhouse Gas Emissions was prepared for the project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between November 20, 2007 and January 7, 2008. A notice inviting comments on the Revised Draft EIR was given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085; and, Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S. q­ Page 1 WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Revised Draft EIR to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, WHEREAS, noticed public meetings were held on November 27; December 3 and 11, 2007; and January 7, 2008 at which the Planning Commission and City Council considered the Revised Draft EIR and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS, written and oral comments to the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR have been received and responses to those comments have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project ( "Final EIR "); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided notice regarding the availability of the Final EIR and circulated the proposed responses to comments to public agencies submitting comments on the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held noticed public meetings on March 4 and March 11, 2007 at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended on March 11, 2008 that the City Council certify the FEIR; and, WHEREAS, on March 17, 2008 and March 31, 2008 the City Council held noticed public meetings at which it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies significant impacts that can be mitigated, and significant unavoidable impacts for the Project. If, after review of the certified EIR, and upon consideration of the Project, the City Council determines to approve the Project, the approval must be supported by mitigation findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091, will be required to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15097, and will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093. All required findings shall be included in such approval as appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council finds and determines as follows: Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S. r-7 — Page 2 Pursuant to 15090 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and based on the evidence and oral and written testimony presented at the public hearings and meetings, and all information contained in the General Plan Administration Department's files (incorporated herein by reference) on the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, including but not limited to the Petaluma General Plan Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges Report (October 2002), the Petaluma General Plan Land Use & Mobility Alternatives Report (February 2004), and the EIR, the City Council of the City of Petaluma does hereby certify, in accordance with Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines, that: (1) The EIR for this project consists of the Draft EIR dated September 2006, the Revised Draft EIR dated November 2007, Technical Appendices 1 through 4, the Final EIR (Technical Appendices Volumes 6A, B and C) and two early preparatory documents (The Existing Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges Report and the Land Use and Mobility Alternatives Report) with response to comments dated February 14, 2008, all of which documents are incorporated herein by reference; and, (2) The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and, (3) The Final EIR was presented to the Petaluma City Council, the decision - making body of the City of Petaluma, the lead agency for the Project, and the City Council as said decision - making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to taking action on the Project; and, (4) The Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. REFERENCE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. 1 hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 7'h day of April, 2008, by the following vote: City Barrett, Freitas, Harris, Nau, O'Brien, Vice Mayor Rabbitt, Mayor Torliatt None None None n r City Clerk Mayor to Resolution No. 2008 -058 N.C.S. [ — Page 3 R.C.E. 49302 ATTACHMENT 8 P.L.S. 6368 STEVEN J. LAFRANCHI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS — LAND SURVEYORS — LAND PLANNERS PETALUMA THEATRE SQUARE 140 SECOND STREET, SUITE 312, PETALUMA, CA 94952 TEL 707 - 762 -3122 FAX 707 - 762 -3239 March 10, 2016 City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Attention: Olivia Ervin Subject: Zoning Amendment Application Petaluma Riverfront , LLC 314 Lakeville Street 007 - 153 -006 300 Lakeville Street 007 -153 -009 330 East "D" Street 007 -153 -008 HAND DELIVERED John T. Kosewic and Alena Kosewic and KO -RI, Inc. 322 Lakeville Street 007 -153 -013 Attachments: Paper: (6 sets) 24x26 and (2 sets) 11x17 Zoning Amendment Exhibit; (1 copy) each: AP Map; Title Report for Subject Properties; Site Photos; Signed General Application; Signed Cost Recovery Application; Signed Environmental Questionnaire; Deposit Fee (Zoning Amendment Fee and Initial Study Fee) $6,486.59; Check #1744 CD: Zoning Amendment Exhibit; (1 copy) each: AP Map; Title Report for Subject Properties; Site Photos; Signed General Application; Signed Cost Recovery Application; Signed Environmental Questionnaire; Deposit Fee (Zoning Amendment Fee and Initial Study Fee) $6,486.59; Check #1744 Dear Olivia, Pursuant to our past discussions on this matter, attached is the Zoning Amendment Application package to change the existing zoning from Railroad District (D2) to Urban Center T -5. The purpose of the zone change is to eliminate a zone district that is no longer needed for railroad transit and to allow more flexibility for future uses on the property. The proposed street improvements shown on the exhibit are required for the Rezoning Submittal Cover Letter <J — Riverfront Mixed Use Project. Neither property is presently proposing any new development at this time. