Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6.A 12/19/2011 g-enthT Iteww#6 . l (ALr\ ut 285e. • DATE: December 19,2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Geoff I. Bradley,Planning Manager SUBJECT:, A Public Hearing on the Environmental Review for the Existing Conditionally Approved Railroad Crossing on Caulfield Lane and City Council Authorization to Submit for Final Approval for the Railroad Crossing to,the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). RECOMMENDATION It isrecommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution,accepting the Initial Study, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and authorizing the City Manager to file an application with the California Public Utilities • Commission for the re-authorization of the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing project located at Caulfield Lane. BACKGROUND On June 21, 2004, the City of Petaluma filed an application with the.California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting authority, under Public Utility Code 1201-1205, to relocate an at-grade,mainline railroad crossing from Hopper Street,just south Lakeville Highway, to • Caulfield Lane. The intent of,the:relocated railroad crossing was to••improve vehicular access, pedestrian and traffic safety, and traffic circulation for the area in accordance with the approved • 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan. On February 16,2006, the CPUC issued Decision 06-02-036,conditionally authorizing the relocation as requested, and the City proceeded to implement the relocation.to Caulfield Lane and closure at1Hopper_Street-in:2011. CPUC Decision 06-02-036 included'two conditions of approval 1) th'e;Caulfield Lane crossing would need to be re-authorized at the time.that passenger rail service was initiated; and 2) that the City of Petaluma,would make changes to the design or signalization of the intei section of Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane as required by the CPUC's regulati'onsprior,to extending Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street. The conditions required'that any such application include compliance with appropriate environmental review under CEQA. Agenda Review: City Attorney Finance Director City Manage- ! Although the actual date for initiation of passenger rail service has not yet been finalized by SMART,;the filing deadline established by the CPUC for requesting continued authorization of the existing crossing is December 31,2011. Construction was started on July6, 2010 for the new Caulfield Lane crossing. The new, now existing crossing was opened to traffic on.February 8,,2011. The old crossing at Jefferson was closed to traffic on February 11, 2011. DISCUSSION The City has conducted this environmental review to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with permanent authorization of the relocated railroad crossing. The analysis takes into consideration the planned future passenger rail service by SMART, as applicable. The project results in the continued operation of an existing-at-grade rail road crossing and does not involve any physical change in the environment. As a result, almost every category of environmental analysis results'in a-finding of"No Impact". However, in the last section of the Initial Study,,Mandatory Findings of Significance, cumulative impacts must be considered. This requires consideration of known development projects:in process and long term General Plan build out, in addition to the:continued operation of the CaulfieldLane crossing (the project). Under this longer term scenario, one potentially significant impact is identified and two related mitigation measures are proposed. The City's General Plan indicates;that Caulfield Lane will be extended past Hopper Street at a future date, when traffic volumes'warrant. However, the General Plan anticipates that traffic volumes associated with the CaulfieldLane extension would occur only if a new southern crossing of the Petaluma River were constructed. Therefore, the extension of Caulfield Lane is not expected to occur for many years and is not part of the application for grade crossing re- authorization. While the_=Caulfield Lane extension past Hopper Street is not part of the Project, it is evaluated m the Initial Study as part of the General Plan build out cumulative scenario in Section XVIII, Mandatory Findings of Significance. In this cumulative section, one impact and two related mitigation measures were identified: Less-then Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Safety hazards at the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing with a southern crossing in place could arise due to the substantial increase in traffic resulting-in unacceptable;queuing lengths on Caulfield-Lane at Lakeville Highway and insufficient controls at the Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane intersection. These impacts could result in a significant cumulative impact on safety at the Caulfield railroad crossing. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Reduce Queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway At such time that the southern crossing across the Petaluma River is constructed, the City shall ensure that mitigation is required sufficient to reduce the 95th percentile queue length on eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway to 500 feet or less and/or ensure that.vehiclequeuing does-not extend onto the Caulfield Lane rail crossing by the following measures or by equally effective alternative measures adopted in the course of project-level CEQA review for the Caulfield Lane extension/southern crossing project: (i) add a 100-foot long eastbound right 2- turn pocket from Caulfield Lane onto Lakeville Highway; (ii) convert the current left-left/through-right lanes on the westbound approach of Caulfield Lane to single left-through-right lanes; (iii) convert the phasing on Caulfield Lane to protected`phasing, and (iv) add right turn overlap phases on southbound Lakeville Highway and eastbound Caulfield Lane. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. Install Additional,Safety Measures at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane At such-.time as the Caulfield Lane extension/southern crossing of the Petaluma River is constructed, the City shall require installation of a traffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane or an equally effective alternative measure adopted in the course of project-level CEQA review for the Caulfield Lane Extension/southern crossing.project. If the existing median on Caulfield Lane is removed to accommodate additional turn lanes or travel lanes, the City shall install an exit gate on eastbound Caulfield Lane to prevent cars from navigating around the entry gates. The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce'to a less than significant level the potential impact of traffic levels associated with a new southern crossing of the Petaluma River. The MND therefore anticipates that, with the mitigation measures, the at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks would continue to operate safely, even with the traffic expected as a result of anew southern crossing of the river. CPUC:COMMENT LETTER. On December 12, 2011, the City received a comment letter on the MND from the CPUC whIch raised several issues, but t.which requires clarification on specific details. (Attachment 3). Staff and City legal counsel are discussing the comment letter with CPUC staff, but in the meantime, have added responsive material to the draft CPUC application (Attachment 4) in preliminary response. If needed, modifications to the responsive material can be made after clarification from the CPUC. The CPUC issues and interim City responses, pending clarification, are: 1. The current configuration.,of the crossing may not be adequate for re- authorization. 2. The City needs to schedule an on-site diagnostic review of the crossing with the CPUC, SMART and NCRA prior to filing the application. 3. The diagnostic review may or may not recommend additional,treatments to the crossing'that would be needed for CPUC re-authorization. 4. Development of the Riverfrontproject should include funds specifically set aside for mitigating future cumulative traffic impacts at the crossing otherwise;the City will be responsible for future improvements. City response to #1-3: The City, CPUC, SMART and NCRA performed a safety inspection of the crossing on November 29, 2011, with'David.Stewart, the CPUC rail engineer and author of the December 12°' letter, in attendance. If CPUC believes another inspection is required, it will beperfonned. If a second inspection reveals any necessary improvements other than what is already provided for in the MND (none were disclosed,by Mr. Stewart-on November 29'"), the draft application proposes that-they be-made a,condition of approval of any CPUC re-authorization together with a requirement:thafthe City perform additional environmental review, if any is needed. City response to #4: The Riverfront project is not part of the application for re-authorization, but the MND identifies Riverfront as contributing to the need for additional improvements to and around'the rail crossing in the cumulative condition with a southern crossing of the Petaluma River via a Caulfield Lane extension. Standard City practice in reviewing development applications will be followed, which is to condition the project to make its fair share contribution to impacts?directly caused by the project, in,addition to paying traffic development impact fees. The Riverfront project impact is presently based on preliminary traffic studies, and relates to the rail crossing and Caulfield Lane roadway. The City has included in the draft application a proposal that the CPUC condition its re- authorization on the City requiring Riverfront to make the appropriate-financial contribution for identified crossing improvements if a Riverfront project is approved. FINANCIAL;IMPACTS All costs related to the reauthorization request for the Caulfield Lane crossing are being paid by Basin Street Properties through the cost recovery system. This includes planning and legal staff time as well as the environmental review consultant. The total anticipated cost is $100,000. Basin Street has assisted financially with the at-grade relocation project in the past. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution accepting the Initial Study and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and MMRP and authorizing the City Manager to file an application with the CPUC. 2. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. December 12, 2011 letter from CPUC Utilities Engineer David Stewart 4. Draft City application for Caulfield Crossing Re-authorization ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND.MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR THE RE-AUTHORIZATION OF THE CAULFIELD LANE RAILROAD CROSSING PROJECTLOCATED AT CAULFIELD LANE WHEREAS, on June 2.1, 2004, the City of Petaluma filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting authority, under Public Utility Code 1201-1205, to relocate an at-grade mainline railroad crossing from Hopper Street,just south of Lakeville Highway, to Caulfield Lane,just north of Hopper Street; and WHEREAS, the intent of the relocated railroad crossing was to improve vehicular access, pedestrian and traffic safety, and traffic circulation for the area in accordance with the approved 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan ; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2006,the CPUC issued Decision 06-02-036, conditionally authorizing the relocation as requested, and the City proceeded to implement the relocation to Caulfield Lane and closure at Hopper Street in 2011; and WHEREAS, CPUC Decision 06-02-036 included two conditions of approval: 1) the Caulfield Lane crossing would need to be re-authorized at the time that passenger rail service was initiated; and 2) that the City of Petaluma would make changes to the design or signalization of the intersection of Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane as required by the CPUC's regulations prior to extending Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street. The conditions required that any such application include compliance with appropriate environmental review under CEQA; and WHEREAS, constructioneommenced on July 6, 2010 for the new Caulfield Lane crossing and the new crossing was opened to traffic on February 8, 2011. The old crossing at Jefferson Street was closed to traffic on February 11, 2011; and WHEREAS, the project--results in the continued operation of an existing at-grade rail road crossing and does not involve any physical change in the environment; and WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the Initial Study, including but not limited to effects of climate change, water supply, and traffic, the City relied on the program EIR for the city of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified on April 7, 2008 (General Plan EIR) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2008-058 N.C.S., which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Studyfor the proposed Project consistent with Sections 1 5162 and 15163 of Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), and determined that the Project would contribute to one potentially significant effect related to traffic safety hazards at the crossing in thetcumulative condition, which were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study described mitigation;measures sufficient to mitigate said impact to less than significant;and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative;Declaration for the Project based on the analysis and conclusions of the Initial Study which are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a Notice,of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated-Negative Declaration for the Project and providing for thirty day`public,comment period was published on November 17, 2011, posted in compliance-with CEQA and mailed to all residents,and property owners within 500 feet of the Project, to the CPUC, and to TRANSDEF, which wasaparty to the initial proceeding before the CPUC; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2011, the City Council held a.public hearing during which the City Council considered the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all supporting documentation:referenced in the Initial Study, and received and considered all written and oral public comments on,environmental effects of the project which were submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration and the record of proceedings on the Project, and all material referenced and/or incorporated herein are available for public review during normal business hours. The custodian of documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma Community 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 95452, attention: Geoff Bradley. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds and determines as follows: 1. The City Council has reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and all supporting evidence=and documentation, and has considered public comments provided at or before the hearing of this matter. 2. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration,reflect the City Council's independent judgment and analysis as to the effects of the Project on the environment. 3. Based on its review of the entire record herein,;including the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Initial Study, all supporting, referenced,and incorporated documents and all comments received, the City Council finds that.there-is no-substantial evidence that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study and supporting documents provide an adequate:description of the impacts:of the Project and comply with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 4. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference..All.nmitigation measures contained therein shall be conditions of approval of the Project. 5. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to file an application with the California Public Utilities Commission to allow.for the reauthorization of the existing Caulfield Lane crossing. • I [ - 3 • APPENDIX A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PROJECT: RE-AUTHORIZATION OF THE CAULFIELD LANE.RAILROAD CROSSING:PROJECT IMPACT MITIGATION'MEASURE RESPONSIBLE MONITORING TIMING SECTION PARTY RESPONSI- BILITY Hazards & HAZ-1. Reduce'Queuing,on City of Petaluma Planning At such time as Hazardous Eastbound Caulfield Lane at Division the Caulfield Materials Lakeville Highway Lane At such time that the southern extension/south crossing across the Petaluma River -ern crossing of is constructed, the City'shall ensure the'Petaluma that mitigation is required.sufficient River is to reduce the'95th percentile queue constructed. length on eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway to 500,feet or less and/or ensure that vehicle queuing does not extend onto the Caulfield Lane rail crossing by the following measures or by equally effective alternative:measures adopted in thetourse of project- level CEQA review for the Caulfield Laneextension/southern crossing project: (i) add,a 100-foot long eastbound right-turn pocket from Caulfield Lane onto Lakeville Highway; (ii) convert the current left-left/through-right lanes on the westbound approach,of Caulfield Lane to single left-through-right lanes; (iii) convert the phasing on • Caulfield Lane to protected phasing; and(iv) add right turn overlap,phases on southbound Lakeville Highway and eastbound Caulfield Lane. HAZ-2. Install Additional City of Petaluma Planning At such time as Safety,Measures at`Hopper Division the Caulfield Street:and9Caulfiel'd:Lane Lane extension/ At such timeas the Caulfield Lane southern extension/southern croasing.of the crossing of the Petaluma River is constructed, the Petaluma River City shall require installation of a is constructed. traffic.signal at Hopper'Street and Caulfield Lane or an equally Fes-. effective alternative measure adopted in the course of project-level CEQA review for the Caulfield Lane Extension/southern crossing project. lithe existing median on Caulfield Laneis removed to accommodate additional turn lanes or travel lanes, the City shall install an exit gate on eastbound Caulfield Lane to prevent cars from navigating around.the entry gates. A ttc : 2 CITY OF PETALUMA CAULFIELD LANE RAILROAD CROSSING RE-AUTHORIZATION Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration November 17, 2011 Prepared for: w� AL U ? flti gut ��• aP' 4.858 City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, California 94952 Prepared by: tae W INZLER .KELLY ��w 2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150 Santa Rosa, CA 95407 (707)523-1010 a.- ! TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT INFORMATION 1 Introduction 1 Background 4 Project Description 5 Cumulative Projects 5 CEQA Requirements 7 Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required 7 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS•POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 8 DETERMINATION 8 3. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT 9 I. AESTHETICS 9 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES 10 III. AIR QUALITY 12 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 14 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES 16 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 17 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 19 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 21 IX. HYDROLOGY AND.WATER QUALITY 24 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING 26 Xl. MINERAL RESOURCES 27 XII. NOISE 28 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 30 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES 31 XV. RECREATION 32 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 33 XVIL. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 35 XVIII. .MANDATORY"FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 36 4. -LIST OF PREPARERS 50 5. REFERENCES 51 FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 Railroad Crossing Relocation Areas 3 Figure 3 Existing Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing 6 City of Petaluma i Winzler 8 Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MAID 02055-11-00444 W'� 1.. PROJECT INFORMATION • 1. Project Title City of PetalumaCaulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-authorization 2. Project Sponsor/Lead Agency City of Petaluma Name& Address 11 English Street Petaluma, California:94952 3. Contact Person Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager Phone number: (707)778-4387 Email: gbradley(&ci.petaluma.ca.us 4. Project Location The project is located in the City of Petaluma at the existing at-grade railroad crossing'of Caulfield Lane and the Sonoma-Marin Area,Rail Transit District (SMART) mainline railroad tracks at railroad Milepost 5-37.8 (Figure.1). 5. Project Assessor's Parcel Number 005-060-080 (APN) 6. General Plan Designation Mixed Use 7. Zoning Thoroughfare District (D-4) - Central Petaluma Specific Plan 8. Description of Project The City of Petaluma is requesting continued authorization of the existing railroad crossing at Caulfield Lane, north of Hopper Street. INTRODUCTION On June 21, 2004, the City of Petaluma filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting authority, under Public Utility Code 1201-1205, to relocate an at-grade mainline railroad crossing from Hopper Street just south of Lakeville Highway, to Caulfield Lane, just north of hopper Street (Figure 2). The intent of the,relocated railroad crossing was to improve vehicular access, pedestrian and traffic safety, and traffic circulation for the area in accordance with the approved 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan (Central Petaluma SpecificPlam'-2003). On February 16, 2006, the CPUC issued Decision 06-02-036, conditionally authorizing the relocation as requested (CPUC 2006), and the City proceeded to implement the relocation to Caulfield Lane and closure at Hopper Street in 2011. CPUC Decision'06-02-036 included two conditions of approval: 1) the Caulfield Lane crossing would need to be re-authorized at.the,time that passenger rail,service was initiated;.and 2)that the City of Petaluma would make changes to the design or signalization of the intersection of Hopper Street and Caulfield as required by the CPUC's regulations prior to extending Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street. The conditions required that any such application include compliance with appropriate environmental review under CEQA. City of Petaluma 1 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 Is/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 ^3 ��_ t SONUiL+1ti -LA_,SRU r. COUN"TYtf. . • • :— — A. �r,•1�,r,<. r r —1 ' -- 94 'IT •Th kti �b� ev-u v- otr T - ,-y t .7,,• .• -•'�.b,— - S,s,.tk i % f K-p k •. ' • x s CI :. E'' } `+4v ,ti� ..;„ t +ir,! s .•-' ' I.',"..J +' .4i �•r n r "?.::;:::-.4.5• ?j21r„»'-YyY+Ci.c." .`.+o._ 0,-,: ••- .+ .Grp X.• ,}\J'.:w, , .l �: Sr''l t... P{�nw+'+•� r?. "'Px'PJ a:".... ._;.• t: 4.-.;-* .. .# mot,. >..r .. ta. . X.tTes s.zi '.gr:'4.,•:e ' r `- e. ':r•.'..• 1.. .� i, •i' .�..4i "v 1,ti.J r '.�- `, .•:;.:``�..as-;:>.ti•,^;;.,. .3;. :f,.,Ty�'„'�k5 dl..:.:•'�.- XT M1 c}."*•y.^ .i . - t ef,. ;�'2' .. r.;"• i.•.:, .:• ., '.fi,/""cry{•.. rrY t.,.,�, P•; R•+ QJ f > r ZF i•,T-z..Kw+/F 1 X A ti-;:::1 ..,:he.,,......-..-'a %44 .- `. y (t•1/4,1••••.:k x t,v/vy� .:: r :!� l.� ;rri v f '...% ' J d, v Titi'!4;•"t7.:L. !• c sf' n .{y'4(i.� .t4., + ..Ir \ X� R• Yii.Si`r��Tatrrr..'�. ..w.... gg�;;{�� .(. •f.`.fi .�yg..e t ry i_ , • 'L co:Ark;z'A.. ?'•'ee?..0-..i:4t: ; }`�\ '•c. X kfP,7l'ea b�J^ iAi 4• ,•, aye_ .•RS . d'r.v^ .�. s'k]'{.• - _•l�btr.t4 /�. f.+."•. .'V r„L•. .l�r "f2i •.�i fY tf #•,',r } ;v ° N. ; fix...�..�, <,-.4 .•r•,r7,,,...w s' ;•a ti--,-'i,t-d""C` ;+ :••1 r{' + .t pr�jl ! r • nc1i•,�•_ y .?�.• A:.. k...r •y,+... 4. b a"L �+ w.• �`. g ,'s , fit:qt.':^fr •.+' ' r.r¢„ —"' �a rill- �'' ,'S% j' V S�I o• VV•LL ir' ,t r , '+tom ca e $1 yy.',,�4 .q.i 77(( Ft t `• r £974•,; Ott ,.. . R U ' .. : yfi '•'fkr.:::'' o- +�'`jt.1,'S;4�r. r...- _ 5' fie. `��f• y:!� x .'x.' rte. - F■ r O J1P r+t�j Y D-/ `ry s :'r;~. a,`L•s 1 !ti .gi A I - tt. .••, u" T 1 0 o Figure 1 E Not to Scale Vicinity Map r Ts a- �. Caulfield Lane Railroad / \ Source:Image:(c)2011',Goo91e CrossingRe-authorization i Earth;Imagery Dated Oct..2009 h N x Cartography Date Project# WINZI'ER�i KELLY RMR 10/19/2011 0205911007 www.w-and-k:com s a- 4 RIIaN 9,aRU{M g cu' i �I - I �Y J - ,...V G t CO C LL ._ o z t. i5 � - - O m m - U i� r r�. Imo.JIa _ .. - pC { _ p•-. / Yr� r'I [. 1 S 1 lY Yyl 'f" 7` °o . h H _� h ✓1 ` ice.{ 7_ h —, _ �f N• - N S 'n•)--, - - Jf -.f �- o m a m n gyp. as,r f F a ❑ D r5. if4 ., NW L j�. A l P }�'. -� J r �f -- ��z • ra • f J j' � Y _ 6) U r � . i ti o l c - . - -� „. r 7' . •k t . • A. . ,J / i 1. lr.• c. eft. I! a• 5fl L w• et.i ,�, te. rk: • v E ill' t r';' e • -• l - .. ur� '' ` = Cn N'. Q O z 1. 