Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 5.A 05/21/2018
Agenda Item #5.A DATE: May 21, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manageri SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Receive Public Comment, Discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and Take Possible Action to Direct Preparation of Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Sid Commons Apartment Project, located at Northwest End of Graylawn Avenue. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive public comment, provide comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and, direct preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). BACKGROUND The Sid Commons Apartment Project is a 278 -unit multi -family residential project on approximately 15 acres at the terminus of Graylawn Avenue, west of the existing Oak Creek Apartments. The project includes the following entitlements: • A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to remove current restrictions regarding use, oak tree retention, and access to the project site, as contained in the 1982 PUD approval for the Oak Creek Apartment project (City of Petaluma Resolution No. 9628, December 1982), • A Zoning Map Amendment to rezone APN 019-010-009 from that PUD to R4 (Residential 4) to enable development at densities up to 18 units per net developable acre (consistent with the Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation), • Subsequent Site Plan and Architectural Review for the development site, and • Subsequent minor mapping (lot line adjustment or tentative parcel map) reflecting the refined site plan. More background on the project and specific discussion about the CEQA process is provided in Attachment 1, Planning Commission Staff Report (pages 1-2). On March 1, 2018, the City released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Sid Commons Project. The DEIR was released for a 45 -day public review period, which ended on April 16, 2018. However, comments will be accepted up until the end of the City Council hearing on May 21, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the DEIR and to receive public comments. The Planning Commission received oral comments from three speakers. The primary concern expressed was related to traffic impacts on Graylawn Avenue. In addition, the following concerns were expressed by one or more of the commenters: • Ensure that the proposed EVA at Bernice Court include physical barriers to limit access to emergency vehicles only • Potential impacts to Shasta Avenue residents if a rail crossing is pursued, and noting the difficulty of designing an at -grade crossing as the rail siding is currently 16 inches below the main line track • Concern that the traffic count data for Graylawn Avenue as presented in the DEIR may be low, as more people are now living in many of the neighborhood residences because of the housing crunch (household size has increased) • Clarification that traffic counts recently taken by the applicant team were not the basis of the DEIR, as due to the counts occurring during the recent spring break they may not reflect "normal" conditions • Impacts associated with introducing impermeable surfaces onsite and diminishing the site's ability to absorb water • Importance of preserving pervious lands, wetlands, and riparian vegetation near the river • Wildlife and habitat should be preserved • Sediment in the river may be greater now than was anticipated in the flood modeling • Flood events are changing and storms are becoming more extreme, therefore the DEIR may underestimate flooding impacts and lack information on the cumulative flooding effect • Water quality should be better protected by strengthening best management practices and more stringent DEIR mitigation measures • The proposed density is too high and the site is better suited to support fewer units A written petition was submitted to the Planning Commission at the hearing. The petition is signed by 40 neighbors on Graylawn Avenue, Bernice Court, Betty Court, and Jess Avenue. The majority note that they had reduced car trips during the period in which traffic counters had recently been observed (March 2018), citing spring break. The petition expresses concern that the project would cause substantial significant negative impact to the neighborhood, principally from increased vehicle trips on Graylawn. Following discussion, the Planning Commissioners found that the DEIR adequately analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Commission recommended that the Council find the DEIR adequate and direct preparation of the FEIR. Two specific clarifications that the Commission requested be addressed in the FEIR was a discussion regarding how current river N conditions relate to the flooding model presented in the DEIR and clarification that flooding and sea level rise data used in the EIR is current. In addition, the Commission provided comments regarding specifics of the Project, including discussion of the following: • The appropriateness and likelihood of an at -grade crossing over the railway through the proposed extension of Shasta was questioned • Without the secondary access on Shasta, the Project density appears to be too much for Graylawn • Concern related to flooding, given current siltation, changing storm events, and/or sea level rise • The project refinement prepared for SPAR review should be designed and oriented to its river setting and should respect the River Access and Enhancement Plan • Desire that the proposed river path connect to the regional trail network • Desire that the terrace should work around mature oaks to the maximum extent feasible • Desire to.see onsite affordable housing included in the project • Given issues with access, flooding, and river treatment, the appropriate density for the site appears to be more suitable in the range of 10-12 units per acres • Existing feel of Graylawn as a neighborhood street should be protected A majority of the Planning Commissioners stated a preference for a project that aligned closer with Alternative 4, precluded an at -grade crossing, and provided an appropriate buffer between new development and the riparian corridor. In addition to the three public comments received at the Planning Commission hearing, several written comments were received in response to the Notice of Availability published for the DEIR. The following provides a list of all agencies and individuals that submitted comment letters on the Sid Commons DEIR, each letter is also included at Attachment 2. From Date Received Brownsfield and Environmental Restoration Program, Department of Toxic Substance Control March 7, 2018 California Public Utilities Commission March 9, 2018 California Department of Transportation March 30, 2019 Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Aril 13, 2018 Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP (attorney representing the applicant) including: Exhibit A: from Trans edia Consulting Engineers April 16, 2018 Exhibit B: from Acclaim Companies (applicant) Kallie Kull Aril 23, 2018 Tar n Obaid Aril 23, 2018 Donna Smith Aril 24, 2018 Petition Aril 24, 2018 On Apri124, 2018, the Planning Commission took action recommending that the City Council authorize preparation of a FEIR, and requested that the FEIR return to Planning Commission for consideration and a recommendation to City Council. DISCUSSION The purpose of the public hearing is to gather comments on the DEIR for the Sid Commons Project. After closing the public hearing and providing any Council comments on the DEIR, it is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to move forward with preparation of the FEIR. The purpose of the DEIR is to inform decision makers for the City of Petaluma, other responsible agencies, and the public of the potential environmental consequences of implementing the project, as proposed. Please refer to Attachment 1, the Planning Commission staff report, for additional information regarding the California Environmental Quality Act, and an Overview on the Sid Commons Apartments DEIR. When reviewing the DEIR, the City Council and members of the public should consider the following framework for providing comments: (1) Consider the adequacy of the DEIR in disclosing the potential impacts of the project and identifying mitigation measures; and (2) Identify any changes, clarifications, or additional information that should be incorporated in the Final EIR to better explain or disclose the potential environmental impacts. It is recommended that the City Council find that the DEIR adequately discloses potential impacts and identifies mitigation measures. The City Council should identify changes, clarifications, and additional information to be incorporated in the FEIR. Comments about the social and economic merits of the project that are not related to its potential environmental impacts and the DEIR should be reserved for a later time when the project's requested entitlements are up for consideration. For the Sid Commons Apartments Project, it is anticipated that the requested entitlements, which include amendments to the Oak Creek Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), and a zoning map amendment to change the PUD zoning on the northern portion of the site to R4 (consistent with the existing zoning on the southern portion of the site and the General Plan land use designation), will be brought forward for consideration at the time the FEIR is being considered for certification. At the direction of City Council, staff will initiate preparation of a FEIR, which will incorporate necessary revisions and responses to environmental points raised during the public review period. At a future public hearing following completion of the FEIR, the City Council will M consider certification of the FEIR following a meeting for consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Certification of the EIR is required before action may be taken on the project's requested entitlements. Response to each of the public comments received during circulation of the DEIR will be included in the FEIR. The Key Environmental Considerations presented in the Planning Commission Staff Report, see Attachment 1 (pages 5-9), may be helpful to the Council's consideration of the environmental analysis. The following additional discussion on Access is provided below in an effort to further describe considerations associated with the analysis of traffic volumes along Graylawn Avenue. Access This discussion builds off the access discussion at pages 5-7 of the Planning Commission Staff Report. The City's Department of Public Works & Utilities, Street Design and Construction Standards & Specifications identify street standards for local residential streets including a traffic volume of less than 2,000 average daily traffic (ADT) trips. To maintain Graylawn Avenue within the City's ADT standard as a local residential street, minimize impacts to Graylawn area residents, and lessen neighborhood impacts relating to the proposed removal of the PUD access restriction from the northern 2/3rds of the Project site, all Alternatives set forth in the Sid Commons DEIR present a unit count that would not exceed the City's Street Standard, including Alternative 4. Planning Commission heard from neighbors, both during public comment and in writing (Attachment 2, pages 2-27 to 2-35), of the desire to maintain the existing residential character of the neighborhood and to minimize traffic impacts to Graylawn Avenue. Neighbors expressed concern about increasing the number of vehicles on Graylawn Avenue and how that increase would affect quality of life. Planning Commissioners reiterated concerns raised by the public regarding the ability of Graylawn to serve as the primary point of access for the full project as proposed (278 units). The applicant submitted a comment letter (Attachment 2) suggesting that the DEIR should utilize a lower trip generation rate and/or a trip reduction factor to modify the number of trips anticipated by the Project, such that additional units could be accommodated on-site without exceeding the City's Street Standards. The transportation engineer hired by the applicant to review the DEIR (Transpedia) suggested use of the Mid -Rise Apartments trip rate, which would reduce the anticipated daily trips by approximately 40%. At the Planning Commission hearing, the City's DEIR traffic consultant clarified that the reduced trip generation rate advocated by Transpedia was not utilized in the DEIR because the project site is not in proximity to services and alternative transportation sufficient to justify a lower daily trip rate. The trip rate set forth in the DEIR is in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) category for Apartments and is expected to be reflective of what would be generated by the proposed multi -family project given the site location. It should be noted that all traffic data collected for the DEIR was taken while schools were in session and weather was fair; no traffic count data was collected during spring break or holidays. Neighbors providing public comment stated that they observed trip counting tubes during the recent spring break (March 2018). All of the traffic data in the DEIR predates this period. Based on input from the DEIR consultant and the City's standards for conducting traffic impact analysis, the methodology used in the DEIR (application of the ITE Apartments land use category, etc.), appears to be the most appropriate given the site location. Council may wish to consider the appropriateness of the 2,000 ADT capacity standard as set forth in the Street Design and Construction Standards & Specification in determining project alternatives and the appropriateness of the selected trip rate used in the DEIR. Please note, recent review of the trip generation equation that determines the number of apartment units possible within the City's 2,000 ADT residential street capacity standard revealed a rounding over simplification. With precise use of the applicable equation', 152 apartment units can be added without exceeding the City's Standard; thus, Alternative 4 should be considered a 152 (rather than a 149) unit project. The rounding error will be corrected in the Final EIR. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The processing of entitlements is subject to a cost recovery account with all staff time paid by the applicant. That cost recovery account currently maintains a positive balance. Additionally, the City has entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Lamphier-Gregory to prepare the EIR. All costs associated with preparation of the EIR are paid for by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report, April 24, 2018 2. Comment Letters Received to date, May 9, 2018 ® Items listed below are large in volume and are not attached to this report, but may be viewed in the City Clerk's office. Sid Commons Apartment Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared January 2018 Additionally, the Sid Commons DEIR and Appendix are posted to the City's Major Development Project's website at: http://cityofpetaluma.net/cdd/major-projects.html I The trip generation equation for the Apartment Land Use 220 category in the ITE's Trip Generation 91h Edition is: # of Trips = 6.06(X) + 123.56, where X is the # of dwelling units. Thus, 6.06 x 152 units + 123.56 = 1044.7 ADT, which added to the existing 954 average daily trips on Graylawn is 1,999 daily trips and below the City's Standard. no ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: April 24, 2018 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner REVIEWED BY: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Sid Commons Apartment Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Northwest end of Graylawn Avenue; Development at APNs 019-010-009 and 019- 010-006, and also involving APNs 019-010-007 & 008, APN 007-390-005, and APN 136-100-025 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: • Receive public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); • Provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and • Recommend by motion that the City Council authorize staff to move forward with preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). BACKGROUND In July of 2007, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an EIR for a 312 -unit version of the Sid Commons Apartment Project on 15.45 acres, located at the northwestern terminus of Graylawn Avenue and west of the existing Oak Creek Apartments. Publication of the NOP initiated a 30 -day public review and comment period that began on July 11, 2007 and ended on August 9, 2007. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising that an EIR was to be prepared for the Sid Commons Apartment Project was sent to nearby neighbors and the State Clearinghouse for distribution to responsible and/or trustee state agencies. A public scoping meeting for the EIR was held on July 25, 2007 to gather initial oral comments. Following preparation of the Initial Study in 2007, work on the Draft EIR commenced, but work was temporarily halted during periods when several large City-wide planning processes were underway. These processes included the preparation of the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 (completed in 2008) and preparation of the Rainier Cross Town Connector project and its associated Draft EIR (released in July 2014), as well as on-going efforts regarding access constraints to the Project site from the proposed at -grade rail crossing of the SMART rail line (via a proposed extension of Shasta Avenue), which would require approval by the California Public Utility Commission. Following the adoption of the General Plan 2025, the project was reduced to 278 units, the maximum number allowed within the Medium Density General Plan range of 8.1 to 1-1 18.0 units to the net acre. Additionally, the project was modified to implement General Plan Policy 8-P-28, incorporating River terracing along the site's Petaluma River frontage. The current project includes the following entitlement requests: • A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to remove the current restrictions regarding use, oak tree retention, and access to the project site, as contained in the 1982 PUD approval for the Oak Creek Apartment project (City of Petaluma Resolution No. 9628, December 1982), • A Zoning Map Amendment to rezone APN 019-010-009 from that PUD to R4 (Residential 4) to enable development at densities up to 18 units per net developable acre (consistent with the Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation), • Subsequent Site Plan and Architectural Review for the development site, and • Subsequent minor mapping (lot line adjustment or tentative parcel map) reflecting the refined site plan. On March 1, 2018, the City released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Project. The DEIR was released for a 45 -day public review period, which will end on April 16, 2018. However, comments will be accepted up until the end of the City Council meeting which is tentatively scheduled for May 21St° 2018. DISCUSSION The purpose of this staff report and the associated Planning Commission meeting is to facilitate comment on the DEIR for the Sid Commons Apartment Project. After providing an overview of the CEQA review process, this staff report provides a summary of the contents of the DEIR before concluding with a framework for providing comments on the DEIR, and a brief note on key DEIR topics. California Environmental Quality Act The purpose of this project -level EIR is to inform local decision makers, other responsible agencies, and the public of the potential environmental consequences of implementing the Sid Commons Apartment Project, as proposed. The EIR has been prepared in accordance with and in fulfillment of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines). The City of Petaluma is the Lead Agency for the EIR. The Petaluma City Council has the principal responsibility for certifying the Final EIR for the project and approving the legislative entitlements requested for implementation of the project. As described in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, public agencies are generally under a substantive obligation to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects of a project where feasible. Consistent with that obligation, this DEIR identifies the following: (1) The potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including cumulative effects resulting from the proposed project together with other past, present, and probable future projects; 1-2 ATTACHMENT 1 (2) Mitigation measures that could substantially lessen or avoid any such significant environmental effects; (3) Any significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, and thus are unavoidable; and (4) Reasonable, potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed project while substantially lessening or avoiding at least one significant effect of the proposed project. Under CEQA, the Lead Agency's decision-making body (the City Council) is required to consider the information in the EIR, along with any other relevant information, in making its decisions on the proposed project. Pursuant to the City's Environmental Review Guidelines, all projects requiring an EIR shall be referred to the City Council for certification and a final determination. The Planning Commission shall first consider the DEIR and any comments received and make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the DEIR. The Planning Commission may also request review of the FEIR prior to consideration by the City Council for certification. Although the EIR does not determine the ultimate decision that the City Council will make regarding implementation of the proposed project, CEQA requires the City Council to consider the information in the EIR and make findings regarding each significant effect identified in the EIR. If the City Council determines the EIR to be adequate, it will certify the FEIR as complying with CEQA requirements prior to taking action on the proposed project and requested entitlements. If the project is expected to have one or more significant environmental effects, and the City Council chooses to go on to approve the proposed project anyway, the City Council must make a `statement of overriding considerations' explaining why the project's economic, social, technological, legal, and other benefits outweigh its significant unavoidable environmental effects. Certain other public agencies, known as "responsible agencies," may be asked to issue approvals or permits required to implement the project. These responsible agencies may also use this EIR in their review and approval processes. Sid Commons Apartment Project DEIR Overview The DEIR is comprised of following sections: Chapter 1: (Introduction) provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report, the environmental review process, and the scope of topics addressed in the DEIR. Chapter 2: (Executive Summary) presents a brief description of the proposed project, and summarizes environmental impacts anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. It provides a summary table that denotes potentially significant environmental impacts, describes identified mitigation measures, and indicates the resulting level of significance of each impact with mitigation. In addition, this section presents a brief description of alternatives to the 1-3 proposed project and identifies the environmentally superior alternative. Chapter 3: (Project Description) describes the proposed project, including the requested approvals and entitlements and proposed land uses, as well as on and off-site project improvements such as access to serve the proposed development and riverside improvements, and states the project objectives. Chapters 4-17: (Environmental Impact Analysis) describes the environmental and regulatory setting for the project by CEQA topic, provides an analysis of the project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the magnitude of significant impacts. Chapter 18: (Alternatives) summarizes alternatives to the proposed project and the comparative environmental consequences of each alternative. This section includes an analysis of the No Project Alternative, among others, as required by CEQA. Chapter 19: (CEQA Conclusions) summarizes the significant and unavoidable impacts, identifies significant irreversible environmental changes, and provides an assessment of growth -inducing and cumulative impacts of the project. Chapter 20: (References) provides a list of report preparers, technical consultants, and contributors, as well as citations for all resources and documents referenced. Appendices Includes those project specific primary sources referenced in the DEIR. As it provides a concise overview of the DEIR, the Executive Summary is included at Attachment A. Consideration of the Draft EIR When reviewing the DEIR, the Planning Commission and members of the public should consider the following framework for providing comments: (1) Consider the adequacy of the DEIR in disclosing the potential impacts of the project and identifying mitigation measures; and (2) Identify any changes, clarifications, or additional information that should be incorporated in the Final EIR to better explain or disclose the potential environmental impacts. It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend (by motion) to the City Council that the DEIR adequately discloses potential impacts and identifies mitigation measures, and directs staff to move forward with preparation of the FEIR. The Planning Commission should also identify changes, clarifications, and additional information to be incorporated in the Final EIR. Comments about the overall merits of the project that are not related to its potential environmental impacts (e.g., whether to amend the Petaluma Zoning Map and the Oak Creek Apartments PUD) should be reserved for a later public hearing when the project's requested entitlements are agenized for consideration. This typically occurs at the same hearing at which the FEIR is considered for 1-4 ATTACHMENT 1 certification. Comments provided on the project's merits will be documented but not responded to in the Final EIR, unless they are specifically related to a CEQA issue. The public review period for the DEIR ends on April 16, 2018. As part of the FEIR, the City will provide written responses to all comments on the DEIR received during the public review period. Comments may be submitted at any time prior to the end of the final City Council hearing on the DEIR (date to be determined); although the City is not required to provide written responses to comments submitted after the close of the public review period, the City has traditionally accepted public comment for consideration on the FEIR through the end of the City Council hearing. Oral comments before the Planning Commission (April 24, 2018) and City Council (tentatively scheduled for May 21, 2018) on the DEIR will be considered during the FEIR's preparation. At the direction of City Council, we will initiate preparation of a FEIR, which incorporates the necessary revisions and responses to environmental points raised during the public review period on the DEIR. The FEIR will be considered by the City Council for certification. If requested, the FEIR will come before the Planning Commission for review prior to consideration by the City Council for certification. Certification of the EIR is required before action may be taken on the project's requested entitlements. However, the requested entitlements may be brought forward for consideration on the same date that Council considers certification on the EIR. Key Environmental Considerations The following provides focused discussion on the key issues discussed in the DEIR and likely to be of particular public interest. Access Dual access to the Project site is proposed via existing Graylawn Avenue and by the creation of an extension of Shasta Avenue from its current terminus on the west side of the SMART railroad tracks, at -grade over the tracks, and extending through to the Project site to Graylawn Avenue. An emergency vehicle access (EVA) to the Project site is proposed at the existing approximately 32 - foot wide project frontage located at the end of Bernice Court. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is responsible for rail safety and is the agency with authority to grant approval for an at -grade crossing of the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) owned tracks (which are also used by the Northwestern Pacific Railroad for freight service). In their 2007 letter responding to the City's Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Sid Commons EIR, CPUC staff clearly opposed any such proposed at -grade crossing. In recent communication, CPUC staff has maintained this position, citing their policy to oppose new at - grade crossings. This position is affirmed in the comment letter issued by the CPUC on the DEIR, see Attachment B. As the CPUC requires that the Proponent's Environmental Assessment be submitted before the rail crossing request can be scheduled for a hearing, the applicant cannot receive a formal decision from the CPUC until the City acts on this EIR. In light of comments from the CPUC opposing an at -grade crossing of Shasta, and as four of the five Significant and Unavoidable Impacts identified by the DEIR relate to the at -grade crossing of Shasta (Haz-6, Noise -3, Transp-7, and Transp-9), each Alternative presented in the DEIR excludes 1-5 extension of Shasta Avenue onto the Project site, relying on primary access from Graylawn and secondary emergency vehicle access from an EVA at Bernice Court. Without a new source of primary site access via an at -grade connection to Shasta, Alternatives 3 and 4 would require an Amendment to the Oak Creek Apartment PUD1 to eliminate existing language stating that primary access to development upon the northern 2/3rds of the Project site (APN-009) must come from a new street (rather than from Graylawn). Consistency with the City's Department of Engineering, Street Design and Construction Standards & Specifications influenced all Alteratives set forth in the Sid Commons DEIR_ The City's General Plan designates the two-lane Graylawn Avenue as a Residential Street. The Street Design and Construction Standards & Specifications identify street standards for local residential streets including a traffic volume capacity of not more than 2,000 average daily traffic (ADT) trips. As described in the Transportation/Traffic Chapter of the DEIR, Fehr & Peers (F&P) conducted a Roadway Capacity Analysis to assess the existing traffic volumes and remaining capacity, and to evaluate the project's contribution to traffic volumes on Graylawn Avenue. F&P determined that the existing average daily traffic volume on Graylawn Avenue is 954 trips, leaving a design capacity of 1,046 additional trips. Assuming all trips generated by the Sid Commons project as proposed (278 apartment units and 1,808 daily vehicle trips) were added to Graylawn Avenue, the ADT would increase to 2,762 vehicles. To maintain Graylawn Avenue within the City's ADT standard as a local residential street, minimize impacts to Graylawn area residents, and lessen neighborhood impact relating to the proposed removal of the PUD access restriction from the norther 2/3rds of the Project site, all Alteratives set forth in the Sid Commons DEIR present a unit count that would not exceed the City's Street Standard. The City's Street Standards as defined by the General Plan Mobility Report are not identified as CEQA thresholds', but do provide a relative means of measuring the "livability" of local streets as related to increased traffic on Graylawn Avenue. Based upon analysis in the Traffic Chapter and supported by technical analysis, while residents living along Graylawn would notice a significant increase in daily vehicle traffic (nearly 3 times more daily trips with the 278 -unit Project than in the existing condition) and while residents living along Graylawn would experience more turning delay, and while these impacts are greater than the City Street Standard intends, adding all 1,808 daily Project trips to Graylawn would not cause neighborhood intersections to decline to an unacceptable level of service triggering a CEQA impact (see pages 14-70 to 72). Thus, the decision-making bodies may consider a unit count that would generate trips in excess of the City's ADT standard without triggering an environmental impact under CEQA. Should decision-making bodies wish to consider a unit count that would generate trips in excess of the City's Street Standard (more than 149 units), roadway livability and I The Oak Creek Apartment PUD was adopted in 1982 to enable development of the abutting 76 -unit Oak Creek Apartments and has been the zoning designation of the northern 2/3rds of the Project site since that time. 2 Under CEQA, traffic impacts are identified as significant if an intersection deteriorates fi•om an acceptable level (LOS D or better) without the project to an unacceptable level (LOS E or D) with the addition of the Project. As page 14-10 of the DEIR notes, the addition of all 1,808 Project -generated daily vehicle trips to Graylawn would not cause such deterioration, for example the Graylawn and Payran intersection, currently at LOS B, would operate at LOS C if all Project -generated traffic were added at this intersection. 1-6 ATTACHMENT 1 traffic calming improvements could be required to minimize conflicts with exceedance of the 2,000 vehicle trips per day design standards (see page 14-73 of the DEIR). Hydrology The Sid Commons project includes implementation of river terracing along the site's frontage on the Petaluma River in accordance with General Plan Policy 8-P-28 (which calls for the "construction of a flood terrace system to allow the River to accommodate a 100 -year storm event within a modified River channel, to the extent feasible given existing physical and natural constraints"). In accordance with General Plan Policy 8-P-30, a project specific hydrology analysis and a river system wide hydrology analysis were preformed using the City's Storm Water Management Model (XP-SWMM). WEST Consultants examined the floodplain impact of the terracing component of the project, as well as cumulative effects of the various floodplain management scenarios. Generally, the XP-SWMM model indicates that at the Project site the reduction in water surface elevation for the terraced reaches averages 0.75 feet for the 10 -year event and 0.3 feet for the 100 - year event. The terraced grading plan for the Project would result in a net removal of approximately 21,140 cubic yards of soil from the western river bank, as well as vegetation and woody debris, thereby expanding the channel capacity and lowering the base flood elevation. Although the Project's proposed terraced grading reduces water surface elevations at and adjacent to the Project site, it does result in a negligible increase in peak flow and water surface elevations downstream, though not in a way that increases the current floodplain boundaries. The WEST modeling work found that the City's floodplain management objectives are best realized through a combination of terracing along both sides of the River upstream of the weir, coupled with upstream stoimwater detention 3. Terracing generally results in localized reductions in water surface elevation and can slightly increase surface elevations downstream. Upstream detention without river terracing can lower water surface elevation, but the reduction is much less than can be achieved with detention and terracing. The river terrace for Sid Commons has been designed in close coordination with Planning and Public Works staff and was informed by biological constraints. WRA Environmental Consultants mapped the vegetation along the river terrace and provided recommendations to retain high priority native vegetation and resources including an existing riverside wetland. A preliminary Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan was developed that specifies replanting and habitat restoration of the river terrace area and provides opportunities to accommodate wetland mitigation onsite. Conceptual Architecture and Site Plan 3 River terracing upstream of the weir and stormwater detention in the upstream reach are the two primary floodplain management policies directed by the General Plan (8-P-28 and 8-P-32). 1-7 The Project includes a conceptual site plan for the Project site that includes a 278 -unit apartment complex within multiple three-story structures, along with a community clubhouse and an outdoor swimming pool, located on the approximately 15.45 -acre net developable portion of the Project site (Figure 3-7 of the DEIR). The Project also includes conceptual elevations at the 3 -story massing (Figure 3-8 of the DEIR). These elevations are conceptual and are expected to be refined as part of the subsequent formal application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR). Likewise, prior to SPAR review, the site plan is anticipated to be refined according to the parameters described by and mitigation measures outlined in the EIR, requirements of the R4 zoning district, and by any added Conditions of Approval. This EIR and the entitlements being requested at this time do not lock in a precise design, architecture, or even necessarily the specific number of units. Rather, the rezone specifies the density range and this EIR and other entitlements establish context within which the precise site plan must be accommodated. The DEIR presents mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset environmental impact in order to provide accommodation of natural features on site such as trees, wetlands, and the river corridor and to provide adherence to setbacks from the railway, adjacent residential properties, and the Petaluma River. At the conclusion of these initial entitlement decisions, development parameters for the site (such as site access, setbacks to resources, density range or maximum, etc.) will be established. The applicant will then refine the site plan and elevations, and submit design level detail through a SPAR application. Both the elevations and site plan will be subject to the subsequent Site Plan and Architectural Review process. Environmentally Superior Alternative The DEIR concludes that Alternative 3B (79 apartment units, with the river terrace and trail) is the environmentally superior alternative, having the least amount of new traffic and the least air quality emissions, and the smallest and most flexible development footprint thereby providing the greatest opportunity to reduce or avoid biological resource impacts of any development alternative. However, Alternative 3B is less successful at achieving many of the Project's basic objectives such as providing new, relatively high-density residential development within the City's Urban Growth Boundary and adding to the City stock of available multi -family housing. Additionally, it is not certain that the substantially reduced development potential of this Alternative could be financed considering the cost of the river terracing and river trail. Given the General Plan's Medium Density Residential designation over the property, the abutting Oak Creek Apartment with a density of approximately 12 units to the net acre, and the current demand for housing, the decision makers may find Alternative 4 (149 apartment units with the river terrace and trail) to be the Preferred Alternative, as it comes closest to attaining many of the Project's basic objectives while avoiding most of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts (primarily by not including the Shasta Avenue at -grade crossing) as well as reducing the level of impacts under all environmental categories as compared to the Project (primarily due to the reduced density). ATTACHMENT 1 The DEIR's consideration of the Proposed Project and the Alternatives provides the public and the decision -makers with the ability to consider a range of alternatives and to consider the residential density within the identified range that is most appropriate for the site. For example, should the City find a project exceeding the City's 2,000 average daily traffic trips standard appropriate, they could utilize the Enhanced Livability and Traffic Calming along Graylawn Avenue Mitigation option outlined on page 14-73 and direct a hybrid between the Proposed Project and Alternative 4 (one without an at -grade crossing of Shasta, with the river terracing and river trail, and with a unit count between that of Alternative 4 and the Proposed Project - that is between 149 and 278 units). PUBLIC NOTICE A Notice of Completion/Availability (NOC/NOA) of the DEIR and Public Hearing was published in the Argus Courier on March 1, 2018, and mailed notices were sent to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, to interested parties who previously requested notification, and to all who commented on the Notice of Preparation. The NOC/NOA was also filed with the State Clearinghouse and the Sonoma County Cleric. Copies of the DEIR have been made available at the Petaluma Library, the Community Center, City Hall, and digitally via the City's website. Additionally, hard copies and CDs of the documents have been made available for purchase by the public at the Planning Division. Written comments that have been received to date on the DEIR accompany this staff report as Attachment B. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: DEIR Executive Summary Attachment B: Public Comments on DEIR Received as of Publication of this Staff Report 1-9 ATTACHMENT 2 Public Comment Received Within DEIR 45 -day Public Review Period From Date Received Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control March 7, 2018 California Public Utilities Commission PUC March 9, 2018 California Department of Transportation Caltrans March 30, 2018 Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit SMART Aril 13, 2018 Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP (attorney representing the applicant) including: Exhibit A: from Transpedia Consulting Engineers Exhibit B: from Acclaim Companies (applicant) April 16, 2018 Public Comment Received Prior to Planning Commission (but after DEIR Public Review Period) From Date Received Kallie Kull, 36 Jess Avenue Aril 23, 2018 Taryn Obaid, 7 Gra lawn Avenue Aril 23, 2018 Donna Smith, W. Pa ran and Gra lawn Aril 24, 2018 Petition April 24, 2018 Public Comment Received Prior to City Council (but after DEIR Public Review Period) From Date Received 24 Ervin, Olivia From: Pettijohn, Julie@DTSC <Julie.Pettijohn@dtsc.