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Steven J. Lafianchi, P.E., P.L.S. CC: Bill White Paul Andronico Matt Sherrill North Coast Railroad Authority 419 Talmage Road, Suite M Ukiah, CA 95482 August 31, 2016 Via Federal Express, Airbill #77712542 9360 Mayor David Glass and Councilmembers Petaluma City Council 11 English St. Petaluma, California 94952 ATTACHMENT 10 Re: Proposed Rezoning, Petaluma Riverfront LLC and Kosewic Properties APN 007-153-006,007-153-009,007-153-008,007-153-013 Dear Mayor Glass: The North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) and the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, its freight operator, strenuously object to rezoning the above - captioned properties from Railroad District (D -2) to Urban Center (T -5), or any other rezoning of the property. It is our understanding that this proposal, originally submitted March 10, 2016, is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 12, 2016. Under a binding, multi- lateral Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into June 16, 2003 by and between the City of Petaluma (City), NCRA, Petaluma Riverfront LLC, Northwestern Pacific Railways and the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Authority ( NWPRA), Petaluma Riverfront LLC is obligated to deed the subject properties to NWPRA or its successor and to construct a freight yard and facilities on the site for the benefit and use of NCRA. All parties except for Petaluma Riverfront LLC have heretofore tendered consideration and met their obligations under the terms of the MOU. NCRA quitclaimed its interest in the downtown Petaluma railroad station, enabling it to be acquired by the City. Petaluma Riverfront LLC received the new Caulfield Lane railroad crossing, which is necessary for its mixed use development project. Under the terms of the MOU, transfer of the properties and construction of the freight facilities are to take place at such time as Petaluma Riverfront LLC receives project approvals frott>I the City for its mixed -use development. Since most of th�se approvals have been recently granted by the City, it is timely for Petaluma Riverfront LLC t deed over the properties and construct the freight facilities. Instead, Petaluma Riverfront LLC seeks a zoning change that Phone: (707) 463 -3280 Fax: (707) 463 -3282 ncra.mstogner@sbcglobal.net Page 2 of 2 Mayor David Glass & Councilmembers August 31, 2016 would actually prohibit the freight facilities from being built on the property! In documents submitted to the City pursuant to the proposed zone change, Petaluma Riverfront LLC states the subject properties are rio longer needed for rail transit purposes. We strongly disagree. NCRA gave up its rights to the downtown station in exchange for these freight facilities and has made no such concession. For Petaluma Riverfront LLC to seek rezoning of the property so that it could not be used for such facilities is a blatant breach of its contractual obligations. The City, which received tangible consideration under the MOU, must not take actions that would contribute to this breach. NCRA and its freight operator, the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company request that the City deny the proposed zone change and join NCRA in its efforts to effectuate the terms of the MOU under which Petaluma was a beneficiary. CJN /cm cc: Douglas H. Bosco, General Counsel Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company Dave King, Councilmember Chris Albertson, Councilmember Teresa Barrett, Councilmember Mike Healy, Councilmember Gabe Kearney, Councilmember Kathy Miller, Councilmember John Brown, City Manager Eric Danly, City Attorney Heather Hines, Planning Manager Emmanuel Ursu, Principal Planner Farhad Mansourian, General Manager SMART Paul Andronico, Petaluma Riverfront LLC 10-2- ATTACHMENT 11 101101 111 :V.•'.�D JUN 16 7003 May 30, 2003 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between the Petaluma Community Development Commission (City), Petaluma Riverfront, LLC North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA), NCRA's Operator (Northwestern Pacific Railway Company, LLC (NWPY)), Northwestern Pacific Railroad Authority (NWPRA) Regarding the Petaluma Depot Site Buildings and Freight Facilities This memorandum of understanding identifies the actions and agreements required by and agreed to by the parties associated with the relocation of freight facilities from the Petaluma Depot site and lease of the three buildings on the Petaluma Depot site to the Petaluma Community Development Commission (City). The quitclaim cited in this document applies only to the properties named in this document. The following outlines the actions agreed to by each party. Petaluma Community Development Commission (City) agrees to: 1) For the interim relocation of the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) freight facilities and the freight operator, Northwestern. Pacific Railways, LLC (NWPY), from the Petaluma Station site buildings, the City will lease, at the City's expense, temporary office and freight storage facilities for NCRA/ NWPY until permanent facilities are completed by Basin Street Properties. The interim facilities will include: a) A 850 SF vanilla shell office facility at 405 East D Street (the old Western Refrigerating Co. building). Lease will commence on May 1, 2003 and continue for three years with two, one -year renewal options; provided, however, if the permanent freight facilities are not ready for occupancy by June 30, 2008, then the City shall continue the Lease until acceptable permanent facilities are ready for occupancy. (Monthly utility costs are not included.) b) City will provide a cargo container in the parking lot of 405 East. D Street for storage. c) Parking associated with the leased premises will provide for parking six vehicles in the lot behind the locking gate at 405 East D Street. d) Relocate