0' Though the actual date-for initiation of passenger rail service has not yet been finalized by SMART, the current filing deadline established by the CPUC for requesting continued authorization of the existing crossing is December 31, 2011. Thus the City istinitiating this environmental review to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with permanent authorization of the relocated railroad crossing. The analysis will take into consideration the planned future passenger rail service by SMART, as"•applicable. The City's General Plan indicates that Caulfield Lane will be extended past Hopper Street at some future time, when traffic volumes warrant; however, the extension of Caulfield Lane is not expected to occur for many years and is not part of the application for grade crossing re-authorization. While the Caulfield Lane extension past Hopper Street is not part of the Project, it is evaluated in this Initial Study as part of the General Plan buildout cumulative project in Section XVIII, Mandatory Findings of Significance. BACKGROUND On June 3, 2003, the Petaluma City Council approved the CPSP and certified an accompanying Final EIR (SCH Number 2002-112-039). Section .6 (Circulation) of the 2003 CPSP provides transportation system goals, objectives, and policies for, development;within Central Petaluma. The following policy from Section 6 of the CPSP called for an additional at-grade railroad crossing at Caulfield Lane. Policy 1.4 of CPSP: Pursue an;additional at-grade railroad crossing at Caulfield Lane An additional railroad crossing should be pursued by the City to provide access to the planned Caulfield Lane station as well as the planned Caulfield Lane extension. Consideration should be given to "trading" existing crossings that are no longer needed for the new crossing. The 2003 EIR for the CPSP evaluated three alternative scenarios and identified two significant traffic impacts. Impact 6-3 is a significant cumulative impact at the East Washington Street and Highway 101 Southbound Ramps intersection, where buildout of the CPSP would decrease the level of service during peak hours. Mitigation Measure 6-3 of the CPSP EIR was found to reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels and was adopted by City Resolution No. 2003-104 as follows: "Mitigation for this imp act shall include providing dual right-turn lanes at the southbound ramp and dual lefts on the westbound approach on Washington Street." Impact 6-4 is a significant cumulative impact at the Lakeville Street and Caulfield Lane, intersection, where buildout of the CPSP would decrease the level of service during peak hours. Mitigation Measure 6-4 was found to reduce impacts, but level of service delays during both AM and PM peak hours remained significant unavoidable impacts. Mitigation Measure 6-4 was adopted by City Resolution No 2003-104 as follows: "Mitigation for this impact shall include providing an exclusive right-turn lane for the southbound approach on Lakeville Street and dual right-turn lanes for the westbound approach on Caulfield Lane." Petaluma adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding the significant unavoidable environmental impacts of the project were outweighed by the benefits of the CPSP. As part of the application to the CPUC for the relocated crossing, the City of Petaluma investigated whether a grade-separated crossing was feasible at.Caulfield,Lane. The City concluded that a grade-separated crossing (either an underpass or an overpass) could not be successfully implemented at this location due to the need for substantial additional right-of-way owned by adjacent property owners and substantial obstacles to access at both developed and vacant adjacent parcels (Steven J. Lafranchi Associates 2006). On February 16, 2006, the CPUC issued Decision 06-02-036, conditionally authorizing the at-grade railroad crossing relocation and:adopting Mitigation Measures 6-3 and 6-4 of the 2003 CPSP Final EIR and Petaluma's I The Cumulative No Project Scenario (under which the CPSP would not be adopted); the Cumulative Plus Project Scenario I; and the Cumulative Plus Project Scenario 2. City of Petaluma 4 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re.-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed'MND 02055-11-004 • Statement of Overriding Considerations for purposes of their approval. The relocated crossing at Caulfield Lane . (Milepost 5-37.8)and closure of the crossing at Hopper (Milepost 5-38.3) were completed in 2011. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Petaluma is requesting that the CPUC grant continued,authorization of the existing Caulfield Lane at- grade crossing of SMART's Mainline railroad tracks (Figure 3). The crossing was relocated in 2011, and included grading, paving, signage, striping, and utility installation and relocation. At its existing point of crossing, Caulfield Lane is a four-lane public street with Class II bicycle lanes'in both directions, and two sets of SMART railroad tracks run.across Caulfield Lane. The crossing is designed to allow a third set of railroad tracks in the future. The crossing is located,approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 116(Lakeville Highway)and approximately 0.3 miles north of the Petaluma River. The existing warning and safety devices on the southwest side of the crossing include two entry gates with . flashers to block traffic from Hopper Street into eastbound2 Caulfield Lane. Existing warning+and safety devices on the northeast side of the crossing include one entry gate with flashers, a cantilevered section with flashers,and a landscaped median approximately I00 feet long. No additional improvements to the existing railroad crossing are proposed as part of the request for continued authorization. Therefore, the Project.would not require any soil disturbance or cause physical changes to the environment commonly associated'with construction activities. No changes are proposed to the operation of the crossing. The crossing has functioned successful and safely since its construction, and no operational changes are needed or proposed. • CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Cumulative impacts are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase. environmental impacts" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Cumulative projects include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. A condition of approval of CPUC Decision 06-02-036, which granted authorization for construction and operation of the railroad crossing at Caulfield Lane, was that the City apply to the'CPUC for continued authorization of the crossing prior to initiation of passenger rail service by SMART. This Initial Study, therefore, evaluates the potential for cumulative impacts to result from initiation ofpassenger,rail-service: The City of Petaluma Community Development Department has recently received an application for the Riverfront Mixed Use Development Project (Riverfront Project), to be located southeast of the relocated railroad crossing. If approved and constructed, the Riverfront Project would result in,additional vehicle traffic using Caulfield Lane and the railroad crossing. Therefore, this Initial Study evaluates the potential for cumulative impacts to result from construction of the Riverfront Project. Another condition of approval of CPUC Decision 06-02-036 was that that the City of Petaluma would make changes to. the design or signalization of the intersection of Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane as required by the CPUC's regulations prior to extending Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street. The General Plan identifies that the ultimate configuration of Caulfield Lane will include a connection to Petaluma Boulevard South via a "southern crossing" over the Petaluma River. The General Plan describes the southern crossing project as the "Caulfield Lane Extension", the purpose of which would be to reduce traffic congestion along the D Street and Washington corridors. Caulfield Lane would then extend past Hopper Street. 2 To maintain consistency with the Petaluma General,Plan and the City's traffic model,Caulfield Cane is described as running east/west and Lakeville Highway as running north/south. City of Petaluma 5 Winnler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re--Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a- 9- M1IIaN 4 Jguyv,a, a „ G @ `e° co al -- x • . . VJ O l J C N E — N "3 6 v O . - M m 0 K s V� o N N _ _,7 6 (� N W N U tr N _ C _ c �NNNj I Y IC_ i 9 1 _ Q m 5 0) 1 0 o , � � x •` ` o 4. r` 't U Y 1 � .� ) O �J • - '''-4 d - { - mm d N■ an ' k R — E ..I V ii Z i 1\l d • N L � •W 1 m ¢ m ! i 11 U - - i m @ 1 __ W �� o w • ,R r I' i - n d O C.) I r. m o �l ,mac u.i -....�� r � • Y r ir+ •C A Z.. H 1 1 L rl. 1. • I ,F • � a � _� •a 1 as`, [L .,r o _ a- S The extension of Caulfield.Lane is not expected to occur for manyyears_'and is not part of the application for re- authorization. While the Caulfield Lane extension past Hopper Street:is not part of the Project, it is evaluated in this Initial Study as part of the General Plan,buildout cumulative;project. A summary description.of these three cumulative projects is provided;and cumulative impacts are evaluated in Section XVIII, Mandatory Findings of Significance,of this Initial Study. CEQA REQUIREMENTS This project is subject to the requirements,of the California Environmental Quality (CEQA). The CEQA lead agency is the City of Petaluma. Prior to making a decision to approve the project, the City must identify and document the potential significant environmental effects of the project in accordance with CEQA. This IS/Proposed MND has been prepared under the direction of the City to fulfill the CEQA requirements. The purpose of this Initial Study is to provide a basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report a Mitigated Negative Declaration or a Negative Declaration. This IS/Proposed MND is intended to satisfy the requirements of the CEQA (Public Resources Code, Div 13, Sec 21000-21177), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations. Title 14, Sec 15000-15387). CEQA encourages lead agencies and applicants to modify their projects to avoid significant adverse impacts. Section 15063(d)of the State CEQA Guidelines states the content requirements of an Initial Study as follows: 15063(d)Contents. An Initial Study shall contain in brief form: (I) A description of the project including the location of the project; (2)An identification of the environmental setting; (3) An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; (4)A discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any; (5) An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; (6)The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study. PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED California Public Utilities Commission = The City of Petaluma would need to apply to the CPUC for re- authorization of the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing. City of Petaluma 7 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED • The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑. Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral.Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Finding of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be-a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT-REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL,IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an EARLIER EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions.or mitigation measures that are imposed-upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. / ! Signature J 9 >v-. Date Name,title City of Petaluma 8 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 fS/Proposed.MND 02055-11-004 a- o 3. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation (neon oration I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse'effect on,a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources,:including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state ✓ scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ✓ the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ✓ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: I. a & c)Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista or Degrade Existing Visual Character—No impact The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing is-located at-grade in an urban setting, within the Lower Reach Subarea of the Central Petaluma Specific.Plan. It is surrounded by industrial and commercial development. Additionally, views of the ridgelike and hillside are visible from the Project site, and the site is identified as a "Visible Area" for view sheds of the ridgeline and hillsides (General Plan Draft EIR 2006). However, because the Project (continued authorization of the existing crossing) does not include any physical changes at the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing, there would be no impact to existing scenic vistas or degradation of existing visual character of the site.No impact would occur. I. b) Damage Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway—No Impact No state scenic highways are present in the Project area (California Department of Transportation 2011). In addition, no locally designated scenic roadways are present in the area (General Plan 2008). The Project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway or locally designated scenic roadway. No impact would occur. I. d)New Source of Lightror Glare—No Impact No physical changes would;occurto the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing site. The Project does not include any new features that would introduce a hew source of light or glare.No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 9 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 3--11 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant. Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the project: (In determining :whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies:may • refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining-whether impacts to forest resources,,including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology proyided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California.Air Resources Board.) a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared ✓ pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring.Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ✓ Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), ✓ or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? - - d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to ✓ non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to ✓ non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion: II. a) Convert Farmland—No Impact Maps prepared pursuant to the State's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program categorize the Project site as "Urban and Built-Up Land" (California Dept. of Conservation 2010). Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique fan-filth-id,or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 10 Winzler 8 Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 IL b&c) Conflict with Existiiig Zoning—No Impact The Project would not conflict with agricultural or forest land,zoning•or Williamson Act contracts. The Project site is zoned as Thoroughfare District (D-4), and no Williamson Act;contracts are in place on the Project site (Implementing Zoning Ordinance 2008). No impact would occur. H. d.& e)Convert Forest Land—No Impact The Project is located in an urban area. There is no forest land or timberland present at the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land, or involve other changes in the existing environment which would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur. • City of Petaluma 11 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 2• 713 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Inter'oration III. AIR QUALITY Would the project: (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) a, Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ✓ existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an ✓ applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (Including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a. substantial number of people? Discussion: III. a) Conflict with or Obstruct Applicable Air Quality Plan—No Impact The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (Guidelines) sets forth established criteria for determining a project's consistency with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan) (BAAQMD 2011). The.BAAQMD.considers a project consistentwith the Clean Air Plan if: 1) it can be concluded that a project supports the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan [by showing that the project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts]; 2) a project includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan, and;3) a project does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any Clean Air Plan control measure. The primary goals of the Clean Air Plan are to protect air quality, public health, and the climate. Because the Project would not result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact (refer to Impacts III. b., c., d, and e. and VII. a. and b. below), the project would be in supgort of the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan. The 2010 Clean Air Plan includes 55 control measures in five categories: stationary and area sources, mobile source, transportation control, land use and local impacts, and energy and climate. As this Project does not involve construction or a change in operation, none of these control measures are applicable to the Project. In addition,the Project would not preclude an extension of a transit-line, bike path or any other proposed control measures. Therefore the Project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 12 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a— cf III. b) Violate Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to.Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation—No Impact The Project site is located in,,the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin). The Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for suspended particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) and ozone precursors including reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrous oxides (NOx). However, the Project does not involve any construction activities or changes in operation and therefore would not create any new emissions. No impact would occur. III. c) Result in Cumulatively`Consideralile Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for which the Region is Non-Attainment—No Impact Because no increase in Project emissions would occur, no contribution would occur to criteria pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment. III.d) Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations—No Impact No construction activities would occur at the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing; therefore, no construction-related impact would occur. As summarized under Impact Ill. b_above, no operational-related impacct would occur as the quantity of emissions fronrthe continued operation of the railroad crossing and the effect on the Air`Basin would remain the same as the existing.condition. III. e) Create Objectionable Odors—No Impact No construction activities would occur at the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing, therefore,no construction-related odors would occur. Project operation would not expose sensitive receptors to objectionable odors, as the Project does not include any objectionable odors, and does not include the siting of anew sensitive receptor. No impact would occur. • City of Petaluma 13 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-1.1-004 a �es Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant, Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a; Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications; on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, ✓ policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ✓ policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but • ✓ not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native ✓ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ✓ ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of.an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation.Plan, or other approved ✓ local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: IV. a & d) Impacts to Special-Status Species or Migration—No Impact The Caulfield Lane,railroad crossing is located in an urban setting, and the site is entirely developed with paving, concrete sidewalks or rail tracks, with no trees, shrubs or other vegetation. No construction activities or operational changes would occur at the crossing. Therefore the continued-authorization of the crossing would not modify existing habitat or wildlife,corridors, or otherwise result in new adverse impacts to special-status species. No impact would occur. IV. b& c)Riparian or Sensitive Natural Community and Wetlands—No Impact The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing;is located at-grade in an urban setting. As`the crossing site is entirely developed, there are no riparian areas, sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands present on site. Potential wetlands are adjacent to,the site in a drainage channel, but would not be affected by the Project, as no construction or changes in operation are proposed. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 14 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 IV. e& I)Conflict with,Local Policies or Ordinances or Habitat Conservation Plan—No Impact No construction activities or physical changes would occur at Caulfield Lane railroad crossing site. The site is entirely developed and no trees are present. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan exists for the Project area. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 15 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a- 19- • Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation incorporation V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 'a historical resource as defioed'in §1'5064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to, 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: V. a, b,c& d) Historical and Archaeological Resources—No Impact No surface or subsurface disturbance'would occur at the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing site due to the Project. Therefore no impact to historical or archaeological resources, paleontological;resources, unique geologic features, • or human remains would occur. .Refer to Section XVIII of this Initial'Study for a discussion of cumulative impacts of SMART rail service,the Riverfront project, and General Plan buildout relative to cultural resources. City of Petaluma 16 Winzler 8 Kelly Caul field Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 ar. Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the. most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on- other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? ./ iv) Landslides? ./ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ./ c. Be located on a geologic unit'or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a'result of the project, and potentially ✓ result in on, or off, site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life ✓ or property? e. I-lave soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers ✓ are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion: VI.a.i) FaultRupture—No Impact The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed-in 1972 to mitigate the,hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy: This act prohibits the location of structures designed for human occupancy across active faults:and regulates construction within fault zones. The Project site is not located in an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Geological Survey 2010). No known active or potentially active faults traverse the Project site(General Plan 2008). The Project does not involve construction activities, or-the development of any structures for human occupancy. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or increased exposure of people or structures to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 17 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 C9-19 VI.8.ii& a.iii) Ground Shaking and Liquefaction—No Impact The Project is located in.an area;of very strong seismic ground,shaking and moderate liquefaction susceptibility (ABAG 2003, 2007). However, the Project does not include any ground disturbance;or physical changes at the site, or any changes to operations. Therefore, the exposure of people to ground shaking and liquefaction would not change. No impact would occur. VI. a.iv) Landslides—No Impact The site is located on relatively flat ground. The Project area is.not identified as an area that is susceptible to landslides (General Plan Draft EIR 2006). No impact would occur. VI. b) Soil Erosion or Loss of Top'Soil—No Impact The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing is fully developed. No construction activities would occur at the site, therefore no soil erosion or loss of topsoil would occur. No impact would occur. VI. c & d) Unstable and Expansive Soil—No Impact The Project site is underlain by clear lake clay soil (USDA 2011). Clear lake clay soil has a high shrink-swell potential (Miller 1972). However,.the Project does not involve any construction activities, so the Project would not cause soil to become unstable. The Project does not include any physical changes at the site. Therefore, the Project would not result in.new or increased exposure of people or°'structures to expansive or unstable soils. No impact would occur. VI:e) Septic Tanks—No Impact No septic tanks or alternative waste-water disposal systems are proposed as part of the Project. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 18 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 ao Potentially Less-Than- I Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion: Unlike emissions of criteria and tonic air pollutants, which have focal or regional impacts, emissions of greenhouse gases(GHGs) that contribute to global warming or global climate change contribute toward a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the eaith's atmosphere. The principal GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide(CO2). methane (CHq), nitrous oxide (N20), and fluorinated compounds. These gases allow visible and ultraviolet light from the sun to pass through the atmosphere, but they prevent heat from escaping back into space. Among the potential implications of global warming are rising_sea levels, and adverse impacts to public health, water supply, water quality; agriculture, forestry, and habitats. In addition, global warming may increase electricity demand for cooling, decrease the availability of hydroelectric power, and affect,regional air quality and public health. Like most criteria and toxic air pollutants, much of the GHG production comes from motor vehicles. GHG emissions can be reduced td some degree by improved coordination of land use and transportation planning on the city, county, and sub regional level, and other measures to reduce automobile use. Energy conservation measures also can contribute'to-reductions in GHG emissions(BAAQMD 2011). The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines(Guidelines) contain the following applicable components: • Criteria and thresholds for determining whether a project may have a significant adverse GHG impact: GHG operational thresholds for projects are compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or 1,100 metric tons(MT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year; or 4.6 MT CO2, per service population (residents plus employees)per year. • Specific procedures and modeling protocols for quantifying and analyzing GHG impacts. • Methods available to mitigate GHG impacts. The City is part of Sonoma County's Community Climate Action, spearheaded by the Climate Protection Campaign, and is working with other local cities to facilitate the reduction of GHG emissions by 25% below 1990 levels,.by"2015. As part of the General Plan, the City compared 2005 GHG emissions (baseline:.for the General Plan) to 2025 emissions (buildout of the General Plan). The analysis determined that taking into account emissions savings from programs identified in-the climate change section of the General Plan; as well as State reduction measures that apply to the local level, the implementation of the General Plan would decrease GHG emissions relative to 2005 levels (Revised General Plan EIR 2008). A GHG Emissions Reduction Action Plan Analysis (Action Plan Analysis) for the City was also completed in 2009. The.Action Plan Analysis evaluates five measure-specific plans to reduce GHG emissions, and eventually will be used to develop a Climate Action Plan for the City. VII. a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions—No Impact The Project does not involve construction activities; therefore no construction-related GHG emissions would occur. Operationally, the railroad crossing does not directly generate GHG emissions. However, indirect GHG emissions include electricity to operate the gates and warning lights. Because no physical changes or operational City of Petaluma 19 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a -mil change are proposed by theProject, there'would be no increase in existing GHG emissions. No impact would occur. Refer to Section XVIII,of.this Initial°Study for a discussion of cumulative impacts of SMART rail service, the Riverfront project, and General Plan buildoutrelative,to.GHG emissions: VII. b) Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy,4r Regulation—No Impact As stated above, the City of Petaluma has adopted GHG emission reduction policies in the General Plan 2025 and evaluated GHG emissions reduction measures in the GHG Emissions Reduction Action Plan Analysis Report. No physical changes would occur at the site, and the railroad crossing would continue to operate under existing conditions. None of the policies of reduction measures are pertinent to a.railroad crossing; therefore the Project would not:conflict with existing plans and policies. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 20 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield`Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 �.-ate Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ✓ materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ✓ involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste Within one quarter mile ✓ of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section ✓ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ✓ public use airport; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the,project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in ✓ the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ✓ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are ✓ adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: VIII. a & b) Hazardous Materials—No Impact The Project does not include any changes to the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing;therefore the exposure to the public or the environment through the transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials would not change. No impact would occur. Refer to Section XVIII of this Initial Study for a discussion of cumulative impacts of SMART rail service, the Riverfront project, and General Plan buildout relative to hazardous materials and rail crossing safety. City of Petaluma 21 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 VIII::c) Emit Hazardous Materials'withiu0.25 Mile of a School—:No Impact There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the Caulfield Lane railroad:crossing/site(General Plan 2008). No impact would occur. VIII. d) Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites—No.Impact The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) is a planning document used to comply with CEQA requirements for providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. A search of the Cortese List was completed'to,determina.if any known hazardous waste facilities exist on or adjacent to the Project site. No hazardous-waste facilities or environmental'cleanup sites were recorded for the Project site. However, there are several environmental cleanup sites located within 0.25 mile of the crossing, as shown in Table HAZ-1. TABLE HAZ-1 CLEANUP SITES WITHIN %MILE OF PROJECT SITE Property Name Address Cleanup Type Cleanup Status McPhail's Inc 1000 Lakeville St Leaking Underground Completed—Case Closed Storage Tank(LUST) Barta Hide 896 Lakeville St Cleanup Program Site Completed—Case Closed Lakeville Shell 1001Lakeville!St LUST Open—Verification Monitoring Courtesy-Auto & Truck 1051-A-Lakeville St LUST Open- Inactive Rep Don's-Plumbing 1004 Lakeville St LUST Completed—Case Closed Kaiser Sand & Gravel 950 Lakeville St LUST Completed—Case Closed G &C Autobody 896 Lakeville St LUST Open—Site Assessment Pomeroy,J.H. & Co. 500 Hopper St. LUST Completed—Case Closed • While there are several open cases near the Project site; the Project would not'involve any construction activities or ground disturbance. Therefore, there would be no potential to encounter contaminated soil or groundwater at the Project site. No impact would occur. VIII. e fl Safety Hazard for People Residing or Working Within 2 Miles of an Airport—No Impact The railroad crossing is located within two miles of the Petalunia Municipal Airport, but is not located within an airport land use plan. No construction activities would occur at the site, and the Project does not include the development of new structures or housing. No impact would,occur. VIII. g) Impair or Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response/EvacuationPlan—No Impact No construction activities would occur and no operational changes would be made to the Project site. Therefore, there would be no temporary or permanent impact to existing emergency or evacuation routes or plans. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 22 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 • IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 VIII. h) Exposure to Wildland Fires—No Impact The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing site;is located in an area.idehtified;as.Community at Risk to wildland urban interface fire threat (ABAG 2003). However, the continued operation of the railroad crossing does not include any changes to the crossing or any other new development: Therefore, the exposure of people or structures to wildland fires would not change. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 23 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a -as Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant. Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ✓ requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing ✓ nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ✓ in a manner which would resultdn substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ✓ or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which-would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ✓ substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade Water quality? ✓ g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a • federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map,or ✓ other flood hazard delineation Map? h. Place within a I00-year floodhazard area structures which would ✓ impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss; injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the ✓ failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ✓ City of Petaluma 24 Winzler 8 Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a --acs Discussion: IX. a)Violate Water Quality`Standards—No Impact The Project does not include any construction activities. The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing site is fully developed, and no physical changes to the site or site drainages would occur. The Project does not involve the discharging of waste or water. No impact would occur. IX. b) Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Groundwater Recharge—No Impact The Project site is fully developed. The Project would not include any construction activities or physical changes at the site There would be no increase in impervious surface. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. The Project would not use groundwater supplies, and therefore would not substantially deplete those supplies. No impact would occur. IX.c,d,e,& 1)Alter Drainage Patterns or Degrade Water Quality—No Impact The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing site is entirely developed:. There would be no construction activities or physical changes at the Project site, therefore there would be no impact,to existing water quality. Because there would be no ground disturbance and no alteration of existing ground surfaces, there would be no change to the existing drainage patterns which could.result in erosion or increased runoff rates at the Project site. Because there would be no physical changes at the site, the Project would not provide,additional runoff to the existing storm drainage system. No impact would occur. IX. g& h)Place Housing and Structures Within a 100-Year Flood Zone—No Impact The Project site is located within.a 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA 2008). However, the Project would not place housing within the flood zone, and does not include the construction of new structures that could impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur: IX. i) Flooding From a Levee or Dam Failure—No Impact The Project site is not located within a dam failure inundation area(ABAG 1995). No impact would occur. IX.j) Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami,or Mudflow—No Impact The Project site is not near any isolated bodies of water, and thus is not subject to inundation by seiche, which are seismically-induced waves in lakes and reservoirs. The Project site is not downgradient of a debris-flow source and therefore is not subject to mudflows (ABAG 1997). The Project site is not subject to potential tsunami impacts, which are large ocean waves induced by seismic activity, because it is not in a tsunami evacuation area (ABAG 2009). No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 25 Winzler & Kelly Caul field Lane Railroad Crossing‘Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a- 174- Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a. Physically divide an established.community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan; policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,. ✓ or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ✓ community conservation plan? Discussion: X. a) Physically Divide an Established Community—No Impact The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing provides a connection between. Caulfield Lane and Hopper street. No physical changes would occur at the site. Therefore, the continued operation'of the railroad crossing would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. X. b) Conflict with Applicable;Land Use Plans, Policies or Regulations--'No Impact The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing ,general plan land use designation and zoning are Mixed Use and Thoroughfare District(D-4), respectively. Tlfa„Caulfield Lane railroad-crossing would remain a railroad crossing and would not result in a Change in land use patterns or conflict with existing general plan designation and zoning. No impact would occur. X.c) Conflict with any Applicable:Habitat Conservation Plan—NO impact No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural.Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan exists for the Project site.. The;City's General Plan•and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan(CPSP) have policies related to,the conservation of natural and sensitive habitats. Relevant policies from the General Plan include policies to protect and enhance the Petaluma River and its tributaries and to conserve wildlife ecosystems and sensitive habitats. Relevant policies-from-the CPSP include policies to enhance the habitat of Thompson Creek and.a portion of a new planned park, and policies to maintain natural habitat • wherever possible along the Petaluma river edge: Because no!construction or operational changes are proposed • by the Project, the Project would not conflict with any habitavconservation plans or policies. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 26 Winzler .6 Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a —ag Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ✓ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific ✓ plan or other land use plan? Discussion: 'XI. a & b) Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource of Value to the Region or Delineated by a General Plan,Specific Plan or other Land:Use Plan—No Impact No known mineral resources or locally-important mineral resources occur at the Project site (Sonoma County 1998). No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 27 Winzler & Kelly Caul field Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a -dm Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels ill excess of standards established in die local general-plan or noise ordinance, ✓ or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne ✓ vibration or ground borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ✓ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic;increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ✓ project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ✓ airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity.of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ✓ excessive noise levels? Discussion: Surrounding roadways and the railroad'contribute to existing ambient<noi"se levels at the Project site. The Project site experiences noise levels within the range of 65-70 dBA due to the proximity of Lakeville Highway, punctuated by occasional, temporary noise events from railroad operations (General Plan 2008). Noise from the railroad includes the operation of freight trains, and specifically noise from the use of train horns when approaching the crossing.' Noise from the freight service was estimated in the EIR-for the North Coast Railroad Authority(NCRA)Russian River'Division Freight Rail Project(NCRA 2009). The,NCRA.EIR reported a train horn sound exposure level of 108 dBA at 50 feet that would decrease at a rate of- 4l5 dB:per doubling of distance along the track until the "no horn"noise exposure is intersected (NCRA 2009). XII. a) Exposure to Noise is Excess of Established Standards—No Impact The Caulfield Lane railroad-crossing is surrounded by commercial and industrial development, except for the Mary Isaak Center, a homeless shelter, which is about 125 feet to the southwest The Project would not involve construction activities; therefore no construction=related noise impact-would occur. Section 22-301 of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance establishes an hourly average level of 60 dBA Leg as the maximum daily operational noise level that may be generated on one land use that would affect another land use, with the allowable levels adjusted,toiaccount for the ambient noise level. The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing does not generate operational noise, with the exception of standard audible safety warnings that are triggered when a train approaches and the safety gates are in use. The existing noise generated by the audible safety warnings is City of Petaluma 28 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 2 -30 temporary and negligible when considering existing ambient noise levels and would remain the same for the Project. No impact would occur. XII.b) Exposure to Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise—No Impact The Project would not include any construction activities, and the railroad crossing does not generate excessive groundbome vibration or noise in its operation. Therefore, no impact would occur. XII.c& d)Substantial Permanent or Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise—No Impact Surrounding roadways and the railroad contribute to existing ambient noise levels at the Project site. The Project site •experiences noise levels within the range of 65-70 dBA due to the proximity of Lakeville Highway, punctuated by occasional,temporary noise events from railroad operations(General Plan 2008). The. Project would not include construction activities or operational changes at the railroad crossing site. Therefore there would be no change in the existing ambient noise levels, either temporarily or permanently. No impact would occur. Refer to Section XVIII for a discussion of cumulative impacts of SMART rail service,the Riverfront project, and General Plan buildout relative to noise. XII. e & t) Exposure of People Residing or Working Near a Private or Public Airport to Excessive Noise Levels—No Impact The Project site is located within two miles of the Petaluma Municipal Airport, but well outside the noise contours associated with the airport (General Plan Draft EIR 2006). The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The Project would not bring new residents or workers into the Project area that would be exposed to excessive noise levels related to the Petaluma Municipal Airport. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 29 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 31 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact 'Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorn oration XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new'homes and businesses) or indirectly ✓ (for example,through-extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ✓ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ✓ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: XIII. a, b& c) Induce Substantial Population Growth—No Impact The Project would not involve any construction activities or physical changes at the Project site. The Project would not include growth inducing components, such as the development of new housing, structures, or extension of roads or other infrastructure. Because there would be no construction or operational changes to the site, the Project would not displace existing housing or people, and would not require construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 30 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a -3a_. Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact • Impact With Impact Mitigation lneer oration XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need' for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire Protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks? e. Other public facilities? Discussion: XIV. a, b, c,d& e)Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts.Associated with New or-Altered Fire Protection,Police Protection, Schools,Parks or Other Public Facilities—No Impact The continued operation of the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing would not involve construction activities or operational changes at the site. The Project would not include components such as the development of new housing, structures, or extension of roads or other infrastructure: Because the Project would not include population growth, the Project would not-increase demands for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities, or result in the need for new public facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or otherperforniance objectives. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 31 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 1S/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a-33 Potential' Less-Than- Less-Than- • No Significant. Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ✓ deterioration of the facility would occur or.be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse ✓ physical effect on the environment? Discussion: XV. a&.b)Increase in the Use of Existing Facilities or Development of Ne`w.Facilities—No Impact The Project would not involve construction activities or operational changes,:at,the railroad crossing site. The Project would not include the development of new housing or structures, or. the development or expansion of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, the Pfoject would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 32 Winzler 8 Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a -3 Potentially. Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of ✓ the circulation system., including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level.of service standards and travel ✓ demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for'designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air, traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ✓ substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm ✓ equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? i/ f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise ✓ decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion: XVI. a & b) Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Ordinance, Policy, or'Program Establishing Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation-System , or Conflict with Applicable Congestion Management Program —No Impact Caulfield Lane is designated as,an arterial street in the City's General Plan. Arterial streets function to provide celatively.high-speed/high capacity access to regional transportation facilities,and are-generally accessed through collector and local streets-(General Plan 2008). General Plan Policy 5-P-10 establishes a goal of maintaining an intersection Level of Service:(LOS) D or better (General Plan 2008). The existing LOS at the intersection of Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane was evaluated by W-Trans for the Petaluma Riverfront Project. W-Trans reported an existing LOS A for the intersection during both AM peak and PM peak hours (W-Trans 2011). The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA)-is designated as the Congestion Management Agency for Sonoma County. The four stated goals of the 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan are to maintain the system, relieve congestion, reduce emissions, and plan for safety and health. The Project would not involve any construction activities or new development at the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing, so no construction-related impacts would occur. The W-Trans study reported an existing LOS A for the City.of Petaluma 33 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 0 -3C Hopper;St./Caulfield Laneintersection., Therefore,the intersection is consistent with the General,Plan Policy 5-P- 10 establishing a goal of maintain a LOS of D or better. The continued operation of the railroad crossing would continue to.maintain compliance with'the LOS standard. The Project would not conflidt with the goals and policies of the SCTA Transportation Plan because it does not involve the construction of-.new housing or!places of employment that would increase traffic levels. Because there would be no physical changes to the Project site, the Project would not preclude the development or implementation of plans and policies related to mass transit, pedestrian and bicycle paths, or other components of the circulation system. No impact would occur. Refer to Section XVIII of this Initial Study for a discussion of cumulative impacts of SMART rail service, the Riverfront project, and General Plan buildout relative to traffic. XVI. c) Result in a Change in Air Traffic Patterns—No Impact The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. No impact would occur. XVI. d) Substantially Increase Hazards due to.a Design Feature or Incompatible Use—No Impact The Project would not involve any physical changes to the existing Caulfield.Lane railroad crossing. Therefore, the Project would not include any design features or changes in existing use that would increase hazards. No impact would occur. Refer to Section XVIII of this Initial Study for a discussion of cumulative impacts of SMART rail service, the Riverfront project, and General Plan'buildout relative to rail crossing safety. XVI. e & f) Result in InadequateiEmergency Access or Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities, or Otherwise Decrease the Performance or Safety of Such Facilities —No Impact The Project would not include any roadway infrastructure improvements; therefore it would not impact emergency access routes or response;times, or the performance.ofpublic transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Since the Project would not involve any physical or operational changes to the site,the Project would not preclude an extension of any future transit lines or bike paths or interfere with any plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 34 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 O.-34 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE:;SYSTEMS Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ✓ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ✓ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of ✓ which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project,from existing entitlements' and resources, or are new or expanded ✓ entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity ✓ to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill With sufficient permitted capacity to ✓ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ✓ related to solid waste? Discussion: XVII. a, b, c, d & e) Exceed Applicable Wastewater Treatment.Requirements or Capacity, Result in Construction of New Facilities, Sufficient Water Supplies-No Impact The Project involves the continued authorization of the existing Caulfield Lane railroad crossing. No construction activities or physical changes at the site would occur. As such, the Project would not generate wastewater or require the use of water supplies. Because the Project would not generate wastewater or use water supplies, it would not,exceed treatment requirements or capacity or otherwise require the construction of new wastewater or water treatlrientfacilities. The site is fully developed, and no new impervious surfaces Would be added to the site. Therefore, the Project would not increase the amount of stormwater runoff generated at the site, and would not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities: No impact would occur. XVII. f & g) Have Sufficient Landfill Capacity and Comply with Statutes Related to Solid Waste — No Impact The Project would not involve any construction activities, and operation of the Project would not create solid waste. Therefore no solid waste would be generated by the Project. No impact would occur. City of Petaluma 35 Winzler 8 Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS-/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS'OF SIGNIFICANCE Would.the project: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ✓ community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal oreliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the.effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and. the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ✓ indirectly? XVII.a, c) No Impact No project impacts were identified.- Refer to Section XVII.b) below regarding the potential contribution of the project to cumulative impacts. XVII. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Cumulative impacts are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Cumulative impacts can result'from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Cumulative projeets;,include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. This IS/Proposed MND utilizes•the-"list" approach, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A).to determine if the Project as a whole makes a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. Three cumulative projects have been identified that may have overlapping impacts with the project's impacts and are summarized below. SMART Passenger Rail Service The SMART District is proposing implementation of passenger rail service along an approximately 70- mile existing rail'corridor'extending from Cloverdale in Sonoma County to the Larkspur ferry terminal in Marin County. SMART's Board of Directors has decided to build in stages, and the Initial Operating Segment(IOS) would consist of 37 miles of passenger rail service from.downtown San Rafael to Railroad Square in Santa Rosa. Construction on this segment is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2012, with City of Petaluma 36 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004..��7[x� 0--V V passenger train, service scheduled to begin in late 2014. Future segments, ultimately completing the project from Larkspur to Cloverdale.would be built as additional revenues become available. SMART would provide daily passenger rail service: According to the 2005 SMART EIR, 28 station stops per weekday are anticipated at-the Downtown Petaluma Station, consisting of 14 northbound and southbound trains each day. Preliminary plans for weekend service include four roundtrips per day (SMART Final Supplemental EIR 2008). Diesel multiple units (DMUs) are the proposed vehicles for the'SMART passenger rail system and are compatible with freight operations on the same tracks. Based on projected ridership and passenger loads, SMART rail service would require;a fleet of 14 DMUs, consisting of five two-car trains, two one-car trains and two spare cars (SMART Draft EIR 2005). The proposed train fleet would be comprised of single-level DMUs,:approximately 85 feet long, 10 feet wide and 15 feet high. Vehicle capacity would be approximately 90 passengers per railcar; The running speed of the passenger trains, including stops, would generally be the same as posted speeds on adjacent roadways in urban areas and would average approximately 46 miles per hour(SMART Draft EIR 2005). Presently, SMART; in conjunction with the CPUC and local municipalities, including the City, is assessing existing railroad crossings and determining supplemental safety measures necessary for commencement of passenger rail service and establishment of quietilzones. Potential supplemental safety measures at the existing Caulfield Lane'at-grade crossing include an additional exit gate on the southwest side of the crossing to preclude vehicles from navigating around the entry gates to proceed eastbound on Caulfield. A new exit gate may require re-routing of the existing sidewalk around the gate. Actual proposed supplemental safety measures are scheduled for determination in November 2011 during diagnostic field surveys with staff from the CPUC, SMART, and,the City of Petaluma. Subsequently, SMART will apply-for approval of the supplemental safety measures from"the CPUC. The SMART District is the CEQA Lead Agency for any decisions'regarding the supplemental safety measures for startup of passenger;railservice. SMART will also beresponsible for obtaining any permits and approvals needed for the supplemental safety measures and will implement and construct the majority of the measures.3 Riverfront Mixed Use Development The City of Petaluma has received an application for the Riverfront MixedUse Development, making it a reasonably foreseeable future project No CEQA document,has yet been prepared for the application, but preliminary partial traffic data was made available by the applicant for purposes of the cumulative impact evaluation in this MND'(W-Transs2011). If approved and constructed,the Riverfront project would result in additional vehicle traffic using Caulfield Lane and the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing. The proposed Riverfront Mixed Use Development is expected to be consistent with the City's General Plan. It is a 35.7-acre project that would include office and,commercial space, a hotel, park space, and a variety of residential uses, including apartments, townhomes, and single family residential units. Phasing of the proposed project would,be dependent on market conditions and is anticipated to begin in 2013, before the initiation of SMART passenger rail service, with buildout occurring within 2 to 3 years. The proposed Riverfront project is expected to increase average daily traffic on Caulfield Lane from between 1,000 and 1,500 trips per day currently to between 5;000 and 6,000 trips per day (W-Trans 2011). CPUC Decision 06-02-036 would require additional review of the Caulfield railroad crossing 3 Local jurisdictions may be responsible for implementation of signage and roadway improvements such as restriping or medians. SMART is expected to be responsible for implementation of entry and exit gates,flashers,and measures related directly to the rail lines. City of Petaluma 37 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 should Caulfield Lane be extended past Hopper Street (refer tointroduction). As currently proposed, the Riverfront project does not.extend Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street, and therefore would not trigger review of the crossing. However,extension of Caulfield`Lane past Hopper Street to connect to a southern crossing of the Petaluma River and connect Lakeville Street to Petaluma Boulevard South is included in the City's General Plan as one of thefuture improvements to serve General Plan buildout. Therefore the extension of Caulfield Lane'is'evaluated as part of the General Plan buildout cumulative project described below, rather than as part of the Riverfront project. See discussion of cumulative impacts,below. No supplemental safety measures at the Caulfield crossing are expected to be required for the Riverfront project, beyond those that may be required for SMART. If SMART rail service (and the supplemental safety measures that may be needed for it) is delayed to such an extent that the Riverfront project is built first, then the supplemental safety measures outlined for SMART may need to be implemented by the Riverfront project to avoid significant hazards from the existing freight train service. In this case, potential supplemental safety measures at the existing Caulfield Lane crossing would include an additional exit gate on the southwest side of the crossing to preclude vehicles from navigating around the entry gates to proceed'eastbound on Caulfield. A new exit gate may require re-routing of the existing sidewalk around the gate. The City of Petaluma will serve'as the CEQA Lead Agency for the GEQA document that will evaluate the Riverfront project, at the time that the application is complete. 2025 General Plan Buildout The Petaluma.General Plan 2025,was'adopted on May 19, 2008; and is comprised of goals, policies, and programs to guide future development the City's boundaries, through the year 2025. The General Plan projects that under buildout Caulfield Lane would Connect Lakeville Street to Petaluma Boulevard South via a "southern crossing.' over the Petaluma River. Caulfield Lane would then extend past Hopper Street, and the' intersection at Caulfield Lane and Hopper Street would be signalized. Buildout is expected to increase average daily traffic on Caulfield-Lane to between 20,000 to 23,000 trips per day (W-Trans 2011). With this level of traffic, it may be necessary to have two southbound through lanes on Caulfield Lane extending past Hopper Street; in this case the railroad crossing would need to be widened. Additional safety measures that may be needed upon General Plan buildout are discussed below under the I-Iazards and Hazardous Materials section of the cumulative impact analysis. Aesthetics The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing is located at-grade in an urbait;setting, near industrial and commercial development and the Mary Isaak Center, a homeless shelter. There are no 'state scenic highways or locally designated scenic roadways in the area. Improvements related to the initiation of passenger rail service, development of the proposed Riverfront Project, and buildout of the General Plan would create changes in the aesthetic nature of the surrounding area These changes are expected to be cumulatively less than significant As.summarizediin the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR, within the built city, development would not have msignificanteffect on the visual quality of the city, because new development would likely be similar in scale and`character to existing development. 'Phis infill development likewise would not be expected to havea substantial adverse impact on panoramic views or create incongruous visual elements because the height and massing of new development would be similar to existing development. No significant cumulative-impacts relative to aesthetics would occur from initiation of passenger rail service; development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan. No improvements to the existing railroad crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section I, re- authorization-would not result in impacts and would not contribute to cumulative aesthetic impacts. City of Petaluma 38 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 Orq Agriculture and Forestry Resources There is no agriculture or forest land presentat:or near the Project site. Maps prepared pursuant to the State's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program categorize the_area as"Urban.and Built-Up Land" (California Dept. of Conservation 2010), and there are no Williamson.Act contracts are in place. No conversion of agriculture or forest resources would occur from changes to- the crossing related the initiation of passenger rail service, development of the proposed Riverfront project, or buildout of the General Plan. No significant cumulative impacts relative to agriculture would occur from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan. No improvements to the existing at- grade crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section II, re- authorization would not result in impacts and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to agriculture and forestry resources. Air Quality The Project area is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for suspended particulate matter (PM2_5 and PM,o) and ozone precursors including reactive organic gases(ROG)and nitrous oxides(NOx). Construction activities related to the initiation of passenger rail service, development of the proposed Riverfront project, and buildout of the Genetal Plan would generate dust and other criteria air pollutant emissions during construction. These emissions may cause a significant cumulative impact, in that the 2006 General Plan EIR indicates that buildout populationlevels would conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Buildout of the General Plan would, however, have a less-than-significant effect on exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants and odors and would not contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation (General Plan Draft EIR 2006). In addition, the 2005 SMART EIR found that implementation of passenger rail service overall would benefit air quality as levels of most criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases would be reduced (SMART Draft EIR 2005). Significant cumulative impacts relative to air quality (conflict with the Bay Areea 2005 Ozone Strategy) may occur from buildout of the General Plan. No improvements to the existing railroad crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization., As summarized in Section III, re-authorization would not result in impacts and would make no contribution to a-significant cumulative impact to air quality. Biological Resources The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing is located in an urban setting, and the site is entirely developed with paving, concrete sidewalks or rail tracks, with no trees, shrubs or other vegetation. As the crossing site is entirely developed, there are no riparian areas, sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands present on site Potential wetlands are adjacent to the site in a drainage channel on either side of Caulfield Lane. Construction of supplemental safety-measures-at the crossing for initiation of passenger rail service may include an additional exit gate, and addition of the gate may require:-red routing of the sidewalk. It is anticipated that the construction area for the supplemental safety measures could affect the-adjacent drainage channel, which may be classified as a potential wetland. As summarized in the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR, development along or near the Petaluma River corridor, such as the Riverfront project, could impact special status plant and animal species or their habitat that occur near the river. ln>addition,-development along the river could also result in impacts on wetlands, riparian habitat,oak woodland or "waters of the US" (General Plan Draft EIR 2006). Under General Plan buildout with construction of a southern crossing of the Petaluma River,the railroad crossing may need to be widened, which could impact the potential wetlands (drainage channel adjacent to the site) and special-status species. However, at such-time and as part of project-level review-for a southern crossing, appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts-to wetlands, potential wetlands, sensitive habitats and special status species would be imposed on a project-level basis according to Petaluma's environmental review process and consultation with City of Petaluma 39 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 appropriate State and federal regulatory agencies. Cumulative impacts to biological resources from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront,project, and buildout of the General Plan are expected to be less than significant with mitigation of project=specific impacts. No improvements to the existing at-grade crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section 1V, re-authorization would not result in impacts and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to biological resources. Cultural Resources As summarized in the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR, there is a high possibility of encountering archaeological deposits and historic resources in the General Plan area. Construction of supplemental safety measures for initiation of passenger rail service may include an additional exit gate and re-routing of the existing sidewalk. The ground disturbance necessary for these measures, as well as development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan may have significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources. The 2006 General Plan EIR found that existing national, state, and local laws as well as policies in the proposed General Plan would reduce these potential impacts on historic and archaeological resources to less than significant levels. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources would be imposed on a project-by-project basis according to Petaluma's environmental review process. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan are expected to be less than significant with mitigation. No improvements to the existing at-grade crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section V, re-authorization would not result in impacts and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources. Geology and Soils The Project area is located in an area of very strong seismic ground shaking and moderate liquefaction susceptibility. The site is relatively flat, and the surrounding unconditioned soils are highly expansive. As summarized in the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR, there would be no impacts related to seismic groundshaking, seismic-related ground failure. landslides, mudflows, settlement and/or subsidence of the land, lateral spreading, expansive soils, or erosion, because existing State and City regulations,require'that these hazards be investigated during the project planning process and measures to eliminate them incorporated in the project design prior to completing the project approval process (General Plan Draft EIR 2006). As a result, no significant cumulative impacts relative to geology and soils would occur from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan. No improvements to The existing at-grade crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section VI, re-authorization would not result in impacts, and re-authorization would not contribute to cumulative impacts regarding geology and soils. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The City is part of Sonoma County's Community Climate Action; spearheaded by the Climate Protection Campaign,and is working with other local cities to facilitate the reduction of GHG emissions by 25%below 1990 levels by 2015. As part of the General Plan, the City compared 2005 GHG emissions (baseline for the General Plan) to 2025 emissions (buildout of the General Plan). The analysis determined that taking into account emissions savings from programs identified in the climate change section of the General Plan; as well as State reduction measures that apply to the local level, the implementation of the General Plan would decrease GHG emissions relative to 2005 levels (General Plan Revised DR 2007). Nonetheless, the General Plan EIR concludes that GHG impacts may besignificanfand unavoidable. Cumulative impacts to GHG would be significant. City of Petaluma 40 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 The 2008 SMART Supplemental EIR concluded that initiation ofpassengerrail service is expected to result in an overall decrease in regional greenhouse gases by replacing automobiles, and buses, which are more energy- consuming modes of travel, witW,train travel (SMART Final:Supplemental,ElR 2008). No improvements to-the existing at-grade crossing are proposed as part-of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section VII, re-authorizatiortwould not result-in impacts; as a result,.re-authorization would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cumulative impacts of SMART rail service,the Riverfront project, and the General Plan buildout will be less than significant relative to hazardous materials (i.e., routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; accidental release of hazardous materials; or hazardous emissions or use of hazardous materials in the vicinity of schools), because existing federal, State; and City regulations require.that these hazards be investigated during the • project planning process and measures-to eliminate them be incorporated in the project design prior to completing the project approval process. Operation of the proposed SMART project would not involve transport of hazardous-materials and would not contribute to any cumulative increases:in`hazardous materials transport along the corridor (SMART Final Supplemental -2008), No significant cumulative impacts relative to hazardous materials would occur from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan. No improvements to the existing at-grade crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section VIII, re-authorization would not result in impacts and would not contribute to cumulative impacts relative to hazardous materials: A discussion of cumulative impacts of SMART rail service, the Riverfront project, and General Plan buildout relative to rail crossing safety is-provided below. Safety Hazards related to the Rail Crossing SMART passenger rail service. As part of the SMART CEQA review, an evaluation of potential passenger-freight conflicts, pedestrian/cyclist safety (both at rail crossings and on the bicycle/pedestrian pathway), and emergency response delays was conducted. As summarized in the 2006 SMART Final EIR (Master Response P), passenger and freight rail service are highly regulated by federal and state agencies, including the Federal. Railroad Administration (FRA) and the CPUC, with respect to public safety (SMART Final EIR 2006). In addition, SMART's implementation of safety measures and the community education program, Operation Lifesaver, would serve to reduce the likelihood of accidents at at-grade crossings for both passenger and freight rail service. Considering regulatory oversight, SMART's proposed safety measures, and the low accident rate associated with both passenger and freight rail service, the cumulative public safety impact was determined to be less than significant(SMART Final Supplemental EIR 2008). AS explained in the description of cumulative projects above, SMART is currently in the process of determining the supplementary safety measures needed at each rail crossing, including the Caulfield Lane crossing. Potential supplemental safety measures at the existing Caulfield Lane rail crossing include an additional exit gate on the southwest side of the crossing to preclude vehicles from navigating around the entry gates to proceed eastbound on Caulfield. Because the CPUC will oversee the determination of supplementary safety measures needed for SMART passenger rail service to commence, and because SMART will obtain General Order 88-B approval from the CPUC for this purpose, and because the likely supplementary safety measures appear to be feasible, significant safety hazards at the Caulfield Lane crossing from initiation of passenger rail service by SMART would not occur, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No improvements to the existing Caulfield Lane rail crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization; therefore,the project would make no contribution to cumulative impacts relative to SMART passenger rail service. City of Petaluma 41 Winzler 8 Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 1S/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a-L43 Riverfront Mixed,Use Development Project. The Riverfront:project is expected to increase average daily traffic at the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing substantially;from,between-1,000 to 1,500 vehicles per day to between 5,000 and 6,000 vehicles per day. When SMART rail service is operating, the additional traffic on Caulfield Lane from Riverfront would cause a queue to form on Caulfield Lane waiting to turn right onto Lakeville Highway. The 95th percentile queue length on eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway with the Riverfront project is projected to remain well within the 500 feet of available storage under the Existing plus Riverfront project condition (W-Trans 2011). Queues on Caulfield Lane shorter than 500 feet would not interfere with the rail crossing, and therefore no significant safety impacts would occur from queues at Caulfield Lane and Lakeville Highway due to the"Riverfront project. If the supplementary safety measures identified above for the SMART cumulative project have been implemented at the time that the Riverfront project is implemented, then the additional traffic through the Hopper Street/Caulfield Lane intersection would not be anticipated to create significant safety hazards at the Caulfield Lane crossing. However, if SMART service is delayed to the extent that Riverfront is constructed before the SMART supplementary safety measures are installed, then those same safety measures would likely need to be constructed prior to implementation of the Riverfront project. Because the Riverfront CEQA document and the City of Petaluma Public Works Department will review this issue prior to approval of the Riverfront project and will condition the project as necessary for public safety, significant safety hazards atrthe Caulfield Lane crossing would not be expected. In either case (i.e., whether SMART or Riverfront is implemented first), cumulative safety impacts at the Caulfield Lane crossing would be less than significant. No improvements to the existing Caulfield Lane rail crossing are proposed as part of the request'for re-authorization; therefore, the project would make no contribution to cumulative impacts relative to the•Riverfront project. Potential impacts of the Riverfront project in combination with buildout of the Petaluma General Plan are evaluated below as part of the General Plan buildout evaluation, as the Riverfront project is expected to be consistent with the General Plan. Petaluma General Plan Buildout. The General Plan identifies that the ultimate configuration of Caulfield Lane will include a connection to South Petaluma_Boulevard via a"southern crossing' over the Petaluma River. The General Plan describes the southern crossing project as the "Caulfield Lane Extension", to consist of a southern crossing of the Petaluma River and a connection from Lakeville Street to Petaluma Boulevard South via Caulfield Lane to reduce traffic congestion along the D Street and Washington corridors. Caulfield Lane would then extend past Hopper Street, and the intersection at Caulfield Lane and Hopper Street would. be signalized. Buildout is expected to increase average daily traffic on Caulfield Lane to between 20,000 to 23,000 trips per day (W-Trails 2011), which may require two southbound through lanes on Caulfield Lane extending past Hopper Street. Safety hazards at the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing with a southern crossing in place could arise due to the substantial increase in traffic resulting in unacceptable queuing lengths on Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway and insufficient controls at the Hopper Street.and Caulfield Lane intersection. These impacts could result in a significant cumulative impact on safety at the Caulfield railroad crossing. When the southern crossing of the Petaluma River is constructed, as identified in the General Plan, and buildout of the General Plan is complete, the 95± percentile queue length on eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway is estimated to.be 578'feet long(W-Trans 2011). Queues on Caulfield Lane in excess of 500 feet would cause cars to be waiting on the railroad tracks,an unsafe condition. The improvements described in Mitigation Measured-IAZ-1 are estimated to reduce queues on Caulfield Lane to 460 feet long, thereby preventing cars from being trapped on top of the railroad tracks and City of Petaluma 42 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing.Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 reducing the cumulative impact to less than significant. It.should be noted that these improvements would be needed only if •and when the Caulfield Lane -Extension/southern crossing project is implemented,;and not simply because of traffic generated from General Plan buildout without a southern crossing. Therefore, although mitigation is presently identified on a program-level basis, it is expected that a project-level CEQA evaluation will be conducted for the southern crossing project prior to its implementation. Specific mitigation could be modified or equally effective new mitigation identified in that process. • No,improvements to the existing Caulfield Lane rail crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization; therefore, the project would make no contribution to cumulative impacts relative to the Riverfront project. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Reduce Queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway At such time that the southern crossing across the Petaluma River is constructed, the City shall. ensure that mitigation is required sufficient to reduce the 95111 percentile queue length on eastbound Caulfield lane at Lakeville highway to 500 feet or less and/or ensure that vehicle queuing does not extend onto the Caulfield rail crossing by the following measures or by equally effective alternative measures adopted in the course :of project-level CEQA review for the Caulfield Lane Extension/southem crossing project: (i):add a 100-foot long eastbound right turn pocket from Caulfield Lane onto Lakeville Street; (ii) convert the current left-left/through-right lanes on the westbound.approach of Caulfield Lane to single left-through-right lanes; (iii) convert the phasing on Caulfield Lane to protected phasing; and (iv) add right turn overlap phases on southbound Lakeville Street and eastbound Caulfield Lane. When the Caulfield Lane Extension/southern crossing of the Petaluma River is constructed and buildout of the General.Plan is complete; traffic volumes using the.Caulfield Lane railroad crossing will be large enough to cause significant cumulative safety impacts: The improvements described in Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 are estimated to reduce safety hazards as much as is feasible and would reduce the cumulative safety impact to less than significant: It should be noted that these improvements would be needed only if and when the Caulfield Lane Extension/southern crossing project is implemented, and not simply because of traffic generated from General Plan_buildout without a southern crossing. Therefore, although mitigation.is presently identified on a program-level basis, it is expected that a project-level CEQA evaluation will.be conducted for the Caulfield Lane Extension/southern crossing project prior to its implementation. Specific mitigation could be modified or equally effective new mitigation identified in that process. No improvements to the existing Caulfield Lane rail crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization; therefore, the project would make no contribution to cumulative impacts relative to the Riverfront project. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. Install Additional Safety Measures at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane At such time as the Caulfield Lane extension/southern crossing of the Petaluma River is constructed, the City shall require installation of a traffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane or an equally effective alternative measure adopted in the course of project-level CEQA review for the Caulfield Lane Extension/southern crossing project. If the existing median on Caulfield Lane is removed to accommodate additional turn lanes or travel lanes, the City shall install an exit gate on eastbound Caulfield Lane to prevent cars from navigating around the entry gates. Hydrology and Water Quality The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing is located in an urban setting, but potential wetlands and habitat for special status species may be adjacent to the site in drainage channels. City of Petaluma 43 Winzler & Kelly 'Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a-4s Construction and operation of SMART, the Riverfront project, and buildout of the general plan would contribute to nonpoint source pollution from increased stormwater runoff: However, as°summarized in the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR, General Plan policies:and programs would ensure'that impactsifrom nonpoint runoff sources and increased depletion of groundwater supply or interference.with groundwater recharge would remain at less than • significant levels. Proposed General Plan policies and programs along with additional mitigation measures would reduce significant impacts associated with increased amounts of impervious surfaces, storm drain capacity, and flooding hazards to less than"significant_levels (General Plan Draft DR 2006). The Riverfront project would be subject to CEQA review and conditioned to reduce water quality impacts from stormwater runoff. Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant. No improvements to the existing-,railroad crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section IX, re-authorization'would not result in impacts, and re-authorization would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to hydrology or water quality. Land Use and Planning Although passenger rail service on the tracks has been dormant for many years, the reintroduction of rail service would not physically divide communities, since they were originally, established around the railroad and the historic stations (SMART Draft EIR 2005). As summarized in the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR,the General Plan creates specific regulatory standards and review procedures to ensure compatible land uses. Buildout of the General Plan, which would include the Riverfront project, would not physically divide any established community, but rather provide better connectivity within the city through improved transportation networks and more pedestrian and bike paths. Cumulative land use impacts from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant. No improvements to the existing railroad crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section X, re-authorization would not result in impacts, and re-authorization would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to land use and planning. Mineral Resources There are no known mineral resources or locally-important resources in the project area that would be disturbed by initiation of passenger rail'service, development of the Riverfront project, or buildout of the General Plan. No cumulative impacts to mineral resources would occur from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan. No improvements to-the existing railroad crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section XI, re-authorization would not result in impacts, and re-authorization would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to mineral resources. Noise The Caulfield Lane railroad crossing is surrounded by commercial and industrial development, except for the Mary lsaak Center, a homeless shelter, which is about 125 feet to the southwest. Surrounding roadways and the railroad contribute to existing ambient noise levels in the Project area. The Project area experiences noise levels within the range of 65-70 dBA.due'to the proximity of Lakeville Highway, punctuated by occasional, temporary noise events from railroad operations (General Plan 2008). Noise from the railroad includes the operation of freight trains, and specifically noise from the use of train horns when approaching the crossing. As summarized in the.2005 SMART Draft EIR, noise from train horns would result in a potentially significant unavoidable impact to ambient noise in•the vicinity of at-grade crossings. Train horns are required to sound at between 96 and 110 dBA measured 100 feet in front of the locomotive. Within 0.25 miles of each grade crossing, the noise exposure from train horns would be substantially'greater than the exposure from passenger train pass-bys. Train horn noise would be temporary and periodic and would be limited to the hours between 5:00 City of Petaluma 44 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MAID 02055-11-004 co a.m. and 8:00 p.m. While noise from train horns and warning devices are not regulated by local ordinance because they are safety-warning devices,the noise can be disturbing to residents near at-grade crossings. Mitigation Measure N-5 of the 2005 SMART Draft EIR would limit the use of train horns and other audible warning devices by installing crossing controls that meet Federal Railroad Administration requirements and obtain Quiet Zone designations for crossings along the corridor. The application must be a joint application between the local jurisdiction and the rail operator and must include supplementary safety measures to ensure that safety is not compromised by eliminating the sounding of the train horns. Presently, SMART, in conjunction with the CPUC and local municipalities, is assessing existing railroad crossings and determining supplemental safety measures necessary for commencement of passenger rail service and establishment of quiet zones. If a Quiet Zone is established, no severe noise impacts would remain related to passenger rail service. If a Quiet Zone is not established, significant unavoidable noise impacts were identified. As summarized in the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR, construction for,new developments, such as the Riverfront project, would have the potential to result in noise levels above the standards established in the General Plan. Construction activities within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area would be would be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends & holidays. As future construction activities associated with the Plan would'be limited to specified hours, this cumulative impact was considered less than significant(General Plan Draft-EIR 2006). Traffic associated with buildout of the General Plan was found to result in significant noise impacts along two roadway segments; Ely Road north of Frates Road and Frates Road east of Ely Road. These roadway segments are located approximately 2 miles east of the Caulfield railroad crossing. The General Plan HR also identified significant and unavoidable noise impacts due to train horns, given that the establishment of a Quiet Zone could not be ensured. Cumulative noise impacts from SMART service would be significant and unavoidable due to noise from train horns. No improvements to the existing railroad crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section XII, re-authorization would not result in impacts, and re-authorization would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to noise. Population and Housing Initiation of passenger rail service would not displace homes, people, or businesses in the area. The proposed Riverfront project would result in the construction of approximately .135 small-lot single family residential units, 40 townhomes, 100 apartments, and a 120-room hotel in the area. As summarized in the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR, the goals, policies, and programs in the General Plan Housing Element reflect the City's commitment to provide housing for a broad spectrum of residents, and adequate land is provided by the General Plan to accommodate anticipated housing and job needs in Petaluma through 2025 (General Plan Draft EIR 2006). Cumulative population and housing impacts from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant. No improvements to the existing at-grade crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section XIII, re-authorization would not result in impacts and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to population and housing. Public Services As identified in the SMART EIRs, initiation of passenger rail service would result in additional trains that could increase the incidence of emergency response delays at grade crossings if trains are present when emergency vehicles need to cross. Safe operating procedures require emergency responders to stop at at-grade crossings when the gates are in the down position,and to wait for trains to clear the,crossing before proceeding (SMART Draft EIR 2005). As described in the 2005 Draft EIR, emergency service providers may experience delays on City of Petaluma 45 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 average of about 40 seconds at at-grade crossings, when a SMART train is present and the gates are down (SMART Draft EIR 2005). The SMART EIR concluded thatthepotential for this type of impact on emergency service providers is very low,;and that overall; thespotential impact;on emergency response times was considered less than significant(SMART Draft FIR`2005). In addition, the SM'ART'Supplemental EIR concluded that since freight trains and passenger trains operate at different times,'the operation of the two rail services would not combine to create a significant cumulative impact to emergency response delays at at-grade crossings (SMART Draft Supplemental EIR 2008). As summarized in the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR, the population growth that is expected under General Plan buildout, which would include the Riverfront project, would result in a small increase in enrollment within school districts, however; no new school facilities are forecasted to be needed. In addition, the General Plan's policies • - require-that all new development coordinate and plan for additional police and fire facilities to prevent adverse significant impacts on existing safety and emergency preparedness levels. Cumulative impacts on public services from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the.General Plan would be less than significant. No improvements to the existing at- grade crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section XIV, re- authorization would not result in impacts and would not contribute to cumulative impacts on public services. Recreation As described in the 2005 SMART EIR, initiation of passenger rail service would improve access to some recreational facilities near stations, but is not expected to lead to an increase in the use of existing park and recreational facilities to a point that substantial physical deterioration Of the facilities would occur or be accelerated(SMART Draft EIR 2005). Currently, the City has a total of parks available for Petaluma residents. The closest recreational facility to the Project site is Sunset.Park, located approximately 0.5 miles west along Lakeville Street. As summarized in the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR, with buildout of the General Plan, acres of parkland would be maintained at a ratio of 5.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The General Plan policies prevent the decrease in service levels resulting in increased deterioration of park facilities (General Plan Draft EIR 2006). The proposed Riverfront project includes three parks totaling approximately 6.3 acres. Construction of supplemental safety measures as part of the cumulative projects would not disrupt recreational facilities. Cumulative impacts' on recreational facilities from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant. No improvements to the existing at-grade dossing are proposed as part of the request.for re-authorization. As summarized in Section XV, re-authorization would not result in inipacts and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to recreational facilities. TransportationlTraffic Caulfield Lane is designated as an arterial street in the City'sGeneral Plan: Arterial streets function to provide relatively high-speed/high capacity access to regional transportation facilities, and are generally accessed through collector and local streets (General Plan Draft EIR 2006). The existing LOS at the intersection of Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane is LOS A during both AM peak and PM peak hours(W-Trans 2011). SMART Passenger Rail Service. Initiation of passenger rail service would not decrease levels of service or result in significant delays at the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing. An evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the SMART project combined with freight service was provided in the SMART 2008 Supplemental EIR (SMART Draft Supplemental EIR 2008): The average blocking time for SMART trains is anticipated to be 35 to 40 seconds (SMART Supplemental EIR 2008). Freight and passenger trains will generally operate at different times of day: freight typically operates during off-peak hours, while the SMART's passenger service will operate City of Petaluma 46 Winzler 8 Kelly Caulfield.Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a-4g primarily during the peak travel;demand:periods. Therefore, freight and passenger rail service will not combine together at individual crossings"to.delay vehicle;;cross-traffic. As described in the 2005 SMART EIR, the delay caused by passenger trains at crossings-would be a less than significant project impact, because the blockage is relatively brief (approximately 35'to 40 seconds). In addition, the 2005 SMART EIR evaluated impacts of initiation of passenger rail service on local roadways that serve as primary access routes to proposed train stations. In Petaluma, this included an evaluation of North McDowell Blvd arid Washington Street, and both were shown to operate at acceptable levels of service in 2025 with inclusion of the SMART project(SMART 2005). Therefore, passenger rail service by SMART would not result in a significant cumulative impact on traffic circulation at the Caulfield Lane crossing. No improvements to the existing Caulfield Lane rail crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization; therefore, the project would make no contribution to cumulative impacts generated by SMART. Riverfront.Mixed Use Development Project. The Riverfront project is expected to increase average daily traffic at the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing substantially, from between'I,000,to'1,500 vehicles per day to between 5,000 and 6,000 vehicles per day. A preliminary traffic study provided by the Riverfront applicant indicates that the Riverfront project would not cause significant traffic or circulation•impacts and therefore cumulative traffic impacts at the Caulfield Lane crossingtwould'be less than significant (W-Trans 2011). No improvements to the existing Caulfield.Lane rail crossing are proposed as part of the request,for re-authorization; therefore, the project would make no contribution to cumulative impacts generated by the Riverfront project. Potential impacts of the Riverfront,project. in combination with buildout,of the Petaluma General Plan are evaluated below as part of the.General Plan buildout evaluation, as the Riverfront project is expected to be consistent with the General Plan. Refer to the Hazards and Hazardous Materials analysis in this Section for a discussion of cumulative impacts'relative to rail crossing safety. Petaluma General Plan Buildout: When the CPUC Decision 06-02-036 on the Caulfield Lane crossing relocation was approved, two mitigation measures were adopted from the Central:Petaluma Specific Plan. The first was: "6-3. Cumulative Plus Project Impact on the Southbound Ramps/East Washington Street Intersection. Mitigation for this impact shall include providing dual right turn lanes at the southbound ramp and dual lefts on the westbound approach on Washington Street." Since the CPUC's authorization of-the=Caulfield Lane crossing in 2006, the City has updated its General Plan in which it provided updated traffic modeling and mitigation measures based on more recent and more accurate projected land use and traffic. Also, in the updated General Plan, the City changed its threshold of significance at most intersections from LOS C to LOS D. Under the new significance threshold, the intersection of Highway 101 Southbound Ramps and East Washington,Street is identified as operating acceptably, and the General Plan EIR did not identify the need for mitigation at this intersection. Nevertheless, a.recently approved project, the East Washington Place project, has a land use intensity which will generate traffic in excess of the General Plan projections, and the East Washington Place project has been conditioned to provide dual left-turn lanes, on westbound East Washington Street at its intersection with the southbound Highway-101 on-ramp. Environmental effects of the East Washington Place project, including these traffic improvements, have already been evaluated in an EIR certified by the City of Petaluma on February 28, 2010. The East Washington Place project is expected to begin construction in 2012. A separate Caltrans project funded by the City has been bid and is in the process of construction contract award by Caltrans, (SCH2007112073). This project is expected to start construction in 2012 and will widen and reconfigure the southbound Highway 101 on-ramp at East Washington Street as part of more comprehensive improvements to the overall interchange. It will effectively replace the need for dual right turn lanes onto southbound 101 from eastbound East Washington Street. Therefore, revised Mitigation Measure TR-1 updates Mitigation Measure.6.3 to remove the dual right turn requirement and reflect the new timing for the dual left turn lanes from westbound East Washington Street. The Caltrans US Route 101 East Washington Street Interchange Project and installation of the dual left turn lanes on westbound East Washington Street will reduce the cumulative traffic impacts at this intersection to less than significant. No improvements to the existing City of Petaluma 47 Winzler & Kelly Caul field Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 - q Caulfield Lane rail crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization; therefore, the project would make no contribution to cumulative impacts relative to the Riverfront project. Mitigation Measure TR-1. Reduce.Congestion at the Intersection of East Washington Street and the Southbound Highway101.On-ramps (previously numbered as Mitigation Measure 6.3 in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and CPUC Decision 06-02-036) Prior to issuance of certificates pf occupancy for the East Washington Place project, the City shall ensure that dual left-turn lanes on ',westbound East Washington Street are installed at the southbound Highway 101 on-ramp. When the CPUC Decision 06-02-036 on the Caulfield Lane crossing relocation was approved, a second Mitigation Measure was also adopted from the Central Petaluma Specific Plan: "6-4. Cumulative Plus Project Impact on the Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane Intersection. Mitigation for this impact shall include providing an exclusive right-turn lane for the southbound approach on Lakeville Street and dual right-turn lanes for the westbound approach on Caulfield Lane." Since the CPUC's authorization of the Caulfield Lane crossing in 2006, the City has updated its General Plan in which it provided updated traffic modeling,and mitigation measures based on more recent and more accurate projected land use and traffic. Under the new General Plan, the intersection of Lakeville Highway and Caulfield Lane is still identified as operating unacceptably, but the City declined to adopt mitigation at the intersection because there was no feasible mitigation which would not conflict with General Plan 2025 Guiding Principles. As the City explained in its CEQA findings when it adopted its General Plan(General Plan 2008): The competing interest of building _all roadway systems to meet peak travel period demands and preserving the overall cornmuhity character of the city has been resolved in Policy 5-P-10, Program A, which notes that a level of service lower than LOS D for motor vehicles may be deemed acceptable by the City in instances where potential vehicular traffic mitigations such as adding additional lanes or modifying signal timing, would conflict with the following Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #2, preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character; Guiding Principle #6, provide a range of attractive and viable transportation alternatives, such as bicycle, pedestrian, rail and transit; and Guiding Principle #7, enhance downtown by preserving its historic character, increasing accessibility and ensuring a broad range of business and activities and increasing residential activities. It has been determined that installing additional lanes or expanding vehicle capacity at [six identified intersections, including Lakeville Highway and Caulfield Lane] would&inflict with these Guiding Principles....Building roadways to meet peak hour LOS demands were balanced with the overall community desire-to'retain a roadway system that meets a more balanced 24-hour volume demand (City of Petaluma Resolution No. 2008-084, May 19, 2008). Therefore, Mitigation,Measure 6.4, formerly adopted by the CPUC, is no longer necessary and would conflict with the City's policy determination in its General Plan for the intersection of Lakeville and Caulfield The General Plan was adopted in compliance with CEQA and pursuant to a statement of overriding considerations for this and other impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable. The cumulative traffic impact remains significant and unavoidable. However, no improvements to the existing Caulfield Lane railroad crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section XVI, re-authorization would not result in impacts and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to transportation or traffic. Utilities and Service Systems As summarized in the 2006 General Plan Draft EIR, with implementation of proposed policies and programs, impacts to water supply and groundwater from buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant. The population and employment growth envisioned by the General Plan, including the Riverfront project, may City of Petaluma 48 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 increase energy demand required by.new housing and additional motor vehicles. However, compliance with energy saving building codes and an effective use of alternative modes of transportation, combined with mitigation measures included in the General Plan, would reduce wasteful energy consumption to a less than significant level. Likewise, population and employment growth ,under'the 'General Plan would increase the generation of solid waste and-could increase the demand on landfills. However, continued efforts towards waste diversion through recycling and composting programs, as well as compliance with General Plan policies would ensure impacts from solid waste are less than significant. Improvements at the existing Caulfield Lane railroad crossing related to,the supplemental safety measures may affect the water, wastewater, or storm Water conveyance facilities, but such effects would be reduced to less-than- significant levels through good engineering.practices. Cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems from initiation of passenger rail service, development of the Riverfront project, and buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant. No improvements to the existing at-grade crossing are proposed as part of the request for re-authorization. As summarized in Section XVII,.re-authorization would not result in impacts and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to utilities and service.systems. City of Petaluma 49 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield.Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 4. LIST OF PREPARERS The following Winzler&Kelly/GHD team members prepared this Initial Study/Proposed MND. Pat Collins Senior Project Manager Brian Bacciarini Senior Environmental Scientist Frank Penry,PE,TE,PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer - Chelsea Phlegar Planner City of Petaluma 50 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 �a- 5. REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 1995. Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Accessed October 28, 2011 athttp://quake.abag.ca.gov/dam-failure/ ABAG. 1997. Principal Debris-Flow Source Areas in the San Francisco Bay Region. Derivitive of United States Geological Survey Open File Report 97-745 E. Accessed October 28, 2011 at http://q wake.abag.ca.gov/I ands l i des/ ABAG. 2003. Interactive Shaking.Potential,Map. Derivative'of the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map produced by the California Seismic Safety Commission. Accessed October 28,2011 at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/shaking/ ABAG. 2006. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Derivative of USGS Open-File Reports 00-444 and 2006-1037. Accessed'October 28, 2011 at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/liquefaction/ ABAG. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Emergency Planning Map for the San Francisco Bay Region. Derivative of California Emergency Management Agency, Coastal Region. Accessed October 28, 2011 at lino://n uake.abag.ca.aov/tsunamis/ Bay Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. 2010. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2008. Sonoma County Williamson Act Lands 2008. January 1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2010. Sonoma County Important Farmland 2008 map. September. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Sonoma County. Accessed October 27, 2011: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic highways/index.htm. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2006. Decision 06-02-036, Opinion Conditionally Granting Application. February 16. City of Petaluma. 2003. Resolution No. 2003-104 Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Approving die Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. May 30.City of Petaluma. 2003. Central Petaluma Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. March. City of Petaluma. 2003. Central Petaluma Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. April. City of Petaluma. 2003. Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Adopted June 2, 2003.City of Petaluma. 2006. City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 Draft Environmental Impact Report. September. City of Petaluma. 2007. Petaluma General Plan 2025 Air Quality -Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. November, 2007, certified May 19, 2008. City of Petaluma. 2008. City of Petaluma General Plan 2025. May 19, 2008. City of Petaluma. 2008. Resolution No. 2008-084. May 19, 2008. City of Petaluma. 2008. Implementing Zoning Ordinance(IZO). Adopted May 19, 2008 City of Petaluma. 2010. East Washington Place Environmental Impact Report. Certified February 28, 2010. Climate Protection Campaign. 2009. City of Petaluma Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan Analysis Final Report. July 8. Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map. December 2. City of Petaluma 51 Winzler 8 Kelly Caul field Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a-53 Steven J. Lafranchi and Associates, Inc. 2006. Caulfield Lane Railroad Underpass. November 9. Miller, Vernon. C. 1972. Soil Survey of Sonoma,County, California. May. North Coast Railroad Authority. 2009. RdssiariRiver Division Freight Rail Project Environmental Impact Report. November. Sonoma County. 1998: General Plan Figure.RC2e, Schematic Map of Areas Subject to Resource Conservation Policy Requirements, Petaluma and Environs Planning Area. Sonoma County Transportation Authority. 2009. Comprehensive Transportation Plan for Sonoma County. October 19. Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART). 2005. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Project. Draft Environmental Impact Report.November. Sonoma Marin AreaRail Transit (SMART). 2006. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Project. Final Environmental Impact Report. June. Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART). 2008. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Project. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. March. Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit(SMART). 2008. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Project. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. July. United States Department of Agriculture: 2011. Web Soil Survey for Sonoma County, California. Accessed on October 28, 2011 online at: http://websoilsurvev.nres.usda.gov/app/1-iomePage.htm W-Trans. 2011. Preliminary Partial Traffic Study for the Riverfront Project. November. • City of Petaluma 52 Winzler & Kelly Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-Authorization November 2011 IS/Proposed MND 02055-11-004 a-�� ATTACHMENT 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G.Brown Jr., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES°COMMISSION 180 PROMENADE CIRCLE,SUITE 115 ,ty , SACRAMENTO,CA'95836.2939 " > Ib �.: December 12, 2011 Geoff Bradley • Planning Manager City of Petaluma 11 English street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Notice of Completion,Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-authorization SCH# 201.1112043 Dear Mr. Bradley: As the state agency responsible for rail safety within California,the California Public Utilities Commission(CHIC or Commission)recommends that'developmeni projects•proposed near rail corridors,be planned with the safety;of these corridors in mind. 'New developments and improvements to existing facilities may increase vehicular,traffic volumes, not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at-grade highway"-rail crossings. In addition, projects may increase pedestrian traffic at crossings, and elsewhere along rail corridor rights-of-way: Working with CPUC staff earl in project planning will help project proponents, agency staff> and•other reviewers to identify potential project impacts,and appropriate mitigation measures, and thereby improve the safety of motorists, pedestrians, railroad personnel, and'railroad passengers. The following measures need to be incorporated and made part of the conditions of approval in the MND to address adverse impacts to rail safety at the Caulfield Lane-at-grade railroad crossing: • The current configuration of the crossing may not be adequate for CPUC re-authorization. • The City needs to schedule an on-site diagnostic review that includes the City,SMART, NCRA and the'CPUCiprior to filing a formal application for re-authorization of the crossing. • • The diagnostic review team may or may not recommend additional treatments to the crossing;that would be needed for'CPUC re-authorization. • Development of the Riverfront Projectshould include funds specifically set aside for mitigating. future cumulative traffic impacts at the crossing otherwise the City will be responsible for'future improvements: Commission approval is required to modify an existing highway-railicrossing'or to construct a new crossing. Geoff Bradley City of Petaluma SCH#2011.112043 December.12;2011. Page 2 of 2 Please forward,the conditions of approval for this project including the CPUC recommended changes to the MND. The MND could be the appropriate CEQA document for the formal application by the City if it is complete and acceptable to the CPUC. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions,aplease contact me at(916) 928-2515 or atm(cpuc.ca.gov. Sincerely r — ti r David Stewart Utilities Engineer California Public Utilities Commission Consumer Protection and Safety Division Rail Crossings Engineering Section. 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 115 Sacramento, CA 95834-2939 2 • �� v ATTACHMENT 4 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of the City of Petaluma for an Order Authorizing the Permanent Relocation of One At-Grade Crossing,of the.Tracks of APPlication 11-12- the SonomarMarin Area Rail Transit District 13 W4 f i, APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA FOR,AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OFIONE AT-GRADE CROSSING OF THE TRACKS OF THE SONOMA-MARWFAREA RAIL TRANSIT'DISTRICT • l_? l: and `x... . 0%; f } Sky Woodruff, Esq. (SBN: 197204) Ed Grutzmacher_(SBN: 228649) Jessica Mullan (SBN: 263435) MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACh SILVER & WILSON 555 12th Street, Suite 1500 � Oakland,CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 808-2000 Facsimile: (510) 444-1108 F_.mail: swoodruff@meyersnave.com Dated: December&1,•2011 Attorneys for the CITY OF PETALUMA 4 - I BEFORE THE,PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF`THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of the City of Petaluma for an • Order Permanently Authorizing the Relocation of One At-Grade Crossing of the Tracks of Application 11-12- theSonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District APPLICATION OF-THE CITY OF PETALUMA FOR AN/'ORDER.AUTHORIZING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF ONE•AT-GRADE CROSSING OF THE TRACKS OF THE SONOM A:MARIN A REAVRAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT Pursuant to Sections 1201 through 1205, 768 and 7604 of the California Public Utilities 3� Code, General Orders 75-D and.88-B issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (the "Commission"), and in accordance with Rules 2.1, 337rand 3.8`of-'the Commissions Rules of n1 Practice and Procedure ("CoinmissionRules"), the City-Of-Petaluma (the "City") hereby submits k r this Application requesting a Commission order to permanentlyaauthorize the City's relocation '3 `sr" ,r7 of an at-grade crossing of the,railroad tracks of tlieiSonoma-Mari Area Rail Transit District ("SMART") from the intersection ofblopper Street and gakeyillelStreet (milepost 5-38.3) to Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane#(milepost 5 37:8) (the "Caulfield Crossing") in the City of Petaluma, County of Sonomab,Ca"dlfreld Crossing'has,•functioned successfully and safely since • v� its construction,: Therefore, no'''•operationallehanges'or additional improvements to the existing railroad crossing are proposed as pair' :of the request for continued authorization. 1n4addition, the City Yrespectfully r quests that the Commission (1) provide interim relief to continue.authori,ation for the3,Caulfield Crossing granted in Commission Decision 06-02-036 ("D.06-02-036")while this Application is pending; and (2) permanently authorize closure.of the former at-grade crossing o f tlieSMART line at the intersection of Hopper Street and Lakeville Street (milepost 5-38.3);4and (3) process its Application on an expedited basis, without a hearing. I. INTRODUCTION On June 21, 2004, the City filed an Application with the Commission for approval to close one:at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks at Hopper Street and Lakeville Street (milepost 5-38.3) and construct a new at-grade crossing to replace it at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane (milepost 5-37.8).1 The railroad line intersecting both crossings is the main line of the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company. SMART currently owns the railroad tracks.' Commission Decision 06-022036 ("D.06-02-036") conditionally authorized the City's construction of the Caulfield Crossing, in accordance with the design set forth in the Supplement the City filed to its Application on November 9, 2004.3 Ordering Paragraph 2.of D.06-02-036 stated that the City's authorization for the Caulfield Crossing only remained in'effect while SMART did-not operate passenger rail service AV along its tracks. Once SMART initiated passenger rail service,the Commission's approval would .si _... expire and D.06-02-036 specifically obligated the City to re apply`toythe Commission for continued authorization of the Caulfield Crossing. In°addition, D.06-0219.36 explicitly directed °4 the City to include appropriate environmental review as part of its subsequentapplication. In November 2008, voters,in Sonoma and Marin Counties approved a ballot measure ("Measure Q") to impose a one-quartet cent transactionsiand.use tax in both counties to fund passenger rail service along the_SMAWE tracks. The Board'Of°Supervisors.in Sonoma and Mann counties subsequently approved the official canvass;of electionresults:on December 16, 2008. .e. D.06-03-036 directed the Citylto file a new application within 90 days of an announcement that passenger tail service would commence along tile SMART tracks. However, the Commission granted the City an extension to fileta new Application for continued authorization of the Caulfield Crossing,by_Decembeer 31 201.1:^ On Deeember 19, 2011, the Petaluma City • Council„took final action o,authorize;,the filing^of this Application with the Commission. II. 7.3 —DESCRIPTION OFCAULFIELD CROSSING In 201.1,'the City constructed the new, at-grade Caulfield Crossing (milepost 5-37.8). The former a4 gradeicrossing across the SMART tracks (milepost 5-38.3) was closed and it no , longer exists within the pubhc4ight-of-way. At present; the Caulfield Crossing is located ' Application of the City of Pet dunn for an Order Authorizing the Relocation of One At-Grade Crossing of the Tracks of the Sonoma Marin.Area Rail Transit District in the City-of Petaluma,County of Sonoma (A.04-06-030) (the"2004 Application'). 2 sI\t&wr is a rail district created via enactment of Assembly Bill 2224 (Nation)in 2003. 3The Commission subsequently clarified that D.06-02-036 only applied to the at-grade mainline track crossing of the Si\IART tracks and nor the separate,at-grade'industrial lead track crossing for one-way Hopper Street from East D Street. See D.09:06-007. 4:D.09=09-008'(extending,Application deadline to December 31,2010);See also,Letter from Mr.Paul Clanon, Executive'Director.to-Sky'Woodruff,Attorney for City of Petaluma,dated December 29,2010 (extending Application deadline to December 31,2011). 4 _ approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 116 (Lakeville Highway) and approximately 0.3 miles north of the Petaluma River. Caulfield Lane is a four-lane public street with Class II bicycle lanes in both directions. Caulfield Crossing currently crosses two sets of SMART railroad tracks, and it is designed to operate safely with the addition a third set of railroad tracks in the future. The nearest existing crossings to the Caulfield Crossing are the at-grade industrial lead track crossing for one-way Hopper Street from East D Street (milepost 5-383) and the at-grade Rush Creek crossingto the east (milepost 5- 28.5, in the City of Novato). A. Safety, • Caulfield Crossing has functioned successfully indgafely since itstconstruction. It was constructed in accordance with the Commission`approved design set forth i the November 9, 2004 Supplement to the City's.original Application;.x'04-06-030x, - �` s, 1. City Compliance with D.06-04-036;,Y In constructing,Caulfield.Crossing;:the City fully complied With all the conditions the Commission set forth in D.06-04 036, includmg> � o Relocating the at;grade crossing from its previous,location at milepost 5-38.3 to milepost 5 317.8, according to the design set out inahe City's November 9, 2004, Supplements to its 2004 4pplication o Ensuringrthat the constYuctionyand safety„features of the Caulfield Crossing are consistent with all applicable safety regiiuements, including, but not limited to Kr :'Commission Gener'al,,OrdertGO") 26-D (Clearances), GO 72-B (Pavement 7 Construction); GO 75'C (Cross-Sing Protection); and GO 118 (Walkways); 'o Filingfirialconstruction'plans with the Consumer Protection and Safety Division's ("CPSD ') Rail Crossi gs Engineering Section ("RCES") prior to construction of die Caulfield Crossing6; and o Submitting a completed standard Commission Form G (Report of Changes at Highway Grade Crossings and Separations) to RCES within 30 days of construction completion.? 