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 3:13 PM To: Ervin, Olivia Cc: Gray, Rebecca@DTSC Subject: RE: Sid Commons Project Comments Hi Ms. Ervin, Thank you for the Phase I ESA. The information was very helpful. I have reviewed that and the Executive Summary of the DEIR for the proposed project. You may wish to consider adding to the types of analyses for surface soil sampling as per MM Haz-1; this would be in addition to pesticides that may be associated with past use of the land for agricultural land uses. If known or suspected areas of fueling were historically present at the site (for farm and other agricultural equipment), petroleum hydrocarbons could be present in soils and/or groundwater at the site: Elevated concentration of lead may also be present on-site associated with former painted structures that have since been demolished (if soil was not sampled and analyzed for lead following demolition activities and determined not to present an unacceptable risk for future site users). In addition, if there will be redevelopment/soil disturbance near the railroad tracks (the Phase I ESA indicates two railroad tracks present in a 1957 photo), pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals (particularly chromium, copper and arsenic), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons may also be present in surface soils which, if present at elevated levels, could present a health risk to future site users or construction workers. It was not.uncommon for railroad ties to have been treated with chromated copper arsenate as a wood preservative. The wooden ties may also have been treated with creosote also for wood preservation purposes. Elevated levels of lead and arsenic along freight corridors associated with coal ash and cinder may also be present at the site. Finally, you may wish to add contingency language in MM Haz-1 (or part of a separate mitigation measure) that provides for investigation of unknown contamination, underground tanks, containers, stained or odiferous soil etc. if encountered as part of the site redevelopment activities. Appropriate investigation, sampling, and comparison of data collected with health -based screening levels and/or consultation with a regulatory oversight agency should be conducted. Please note that DTSC no longer uses California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) which are referenced in MM Haz-1. Instead, DTSC HERO Note 3 screening levels should be consulted. See the following link which has information about HERO Note 3 (and other topics) http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/assessingrisk/humanrisk2.cfm Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Julie Pettijohn, MPH, CIH Sr. Environmental Scientist Supervisor Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program Department of Toxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 510-S40-3843 -----Original Message----- STATE OF CALIFORNIA . EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 180 PROMENADE CIRCLE, SUITE 115 •�=, SACRAMENTO, CA 95834 March 9, 2018 Olivia Ervin . Environmental Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Notice of Completion Sid Commons Apartment Project SCH# 2007072041 Dear Ms, Ervin: As the state agency responsible for rail safety within California, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) recommends that development projects proposed near rail corridors be planned with the safety of these corridors of paramount importance. Your project proposes a new at -grade highway -rail crossing along a freight and high-speed passenger rail corridor. The Commission has set the bar very high in demonstrating a compelling public need for new at -grade crossings on mainline rail corridors. A formal application to the CPUC is required for any new crossings along with CEQA documents specifically studying the rail crossing. CPUC staff reviewed the proposed crossing area. The nearest public crossing is less than 1/4 mile south at W Payran Street which seems to provide access across the tracks to the proposed project area. Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) currently runs 32 passenger trains per day at speeds up to 79 mph and Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP) runs 2 — 4 trains per week at speeds up to 25 mph along this. rail corridor. All this being said, please be aware that, as stated in the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) General Order (GO) 75-D, it is the CPUC's policy to reduce the number of at -grade crossings within the State of California. GO 75-D states: 2. POLICY ON REDUCING NUMBER OF AT -GRADE CROSSINGS As part of its mission to reduce hazards associated with at -grade crossings, and in support of the national goal of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Commission's policy is to reduce the number of at -grade crossings on freight or passenger railroad mainlines in California, Olivia Ervin March.9, 2018 Page 2 of 2 CPUC staff believes that the safest option is to construct a grade separated structure over the SMART tracks. If the City of Petaluma decides to pursue an at -grade crossing, it will have to prove to the Commission that a grade separated structure is impracticable at this location, or that the overall safety of the corridor is improved by the project. With the reduction of total crossings in mind, CPUC staff recommends the City select two existing at -grade crossings to close in exchange for the proposed new Shasta Avenue crossing. If the City decides to pursue this project, the first step would be to set up an on-site -diagnostic review that will include representatives from the City, CPUC, SMART, and NWP. The City would then need to file a formal application with the CPUC and request authority, under Public Utilities Code Sections 1201-1205, to construct the new crossing at Shasta Avenue, and outlining any other crossing closures that are proposed. The Commission approval proceeding may take up to a year and a half to complete. The environmental review should include analysis of construction of a grade separation structure to take the vehicles over the tracks or under them. Although that is not the stated "preferred alternative" of the City as we understand it, that alternative should be studied and environmentally cleared in case the Coirnnission rejects the at -grade crossing but allows for a grade separated one. If the funding could be identified, at least the City could continue to pursue it without needing additional environmental studies. We will stay involved in the environmental process as it progresses. Please assure we are on the distribution list for all documents. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 928-2515 or athn a cpuc.ca.gov . Sincerely, David Stewart Utilities Engineer Safety and Enforcement Division Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 115 Sacramento, CA 95834-2939 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN Jr Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 P,O, BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5528 FAX (5 10) 286-5559 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov March 30, 2018 Ms. Tiffany Robbe City of Petaluma, Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Making Conservation a California Way of Life. SCH#2007072041 04 -SON -2018-00244 GTS ID 9826 Sid Commons Apartment Project— Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Ms. Ervin: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above -referenced project. In tandem with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), Caltrans mission signals a modernization of our approach to evaluate and mitigate impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN), Caltrans' Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020 aims to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by tripling bicycle and doubling both pedestrian and transit travel by 2020. Our comments are based on the DEIR. Project Understanding The applicant requests a Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Plan and Architectural Review to construct 278 apartment units within four three-story strictures, along with a clubhouse and an outdoor swimming pool on an approximately 15.45 -acre parcel. The applicant proposes 445 outdoor surface parking spaces throughout the site. The proposed project includes a River Terracing Plan along the site frontage of the Petaluma River and extending 300 feet onto the Oak Creek Apartment parcel. Terracing involves re -grading the western bank of the Petaluma River to improve flood capacity and flow efficacy in accordance with General Plan Policy 8-P.28. A preliminary Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan provides 'for habitat replacement and restoration of the terraced area. No residential development is proposed within the Floodplain, The applicant proposes a public sidewalk/trail that extends from the Graylawn Avenue sidewalk to the Riverside Trail. The project site is located approximately 1.1 miles southwest of the US 101/East Washington Street interchange. Access to the site would be provided via Graylawn Avenue and the creation of an extension of Shasta Avenue. A new at -grade crossing over the Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) corridor is proposed via an extension of Shasta Avenue, which requires approval by the California Public Utilities Commission. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's econongv and livability" Ms. Tiffany Robbe, City of Petaluma March 30, 2018 Page 2 Travel Demand Analysis In Caltrans' Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade, this project falls under Place Type 4 Suburban Communities — Corridors, which includes areas with a low level of integration of housing with jobs, retail service, poorly connected street networks, low levels of transit service, a large amount of surface parking, and inadequate walkability, moderate I ommunity design and variable regional accessibility. Given this Place Type and intensification of use, which typically leads to high levels of VMT and corresponding low levels of active transportation, we recommend providing VMT analysis resulting from the proposed project, which includes: • A vicinity map, regional location map, and site plan clearly showing the project's location in relation to the STN. Clearly identify State right-of-way,. bicycle paths, and transit facilities within the study area. • A VMT analysis pursuant to the City's guidelines or, if the City has no guidelines, the Office of Planning and Research's Draft Guidelines. Projects that result in automobile VMT per capita greater than 15 percent below existing (i.e. baseline) city-wide or regional values for similar land use types may indicate a significant impact. If necessary, mitigation for increasing VMT should be identified and should support transit and active transportation modes. • Potential safety issues for all road users should be identified and fiilly mitigated. • The project's primary and secondary effects on pedestrians, bicycles, disabled travelers and transit performance should be evaluated, including countermeasures and trade-offs resulting from mitigating VMT increases. Access to pedestrians, bicycle, and transit facilities must be maintained. Vehicle Trip Reduction Given the intensification of use and the opportunities to reduce VMT, we encourage the City to establish a Transportation Management Association (TMA) in partnership with other developments in the area to pursue aggressive trip reduction targets with Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement. In addition, the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) elements described below should be included in the program to promote smart mobility and reduce regional VMT and traffic impacts to the STN. Transportation Demand Management programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by an onsite TDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. If the project does not achieve the VMT reduction goals, the reports should also include next steps to take in order to achieve those targets. • Commuter subsidy for transit, carpool, and vanpool for residents and employees on an ongoing basis; • Project design to encourage walking, bicycling, and convenient transit access; • Onsite TDM coordinator; • Ten percent vehicle parking reduction; • Unbundled parking; "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livabilio," Ms. Tiffany Robbe, City of Petaluma March 30, 2018 Page 3 • Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and designated parking spaces for EVs and clean fuel vehicles; • Encourage membership in a carshare program such as Getaround; • Carpooling incentives and dedicated parking spaces for carpooling employees; • Transit and trip planning resources such as a commute information kiosk; • Enhanced bus stops including bus shelters; • Bicycle route mapping resources and bicycle parking incentives; • Bicycle share membership; • Fix -it bicycle repair station(s); and • Decrease headway times and improve way -finding on Petaluma Transit, Sonoma County Transit Authority (SCTA), and Golden Gate Transit bus routes to provide a better connection between the project, nearby Petaluma Transit Mall, Petaluma Downtown Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Station, and regional destinations. Providing these connections with streets configured for alternative transportation modes will encourage residents to utilize nearby Petaluma Transit bus routes 1, 2, 5 and 11, Sonoma County Transit bus routes 40, 44, and 48, Golden Gate Transit bus routes 74, 101 and 101X, and the Petaluma Downtown SMART Station, thereby potentially reduce VMT and increase sustainable transportation modes. For additional TDM options, please refer to Chapter 8 of Federal Highway Administration's Integrating Demand Mandgement into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference, which is available online at: http://www.ops.fliwa.dot.gov/publications/ fllwahop12035/ - iwahopl2035.pdf. For information about parking ratios, please see MTC's report, Reforming Parking Policies to Support sinart growth, or visit the MTC parking webpage: http://www.mtc.ca. gov/planning/smart—growth/parking. Multimodal Planning This project is located in close proximity to the Priority Development Area (PDA) in the City of Petaluma. Priority Development Areas are identified by the Association of Bay Area Governments as areas for investment, new homes, and job growth. To support PDA goals, the proposed project should provide connections to the Planned SMART Trail west of the project boundary and the Planned Petaluma River Trail east of the project boundary, per the SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2014 Update. Sustainable Communities Strategy We encourage the Lead Agency to condition the project to designate ten to fifteen percent of the units as affordable. The provision of mixed -income housing is recommended for consistency with regional development goals outlined in the MTC's SCS. "Provide a safe, sustahtable, Integrated and efficient transportation sysienn to enhance California's econonrn and lirabillo," Ms. Tiffany Robbe, City of Petaluma March 30, 2018 Page 4 Travel Demand Fees Given the potential increase in VMT and proximity to US 101, the project should be conditioned to contribute fair share traffic impact fees toward ramp metering as identified in the DEIR to mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation (Page 14-35, Page 14-63 and Figure 14-8). Mitigation measures should be detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan of the environmental document including fair share fees. Please submit a copy of the final staff report to Caltrans for our review. Lead Agency As the Lead Agency, the City of Petaluma is responsible for all project mitigation, including any' needed improvements to the STN. The project's financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation that includes the requirements of other agencies such as Caltrans are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally -binding instruments under the control of the City. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Stephen Conteh at 510-286- 5534 or stephen.conteh@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, �r 6 &d PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovermnental Review "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to entrance California's econonry and livability" t I SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT Debora Fudge, Chair Sonoma County Mayors' and April 13, 2018 Councilmembers Association Judy Arnold, Vice Chair Marin County Board of Supervisors Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner City of Petaluma Damon Connolly Marin County Board of Supervisors 111 English Street, Petaluma CA, 94952 Jim Eddie Golden Gate Bridge, Via E-mail and First -Class mail Highway/Transportation District TROBBEOW.petaluma.ca.us Dan Hilimer Marin County Council of Mayors and Re: Comments on Sid Commons Apartment Project Draft Environmental Councilmembers Impact Report Eric Lucan Transportation Authority of Marin Dear Ms. Robbe, Jake Mackenzie Sonoma County Mayors' and Thank you for giving SMART the opportunity -to review and comment Councilmembers Association on the Sid Commons Apartment Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEW). SMART has completed its review and believes that the DEIR is Barbara Pahre Golden Gate Bridge, inadequate and offers the following comments: Highway/Transportation District 1. The DEIR Executive Summary identifies significant and unavoidable Gary Phillips hazard, p noise and traffic impacts. Specifically, p these impacts are related to the Transportation Authority of Marin establishment of a new crossing over SMART's tracks at Shasta Avenue David Rabbitt (DEIR p. 2-1). The DEIR concludes that a grade separated structure "may Sonoma County Board of Supervisors not be feasible." However, due to double tracking and the California Public Carol Russell Utilities Commission ("CPUC") rail safety staff's opposition to an at -grade Sonoma County Mayors' and at this location, a grade -separated crossing is preferred at this location. The Councilmembers Association DEIR acknowledges that the applicant has not designed a grade -separated Shirlee Zane structure. The DEIR should have enough design details to adequately analyze Sonoma County Board of Supervisors whether a grade -separated crossing is feasible or not, and all environmental issues associated with a grade -separated crossing structure. Farhad 2. If a grade -separated crossing is deemed not feasible, the DEIR General Manager Mansourian acknowledges that the CPUC will need to grant approval for an at -grade Genera crossing. However, the DEIR further acknowledges that the CPUC rail safety staff would oppose an at -grade crossing at Shasta Avenue (DEIR, p. 3-30). 5401 Old Redwood Highway The DEIR should discuss the feasibility of an at -grade crossing at the Shasta Suite 200 Avenue location given that the CPUC rail safety staff would oppose any at - Petaluma, CA -7 94954 -333 rade crossing. SMART respectfully submits that the DEIR is inadequate and Phone: 707-794-3330 g g• p Y q Fax: 707-794-3037 incomplete without the inclusion of a crossing study. www.sonomamarintrain.org - Letter to Ms. Robbe April 13, 2018 Page 2 3.The DEIR lacks specificity because it fails to identify and discuss the environmental impacts associated with the design, construction, installation, testing and maintenance of any specific at -grade or grade separated crossing structure including but not limited to the following: a. Any crossing of SMART's tracks must comply with CPUC General Orders and SMART's design standards including sidewalks, detectable warning strips, new power service and other related items. b. The DEIR fails to discuss if the crossing will be Quiet Zone ready, including appropriate gates, warning system and/or roadway medians be installed by, or paid for by, the project applicant as part of a Quiet Zone ready at -grade crossing. C. The DEIR fails to discuss how the applicant will pay to mitigate impacts associated with any SMART crossing. If a crossing is allowed, SMART will require the project applicant to pay for associated costs, including, but not limited to, design, permits, construction, installation, operation and ongoing maintenance of a crossing, safety fencing and the relocation of the freight siding as set forth below. The project applicant will also be required to provide for insurance and indemnification to SMART. d. The proposed Shasta Avenue extension would cross a section of existing "double track" that consists of the main line track and a storage/switching siding track. The storage/switching track is actively used by the freight operator to store/switch train cars. The DEIR does not adequately discuss how the CPUC can approve an at -grade crossing over SMART's double track where one track is currently used for freight car storage. Further, the proposed Shasta Avenue crossing would reduce the length of the useful storage/switching capacity of the siding by approximately 30%. The siding would need to be relocated to another acceptable location within SMART's railroad right-of-way. The DEIR does not address any environmental impacts associated with relocation of these tracks. The project applicant should bear all costs for the relocated siding, including mitigation of any identified environmental impacts and integration with SMART's Positive Train Control system. Adding a new vehicular crossing to an existing railroad is a complex undertaking that affects many aspects of the railroad. In addition to SMART's approval, coordination with the regulatory agencies including, but not limited to, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), will be essential to make a new public or private crossing possible. SMART appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project. If you have any questions about any of the comments above please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at: edippelgsonomamarintrain.ora or (707) 794-3079. Sincerely, Elizabeth Dippel Assistant Planner `-M I. REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE, LLP Matthew D. Visick mvisick@reubenlaw.com April 16, 2018 Delivered Via Email (TROBBE(aci.petaluma.ca.us) Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner Petaluma Planning Department 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Sid Commons Apartment Project — Comments on Draft EIR Dear Ms. Robbe: On behalf of J. Cyril Johnson Investment Corporation, the sponsor of the Sid Commons Apartment Project (the "Project'), we submit these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") dated January 2018. The DEIR Mistakenly Concludes that the Shasta Avenue Extension is Necessary to Support the 278 Units Proposed for the Project. In its analysis of Alternative 4, the DEIR concludes that a maximum of 149 residential units would be possible at the site if the Shasta Avenue extension was eliminated from the Project. The DEIR states that the carrying capacity of Graylawn Avenue is 2,000 average daily trips ("ADT") based on the categorization of Graylawn Avenue as a local residential road.1 Based on an understanding that Graylawn Avenue currently carries approximately 954 ADTs, the DEIR reasons that Graylawn Avenue has a remaining capacity of 1,046 ADTs. After concluding that each additional unit created by the Project would add seven ADTs to Graylawn Avenue, the DEIR reasons that Graylawn Avenue could support a maximum development of 149 residential units (1,046 / 7 = 149). As explained in the attached peer review from Transpedia Consulting Engineers ("TCD"), the DEIR overestimates the ADT per unit, overestimates the percentage of Project -related trips that would use Graylawn Avenue, and fails to consider the effect that alternative modes of ' As discussed in the peer review from TCD, it appears that Graylawn Avenue should be classified as arterial roadway, as it has the design capacity to accommodate at least 6,000 ADTs. (Exhibit A, p. 5.) San Francisco Office One Bush Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94104 tet: 415-567-9000 1 fax: 415-399-9480 Oakland Office 456 8th Street, 2n1 Floor, Oakland, CA 94607 lel: 510-257-5589 www.reubentaw.coni 9 — L� Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner Petaluma Planning Department April 16, 2018 Page 2 transportation—including the recently constructed SMART train station located approximately one mile away—would have on Project generated trips. (See Exhibit A.) The DEIR bases its ADT estimates on the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") land use characteristics for "apartments" (ITE Land Use 220) rather than "mid -rise apartments" (ITE Land Use 223). "Apartments" have an ADT of 6.5. However, "mid -rise apartments," defined as apartments "in rental buildings that have between three and 10 levels (floors)," have an ADT of approximately 4 daily trips.2 The Project analyzed in the DEIR is three stories in height (see illustration from Figure 3-8 of the DEIR below).3 Applying the corrected figure of 4 ADT per dwelling unit, the 278 units proposed for the Project would create a total of only 1,112 ADTs. TYPICAL SIDE ELEVATION Based on an analysis of existing traffic turning movements at the intersection of Graylawn Avenue and Jess Avenue, only 88% of the ADTs from the Project would be expected to use Graylawn Avenue to access the Project. The remaining 12% would be expected to use Jess Avenue. This traffic turning analysis considered existing turning movements for vehicles going to and from the Oak Creek Apartments, which are located directly across the street from the 2 Exhibit A, p. 3. 3 The DEIR describes the Project as "a 278 -unit apartment complex within three -stogy structures, along with a community clubhouse and an outdoor swimming pool. . .." (DEIR, p. 3-13 (emphasis added).) Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner Petaluma Planning Department April 16, 2018 Page 3 proposed Project. Given that only 88% of the Project's 1,112 ADTs would use Graylawn Avenue for access, the Project would add a total of 978 ADTs on Graylawn Avenue. Further, it is likely that the Project would create even fewer ADTs given its proximity to the Downtown Petaluma SMART Station and the use of alternative modes of transportation anticipated in the General Plan. As explained in the peer review, the DEIR should have applied a trip reduction factor of 28% to the Project to account for these alternative modes of transportation. Had it done so, the Project's ADTs would have been closer to 800 total ADTs, of which only 704 ADTs would have been on Graylawn Avenue. As shown above and set forth more fully in the attached peer review, the 278 units proposed through the Project would not exceed the carrying capacity of Graylawn Avenue. Even without taking into account the effect that alternative modes of transportation would have on Project - generated trips, the ADTs from the Project would be well within the carrying capacity of Graylawn Avenue. If alternative modes of transportation were taken into account, the number of ADTs on Graylawn Avenue would be even fewer. II. The DEIR Mistakenly Concludes that Alternative 3B Would Be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. After weighing the relative benefits of Alternatives 2, 3A, 313, and 4, the DEIR concludes that Alternative 3B would be the environmentally superior alternative. This conclusion was based primarily on an assumption that Alternative 313 "could reasonably support the financial costs associated with terraced grading" along the Petaluma River.4 As explained below, that assumption was incorrect. In its consideration of the environmentally superior alternative, the DEIR rejected Alternative 2 because it does not achieve the objective of realizing flood control improvements through river terracing and rejected Alternative 3A because it does not allow development on the site in a manner that could further avoid protected trees, avoid direct removal or filling of wetlands, or avoid noise and vibration associated with the train.' With these alternatives eliminated, the DEIR weighed the pros and cons of Alternative 313 and Alternative 4. The DEIR assumes that both Alternative 313 and Alternative 4 would include the flood control improvements through river terracing. The DEIR acknowledges that Alternative 4 comes closest to achieving the Project's objectives. However, based on the smaller development footprint of Alternative 313, the DEIR concludes that Alternative 313 would be the environmentally superior alternative. As explained in the attached letter from the Project sponsor, the cost to build Alternative 313 would make the Project financially infeasible. (See Exhibit B.) Economies of scale are essential for Projects of this scope. If the Project were reduced to 79 units, as it would be under Alternative 313, the per unit cost would drastically increase to roughly $625,000 per unit. At a 4 DEIR, pp. 2-45 — 2-46.. 'As discussed below, recent case law clarifies that consideration of the impacts of the environment (e.g., train noise and vibration) on the project is improper under CEQA. Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner Petaluma Planning Department April 16, 2018 Page 4 total cost of $49 million, a 79 unit project would cost more to build than it would be worth on the day it is completed. There would be no ability for the Project sponsor to obtain a permanent loan when construction was complete given this valuation. Even with the current demand for apartment units in Petaluma, a market that the Project sponsor knows well after three multi -family projects (Theater Square, Petaluma Villa Apartments, and Oak Creek Apartments), the rent that the proposed units would provide would not be enough to meet lenders' debt service coverage ratios. In fact, a 79 unit project would likely have a negative debt service coverage ratio. In short, the Project sponsor would be better off purchasing an existing development than it would be building a 79 unit version of the Project on this site. The DEIR rejected Alternative 2 because it did not include the flood improvements that would come with the riverfront grading. It should do the same for Alternative 313 and conclude that Alternative 4 therefore presents the environmentally superior alternative. III. Impacts Noise -1, Noise -2, and Noise -3 Improperly Consider the Effects of the Existing Trains on the Project. Impacts Noise -1 and Noise -3 consider, among other things, noise impacts from trains on the Project and impose mitigation measures to address them. Impact Noise -2 considers impacts of train vibration on the Project and imposes mitigation measures to address it. Recent case law from the California Supreme Court clarifies that analysis of the environment's impacts on a project—sometimes referred to as "reverse CEQA"—is not a proper subject for CEQA review. (Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 CalAth 369.) The analysis in Noise -1, Noise -2, and Noise -3 should be revised to eliminate discussion of the effects of the environment (train noise and vibration) on the proposed Project and eliminate all mitigation measures that are based on such effects. IV. Impact Noise -4 Fails to Support Its Conclusion that Mitigation Measures Would Not Reduce Construction Noise Impacts to a Less Than Significant Level. The DEIR engages in a substantial discussion of construction noise impacts and imposes six mitigation measures to address them. However, it then concludes, without any analysis, that construction noise levels "may not be able to be effectively attenuated to acceptable (i.e., 80 dBA) levels at these nearby residences with use of available noise reduction strategies" and that construction noise levels are therefore "conservatively considered to be significant and unavoidable."6 There is no support for the conclusion that the six mitigation measures imposed through the DEIR will not adequately mitigate construction noise impacts. In fact, it would appear that mitigation measures such as Noise 4E, which requires noise barriers along property lines, would effectively mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. 6 DEIR, p. 13-28. Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner Petaluma Planning Department April 16, 2018 Page 5 We also note that the conclusion that construction noise impacts are significant and unavoidable is inconsistent with the conclusion reached in another Draft EIR recently released by the City. The Davidon/Scott Ranch Revised Draft EIR, dated March 2017, imposed similar mitigation measures to address construction noise impacts under similar conditions. However, after taking those measures into account, the Davidon/Scott Ranch Revised Draft EIR concluded that construction noise would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. There is no apparent difference between these two analyses or projects that explains the divergent results. We urge the City to reconsider the impact conclusion in Noise -4 and whether the six mitigation measures would reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. V. Impact Transp-7 Mistakenly Concludes that Impacts Are Significant and Unavoidable Given the EVA Access at Bernice Court. Impact Transp-7 concludes that the Project would create a significant and unavoidable transportation safety impact for emergency vehicles that would need access via the proposed Shasta Avenue rail crossing. However, Impact Transp-7 also acknowledges that the Project includes emergency vehicle access ("EVA") via Bernice Court and that this Bernice Court access "would meet all emergency access requirements ...."I Given the Bernice Access would meet EVA requirements for the Project and emergency vehicles therefore would not need to use the Shasta Avenue crossing, there does not appear to be any support for the conclusion that the Project would create a significant and unavoidable transportation safety impact for emergency vehicles. We urge the City to reconsider the conclusion the impact conclusion in Transp-7. Very truly yours, REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE, LLP Matthew D. Visick Enclosures: Exhibit A — Letter from Transpedia Consulting Engineers Exhibit B — Letter from Gary Johnson of Acclaim Properties 7 DEIR, p. 14-64. 2 irampedia Consulting Fnglneers April 12, 2018 Mr. Mark Johnson Managing Director Acclaim Companies 125 Willow Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 via email only: mark@acclainicompanies,com Subject: Peer Review for Sid Commons Apartments Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Johnson: Transpedia Consulting Engineers (TCE) has reviewed the traffic analysis of the following chapters and appendices of the Sid Commons Apartments Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), City of Petaluma, January 2018, with emphasis on Alternative #4 assumptions: • Chapter 2- Executive Summary. • Chapter 3- Project Description. • Chapter 14- Traffic and Circulation, • Chapter 18- Alternatives. • Chapter 19- CEQA Conclusions. • Appendix 14A- Traffic Count Data Sheets and Level of Service Worksheets, Fehrs & Peers, March 2017. • Appendix 1413- Update of Existing Traffic Volumes and Intersection Operations, Fehrs & Peers, April 13, 2016, • Appendix 14C- Graylawn Data Collection Summary and Roadway Capacity Analysis Memo, Fehr & Peers, April 13, 2016, • Appendix 1413- 2016 Sid Commons DEIR Updated Assumptions and Scenarios, Fehr & Peers, August 7, 2016. TCE also performed the following: • A visit to the project site and surrounding roadway system on Sunday, March 18, 2018. • Conducted traffic, pedestrian and bicycle turning movement counts during am peak period (7:00 am - 9:00 am) and pm peak period (4:00 pm -6:00 pm) on Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at Graylawn Avenue/Jess Avenue intersection in the City of Petaluma, copy is attached. The focus of this letter is to peer review project's DEIR traffic study in conjunction with the documents and information listed above with an emphasis on Alternative #4. The following is a summary of our review comments. 613 Fourth Street, Suite 205, Santa Rosa, CA 95404• Phone: (707) 527-6300 • www.transpediaone.com �-1 2_ 1 Mr. Mark Johnson April 12, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Overestimated Project Peak Hour Trip Generation The DEIR applied standard ITE rates for the "Aparttnent" land use or ITE Land Use 220 (Table 14-6, Page 14-25, DEIR). According to ITE's description for this land use, "The studies included in this land use did not identify whether the apartments were low-rise, mid -rise, or high-rise." However, given the project's three-story configuration, it is more appropriate to apply the ITE trip generation rate for "Mid -Rise Apartment" (ITE Land Use 223) instead. According to ITE's description for this use, "Mid -rise apartments are apartments (rental dwelling units) in rental buildings that have between three and 10 levels (floors)." In summary, mid -rise apartments generate fewer trips per unit, which is consistent with land use and transportation research. A comparison of the DEIR trip generation rates versus those that would be proposed using "Mid -Rise Apartment" rates is shown Table A. As can be seen in the table, the DEIR overestimated project's trip generation by 57 trips during am peak hour (approximately 41% overestimate) and 63 trips during pm peak hour (approximately 39% overestimate). Table A- Project Trip Generation Comparison. Land Use Size Daily Trlp Rate AM Peak Hoar In Out Total PM Peak Hour Trip Rate ' In Out Total' DEIR Apartment 278 DU 6.50 1,808 0.503 28 112 140 0.613 111 60 171 Proposed laid -Rise Apartment 278DU NA NA 0.30 26 57 83 0.39 63 45 108 Net trip overestimate NA NA NA NA 2 1 55 57 0.223 48 15 63 Sources: Transpedia Consulting Engineers, 2018. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 91 Edition, 2012. Sid Commons Apartments Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), City of Petaluma, January 2018. Notes: NA = not applicable or available; DU = Dwelling Unit. Mid -Rise Apartment (ITE Land Use Code 223) —daily= NA, AM= 0.30, PM = 0.39 trips/DU. Trip in/out distribution- AM 31/69%, PM 58/42%. Mr. Mark Johnson April 12, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Inflated Project Average Daily Trip Generation The ITE manual does not provide a daily trip generation rate for "Mid -Rise Apartment" land use, just am and pm peak hour trip rates. Consequently, the "Apartment" daily rate was used to extrapolate the "Mid - Rise Apartment" daily rate by assuming that the proportion of average daily traffic (ADT) occurring in am and pm peak hours combined of both land uses would approximately be comparable (Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 6th Edition, 2010). The "Mid -Rise Apartment" daily trip rate was estimated as follows: • "Apartment" am and pm peak hour trips = 140 + 171 = 311 trips, as shown in Table A. • "Apartment" ADT = 1,808 trips per day, as shown in Table A. • Proportion of "Apartment" ADT occurring in am and pm peak hours = 311/1,808 x 100% = 17.2%. • "Mid -Rise Apartment" am and pm peak hour trips = 83 + 108 = 191 trips, as shown in Table A. • Proportion of "Mid -Rise Apartment" ADT occurring in am and pm peak hours = Proportion of "Apartment" ADT occurring in am and pm peak hours = 17.2%. • 17.2% = (191/"Mid-Rise Apartment" ADT) x 100%. • "Mid -Rise Apartment" ADT = (191 x 100%)/17.2% = 1,110 trips per day. In general, the proportion of average daily traffic (ADT) occurring in am and pm peaks hours ranges between 18% and 20% (Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 6" Edition, 2010), which is consistent with the above estimates. As can be seen in the above table and calculations, the DEIR overestimated project's daily trip generation by 698 trips per day (1,808 —1,110 = 698 trips per day). This is approximately 39% overestimate. Improper Trip Generation Assumptions for Alternative #4 As indicated in the description of DEIR's Alternative #4 (Page I8-46, DEIR), Graylawn Avenue has currently "a maximum remaining capacity of 1,046 ADTs before exceeding the design standards", which "equates to approximately a 149 multi -family residential unit project (at a fitted curve rate of approximately 7 daily trips per unit)." It appears that Alternative #4 calculations used daily trip generation rates of the "Apartment" land use rather than the "Mid -Rise Apartment". As indicated above, the project (278 apartments) is expected to generate 1,110 daily trips when a "Mid -Rise Apartment" land use is utilized, which equates to fitted curve rate of approximately 4 daily trips per unit in comparison to 7 trips used in Alternative #4 assumptions. Using a fitted daily trip generation rate for "Mid -Rise Apartment" land use and the 1,046 daily trips of remaining capacity of Graylawn Avenue equates to approximately 262 multi -family residential unit project, which is 113 units higher than stated in the DEIR for Alternative #4. Mr. Mark Johnson April 12, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Excessive Project Trip Assignment to Graylawn Avenue As indicated in DE1R's "Traffic and Transportation" section, "Primary access to the site pursuant to Alternative #4 would be via existing Graylawn Avenue" (Page 18-61, DEIR. This assumption is excessive and did not take into consideration that a portion of project's trips would utilize Jess Avenue to access project's site. TCE has conducted traffic turning movement counts at Graylawn Avenue/Jess Avenue intersection during am and pm peak hours on Tuesday, March 27, 2018, copy is attached. The purpose of these counts is to estimate traffic trip assignment of the existing Oak Creek Apartments to each of these two streets. It is estimated that 88% of the apartment complex utilizes Graylawn Avenue to travel to/from the site while 12% utilizes Jess Avenue. It is assumed that the proposed Sid Commons Apartments project would follow this same trip assignment pattern. Using 88% assignment rate of project trips to Graylawn Avenue and 1,110 daily trips for "Mid -Rise Apartment" land use, estimated earlier, it is estimated that approximately 977 daily project trips would be assigned to Graylawn Avenue, which is less than the 1,046 daily trips of remaining capacity of Graylawn Avenue assumed in the DEIR. In other words, the project's proposed 278 apartments would not cause traffic assigned to Graylawn Avenue to exceed the 2,000 ADT identified in the DEIR (existing ADT of 954 + project trips assigned to Graylawn Avenue of 977 = 1,931 vehicles per day). Unrepresentative Average Daily Traffic for Graylawn Avenue The DEIR overestimated Graylawn Avenue ADT (954 vehicles per day) by collecting the traffic counts in the week before Thanksgiving in 2015 and only during peak weekdays of that week (Page 14-4 and Appendix 14C, DEIR). The data was collected on Tuesday -Thursday, November 17-18, 2015, a week prior to Thanksgiving; which is known for its busy traffic of shoppers and travelers to other destinations. Moreover, the data was only collected for the peak weekdays and avoided other days of the week (Friday through Monday, inclusive) where traffic is expected to be lower. The DEIR traffic data are not representative of average traffic conditions on this Graylawn Avenue and rather represents a worst-case traffic scenario that occurs in a few days of the year. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) defines ADT as "the total volume during a given time period (in whole days), greater than one day and less than one year, divided by the number of days in that time period" (A Policy on Geom.etric'Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 2011, 6th Edition). On the other hand, Caltrans defines ADT as "The average 24-hour volume of traffic, being the total volume during a stated period divided by the number of days in that period. The period is a year, unless stated otherwise." (Encroachment Permit Manual, Caltrans, July 2013). These two definitions do not specify which days to use and left it to professional judgment. It is our professional judgment that traffic counts for this location should have been conducted in another week representing typical traffic conditions on Graylawn Avenue during a full week (Sunday through Monday, inclusive) when Petaluma schools are in session. Mr. Mark Johnson April 12, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Inadequate Roadway Classification and Capacity The DEIR classified Graylawn Avenue as a residential roadway with a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips (Page 14-4, DEIR). However, the DEIR misclassified Payran Street as a collector roadway rather than an arterial roadway as classified in City's General Plan (Figure 5-1, Street Classification, City of Petaluma: General Plan 2025, May 2008, Revision Date: January 11, 2012). As a designated arterial roadway, the City of Petaluma Street Standards intends that Payran Street has a capacity of 6,000-25,000 average daily trips (City of Petaluma Department of Engineering Street Standards, Design and Application Guidelines, March 28, 1997). Furthermore, Payran Street topology fits the attributes of a 24ane main street arterial classification in the City's General Plan (Table 5.2-1: Typical Attributes of Different Street Types City of Petaluma: General Plan 2025, May 2008, Revision Date: January 11, 2012). However, the DEIR failed to utilize the above table to compare the attributes of Payran Street and Graylawn Avenue. Our review of street design plans and field visit indicate that both roadways have comparable attributes including lane widths and speed limits (Improvement Plans, Linda Del Mar No. 1 Subdivision, October 16 & 17, 1959). Both streets have 2-20' lanes and 2-10' sidewalks. Therefore, Graylawn Avenue is expected to be able to carry traffic capacity comparable to Payran Street or 6,000 average daily trips at minimum as indicated in the City's Street Standards (6,000-25,000 ADT for arterials). Furthermore, the Petaluma General Plan classifies Graylawn Avenue future extension as a collector roadway, which also supports higher capacity assumptions for this roadway (2,000-6,600 ADT for collectors). Incomplete Alternative Modes of Transportation Analysis The DEIR analysis of alternative modes of transportation is incomplete and does not include any information regarding travel characteristics or mode split of the Petaluma residents (Pages 14-17 to 14- 21, DEIR). The City's General Plan indicates that 72.1% of residents drive alone to work and 27.9% utilize other modes of transportation including carpool, transit, walk, worked at home, bicycle, motorcycle'(Table 3.2-1: Journey to Work by Mode of Travel, Petaluma Residents, City of Petaluma: General Plan 2025, May 2008, Revision Date: January 11, 2012). Furthermore, the Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) is now operational and the Petaluma downtown station is approximately 1.2 miles from the project site; consequently, more residents are expected to shift from driving alone to biking to this station to take the train. Moreover, the DEIR failed to utilize the above mode split ratios to reduce project's trip generation estimates. As a conservative scenario, 28% reduction factor is recommended to be applied to project trip generation. When this factor is applied to project's "Mid -Rase Apartment" trip generation estimate (1,110 daily trips), a lower project trip generation estimate is more appropriate (799 daily trips). 2- " . Mr. Mark Johnson April 12, 2018 Page 6 of 6 In other words, the project's proposed 278 apartments would not cause traffic assigned to Graylawn Avenue to exceed the 2,000 ADT identified in the DEIR (existing ADT of 954 -+- proj ect trips assigned to Graylawn Avenue of 799 = 1,753 vehicles per day). Therefore, Graylawn Avenue is expected to have 247 trips extra capacity after the 278 apartments are built and occupied; the extra street capacity (247 trips) translates to approximately 62 mid -rise additional apartments in addition to the 278 apartments of the Sid Commons Apartments project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this DEIR peer review for you. Sincerely, Transpedia Consulting Engineers Mousa Abbasi, Principal Ph.D., P.E., T.E., P.T.O.E. California Professional Civil Engineer No. 67935 California Professional Traffic Engineer No. 2324 Professional Traffic Operations Engineer No. 1297 Attachment- Grawlawn Avenue/Jess Avenue Intersection Traffic Counts. Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Graylawn Ave & Jess Ave Peak Hour Turning Movement Count ID: 18-08127-001 Graylawn Ave Day: Tuesday City: Petaluma . �� Date: 03/27/2018 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM AM 0 30 8 0 12 O = NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 Y M"QA d PM NOON AM 2 0 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 0 17 1 0 34 AM NOON PM 41 4 4 V 4 M"QA d PM NOON AM 2 0 ( 1 0 0 0 0 ITO 4 0 10 0 3 Iq w WN' ©n ' 0 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM C Z -i NOON NONE m X PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM N b 10 ( 0 1 13 AM NOON PM �'` PM NOON AM I Total Vehicles (AM) PM 21 0 4 � 32 9 PM Bikes (AM) J 0� 4 L NOON O O O` O O NOON + 4 L 0: ti AM 42 0 0 11 5 AM o.+ to Oy� 4.0 0-0 4.. 0 f 2' r 10 NORTHBOUND r" Fo N U'Graylawn Ave 0 0 0 1 Total Vehicles (Noon) Bikes (NOON) Z Z Z Pedestrians (Crosswalks) o —JZ 2 Z L N/A-i� + 4t N/A 00 a z ¢ Q z ai N/A .ice ♦ . ~t N/A N/A-► � a NIA O O NOON N/A �► a N/A N/Ai r N/A .A N a o Co o V- N/A z r N/A " t & D D D ON 0♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 0 NOON D D D Total Vehicles (PM) AM t] fl AM Bikes (PM) o NOON 0 * 0 NOON —j 4J 4 L PM f) ► ♦ n PM __j ; J L O O O O O O ' 4tQ R0.# t2 --;]a O00► 0 O o 0 0.+4.0 03 r 4 O '�, d zz a � zz d a4- O 0 14 <8> r 1 F 4, PM NOON AM 2 0 ( 1 0 0 0 4 0 10 Iq 0 0 0� 1 0 b 10 ( 0 1 13 AM NOON PM �'` PM NOON AM I Total Vehicles (AM) PM 21 0 4 � 32 9 PM Bikes (AM) J 0� 4 L NOON O O O` O O NOON + 4 L 0: ti AM 42 0 0 11 5 AM o.+ to Oy� 4.0 0-0 4.. 0 f 2' r 10 NORTHBOUND r" Fo N U'Graylawn Ave 0 0 0 1 Total Vehicles (Noon) Bikes (NOON) Z Z Z Pedestrians (Crosswalks) o —JZ 2 Z L N/A-i� + 4t N/A 00 a z ¢ Q z ai N/A .ice ♦ . ~t N/A N/A-► � a NIA O O NOON N/A �► a N/A N/Ai r N/A .A N a o Co o V- N/A z r N/A " t & D D D ON 0♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 0 NOON D D D Total Vehicles (PM) AM t] fl AM Bikes (PM) o NOON 0 * 0 NOON —j 4J 4 L PM f) ► ♦ n PM __j ; J L O O O O O O ' 4tQ R0.# t2 --;]a O00► 0 O o 0 0.+4.0 03 r 4 O '�, d zz a � zz d a4- O 0 14 <8> r 1 F 4, A COMPANIES Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner Petaluma Planning Department 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 125 Willow Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 April 16, 2018 Re: Sid Commons Apartment Project Draft EIR, Alternatives 3A and 3B Dear Tiffany: P 650.324.9439 www.acclaimcompanies.com I am a partner at Acclaim Companies which proposes to develop the Sid Commons project for J. Cyril Johnson Investment Corporation. I have deep experience in acquisitions and financing, which I bring to all of the projects we develop and manage. After obtaining my MBA from the Wharton School of Business, I worked for several years at Gold Hill Capital, a $250 million venture fund, where I underwrote early stage technology investments. At Acclaim, I help to manage our existing properties and evaluate the financial viability of potential development opportunities like the Sid Commons project. I am also very familiar with the Petaluma housing market. As you probably know, Acclaim has been active in the Petaluma development community, including Theater Square, Petaluma Villa Apartments, and Oak Creek Apartments. The discussion of Alternatives 3A and 3B in the Draft EIR anticipate that a 79 -unit development that includes the river front terracing to address flood control issues along the Petaluma River is financially feasible when they in fact it is not, For the reasons described below, a 79 -unit development with the river front terracing would not work from a financial perspective. Our analysis shows that a 79 -unit development with riverfront grading would be expected to cost approximately $49 million to develop, or roughly $625,000 per unit. The net operating income of that 79 -unit project in year 1 is $1.8 million. At the standard 5.25% capitalization rate, that is equal to $34 million. In other words, the value of the project when completed ($34 million) is less than the cost to build it ($49 million). A developer could not get a permanent loan for such a project once it was completed, and without the potential to get a permanent loan the project would not get developed. Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner Petaluma Planning Department April 26, 2018 Page 2 The capitalization rate of the 79 -unit project in Alternatives 3A and 3B is less than the capitalization rate would be if we were to purchase an existing building. The capitalization rate for the 79 -unit project in Alternatives 3A and 3B is roughly 3.65%, which is significantly lower than the 5% capitalization rate that most existing projects are trading at currently. Without a capitalization rate of at least 8.0%, most developers would decide against taking on the risk of developing anew project. There is no certainly no reason to take on the risk of developing anew project when the capitalization rate of existing projects is higher. Finally, the debt service coverage ratio for the 79 -unit project would not allow for lender financing. Based on our research and our experience of owning two multifamily projects in Petaluma, the upper limit on a brand new, garden style two-bedroom unit during the lease -up phase is $2,950/month. The upper limit on a garden style one -bedroom unit during a lease -up phase is $2,450/month. The debt service coverage ratio (annual Net Operating Income/annual debt service) lenders require for a garden style project in a bay area submarket such as Petaluma is at least 1.4. The 79 -unit project would have a negative debt service coverage ratio. I hope that this clarifies that the 79 -unit projects discussed under Alternative 3A and Alternative 3B are not financially viable. Far more units would be required to rationalize the cost of developing the project along with the river front terracing. Sincerely, Gary Johnson Partner, Acclaim Companies City of Petaluma Planning Commission 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Sid Commons Apartment Complex April 22, 2018 Dear Commissioners, This letter is submitted in response to the DEIR for the proposed Sid Commons Apartment Complex, located at the terminus of Graylawn Ave. on lands along the upper Petaluma River. I am a resident in the adjacent neighborhood with a home at 36 Jess Ave., behind the flood wall just downstream of the proposed project. In terms of qualifications for reviewing the environmental documents on this project, I have been employed by the County of Marin as a Senior Planner within the Public Works Flood Control Division for 20 years. My work focuses on environmental compliance for public infrastructure projects related to rivers and wetlands. I hold a MA from UC Berkeley in Environmental Planning with a focus on riverine science and watershed restoration. Site Constraints- River Corridor, Floodplain Habitat and Flood Control In terms of density, this is not the place within the City of Petaluma to stake claim for dense urban infill. The land on which the development is proposed contains sensitive wetlands and prized riparian habitat that are highly valuable and irreplaceable. In the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan (pg. 62) this upstream segment of the river corridor is recognized as "the most environmentally sensitive reach of the river... the largest stands of native riparian trees occur in this segment and this riparian grove is recognized as a unique resource to be protected and enhanced." A visitor to the site during the rainy season will see immediately that the floodplain along this reach is covered in wetlands which serve as a sponge to "slow, sink and spread water run-off" before it can reach the river. This currently unpaved, floodplain area serves to protect water quality and delay peak flows which threaten flooding downstream in the downtown area of the City. Heritage oak trees line the channel and the abundant wildlife out there now depends on an intact river corridor for its existence. In summary, any proposed development along this reach needs to go beyond the ordinary in its protection of a healthy floodplain and riparian corridor. These floodplain areas are environmental treasures held in the public trust of the City that provide important environmental services for our community and are absolutely irreplaceable once they are paved over. Density of Development City Planner Tiffany Robbe spent considerable effort defining the various setbacks from the river that are mandated in the City of Petaluma General Plan, the River Access and Enhancement Plan and the FEMA Floodplain maps. As shown on various maps throughout the DEIR, the proposed development at 279 apartment units with 400 parking spaces encroaches considerably into the river setback areas. Buildings have been placed within the setback and extensive riparian habitat would need to be removed to accommodate structures and construction. Wetlands across the site would be paved over and the level of impermeable surface created by this density of development will cause run-off to reach the river almost immediately with little room to "slow, sink and spread" before it reaches the channel. This would cause negative impacts to water quality and poses a flood risk of increased peak flows in the downtown area. There is just not enough space on the property to accommodate this level of development while creating any type of meaningful bio -engineering solutions such as vegetated swales, detention ponds or man-made wetlands. In my analysis, the proposed density of 279 apartment units with 400 parking spaces on this highly sensitive property would create unmitigatable impacts that cannot be avoided. Floodplain Terracing and Density of Development The proposed project and several of the Alternatives include terracing of the right river bank for flood control purposes. The City of Petaluma has been implementing this same terracing approach under grant programs in the upstream reaches of the river. The City is enthusiastic about having the developer include additional terracing as part of the proposed development. Modeling completed by West and Associates (Sid Commons Hydraulic Evaluation memo; Feb 2017) shows that terracing at the project site would have a positive effect on flooding in the immediate area of the 2.. - 2 t project and a less, but still positive effect, on flooding upstream of Corona Road. It also shows a small yet insignificant increase in water surface elevation downstream in downtown Petaluma, due in part to eliminating the sponge -like ability of the floodplain to store water after a storm within the project area. This is a trade-off that the consultants describe that needs to be publicly acknowledged. While I support the idea of including the terracing in the SID Commons project, I