the small portable building currently located in the parking lot of 405 East D Street to the Petaluma Station site next to the locomotives. This building will be used for storage of oils and other petroleum products. Completion Date: June 30, 2003 2) Require and coordinate the construction of a new team track, freight administrative facilities and storage facilities to replace the existing approximately 8,000 square feet at the Petaluma Station site to the site owned by Basin Street Properties at the southwest Revised: 6/4/2003 corner of D and Lakeville Streets, in substantial conformance to the layout shown on Exhibit I, attached hereto. Completion Date: June 30, 2008 Petaluma Riverfront, LLC agrees to: Upon receiving PUC approval for a new railroad crossing at the new Caulfield Lane extension and eliminating the Hopper Street crossing, and upon Petaluma Riverfront, LLC obtaining all necessary governmental project approvals for the rail freight, yard facility and a mixed -use development project consistent with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, Petaluma Riverfront, LLC will: 1) Relocate the industrial lead track from the Petaluma Depot site. 2) Install team tracks, construct freight administrative facilities. and storage facilities on the site owned by Petaluma Riverfront, LLC, at the southwest comer of D and.Lakeville Streets to replace the existing approximately 8,000 square feet of covered space at the Petaluma Station site. The relocation and construction will be completed within five years of the signing of this agreement. The relocated freight yard and associated office and storage facilities will include the following, in substantial conformance to the layout as shown on Exhibit I, attached hereto: a) A 3,000 square foot administrative building and break room, complete and ready for occupancy. b) Two aesthetically attractive metal sheds approved by SPARC, each of approximately 1,800 square feet (30' x 60'), used to cover railroad materials and /or freight. c) An inspection bay for locomotive maintenance, located under one of the team tracks. d) Attractive fencing and landscaping around the perimeter of the site, approved by SPARC. 3) Upon completion, transfer title of the new freight facilities on the southwest corner of D and Lakeville Streets to NWPRA or its successor, SMART. Completion Date: June 30, 2008 NCRA's Operator, the Northwestern Pacific Railways Company, LLC (NWPY) agrees to: 1) Subject to NCRA's Operator (NWPY) approval of the plan layout for the permanent relocation facilities, accept the interim relocation from the Petaluma Station site buildings of NCRA's Operator (NWPY) freight offices and storage facilities to 405 D Street as described above and permanent relocation to the site at the southwest comer of D and I r -2- Revised: 6/4/2003 Lakeville Streets as outlined above until permanent facilities are completed and available. (City agrees to pay the cost of monthly lease at interim office location, excluding utilities, until relocation is completed.) 2) Quitclaim its rights under its Freight Operating Agreement with NCRA to the buildings on the Petaluma Station site in order to provide clear authority for NCRA to quit claim its rights under its Freight Basement with NWPRA and subsequently allowing NWPRA to enter into a lease of the buildings with the Petaluma Community Development Commission, unencumbered by its interests. 3) Authorize the City to remove debris from the site, provided that new railroad ties and other salvageable materials used for railroad freight operations and maintenance remain in neat piles on the adjacent NWPRA -owned parcel. Completion Date: June 15, 2003 North Coast Railroad. Authority (NCRA) agrees to: 1) Subject to NCRA`s approval of the plan layout for the permanent relocation facilities, accept the interim and permanent relocation of NCRA/NWPY freight administrative office and storage facilities from the Petaluma Depot site buildings to 405 East D Street (the old Western Refrigerating Co.) and the Basin Street facility as described above. 2) Quitclaim its rights to the Petaluma Station site buildings under its Freight Easement Agreement with NWPRA, in order to allow the NWPRA to enter into a lease with the Petaluma Community Development Commission, unencumbered by its interests. 3) Authorize the City to remove debris from the site, provided that new railroad ties and other materials used for railroad freight operations and maintenance remain in neat piles on the adjacent NWPRA- otivned parcel. Completion Date: June 15, 2003 Northwestern Pacific Railroad Authority (NWFRA) agrees to: 1) Subject to the quitclaims of NWPY and NCRA and the concurrence of SMART, lease the three buildings of the Petaluma Station site to the Petaluma Community Development Commission. 2) Take title to the new relocated freight facility, if title transfers while NWPRA retains ownership of the Petaluma Depot site and associated railroad right-of-way of the NWPRA. Completion Date: June 15, 2003 M Revised: 6/4/2003 This MOU is intended only to set forth the actions required of the parties to accomplish the projects outlined herein. It is not the intention of the parties, and this MOU shall not be construed, to commit to any undertaking for which environmental reviews, public hearings, regulatory actions or legislative actions are required and notice thereof given to the public and interested parties. All such actions, clearances, studies, and deliberations required by law shall be undertaken by the Parties at the appropriate time and with the necessary legal notice afforded to the public and interested parties. The parties agree to the actions and responsibilities outlined above and by signing below agree to complete the actions and responsibilities as outlined. The parties Anther agree that the letter MOU may be signed in counterparts. Michael Merman Executive Director Petaluma Community Development Commission Date: Date: Matt White, President Petaluma Riverfront, LLC (:: 4 X"� Date: Jo arling, CEO N hwestern Pacific Railways Company, LLC '� ` — Date: C 1Do hristy, Executive Di cc or No oast Railroad Autho r Date: b/[3 C� Ce Ea Kupersrnith, E ecuti a Director Northwestern Pacif c Railro Authority it'd{ Revised: 6/2/2003 Pi a �Y w } ■ I A 4� i C N \ /i !u 0 m PETALUAL _ S1 '4 ti 0 O ,I% 4�n r 1 I � f t M LI WOMEN I , �0\ LAKEVILLE ! NPi'dII KH(igi15 foIIIk K to cuuwuu 9 EXHIBIT s t+c1,A com,TrFreight Facilities ,n ` " °' " "r' ' sv ayo„ . P,ann.n ,: „•., a David Glass Mayor Cbris Albertson Teresa Barrett Mike Healy Gabe I {earney Dave Icing Katby Miller Councilmembers Public IYorlis & Utilities City Engineers 11 English Street Petahrnra, CA 94952 Phone (707) 778 -4303 Fav (707) 776 -3602 E -Mail: publicworks a ci.pelalunm.ca.us Parks & Bnildiug Maintenance 840 Hopper St. E.W. Pelahuna, CA 94952 Phone (707) 778 -4303 , Fav (70 7) 7 78- 443 7 Transportation Sen4ees 555 N. McDowell Blvd Petahnna, CA 94954 Phone (707) 778 -4421 Fax (707) 776 -3799 Utilities & Field Operations 202N McDowell Blvd Petalmua, CA 94954 Phone (707) 778 -4546 rav (707) 778 -4508 E -Mail: publicworks@ ci petahanaca us ATTACHMENT 12 POST OFFICE Box 61 PFTALUMA, CA 9M3 -0061 December 17, 2015 Michael Robertson, P.E. Manager California Public Utilities Commission Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch 320 West 4`h Street, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90013 , RE: GO 88 -B Application for Grade Crossing Improvements on Hopper Sheet, Petaluma, California Dear Mr. Robertson: Attached please find a completed and signed General Order 88 -B application for grade crossing improvements to the existing spur line crossing on Hopper Street in Petaluma, California. These grade crossing improvements are required by the City of Petaluma as part of local public roadway improvements related to a privately funded development. There are two operators on this rail segment, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Agency (SMART) and the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company (NWPCo) which operates under contract through the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA). On February 24, 2015, City staff, the developer, and both rail entities met on -site with Dave Stewart from the California Public Utilities Commission and conducted a diagnostic review of this crossing. The attached GO 88 -B application has been reviewed, approved and signed by both rail entities as well as my office. Please review the attached GO 88 -B application and let me know if you require any additional information. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (707) 778 - 431'1. Sincerel Curtis . Bates, P. . City Engineer c: David Stewart, CPUC Antranig.Garabetian, CPUC Felix Igo, CPUC Steve Lafranchi, Development Project Civil Engineer Bill Gamlen, SMART Mitch Stogner, NCRA. z —I REQUEST TO CPUC STAFF FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ALTER HIGHWAY -RA.IL CROSSING n` PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 88 -B 1. Date Submitted: , 2015 2. h P PAX'"... 1 Organization Name: City of Petaluma Contact Person: Curtis M. Bates, P.E. Title: City Engineer Street Address: 11 English Street City: Petaluma Zip: 94952 Phone: 707) 778 -4311 Email: I cbates ci. etaluma.ca.us 3. Crossing proposed to be altered PUC Crossing Number: 5- 38.3 -C U.S. DOT Crossing Number: 498690F Street Name: Hopper Street City: Petaluma County: Sonoma Average Daily Vehicle Traffic (ADT) on roadway crossing tracks 245 Year ADT count taken (should be within last 5 ears) 2015 Railroad Responsible for Crossing: Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) Other Railroads Operating on Tracks: Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company (NWPCo) under Contract with North Coast Railroad Authori Average Daily Train Traffic and speed from all operating railroads Train. Volume Maximum Train Speed_ Passenger 0 15 Freight 10 trains per month 10 Transit NA 4. Describe Proposed Alterations (including any temporary reduced clearance variance requests): • Change Hopper Street from a one way street to a two way street through the crossing. • Widen Hopper Street to accommodate two way traffic. • Relocate (minor adjust) existing CPUC standard No.9 warning device in NW quadrant of crossing due to widening of street. Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -Rail Crossing Rev: 10 -27 -2014 Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page 1 of 4 • Install new CPUC standard No-9 warning device in SE quadrant of crossing. • Relocate signal case location from NE quadrant to NW quadrant and install larger walk - in structure. • Reconstruct existing track, install concrete panels and reconstruct roadway approaches with new pavement markings. • Install new W10 -1 Advance Warning signs on both north and south approaches to crossing. • Install delineators within the double yellow line on Hopper Street for each approach. 5. Describe the public benefits to be achieved by the proposed alterations: The public and emergency responders will benefit from the improvements as vehicles will be able to reach local businesses and City of Petaluma Facilities on Hopper Street from two directions instead of just one. Currently businesses north of the Crossing can only be accessed from "D" Street to the north and not from the south. The proposed crossing angle changes from approximately 25 °30' to approximately 42 °, having a less skew than the current configuration. 6. Explain why a separation of grades is not practicable: A grade separated crossing is cost prohibitive for the minor changes needed to the existing crossing and it is impracticable due to civil constraints including the close proximity to the existing SMART mainline track as well as adjacent buildings. 