5 The City's November 9,2004 Supplement to its 2004 Application is incorporated-as part of this Application by reference. 6 The.City'-s final construction plans are attached to this.Application as Exhibit . 4 _ ' The new Caulfield Crossing" includes grading, paving, signage, striping and utility installation and relocation. Warning and safety devices were also installed at Caulfield Crossing. On the southwest side, the City installed two entry gates with flashers to block traffic from Hopper Street into eastbound Caulfield Lane. The City also added one entry gate with flashers, a cantilevered section-with flashers, and a landscaped median approximately 100 feet long on the northeast side of the relocated crossing. 2.- SMART Rail Crossing Safety Efforts Undenvayat the Commission SMART is currently working with the Commission and^local jurisdictions along its proposed 70 mile rail corridor to establish what additionalssafety measures maybe necessary at ti.• SS individual crossings once passenger service commences 9"IniNovcmb& 2011, SMART, the City y and the Commission conducted diagnostic sun cys and determined that an additional exit gate should be installed at the southwest side of the crossing to prevent vehicles frominegotiating around the gate. The new gate also requires re-routing an existing sidewalk B. Traffic ;A . Estimated SMART`Rail Traffic .a•r":n A The SMART Disttiefwill provide passenger service alongtan approximately 70-mile rail corridor from Cloverdale to the"L"a`rkspur ferry'terminal 10 SMART has tentatively scheduled =a, construction of the segnent4 om downtown San Rafael, through Petaluma, to Railroad Square . , in Santa Rosa-toibegin in 2012 ii P s engek'service on this segment is expected to commence by late 201411-'1 SMART estimates that tts passengerfservice will make 28 station stops per weekday at theDokuntown Petaluma Station. According to SMART", there will be 14 northbound and southbound trains each day.ii SMAR'flS plans for weekend service are preliminary, but four "The City's completed Commission form G is attached to this Application as Exhibit_. x See City of Petaluma;Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing-Re-authorization,Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative.Declaration:(November 17,201-1) (the "MND") at 6 (photograph of the Caulfield:Crossin The City's 3ND is attached to this?Application as Exhibit 31 BIND at 37. to Sonoma Marla Area•Rail Transit District,Passenger Rail and Pathway Project Deseription at 2 (May 19, 2010). 1I See Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District:Initial Operating Segment,Construction Industry Symposium (]an.,27,2011). 12 Sonoma Marih Area Rail,Tiansit District,Passenger Rail and Pathway Project Description at 4(May 19, 2010). See SMART DraftEIR 2005. x J , roundtrips per day are expected.'' The passenger trains are expected'to tsavel,at an average of approximately 46 miles per hour, including stops.'s 2. Potential RiverfrontProject Vehicular Traffic The City has received an application for Riverfront, a 35.7 acre Riverfront Mixed Use Development Project (the "Riverfront Project").'O If approved by the City as proposed, the Riverfront Project would include office and commercial space, a hotel, park space, and a variety of residential uses, including-apartments, town homes and single-farilily+residential units.17 Work on the Project is currently projected to begin in 2013 with completion within 2 to 3 years, ,ry ,.;it., although the timing of build out is dependent on marke/c idmons1>As proposed, the Riverfront Project may Increase:average daily traffic,on Caulfield Lane from present levels of between 1,000 and 1,500 trips per day ("ADTsllOrto between,5,000 and 6 000 EADTs.IS The Riverfront Project does not,propose to extend Caulfield Lancipast Hopper Street 3. Potential Vehicular Traffic Duo`the Caulfield Lane Extension At this time, the City,is neither con srdering extending„Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street N, ("Caulfield Lane Extension")19 nor is it etitertamirig;third-party`proposals that involve such an ex en third-party ion n addition,di ln cr rent yc u oniic conditions make it Highly`unlikely that either the City or p , gyp ue the Caulfield Lane Extension in the near term. Although the City 1ias;no plans to extend Caulfield Lane, the City's General Plan 202520 \ b , projects that such an-extension'may be included under build out conditions. Under 2025 build 4(4::.t' rt9 3 q w.'+l. out conditions Caulfield I ane wouldbe extended to connect Lakeville Street to Petaluma ^" Boulevaxd;South via a "southern cros sing-''?over the Petaluma River. To create that connection, Caulfield Lane would extend past•I-Iopper Street, and the intersection at Caulfield Lane and Hopper Street would,be signals ed. Build out in 2025 is estimated to increase average daily See SMART Final Suppleineival FIR 2008. 1'See SMART DraftFIR 2005. IC Riverfiont�Application,No. 11-TSM-0130. .i7 RiVerfront,Application No. 19-TSM-0130. '”MND'in 37. 19-11ie CaulfieldLane Fstension would only become necessary upon construction of the "Southern Crossing." As:contemplatedm the Ciry's2025 General Plan,the Southern Crossing would he completed as part of full general plan buildout and extend over the Petaluma River to connect Petaluma Boulevard South with Lakeville Street.See City of Petaluma: General Plan 2025,at i-10,'2-5,2-13,-2-18,5-10 and 5-12 (Adopted May 19,2008). Available at: http://cityofpetaluma:het/cdd/pdf/general-plan-may08/general-plan-may08.pdf(last visited 12/15/11). 2°City of Petaluma:.General Plan 2025 at i-10,2-5,2-13,2-1S,5-10 and 5-12.. traffic on Caulfield Lane to between 20,000 and 23,000 ADTs, which May require two southbound lanes on Caulfield Lane and widening of the Caulfield Crossing, though specific improvements would be identified as part of the City's,consideration of proposed construction of the southern crossing.222' In the event that the Caulfield Lane Extension Occurs in the future, changes to the design or signalization of the•Caulfield Crossing'and the intersection may be necessary, as required by the CPSD's RCES and in accordance with D.06-04-03613n addition, the City's MND sets forth two mitigation measures (HAZ=1, HAZ-2) that=:deduce the impact of any future Caulfield Lane Extension to less than significant levels without the rieed for grade separation.222 Under Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the City shall ensure thatinuugluon is-required that is sufficient to reduce queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane at:Lakeville Highway:23 To address Sri, potential safety hazards in cone ection with the Caulfield I ane extension Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 ensures installation of•(1) a traffic signal at Hopp, r:Street and Caulfield:Lane ; and (2) installation of an exit gate to prevent cars from navigating around entry gates in the event that the existing median is removed, or equally4effectnt alternative measures.24 III. GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S*APPLIC'ATION Section 1201."off,the California Public Utilities Coderp'rovides that no public road, highway, or street shall be'constructed,at-grade across,a'railroad track without prior approval of the Commrs`sion^'-Applications-for iclocation of anat-grade crossing must demonstrate (1) the ti ^u 4JJ° public need to be served-by proposed crossing; and (2) why a.separation of grade is not y pracucable;2', ' A. There,is a Public Neil to Permanently Relocate Caulfield Crossin The Caulftel4rOssing has improved rail safety within the City. Specifically,.the Caulfield Crossing r placed die at-grade crossing of the SMART railroad tracks previously located at the ititersecaonk'of Hopper Street and Lakeville Street (nulepost 5-38.3) (the "Fortner Lakeville Crossing"). The'Former Lakeville Crossing intersected the SMART rail tracks at an 21 I\AND.art38 (citing\V-TRANS 2011). 22,lR ID at_42-43. 23 MND at42-43. 24:MID at 42-43. 2'Per Commission Rule-IS,Applicants for relocation of an.existing railroad crossing must comply with Rule 3.7. 4 - 7 acute angle, was located within 600 feet of the busy, non-signalized intersection of"D" Street and Lakeville Street and included old and outdated crossing protection devices. The Caulfield Crossing intersects with the SMART railroad tracks at a 90 degree angle,is located at a new, fully signalized intersection, and utilizes the latest state of the artcrossing protection equipment. Closure of the Former Lakeville Crossing also allowed-the City to eliminate a frontage road approximately 40 feet from Lakeville Street that provided access from "D" Street to three properties between "D" Street,and Hopper Street. This now eliminated frontage road created a circulation hazard and improved safety and operations at the D-Siieet and Lakeville intersection. „sic is, B. Grade Separation is Not Practicable fA Nx• The Commission has adopted seven criteria,f61 eVal`u'ating.practicahility in all at-grade ll y. crossing cases, including crossings involving hght_ ail transit,passenger`ratlroad, and freight railroad traffic'( The seven criteria used for judging ptacucability are (1) a derrionstrarion of public need for the crossing; (2) a convincing showing that,l e City has eliminated all potential safety hazards; (3) the concurrence of local community and'einergency authorities; (4) the opinions of the general public, and specifically those„who may be,affected by an at-grade crossing; (5) although less;persuasive than safety considerations, the'comparative costs of an at- grade crossing with aigrade separation; (6) a recommendation/by Commission staff that it concurs in the safety of thempropost5d crossing, including any conditions; and (7) Commission pprecedent in,factuzlly •siinilli crossings, ,, 1. Demonstration.of Public1Need The,public need for discussed-in Section IILA of this• • Application. 'Although there sia'strongpublic need for the Caulfield Crossing, there is absolutely no_suchpubhc need for any form of grade separation at the Caulfield Crossing. The only significant increaseiin vehicular traffic identified in the City's environmental review?of the. Caulfield Crossing inv veil"increasing ADT's on Caulfield Lane to between 20,000 and 23,000, X26-D.04-08-013.(approving the.City of Bakersfield's request to construct four at-grade crossings over a freight railroad);D.07-03-027 (approving City of Glendale's request to construct an at-grade crossing over a combined passenger/freight railroad line) 27 D.02-05-047 (Pasadena Blue Line) (establishing a list of six issues to be used as criteria for judging practicability in that case,and all:further grade crossing cases); D.03-12-018 (City of San Diego) (adding the seventh element,"precedent in factually similar situations," to the list of criteria for determining practicability). 4 - 8' but only in connection with extension of Caulfield Lane beyond.Hopper Street to connect to a potential future southern crossing across the Petaluma-River:2s As noted throughout this Application, the City is neither considering extending Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street itself nor is it entertaining third-party proposals that involve such an extension. In the event that the Caulfield Lane Extension occurs, the City will require changes to the design or signalization of the Caulfield Crossing and the intersection as required by the CPSD's RCES in accordance with 1D.06-04-036. Mitigation Measutes,I LAZ-1 and HAZ-2 in the'City's MND ensure the following,or other equally effectiveemeasures adopted in the course of project-level CEQA review: (1) reconfiguration of thexCaulfield Crossing intersection to reduce queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway, (2)'(installation of a traffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane; and (3) installation of an exit gate;in,the event that the existing median is removed.--9 'These Mtttgation Measures{reduce any cumulatn e'safety a impact of any Caulfield Lane.Extension, should it evei occur; to less than significant levels without the need for grade separation.311' . , Even if the City did contemplate extenstonr.of Caulfield`);ane-beyond Hopper Street at some point in the future the/City's environme�n l review does not recommend grade separation as a means to reduce potenttal.impacts to less than significant'levels.31 Instead, the City's environmental review, disc ussedat . Ilength in Section V below recommends modifications to V existing lanes-and phis-ng along ith installation of a'new traffic signal at the intersection and exit gate at Caulfield Crossing tossuccessfullv Mitigate any queuing that could present a safety hazard igthe Caulfield Lane 1~xtensiontis constructed.32 2. Eliminitibn of All/Safety Hazards Section II:A.1 describes the warning and safety features currently installed at the Caulfield Crossing ind'the specific Commission conditions the City complied with when it constructed the:Caulfield Crossing. In addition, the City's environmental review of the Caulfield Crossing indicated that continuing operation of the crossing would create no significant safety hazards or traffic impacts, but that supplemental safety measures, such as an additional exit gate 28 MND at 42. 229 AI ND'a642-43. 3aMNDat 42-43. 31 See MND at 36 750. 32 b INO at42-43. 4- on the southwest side of the crossing—should be installed if either:SMART begins operating or the Riverfront Project is approved as proposed. As the MND notes, the City will require the developer of the Riverfront Project to fund those supplemental safety measures, if the project is approved. The MND assumed that the CPUC, as part of approving the initiation of SMART service, would similarly require SMART to install such measures. Therefore, there is adequate assurance that those measures will be installed, although the responsible party will likely depend on timing. The MND also identified potentially significant safety.impacts under the cumulative condition in which the southern crossing is constructed 'its part ofgbitild out under the City's General Plan. It found, however, that those impactsAcoulchise.reduced to"1ess than significant level with the implementation of two mitigation-measures (HAZ-1 and HAGt2):33 The City proposes that the Commission condition conunuingT huthorization for the operation of the ittir 3"4 Caulfield Crossing on the impleientation.of those mtngatton measures. 34 :f 3. Concurrence of the,L;ocal Communityiand Emergency Authorities On December 19, 2011, the Petaluma City/Council authorizedithe filing of this Application with the Commission.35 In addtuon; the Emergency Vehicle Assessment for the Riverfront Project prepared for the City of Petaluma in October 2011 found that worst case delays to emergency sere Ice accesslassociated with normal rail operations at the Caulfield w Crossing are.notexpected to eicee d one;minute The SMART Final:EIR determined tlia&any potential impact.on emergency response N r '1 timeifroni'passenger rail serviee was letisathan significant 37 According to the-SMART Final EIR, the cumulative`impacts from freight and'passenger rail service would also be less than significant because the.twd scryices typically operate at different times.38 to rr 33'MIND at 41-43. 31 MND at 36-50. 35-The City Council Adopted the MND on December 19,2011 and in connection with adopting the MIND, the City Cotmdl specifically authorized the filing of this_Application. (See City Resolution attached to this Application as Exhibit 4) y Emergency A?elucle Access Assessment Riverfront Mixed-Use Development(500 Hopper Street,Petaluma California) for the City of Petaluma a[18 (Prepared 1.0/11/11). 37 See e.g. SMART FEIRat 3:2-23 to 3.2-24. 38 See e.g. SMART'FEIR at 3.2-23 to 3.2-24. 4 lb 4. Opinions of theGeneral Public =IO BL tiS D IRECI ER PUaTC HEARING ONtMN)2q 5. Comparative Cost of At-Grade Crossing and Grade Separation Theiinihediate cost of maintaining the.Caulfield Crossing at its current location is $0.39 Grade separation could be expected to cost the City $26 million for an overpass and $28 million for an underpass.if The City is in no financial position at present to=make such an investment, particularly where it is far from certain that any of the significant increases in traffic projected in the City's 2025 General Plan in connection with a possible Caulfield Lane Extension will ever actually materialize. ." With SMART passenger rail service and theeRiverfront Prdject alie.Caulfield Crossing can be operated safely with minor improvements' ncluding-ann additional exit gate on the southwest side of the crossing:to preclude v ehicleS'.??Oni navigabng;around entry'gates. These supplemental safety measures will be,installed by either SMrART or the Riverfront developers, depending on which Projectis completed and operational fi st. Significant increases in traffic ove '.the Caulfield Crossing only,occur with the construction of the Caulfield Lane Extension ,AlthoughitheCaulfield Lane Extension is contemplated as part of+the CudS12025 GenerahPlan build out;the City is in no financial position to consider pursuing such an extension itself in the near term. Furthermore, the economic downturn makes it highly unlikely that a third-party developer would contemplate. such an extension in the immediate future either? In the unlikely event that the Caulfield Lane Extensi611is undertaken, the need for grade?separation of Caulfield Lane and the SMART line is quesnonable.attbest. The Cit !siMND.identifies specific mitigation measures that obviate the. need for grade separation to address potential safety and traffic concerns. To reduce safety and traffic related impactsfrom .potential Caulfield Lane Extension to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measure,HAZz 1teand-HAZ-2 in the City's MND simply recommend (1) reconfiguration ofthe Caulfield Crossing intersection to reduce queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway; (2) installation of a traffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane; 39 The City has already invested over$300;000 to close.theunsafe at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks at Hopper Street and Lakeville-Street (milepost 3-38.3) and replace it with the new,safer Caulfield,Crossing. J0 The Assessment by Steven J. LaFranchi&Associates,Tnc. regarding Caulfield Lane Grade Separation Feasibility(December 14,2011) (the."LaFranchi Assessment") is attached to this Application as Exhibit go. �r — I 1 and (3) installation of an exit gate in the event that the existing median is;removed. The cost of the Mitigation Measures set forth in HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 is estimated to be $tea. This represents a far more economical and equally effective alternative to grade separation. If the Caulfield Lane Extension is ever constructed, the project specific analysis for the Caulfield Lane Extension at that time will consider grade separation and whether the Mitigation Measures identified in the City's MND are sufficient, using then-current facts relevant to traffic and safety. If the Mitigation Measures set forth in the City's MNI are;not sufficient or there are other compelling reasons that counsel in favor of grade separation, the project-specific analysis for the Caulfield Lane Extension will address them. In doing so, that future analysis will revisit �. . x the issue of feasibility and cost of grade separation. 1 , it ry. The City investigated the physical feastbtl r of constructing a grade separated Caulfield • Crossing as either an overpass or underpass in 2011\41 Both an''overpass or underpass grade separation design would be a significant undertaking a[therCaulfield Crossing. •!Grade separation tit would likely-require closing Caulfield 1 an"e"during constructio;,which would generate potentially significant traffic impacts on circulauoii?and businessesiin;the area. The overpass and,underpass design option wouldalso require the City to engage in extensive grading that'could have Serious impacts on adjacent"private properties 42 At least four property owners would befaffected by grade changes McPhail, Chevron, In-N-Out and the � ^4 y' + a• a former I-Iammer`Marine site 43,`±Yiddiuorially, the C 4ty'is currently reviewing an application for a proposed Oil Stop locateaton the'poperty between In-n-Out and Chevron.'" The necessary grading'would require condemnation of`private property or necessitate negotiation of easements with private property owners both of which would increase potential costs for the City.45 In addition, the necessary grading would require extensive reconfiguration at the existing Chevron site to address accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and to allow fuel trucks 41-See Exhibit!`- . 42 LaFranclii Assessment-at 1 TaFranchi Assessment-at 1. '4 Application No.KIP '1'LaFranclii Assessment at 2. 4 - 12- and garbage collection trucks to enter the site.46 Chevron might lose access to the rear of the site entirely.`+? In addition, the necessary vertical clearance for both the overpass or underpass design would force the City to either dose off Hamburger Lane or completely reconfigure it. Any closure would presentsignificant feasibility challenges because it would conflict with the conditions of approbal for the construction of the adjacent In-N-Out Burger Project.45 In addition, it would close off future access to the I-Iammer Marine Sitem.s well as potentially land lock the McPhails property located between the railroad and Hatnbuiger Lane.49 Lastly, to complete construction within the available footprint, the'grade of the.overpass or underpass would need to be 12%,which exceeds Americans with-Disabilities Aceli fits. ,y :Construction of a grade+separated underpass presents separate challenges. For instance, it would be necessary to relocate three forty-eight inch stormdrain culverts thatreross Caulfield Lane.50 Raising the current invert grade affects the entire drainage basin upstream.5' An elevated aqueduct would be=necessary to,replace the three existing storm drain culverts.52 Relocation of an existing drainage ditch parallel to the rail tracksland.•replacement with a conduit in Lakeville Highway is not feasible because the requiredzdepth for'the storm drain would conflict with other uulitics.53 Tke,'City would also be requireda`to relocate a forty-eight inch sanitary sewer gravity trunk line in I-Iopper Street'?, 'l To complete that relocation, the City ' would needto conduct a hydraulic studyyand possibly relocate other utilities (e.g. power, telephone).55 y w. 'Under any circumstances, the Magnitude and technical challenges of an underpass or overpass of[l?SMART line at Caulfield°Lane would be difficult for the City to undertake. Indeed,,the City'sexisting fiscal constraints{onstraints make it impossible.. The economic downturn has 1!LaFranchiAssess,ent at?1-2 s7. 47 LaFianchi Assessment at 1-2. 48 LaFrandili Assessineiitgat 1-2 d"LiFracicly Assessment at I. 5"LiFranch,Assessment at 2-3. 51 LhFIanchi A"ssessineht at 2-3. 'Z LaFranchi Assessment at2-3. 33 I:aFrancln Assessment at2�3. 3a LaFraiichi Assessment 55 LaFranclii Assessment at 2-3. • 4- 422 forced the City to adopt four consecutive years of budget cuts.56 In addition to the difficult economic climate, the City faces increased costs of doing business, particularly with respect to employee benefits. 7 The City reduced its GeneralFund spending from $48.9 million in 2007- 2008to less than $32 million in 2011/2012.58 Since 2008, the City has taken a number of dramatic measures to address declining revenues and reduce spending including: eliminating funding for capital improvement; deferring and reducing facility maintenance;laying off, eliminating or freezing over 50 positions; eliminating part-time positrons; reducing overtime and standby costs; depleting City reseryes to prevent further negativestaffing level impacts; eliminating all General Fund-financed vehicle replacement,"and privatizing current planning functions, janitorial services and aquatics center manageniept,5' In short;lunprecedcnted financial challenges have forced the City to cut back on essential services like'never before. a ;. In Fiscal Year 2011/2012 alone, the City's'forecast projected-a $2.3 millioh budget deficit.60 To address the budget shortfall, the City was forced to.lay off two conimunity services officers, one police records assistant, one public works inspector, and one office assistant.61 Two police captain positions \uere abolished Hiring for approximately nine full time equivalent positions has been frozen.62 The effect of,tl ese extr ordinary budget cuts and layoffs has been that the City has had to struggle with existing s'taffrhours;or resources toycarry out its existing workload. Given that d 7 the City's resources;dcpend on the economic climate;availability of funding, and other factors outside,tlie City's control,<it is impossible to predict Whether-the southern crossing and.Caulfield Lane Extension anticipated inithe 202-5 General Plan will ever materialize.,The Riverfront Project does not require or include such°an extension Notable increases in traffic over the Caulfield Crossing occur only in the event that the Caulfield Lane Extension is con structed.63 Although the Caulfield Lane Extension would 65 City of Petaluma,California,Fiscal Year 2012 Budget,City Manager's Budget Message("City Manager's Budget Message") at Q-1_ i7 City Manager'sBudget Message at I-1. 