am concerned about this increase of flood risk downtown and question whether the modeling, which is based on 2010 FEMA map revisions, takes into account the level of sediment that has built up in the channel over the past eight years. Given my history with working on dredging for flood control in Marin and knowing how the Army Corps is not rising to their responsibilities on funding for these highly expensive projects, I do not believe that the City should make any decisions for development that are based on the need to dredge the river. In particular, if the cost of the terracing put on the developed drives the need to develop the property more densely, a cost benefit analysis need to be further explored and the assumptions behind the modeling need to take into account current river conditions. Therefore I believe that this is an impact that could be significant that has not been fully analyzed. Public Access to the River and Non -Motorized Transportation The proposed trail within the development winds along the river and is described as meeting the River Access and Enhancement Plan goals to provide the public access to the river. I think we need to be very clear however that this trail does not provide actual river access for boating nor does it connect to any other trails along the river or to any other destinations within the City. Anyone wishing to link to shopping areas or the existing river trail system on foot or bicycle will need to travel out of the development and onto busy city streets at Payran which does not have a bike lane. So, while I do believe that a trail along the river area should be a mandated addition for the residents who would live there, I do not believe it should be used as a mitigation for any other external impacts from the project, such as increased traffic or carbon emissions. Traffic Impacts Given the unlikelihood that the crossing at Shasta Ave. will be approved (DEIR Summary), as a resident of the neighborhood accessed by Graylawn Ave., I am concerned that the chosen alternative will increase traffic in this neighborhood to a level unacceptable for the size and rating of the existing streets. The 1984 PUD agreement for the adjacent Oak Creek Development explicitly states that any development on parcel (09) would not be allowed to exit via Graylawn Ave., thus protecting this neighborhood into perpetuity from becoming a thoroughfare for greater development. If the proposed project or any of the alternatives which include parcel (09) are selected, the PUD would need to be revised and Graylawn would be the default recipient of the traffic from the proposed project. Rated for a maximum of 2000 cars per day, the development at 149 units (Alternative 4) doubles existing traffic on this road, taking it to capacity and the proposed project at 279 units takes it way beyond capacity. Thus, the selection of Alternatives is critical in terms of protecting the neighborhood and causing greater traffic impacts on Payran Ave, which is already a dangerous street to navigate during school commute hours. If the PUD is reversed and a project description is selected that puts traffic from the development onto Graylawn and then Pavran Ave., then the DEIR should be recirculated so that residents in the neighborhood and those impacted by increased traffic on Pavran Ave. would be alerted to the transportation issues that this revised project description would bring up. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Give the tidal nature of the Petaluma River and its connection to the San Francisco Bay, I do believe that the DEIR sufficiently analyzed the potential impacts from Sea Level Rise on flooding both in the project area and in the downstream reaches of river impacted by the project. Therefore I believe that the DEIR at this state is incomplete without further analysis of impacts from Sea Level Rise on the project. Sincerely, Kallie Kull; resident of 36 Jess Ave. Petaluma, CA 94952 cc: Tiffany Robbe; City of Petaluma Planning Department Taryn Obaid Property Owner 7 Graylawn Ave. Petaluma, CA 94952 April 24, 2018 Tiffany Robbe Senior Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: 1. Sid Commons Apartment Project 2. Amendment to the Oak Creek Planned Unit Development 3. Related Zoning Map Amendment As a resident of neighborhood of proposed Sld Commons project, I object to a major element of the "Draft Environmental Impact Report" (DEIR) -- in particular, the issue of Graylawn being the project access to the proposed development. I wish to communicate to Planning Commission the following aspect of project is unacceptable and would cause substantial, significant negative impact to the neighborhood. I protest commencing the Sid Commons project without Shasta -Rainier extension on the bases of: 1. Transportation and traffic impact on Graylawn Ave. residents and children at play 2. Cultural impact on Graylawn Ave. residents and children at play 3. Air quality impact on Graylawn Ave. residents and children at play 4. Greenhouse gas emissions impact on Graylawn Ave. residents and children at play 5. Noise impact on Graylawn Ave. residents and children at play Graylawn Avenue is a street with special circumstances. It is a very short predominantly single-family dwelling residential neighborhood with extreme ratio/number of cul de sacs/side streets. 1. Total length of Graylawn Avenue from Payran Ave. to entrance to Sid Commons parcel is 0.1 mile. 2. This is approximately one cul de sac/side street per every two homes on Graylawn Ave. a. Along this 0.1 -mile span, there is a concentration of cul de sacs and/or crossroads --total of five (excluding the SID Commons and current apartment complex and end of Graylawn). i. Contrast: Payran approximately one side street per every 8-10 homes from Washington to Petaluma Blvd. N. 1 Taryn Obaid letter re: opposition to Sid Commons [Note: Graylawn's five includes the shared driveway for the three multi -unit buildings at parcels 44, 48, and 54 Graylawn Ave., which are not actually on Graylawn Ave but are tucked behind houses that are on Northwest end of Graylawn.] 3. Presently, many children play outdoors in the cul de sac and on the short street, crossing back and forth between friends' homes. This is the culture of our neighborhood -- a special and healthy strong characteristic of ours, for which we protest negative impact that would result from developing Sid Commons project using Graylawn Ave, as access. Currently, Graylawn Ave. is burdened with more traffic than it was designed for. In the past year, I have witnessed two unreported car crashes on Graylawn -- in addition to those that were reported to police. The number of cars pulling in and out of the cul de sacs and side streets due to impacts of high real estate (increased household size, numerous legal and non -legal rental units added to houses (eg, garage unit rental) is evident by the numerous two -car -garage homes that have five, seven, or more cars belonging to them. Current Payran traffic is too congested (and fast), causing too much air and noise pollution. DER has troubling biases and/or analysis flaws pertaining to traffic flow impact of project. DER traffic impact analyses use 2007-2008 data, which is before Target Shopping Center and several multi -family complexes were completed -- and before the post -real estate crash housing crunch resulted in increase in household size (legal and illegal rental units; boomerang young adults; etc.). DER shows unacceptable "cumulative + project" traffic LOS even if "proposed" Shasta extension is completed: "F" for Shasta -Petaluma Blvd. (Table 14-11 ) Interestingly, Graylawn-Payran analysis of traffic show little impact -- even though DER Table 14-12 portrays unacceptable Shasta -Petaluma Blvd, traffic of 4,120 trips per day. LOS Grade Changes for AM and PM Peak Hours Existino Cumulative + Project (Table 14-3) (Table 14-11) Shasta -Petaluma Blvd. A/A D/F Graylawn-Payran Ave. B/B C/C Currently, Graylawn has a traffic problem. The DER data and analysis is flawed and under -reports the traffic problem and danger we currently have (too many cars; too fast; long back ups at Graylawn-Payran, especially if there is a train!). Further, I propose using the City's twenty year old (1999) "Street Design and Construction Standards and specifications" generic 2000 trips/day as guideline for Graylawn Ave., given it's short (.01 mile) length and extreme number of cul de sacs/side streets (5) is inappropriate and potentially dangerous to our playing children, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Further, DER cites Developer -agency traffic analysis update conducted Mar -April 2018, which represents biased method and findings of the recent DER traffic impact survey (wires placed on road 2 Taryn Obaid letter re: opposition to Sid Commons -, --'3 Z_ MAr-Apr 2018 to measure number of cars traveling in and out of Graylawn Ave. at Payran), which was conducted over the 7 days of what was for some households "Spring Break." Results of that survey are skewed and under -representative of normal traffic flow because children were out of school and many families were out of town on vacation during Spring Break. DEIR states Graylawn Ave.traffic: "has 954 ADTs, and thus has a maximum remaining capacity of 1,046 ADTs" Residents estimate bias resulting from omission of a minimum of four car trips per day per household with school-age children and young adults (college) -- the number of car trips to and from home for school drop-offs and pick-ups, many parent subsequent return trips home, plus child/youth/adult drop-offs and pick-ups to extracurricular/recreational activities (sports, gym workouts, shopping, etc.). The Graylawn Ave. traffic survey needs to be fielded at a time period concurrent with normal neighborhood/community schedule. Also, analysis needs to account for nature of Graylawn Ave., as the street has special characteristics: 1. Approximately .01 mile in length (less than half the "quarter mile" cited in DEIR) 2. Five cul de sacs and side streets, which is approximately one cul de sac/side street per every two homes (contrast: Payran approximately one per 8-10 homes from Washington to Petaluma Blvd. N.) In conclusion, because there is no guarantee Shasta extension will happen, if project is decided to move forward, I recommend commencing the Sid Commons project: 1. Should not be constructed until AFTER the Shasta Avenue Extension to Rainier Connector is completed. a. PUC contends "new at grade [railroad] crossing to be avoided" (p. 14-25) 2. Graylawn should not be only access or thoroughfare. 3. Traffic survey is re -conducted at a time period concurrent with normal neighborhood/community schedule. Thank you, Taryn Obaid 3 Taryn Obaid letter re: opposition to Sid Commons 2 -St Robbe, Tiffany From: thebikehut@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 9:14 AM To: Robbe, Tiffany Subject: Sid Commons Deir Hi Ms. Robbe, The most recent traffic study was conducted beginning Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. through Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. The study was conducted during Holy Week, Easter Sunday and Spring Break. As a resident at the corner of W. Payran Ave. and Graylawn Ave., I can attest that the traffic was minimal and was not an accurate measure of the normal volume of traffic. West Payran Ave. has become a "thoroughfare" for Petaluma. Graylawn Ave. has become a dangerous street due to the speeding, not obeying the stop sign and it will be a disaster to the neighborhood with the addition of this size project with only one way in and out. Obviously, with the recent fires, this is of great concern. Please consider this at the meeting tonight. Thank you, Donna Smith I object to Sid Commons Apartment Project and related Draft Environmental Impact Report. Proposed project, as that would cause substantial, significant negative impact to the neighborhood, 1. Transportation and traffic impact on Graylawn Ave. residents and children at play 2. Cultural impact on Graylawn Ave, residents and children at play S. Air quality impact on Graylawn Ave. residents and children at play 4. Greenhouse gas emissions impact on Graylawn Ave. residents and children at play 5. Noise impact on Graylawn Ave. residents and children at play Recent DEIR traffic impact survey is biased: • Conducted over the 7 days of our local "Spring Break." Results will be skewed and under - representative of normal traffic flow because children were out of school and many families were out of town on vacation during Spring Break. (DEIR states Graylawn Ave. "has 954 ADTs, and thus has a maximum remaining capacity of 1,046 ADTs.") Further, Graylawn Avenue is a very short and concentrated predominantly single-family dwelling residential neighborhood. 1. Total length of Graylawn Avenue from Payran Ave. to entrance to Sid Commons parcel is 0.1 mile. 1. Along this 0.1 -mile span, there is a concentration of cul de sacs and/or crossroads -- total of five -- excluding the SID Commons and current apartment complex and end of Graylawn Ave. This is approximately one cul de sac/side street per every two homes, a. Note: this includes the shared driveway for the three -plus multi -unit buildings at parcels 44, 48, and 54 Graylawn Ave., which are not actually on Graylawn Ave but are tucked behind houses that are on Northwest end of Graylawn. 2. Presently, many children play outdoors in the cul de sac and on the short street, crossing back and forth between friends' homes. This is the culture of our neighborhood -- a special and healthy strong characteristic of ours, for which we protest negative impact that would result from developing Sid Commons project using Graylawn Ave. as access. Currently, Graylawn Ave. is burdened with more traffic than it was designed for. In the past year, I have witnessed two unreported car crashes on Graylawn -- in addition to those that were reported to police. The number of cars pulling in and out of the cul de sacs and side streets due to impacts of high real estate (increased household size, numerous legal and non -legal rental units added to houses (eg, garage unit rental) is evident by the numerous two -car -garage homes that have five, seven, or more cars belonging to them. Current Payran traffic is too congested (and fast), causing too much air and noise pollution. I recommend either either no project or move proiect with access off to -be -built Rainier Connector. Petition Against Sid Commons Project April2018 Page / 2 Petition Against Sid Commons Project April 2018 Page 2 - M Petition Against Sid Commons Project April 2018 Page 3