7. Describe crossing warning devices Currently CPUC Standard No-9 (flashing lights and gate) in NW quadrant Proposed: CPUC Standard No .9 (flashing lights and gate) in NW quadrant CPUC Standard No-9 (flashing lights and gate) in SE quadrant W 10 -1 sign both north and south of crossing 8. Temporary Traffic Controls — Include a statement of temporary traffic controls to be provided during construction: Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -Rail Crossing Rev, 10 -27 -2014 Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page 2 of 4 • Temporary traffic controls will be provided in accordance with CAMUTCD. • Track and warning devices will be out -of- service during reconstruction of the crossing. 9. CEQA (Applicable only to grade - separation projects). If the project involves grade separation of an existing at grade crossing, then either a copy of the Notice of Exemption from CEQA or other factual evidence that the project is exempt from Public Resources Code Section 21080.13 must be provided. Not Applicable, this is not a grade- separated project. 10. Signature I, Curtis M. Bates, am an employee of the City of Petaluma and authorized to sign this GO 88 -B authorization request letter on its behalf. f t M. Bates, P.E., City Engineer Signature and date Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -Rail Crossing Rev: 10 -27 -2014 Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page 3 of 4 W, Attachments: 1, Vicinity Map - Map of Immediate Vicinity on a scale of 50 to 200 Winch (EXHIBIT A) 2. Grade Lines - Plans showing the profile of the existing and proposed grade lines of the track and roadway (EXHIBITS B and Q Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -Rail Crossing Rev: 10 -27 -2014 Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page 4 of 4 12,E 11. Evidence of Agreement: 1, Bill Gamlen, am an employee of the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit District (SMART) and authorized to sign this letter of agreement on its behalf, hereby declare that SMART concurs with the proposed project described above. Bill Gamlen, Chief Engineer j Typed Name and Title 5401 Old Redwood Highway, Suite 200 Petaluma, CA 94954 Address Signature and Date 1, Mitch Stogner, am an employee of the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) and authorized to sign this letter of agreement on its behalf, hereby declare that NCRA concurs with the proposed project described above. Mitch Stogner, Executive Director Typed Name 419 Talmage Road, Suite M Ukiah, Ca 95482 Address Signature and Date Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -hail Crossing Rev: 10 -27 -2014 Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page 5 of 4 L 2 (o Instructions for Completing a Request to CPUC Staff for Authorization to Alter a Highway -Rail Crossing Pursuant to General Order 88 -B I. CRITERIA FOR GO 88 -B AUTHORIZATION REQUEST PROJECTS Review the Scope of General Order (GO) 88 -B projects listed below. If your project falls outside of this scope, then a formal application must be filed with the Commission's Docket Office for Commission authorization to alter a highway -rail crossing. Scope of GO 88 -B 1. Grade crossing widening within the existing street right -of -way. 2. Approach grade changes. 3. Track elevation changes. 4. Roadway realignment that is functionality related to the existing crossing and can be achieved within the existing or a contiguous right -of -way. 5. Addition of one track within the existing railroad right -of -way. 6. Change in the type or addition of an automatic signaling device, crossing gate, crossing flagman or other forms of crossing protection or reduction of hours during which any such protection is maintained, or other minor alterations. 7. Alterations or reconstruction of an existing grade- separated crossing, where exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Public Resources (PR) Code Section 21080.13. 8. Construction of a grade- separation that eliminates an existing at -grade highway - rail crossing, where exempt from CEQA pursuant to PR Code Section 21080.13 In addition to meeting the above criteria, all interested parties, including Commission staff, must agree to the project. If any party objects to the proposed project, then a formal application must be filed. II. GO 88 -B AUTHORIZATION REQUEST PROCESS 1. Contact Rail Crossings and Engineering Section (RCEB) staff assigned to the area. The link below has territory assignment maps for RCEB staff. littp://www,cpuc.ca.gov/crossings / The area engineer will provide information on the GO 88 -B process, and advise the requesting party on arranging a field diagnostic meeting to review proposed alterations to the crossing. Instructions for Preparing Rev: 10 -27 -2014 Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -Rail Crossing Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page I of 6 M 2. The diagnostic meeting should then be held with all interested parties (rail organization, roadway authority, and RCEB staff). The diagnostic team should evaluate the proposed modifications and identify any other matters that should be addressed as part of the modifications proposed. The requesting party will be able to determine whether RCEB staff is in agreement with the proposed modifications and allow the other parties to form a basis for providing the required evidence of agreement (see below). 3. The requesting party should update its modification plans based on reviews and comments provided by interested parties during the diagnostic meeting. 4. Obtain written concurrence of the rail organization and /or roadway authority with jurisdiction at the crossing. 5. Complete and send the GO 88 -B authorization request form (follow instructions in Section III below). The form must be signed by a roadway authority or rail organization official, it cannot be signed by a consultant on behalf of a roadway authority or rail organization. 6. Submit completed form, attachments, and evidence of concurrence signed by interested parties to RCEB. Electronic files are preferred in scanned, PDF /A format. Please confirm with the appropriate engineer if submitting alternate formats. Large files can be transferred to CPUC staff using the site http: / /cpucftp.cpuc.ca.gov/ Send to the following contacts: 1) Branch Manager Provide an electronic copy to Michael Robertson, P.E., Manager, Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch: michael.robertson(i ,cpuc.ca.gov If you would like to also send a hardcopy, mail to the following address: Michael Robertson, P.E., Manager Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch California Public Utilities Commission 320 West 4th Street, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90013 2) Engineer Assigned to the Area Please see Rail Crossings Contact Information for contact information of the appropriate engineer assigned to the area. 3) Supervisor Instructions for Preparing Rev: 10 -27 -2014 Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -Rail Crossing Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page 2 of 6 Please send an electronic copy to Anton Garabetian, P.E., Supervisor, Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch: antraniR .gai•abetianncpuc.ca.gov 4) Senior Engineer (Southern California) For projects in Southern California, please send an electronic copy to Carlo Groag, P.E., Senior Utilities Engineer, Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch: carlo.groagkcpuc.ca.gov For a map of Southern California counties, see the Rail Crossings Contact Information page. 5) Railroad or Roadway agency (interested parties) III. GO 88 -B AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FILL -IN FORM After a field diagnostic meeting is held and modifications are agreed to by the interested parties, complete the GO 88 -B authorization request fill -in form as follows: 1. Date. Self - explanatory. 2. Applicant Info. Self - explanatory, except that the Contact Person should be the agency representative to whom the reply will be sent. 3. Crossing proposed to be altered. RCEB staff member will provide you the CPUC and U.S.DOT assigned crossing numbers. a. The railroad must provide current train volume and maximum speed information at the crossing location for all railroads operating on the rail corridor. b. The roadway agency must provide the most current average daily traffic (ADT) counts for the roadway at the crossing location. The ADT counts should not be older than 5 years. 4. Describe Proposed Alterations. This should include a description of roadway changes through the crossing, as well as changes to warning devices, signs, signals, pavement markings, railroad circuitry or other significant aspects of the crossing to be modified. Example: The proposed alteration consists of widening the existing two - lane highway to include four 12 -ft lanes, a 16 -foot median, and Instructions for Preparing Rev: 10 -27 -2014 Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -Rail Crossing Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page 3 of 6 12 -9 two 6 -ft sidewalks. Traffic signals will be installed at the intersection 50 -ft north of crossing and will be interconnected with the rail crossing warning devices, as detailed in the plans attached as Appendix The City will install four new "DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS" (MUTCD R8 -8) signs. Existing pavement markings and signage will be maintained or reinstalled as shown in the plans attached as Appendix Discuss any proposed variance(s) from GO minimum nlearance requirements. If the GO 88 -B request is for construction of a grade separation structure replacing an existing at -grade crossing or is for reconstruction or alteration of an existing grade separation structure, AND a temporary reduced clearance is necessary, A VARIANCE MUST BE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED IN THIS SECTION. GO 26 -D specifies the minimum vertical clearances (22 feet 6 inches if roadway is over the railroad, and 15 feet if the railroad is over the roadway) and horizontal clearances (8.5 feet from centerline of tangent track). A variance allowing for a temporary impaired clearance may be granted through the GO 88 -B approval process, but the applicant must notify the railroad and the Commission's Rail Operations Safety Branch and RCEB in advance of creating the impaired clearance, and subsequently the railroad must notify its operating employees. The concurrence letter from the owning and /or maintaining railroad (as required by part 10 of the fill -in form, below) MUST acknowledge the temporary impaired clearance, and agree to it in their concurrence correspondence. 5. Describe the public benefits to be achieved by the proposed alterations. Example: The public will benefit from the proposed project through improvements to both public safety and convenience. Traffic congestion and associated vehicle queues across the track will be reduced through the addition of one lane in each direction. The installation of medians is intended to reduce the possibility of motorists driving around the lowered Commission Standard No. 9 gate arms. The installation of roadway intersection traffic signals and preemption will allow motorists to more efficiently clear the tracks as a train approaches. 6. Explain why a separation of grades is not practicable. Please note practicability is not solely a function of cost. Example: Due to existing buildings and other facilities located in the immediate vicinity of the crossing, it would be physically impracticable to construct a grade - separated crossing. Instructions for Preparing Rev: 10 -27 -2014 Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -Rail Crossing Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page 4 of 6 f 2-1 c) 7. Describe the existing and proposed crossing warning devices Example; The existing railroad warning devices consist of two Commission Standard 8s (flashing light signals). It is proposed to replace them with two median - mounted Commission Standard 9s (flashing light signal with automatic gate arm) and two curb - mounted Commission Standard 9As (Standard 9 with additional flashing light signals on a cantilevered mast arm) warning devices. Temporary Traffic Controls - Include a statement of temporary traffic controls to be provided during construction in compliance with Section 8A.05 Temporary Traffic Control Zones, of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, (CA MUTCD): Example; Appendix_ is a copy of the latest traffic control plan prepared for the project. During construction, temporary traffic control, including temporary crossing closures and detours will be provided in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Section 8A.05 and Figure 611-46. [Rail agency name] will provide flagging services to warn roadway traffic of approaching trains at any time that the traffic control devices or traffic signals are not in service. 9. CEQA (Applicable only to grade- separation projects). If the project involves grade separation of an existing at grade crossing, then either a copy of the Notice of Exemption from CEQA or other factual evidence that the project is exempt from Public Resources Code Section 21080.13 must be provided: The applicant should provide a Notice of Exemption or a statement indicating why the project is exempt. Example: This project involves widening and reconstructing the existing grade separated crossing which is statutorily exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.13. 10. Signature- This form must be signed by a government or railroad agency official. It cannot be signed by a consultant on behalf of a government or railroad agency. 11. Evidence of Agreement - Send completed form to interested parties, and ask them to complete this section and return it to you. Evidence of concurrence must not be dated more than two years before the date of the GO 88 -B request form. Evidence of concurrence must be obtained from each involved party, including each rail agency responsible for maintaining the crossing warning devices and /or owning the rail right -of -way (see exception below) and the public agency Instructions for Preparing Rev: 10 -27 -2014 Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -Rail Crossing Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page 5 of 6 12—H responsible for the roadway, depending on who is submitting the request for authorization. Evidence of concurrence is not required from county transportation authorities, such as Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), which own the rail right -of -way maintained by joint powers authorities, such as Southern California Regional Rail Authority. However, evidence of concurrence is required from county transportation authorities for projects involving crossings that are maintained by these agencies, such as light rail transit crossings maintained by LACMTA. Page four of the fill -in form can be replaced by an actual letter(s) containing a similar statement of concurrence, or electronic mail indicating concurrence with the project is acceptable, provided it identifies the individual providing the concurrence by name, title and organization. If agreement of the involved parties cannot be obtained, then a formal Application must be filed with the Commission's Docket Office to gain Commission approval for the proposed modifications. Instructions for Preparing Rev: 10 -27 -2014 Request for Authorization to Alter Highway -Rail Crossing Pursuant to Commission General Order 88 -B Page 6 of 6 12 -� 2 J .'Ws!R_SLRRikerkonL2014WVjPhase tVubNG.0. 88 Extuoit OI358 EAN't A— DPIan- Nofde.c1q,6t3i20158:58:10 AM, IxiIy O O O © O O O O © 0 ym mz T o ON om o0 >c AA �Z 'D o D 'U om zo K-U mo Ww-u ao o m N 2-9 Ez4� -D S a � � s L Wao 0 om o y 'o mo _ Fj o ym mZm o m 04 A mo o � KC --1 A r0 Po mO P O Z -zi' m o zj :�{ Az -T m o D? Via! � M o� c O T O m m Z Z om w zR' o i A Z O RZI '4 n =;u Zp O r 41 O !n D -C< A NA D = O A m N m mZ N Dr N m m p my pz Z �> n a �o n<< X z O m cn O A CA ti Z i Z cn A C O _C z o`z F'' n m V H12iON n I m ' I ¢ �b Q P I o ta. 2 5 > s 0 m :f z S Ez4� c S a � � s L y f _ ug, _ Fj S -4 sY 5� Al O' t y H12iON n I m ' I ¢ r Q P I v Gmi s 0 m :f z L D r m o -i -'n D -N � kc . m �p r y O D m mr o N z > o O m D m m m 11 0 o D Z n 0 ° o O C U co o Z D m p C m 'i y Z z mC m x A A m =1 m z -4 z 0 D 0 z m _ a sreveN�.wPRANCwaASSOCU� INC. EXHIBIT � A } � Fx ! SS .oETvN LLPuAD , TeSNuVEARi lYoAERE lw4O�R5iLS0.o- Lu f L NLDplAN1835 HOPPER STpEETRAILROAD SP UR A TGRAD CROSSING a x VL� LAN 12 P.C.CSSI -N-3$-1C p PE TALUMA, C ALIFORRIA _ fl 12-- t3 e f Y 1 � 7 I I m \� i \L y a ,Y` y O \ w M ` C. p, o ` 9 Y ! O 1 .TSf � II Hill, H a l yy �FF �R�9}pg3� �zmD o g4 ¢ n� k3 9 v".jQ Kp E -R o in F ?? w o gg e e \ ®e ®e e ® 1 j ys r ® P Y60 108 CC 9� a -gi pp 33 8 FOp w \ 2 ¢� 1'm\ 0 b t �t \ `,I� L I/ m f* I I 1 i I I I t MO f \ I � pry f� 1 r A i i \LO \�',Z \_ U , , \ G AA Og�ti�l� I i�g 9� o C, ®® IgII Q >; Z RA6 a y g�F 2 \- R g° STEVEN J. LAFRANCO8A550CiATES,ING. EXHIBIT B u W 'Pi G § $ P• CMENMIN S- LANDSURVEYORS- LANDPLAIINEAS tustcgapam�Y, s'vnE >u pvif>uata tnota SNEPERSPECRVE HOPPER STREET RAILROAD SPURAT GRADE CROSSING P.O.C.CROSSINON0.S3B .3L' saft(miit PUALUNA, CALIFORNIA )'I- C � ABasin Sf— MorkmL20141D wgThaseIftIbI (s10.O.88E)h'bttsMl3%EYANtA-C DPlan -Pi deAq,613120158:5231AAtb* o I"92H m STEVEN J. LAFRANCHId ASSOCIATES, INC. EXHIBIT C S Fj i F CMLENGINEEAS -LNiG SURVEYORS- LANOPLANNEA$ SMART SPUR TOP -0FJtAU-PLAH ANO PROFILE 1 <vsso,mcr,u:•rsi�f HOP PER STREET RAILROAD SPURAT GRADE CROSSING Yd S uml. tF nl P.U.C. NO. 548.34 PETAL MA,C PETALUH/� CALIPORNIA r2 -f5- Wasik St_prueitrpnf_2014Yv,,gTlase 11E W610.0. 88 ExhlbiIS109M Exhibit A -C —O PlarWIDMe.dAV, 6Y3M58:53:50AM, holly IG 0. o° L3 ;X D STEVEN J. LAPRANCHI &ASSOCIATES, INC. F! , � CMLENGINEEftS -LANp SURVEYORS -LARD PLWHERS PcGtaana ® � o I \ _ A U3 (= D cb a: o a n I v I m I m 1p' p f U 4N 9s\ f (T a�qo Ear 0 z Z a ( F OH OH i era • i �t � i $m 9 Z � O D 0 om � a =Z of o cl) v [A*s IItI Az Z co MM oN EXHIBIT D +08.19 SPUR 'CRACK PETALUIIJ\ CALIFORNIA CENT RUNE +23.28 MO 0 r m° OD = °m -u1 � m _ rn L3 ;X D STEVEN J. LAPRANCHI &ASSOCIATES, INC. F! , � CMLENGINEEftS -LANp SURVEYORS -LARD PLWHERS PcGtaana ® � o I \ _ A U3 (= D cb a: o a n I v I m I m 1p' p f U 4N 9s\ f (T a�qo Ear 0 z Z a ( F OH OH i era f2 -l6 • i �t � i ' 9 Z � O D 0 a ( 4T_ z m n o cl) IItI co oN EXHIBIT D - ROADWAYPLAN ANDPRORLE HOPPER STREET RAILROAD SPUR AT GRADE CROSSING P.U.C. CROSSING N0.640. PETALUIIJ\ CALIFORNIA f2 -l6 ATTACHMENT 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govemor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 W. dl i Street, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90013 December 28, 2015 Curtis M. Bates, P.E. City Engineer City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 SENT VIA E -MAIL File Number: XREQ 2015120005 Re: General Order 88 -B Request for Authority to Alter the Hopper Street At -Grade Highway -Rail Crossing, CPUC Crossing No. 005- 38.30 -C and DOT No. 498690F in the City of Petaluma, County of Sonoma Dear Mr. Bates: (3 This refers to your letter dated December 17, 2015, received by us on December 18, 2015, requesting authorization, pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) General Order (GO) 88 -B, to alter the Hopper Street at- grade highway -rail crossing (crossing) of Sonoma- Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) track in the City of Petaluma (City), County of Sonoma. The crossing is identified as CPUC Crossing No. 005- 38.30 -C and DOT No. 498690F. Hopper Street is a southbound one -way street at the crossing location. The single spur track crossing is equipped with one curb mounted Commission Standard 9 (flashing light signal assembly with automatic gate arm) warning device. Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company (NWP) runs approximately 10 freight trains per month at a maximum speed of 15 mph over the crossing. The North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) is the state agency charged with bringing freight operations to the Highway 101 corridor. NWP is the freight operator contracted by NCRA. SMART passenger service will not operate over this crossing. The average daily traffic on Hopper Street is 245 vehicles. The proposed alterations as indicated in the request letter and/or shown in the attachments shall consist of: • Widening Hopper Street and changing it from a one -way to a two -way street; • Relocating the existing Commission Standard 9 warning device in the southbound direction to accommodate the road widening; • Installing a curb mounted Commission Standard 9 warning device in the northbound approach direction; • Installing delineators in the centerline of Hopper Street for 60 feet in each approach direction; • Installing a Central Instrument Location signal house; • Installing precast concrete panels for the mainline track; and 1 :�;'- 1 Curtis M. Bates XREQ 2015120005 December 28, 2015 Page 2 of 3 • Applying California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) compliant signage and pavement markings, including W10-1 advance warning signs and RXR and railroad limit pavement markings as shown on plans. Commission's Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch (RCEB) staff has investigated the City's request, and finds it adequately addresses compliance and safety. As the City and SMART are in agreement as to the design and apportionments of the cost under the provisions of GO 88 -B, you may proceed with the improvements as described in your request letter, attachments, and summarized above. SMART must ensure that Emergency Notification Signs are installed to comply with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 234.309. Temporary traffic controls shall be provided in compliance with Section 8A.08, Temporary Traffic Control Zones, of the CA MUTCD, 2014 Edition, published by the California Department of Transportation. All parties shall comply with all applicable rules, including Commission GOs and CA MUTCD. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environment Quality Act of 1970, as amended [California Pubic Resources Code 21084]. This authorization shall expire if the above conditions are not complied with or if the work is not completed within three years of the date of this letter. Upon written request to this office, the time to complete the project may be extended. Any written request for a time extension must include concurrence letters by involved parties in support of the time extension. If an extension is requested, the RCEB may reevaluate the crossing prior to granting an extension. Within 30 days after completion of this project, the City shall notify RCEB that the authorized work is completed, by submitting a completed Commission Standard Form G. Form G requirements and forms can be obtained at the Commission web site Form G page at http:// www. cpuc. ca. gov/ PUC/ safety /Rail/Crossings /f`ormg.htm. This report may be submitted electronically to rceb cpuc.ca.gov. At the conclusion of the project, SMART should electronically submit an updated Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) inventory form (Form F6180.71) to the FRA, reflecting the changes. Title 49 CFR Section 234.409 requires the railroads to submit periodic crossing inventory updates a minimum of once every three years. Commission requests a concurrent copy of the updated inventory form be submitted to rceb@cpuc.ca.gov. 13-2- Curtis A Bates XREQ 2015120005 December 28, 2015 Page 3 of 3 If you have any questions, please contact David Stewart at (916) 928 -2515 or atm@cpuc.ca. gov . Sincerely, 7 Anton G abetian, P. E. Program and Project Supervisor Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch Safety and Enforcement Division (SENT VIA E -MAIL) C: Mitch Stogner, NCRA Bill Gamlen, SMART �3 3