58 City Manager's,Budget Message at I-1. si City Manager's Budget Message at I-1 to I-2. 66,City MIT)ager's'Budget Message at I-3. f1 City i\ianager's'Budget Message at 1-6. f2,City Manager's Budget Message at I-7. 63 D MND at 42. 4 - H-- potentially increase traffic levels at the Caulfield Crossing to between,20,000 and 23,000 ADTs , the resulting traffic volume does not necessarily require a grade separation for the intersection to operate safely.C4 The Mitigation Measures set forth in the City's MND_address additional traffic should the Caulfield Extension ever occur.us Specifically, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and I-IAZ- 2 in the City's MND recommend the following or other equally effective measures adopted in the course of project-level CEQA review: (1) reconfiguration of the Caulfield Crossing intersection to reduce queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane atLakecille Highway; and (2) installation of a traffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lan e.;and (3) installation of an exit J29-..nt gate in the event that the existing median is removed 66 Thus;even iE the Caulfield Lane Extension occurs and the anticipated additional traffic results, changes to„the Caulfield Crossing and adjacent intersections can safely accommodate the additional traffic without the need for expensive grade separation. �i; �s•<t: Maintaining the existing, safely operating Caulfiel'd:Cror ssing does not impose any additional costs on the City and does notTpesent any significant safety risks. Installation of supplemental safety measures-to address SMART or<Riverfront, whichever comes first, are economical. This supplemental${safety measure;is estunatedto cost approximately $75,000 to $100,000(7 to install andwill feduce_potential safety impacts from SMART and Rivetfront to less iJ than significant levels. Additional changes to the Caulfield Crossing and adjacent intersections to accommodateiadditional traffic=feom the Caulfield Lkane extension, as required by the mitigation measures/In the City's MND, \vould`be an additional expense but substantially less costly than grade separation while ensuring:safe operation of the crossing. By contrast, grade separation iP costs $26 Milli-On.for.anoverpass\and $2g/million for an underpass. The cost of grade separationte prohibigye_and theiCity is in no financial position at present to.makesuch an expenditure. Moreover;requi�rii g the significant expenditure represented by grade separation seems unnecessary both because it is uncertain at present that the traffic volumes that would justify itwilLoccur and because the City's MND have identified mitigation measures that would effectively address thattraffic`volume, if the Caulfield Lane Extension occurs. 61 NEND,at 36=50. 65 N ND.at 42-43. 661\HD at 42-43. 67. SORE for cost estimate] 6. Recommendation by Commission Staff CPSD's RCES Division will review this Application for permanent authorization of the Caulfield Crossing. However, it is important to note that the Caulfield Crossing was constructed with CPSD's RCES Division's oversight and approval.6s In accordance with 1x.06-04-036, the City filed final construction plans for the Caulfield Crossing with the CPSD's RCES Division prior to Caulfield Crossing's construction." When construction of the Caulfield Crossing was complete, the City submitted a completed standard Commission Fo`rinG (Report of Changes at 4'" Highway Grade Crossings and Separations) to CPSD's RCES Division within 30 days.70 Since Caulfield Crossing has operated safely since its construction;theCiiyadoes not propose any modifications to the existing, RCES Division reviewed and approved site.. 'I he RCES Division submitted comments i the City,,in response tooit4 MND (the "RCES Letter").71 The RCES Letter recommended,that the City schedule an oa=site'diagnostic review.at the Caulfield Crossing involving SMART,the North Coast Rail Authority and the Commission in advance of filing its Application. At such diagnostic review, the Commission may or may not recommend additional treatments to_,Caulfield Crossing. Before filing this Application , the City participated in a technical,`'diagnosticcieview,'o the Caulfield Crossing with , SMART and Commission repres`e'ntatives on November 29,;2011 in connection with the SMART project At that diagnosU&'review, RCES11Division representatives concluded that SMART sersice would»;necessitate an additional exit gate should be installed at the southwest side of tie crossing, which' involvesrre routingiof an existing sidewalk, to prevent vehicles from negotiahtig around the Caulfield Crossing gate; T It is uitielear to the City whether The diagnostic review recommended in the RCES Letter is in addition tothetrevicw that'oecurred on November 29. If the Commission or the RCES Dkision;believes that additional diagnostic review of the Caulfield Crossing is appropriate, the City proposes that such uppletnental review take place while this Application is pending. lf, following that supplemental diagnostic review, the RCES Division concludes that Caulfield "'See Section H A.l,supra. 00 See Exhibit.N. 70 Sec Exhibit E. 9' See Letter from.Mr. DaSid Stewart, Utilities Engineer,Rail Crossings Engineering Section to Geoff Bradley, PlanningAlanager,City of Petaluma,regarding Notice of Completion—Caulfield Lane.Railroad Crossing Reauthorization(December.12,2011). The RCES Letter is attached to this Application as Exhibit M. Crossing must be modified beyond installation of the exit gate to allow for safe operation as is (without SMART rail operation or construction of the Riverfront Project) or with SMART and/or, the Riverfront Project, the City proposes that the Commission authorize continued operation of the Caulfield Crossing subject to the following conditions: o The City shall supplement its MND as necessary to address any additional safety measures identified in the supplemental diagnostic review; and o The City shall ensureinstallation of additional safety mea utes identified at the supplemental diagnosticteview and the supplement to the MIND. The RCES Letter also recommends that the Riverfront Project specifically set aside C_'4 funding to mitigate future cumulative-impact at the Caulfield Crossi g, The Riverfront Project, and the terms and conditions that apply thereto;are not part this Application -This Application = . fit., is exclusively concerned with the matters that fall within the Commission's pure ew; namely authorization for permanen'trelocation_of Caulfield Crossing. However, the City recognizes that s>1VSND for the Caulfield Crossing concludes that the n' .a Riverfront Project will be among those projects, along with Sbl lRldt rail service and build-out conditions anticipated in theCity's General Plan, that contribute to the need for measures to • mitigate potentially significant safety impacts at`some pointiri''the:future. 'The City's standard practice for addressing potential future impacts of`a,given development project is to condition m City approvaliof the project on the developer making a fair share contribution to be used by the Ise f City towards the cost of-rnstallat onof the neccss ra y improvements. The City proposes that the Commission ion condition its peanent authorization of the Caulfield Crossing on the City requiring tliecRiyerfront Projece o make such a contribution as a condition of approval, should the City ultimatehgapprove the Riverfront Project. 7 ^,'Comnssion Precedent ti The COInnii5Sihhd F S addtessed;the issue of practicability many times and approved numerous at-grade°crossing applications and settlement agreementsinvolving at-grade crossings.T- Importantly, prior Commission at-grade crossings approvals have involved similar 72 See,.e.il. D':06 711-037 (granting City of Santa Maria authority to construct at-grade highway rail crossing); D.08:09-032(granting.City of-San Marcos authority to construct at-grade pedestriancrossing);D.07-10I-003 (granting Port of Stockton's request fonauthority to construct at-grade highway crossing);D07-07-003 (approving a settlement .agreement thatpermitsthe Countyof;San Luis Obispo to construct at-grade pedestrian crossing);D.06-11-037 (granting City of Santa Maria authority-to construct angrade rail crossing);D.05-02-016 (granting City of Dinuba authority to 4 - 17 or higher vehicular ADT volumes73; rail traffic speeds71 and rail traffic.volurnes.75 The Commission has also grantedauthorityto construct at-grade crossings over tracks sewing similartypes of rails service.76 Furthermore, the Commission Decisions that deny at-grade separation are distinguishable from die City's Application. In D.82-04-033 (City of San Mateo), D.92-01-017 (City of Oceanside), and D.98-09-059 (City of San Diego); the Commission denied the request for at-grade crossings because-it i Was found a separation of grade practicable. Unlike the nrJ7 v City's request here, these proceedings all involved high-speed (74p mpli) passenger railroad traffic and were denied based in part on the number of trains andrtrain speeds„and also on the position f ..,,1 of various federal rail and highway safety agencies,.3that generally opposed any at-grade crossings along mainline railroad track with-high-speed passenger traffic. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CEQA,COMPLIANCE k,v� In accordance with the California,Environmental Quality Act77 ("CEQA”) and `iE Commission Rule 2.4, the.Commission inusi,consider the environmental consequences of the fi NN. N City's proposal because the Commission has discretionary authontfto approve or deny the permanent location of-the'Milt lfield Crossing 7 `The Citviissthc-lead agency for the Caulfield Crossing. As a responsible,agencygu�$nder CEQA7the Commission must consider the City's k' 1 3 Ott environmental document and;findings,before acting on or approving this project.79 The Cit) prepared an initial study'andlproposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND,") and circulated tlkeerMND for-the mandatory public review beginning on November 17 2011.w' Following the public review period',,the City Council held a hearing on December 19, construct at-grade crossing over tracks of San Joaquin Valley Railroad);and Ill.05-01-023 (granting authority to State Coastal Conservancy to censtruct at grade'Bicycle/pedestrian crossing over SMART tracks). '3 See;-e.g D 04 08013▪(granting City of Bakersfield authority to construct at-grade crossing at intersection with 6,000 ADM): 7l See, e:g. D 08-09-032 (▪granring City of San Marcos authority to construct.at-grade pedestrian crossing over North County Tr=ansit District tracksivhere trains Travel 50 mph) See, e.g. D.08-09=032 (granting City of San Marcos authority to construct at-grade pedestrian crossing over North County Transit District tracks where 64 daily Sprinter trains utilize the tracks) 76 See, e.g. D.05-01-023 (granting authority to State Coastal Conservancy to construct at-grade bicycle/pedestrian'crossing.overSiMART tracks). 7'Public Resources.Code Section 21000 et seq. 'a The Commission has the exclusive authority to approve the rail crossings pursuant to Section 1202 of the Public Utilities Code. 79 C13QA Guidelines,Sections 15050(b) and 15096. s"CEQA Guidelines,Sections 15073 and 15105(b). 4 -- lV 2011 regarding the MND, heard public testimony, and considered such other evidence that was presented at the heating. At the conclusion of the.hearing, the City Council voted to adopt the MND.81 The City filed a Notice of Determination ("NOD") with Sonoma County and the State Clearinghouse on December t ,2011. The MND considered the environmental impacts of making the Caulfield Crossing permanent at its existing location.82 In addition, the MND considered the potential cumulative environmental impacts of the permanent authorization of the Caulfield Crossing in combination with the potential impacts of SMART rail passenger service, the proposed Riverfront Project, and extension of Caulfield Lane at General Planbuild ouc83 After considering all of these factors individually and theirfcumulative tmpact,,,the City found that all potentially significant impacts that arise from continued authorization of the Caulfield Crossing s., could be reduced to less-than-significant levels wrtliltrmgatiotirvmeasures " ar A. No Project-Specific Impacts from the Rea tliorization-of the Caulfield Crossing The MND concluded that therewould be no project specific environmental impacts from the continued authorization of the Caulfield Crossing at tts existing location.'" B. No Cumulative>Impacts-from-SMART Passenger Rail Service and the Riverfront Project, 4 ,e' When SrvIARI tail service isioperating, the,additional traffic on Caulfield Lane from ;\ Riverfront may cause a queue t&f6rmfon,Caulfield La e waiting to turn right onto Lakeville Highway7eThe 95thtpercentile queue length on eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway with4thdiRivcrfront projt ctis"projectedtto remain well within the 500 feet of available storage under the L,Xisting plus Rivetfront project condition.86 Queues on Caulfield Lane shorter than 500 feet would•not interfere withthe rail crossing and therefore, no significant safety impacts would occur from'queues at Caulfield Lane and Lakeville Highway due to the Riverfront project 81 The City-Council Adopted the MND on December 19,2011. (See City Resolution attached to this Application as E±liibit lrn)':, 82 FIND at 36. %3i\IND at 36-49. 81 MND-St 36. 85 JV h'D at 42. 86 DfND at 42(citing W-Trans 2011 at 41-42). 4 — le/ in combination with the continued authorization of the existing Caulfield Crossing and SMART passenger rail seiviee.87 • Even with SMART passenger rail service and the Riverfront Project, the Caulfield Crossing can be operated safely-with minor improvements, including an additional exit gate on the southwest side of the crossing to preclude vehicles from:navigating around entry gates.88 These supplemental safety measures will be installed by the first of either SMART or the Riverfront developers, depending on which Project is completed aid3operational first. • C. No Cumulative Impacts from SMART Passengeraail Service, the Riverfront Project and Extension of Caulfield Lane with N'hhgation O Mitigation measures are only necessary if Caulfield Lane is extended past Hopper Street as part of the construction of the southern crossing.of the Petaluma River:89_Although such an extension is identified in the City's 2025 General'I lan9°, the City is neither considering extending Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street not has it received'third,party proposals that=involve extension of Caulfield Lane past Hoppet)Strect. There are„no immediate or foreseeable plans to construct the southern crossing of the Petaluma River. The MND estimates that the 95'h percents e'queue length on'eastbound Caulfield.Lane at Lakeville Highway would be up tot578 feet long if Caulfield Lanelwere extended beyond Hopper Street in connection with'tl e southern crossing project.91 Queues on Caulfield Lane in excess of 500 feet would cause cara4o°be_waiting oniitlhe railroad tracks, an unsafe condition.92 Although apotential.Caulfield-LanCextension at some point in the future could lead to '4 an unsafe condition at Caulfield Crossing were it ever constructed, the MND makes clear that two mitigation measures would>reduce any cumulative impact:to less than significant levels. Specifically, thiez;IVIND_proposes die following mitigation measures: Mitigation &Leasure HAZL1. Reduce Queuing on Eastbound Cauyield Lane at Lakeville Highway. At such time hatthe,southern crossing across the Petaluma River is constructed, the City shall,ensure that mitigation is requited sufficient to reduce the 951h percentile queue length on eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway to 500 feet or less and/or ensure that vehicle queuing does not extend onto the Caulfield rail crossing by the 87 MND at 42: xx.MND at 41. '89 MND at 42 743. 9a City of Pet luina:General Plan 2025 at 1-10,2-5,2-13,2'-18,5-10 and 5-12. 91 \IND at 42. 92 AND at 42. I-40 following measures or_by'equally effective alternative measures,adopted in the course of project level CEQA review for the Caulfield Lane Extension/southern crossing project: (i) add or 100-foot long eastbound right turn pocket from Caulfield Lane onto Lakeville Street; (ii) convent the.current left-left/through-right lanes on the westbound approach of Caulfield Lane to single left-through right.lanes; (iii) convert the phasing on Caulfield Lane to protected phasing; and (iv) add right turn overlap phases on southbound Lakeville Street and eastbound Caulfield Lane.93 Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. Install Additional Safety Measures''atHopper Street and Caulfield Lune. At such time as the Caulfield Lane extension/southern dossing of the Petaluma River is constructed, the City shall require installation-of' �ttaffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane or an equally effective alternantieuneasureFadopted in the course of project-level CEQA review for the Caulfield.Lane Extension%outhern crossing project. If the existing median on Caulfield Lane isremoved'tb accommodate additional tarn lanes or travel lanes, the City shall install/an�exit gateton.eastbound"Caulfield Lane to prevent cars from navigating around the entry gates. The improvements described in Mitigation Measure'`FIAZ-1_are estimated to reduce queues on Caulfield Lane to 460 feet long;thereby preventmgcars from being trapped on top of the railroad tracks and mating the cumulatV e impact to less than?significant.95 The rInz a improvements described to HAZ-2 would reduce safely hazards asp much as is feasible and would reduce cumulative safety impacts to less than significant.% It should be noted that •. } v' mitigation measures proposed in HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 are only necessary if and when the Caulfield LanetExtension/southern ctossingprolectais ever implemented. These mitigation measures are not required simply because of traffic generated from General Plan build out t without a`'southern crossing jEurthermore the City will change the design or signalization of the Caulfield Crossing and the mtersection as required by CPSD's RCES in accordance with D.06- 04-036 in the.ev entithat the City4decides to undertake an extension of Caulfield Lane beyond Hopper"Street: V. STATEMENT",QF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE GOVERNING APPLICATIONS A. Compliance with Rule 2.1 (a) J3 MND at 43. 91 MND at 43. 95 MND at 42-43. 96 iMNDat43. 4 -- %1 The City is a duly organized municipal corporation, operating under a charter and in accordance with California law: As a municipal corporation, the City exercises jurisdiction over all municipal functions, including the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of a system of public roads within its geographic boundaries. The City's governing body is the City Council of the City of Petaluma. The City's principal place of business is 11 English Street,Petaluma, California 94952. 13. Compliance-with Rule 2.1 (b) Correspondence and communications regarding this Application should be directed to: John C. Brown City Manager City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone: (707) 778-4345 Facsimile: (707) 778-4419 '�- Email: city mgt(Wci petal uma ca=us 4 '4 444 With a copy to: " ' �`\ Sky Woodruff,Esq. (SBN 197204) "' MEYERS, NAVE,'RIBACK SILVER& WILSON` 555 12d Street, Suite 1i500 °';. Oakland..i.CA 94607 'fel'cplionc"(510)`8082000 . /Facsimile: (510)444 1108 Email: soodruff @mcycisnave:com C. .Compliance with"2:1 (c) 1. ` 'Category1for the Proceedin Pursuant to Comnssion Rules 1.3(e) and 7.1(e)(2), the City proposes that this proceeding be categorized as ratesetting since this Application does not fall within the definitions of"adjudicator)," or "quasi-legislative" as set forth in Commission Rules 1.3(a) and 1.3(4):97 97 Where'a'proceeding does not fall within any of the Commission's Rule 1.3 categories,Rule 7.l(e)(2) directs these proceedings to.be conducted in accordance with the rules for ratesetting proceedings. 4 - 22 2. Need for a Hearin The City does not believe that hearings are necessary in this proceeding. The City's Application includes sufficient evidence to allow the.Commission-to make the requisite findings pursuant to California Statute and Commission Rules. 3. Issues:to be Considered c,, The only issues to be considered is whether to authorize the'Gity to permanently relocate I 4 the Caulfield Crossing because the City has demonstrated (1)a;=public need for the permanent relocation; and (2) a separation of°grade is not practicable?-it' racticable y jtE, 4. Schedule The City respectfully requests that the Commission approve this Applieation on an expedited basis. Specifically, the City requests that"thetomnuussion complete its review and Nik , approve this Application by May 20, 2032. Although thetCity does not believe that hearings are Z 4,' necessary, should the Commissioner assigned to,the Apphcation,determinethat hearings are necessary, the City proposes the following g`schedulc`i ' " Application Filed: December 3040141 ,Preheating Conference January 30, 2012 Evidentiary FIearuigs: February;>10, 2012 Briefs Feted, March 5, 2012 Proposed Decision Issued. April 4, 2012 -k,k„ Comments on PD fled:` April 16, 2012 Reply Comments filed: April 20, 2012 Final"Commission}Decision: May 20, 2012 SMART estimates that passenger service will commence over the Caulfield Crossing by late 2014. Per Ordering Paragraph 2 of D.09-09-008, the schedule proposed above provides the Commission with 18 months to review the City's Application before any date set by the SMART Board.of Directors for commencement of passenger rail service. D. Summary of the City's Compliance with Applicable Rules Rule(s) Requirement Section/Exhibit 2.1 (a) Legal Name and Address V.A 4, _2.12 Rule(s) Requirement, .Section/Exhibit 2.1 (b) Persons to Receive Notice V.B 2.1 (c) Categorization/Hearing/Issues to be V.C.1-3 Considered/Proposed Schedule 2.2 Organization and Qualification to Transact Business V A 2.4 CEQA Compliance V, Exhibit 3_7 (a), 3.8 Rail Milepost/Location of the Crossing II 3.7 (b) 3 8 Crossing Identification Number of the Affected II Crossing ., 3.7 (c)(1), 3.8 Public Need Served by Relocated Crossing III A 3.7 (c)(2), 3.8- Grade Separation is Not Practicable Av IIIB 3.7 (c)(3), 3.8 Signs, Signals and Other Warning Devices4 ILA Exhibit 3.7 (d), 3.8 Map of locations at least 400 feet along ihe?railroad;'N Exhibit and 200 feet along the highway in each direction 3.7 (e), 3.8 Map of relation of proposed crossing to existing toads Exhibit and railroads Profile showing ground line and grade line and rate of 3.7 (0, 3.8 Exhibit grades of affected highways and railroads ,,- VI. CONCLUSION =`' For the reasons set forth above, the City submits that (1) the"permanent location of an at-grade crossing at I-Ioppe Steeet and Caulfield Lane serves„a-publlic'need, (2) grade separation at the Caulfield Crossing is not practicable; (3) it`has installed adequate signs, signals and other crossing warning devices at,Caultiieldh,Crossing andi(4) it has conducted an adequate environmental`review)of the Caulfield Crossing,under CEQA that considers the impact of SMART, the Riverfronf Protect and any future Caulfield Lane Extension. Therefore, the City a respectfullyirequests that the'Commission issue an order permanently authorizing the at-grade Caulfield Cro sing and closure of the Former Lakeville Crossing. In.addition, the City respectfully'requests that the Commission (1)provide interim relief to continue authorization for the Caulfield Crossinggrari[ed in Commission D.06-02-036 while this Application is pending; (2) permanentlyjauthorize closure of the former at-grade crossing of the SMART line at the interssectidii of Hopper Street and Lakeville Street (milepost,5-38.3); and (3) process its Application on an expedited:basis, without a hearing. DATED: D a 2, 2011 Respectfully sukrpitted City of Pet m By: «> Sky Woodruff 1760636.4 y ` /t ~\v A-,'“1-AA y\ c « N :«x ; « . � „ . . _ / • /^ N y y • �-�� • VERIFICATION • 1 (NA M ], hereby declare that I am the City Manager of the City of Petaluma, and that I hate read the foregoing "Application of the City of Petaluma for an Order Authorizing the Permanent Relocation of One At-Grade Crossing of the Tracks of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District" and that the information set forth therein concerning the City of Petaluma is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and'ibelief. - I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing s true ani'dcorrect. l Executed this XXday of December 2011,in Petaluma, California p ti ti [CITYMANt1G81] K _ k 0. • • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I [NAND]; hereby certify: I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, California, am over eighteen years of age and am not a.party to the within entitled cause. My business address is 555 12th Street,Suite 1500, Oakland, California On December , 2011, I caused the following to be served: ,tc APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA FOR AN-ORDER AUTHORIZING THE'PERMANENT RELOCATION OF ONE AT-G ',•$ a E CROSSING OF THE TRACKS OF THE SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAIL TR▪ ANSIT,DISTRICT N n $ via electronic-mail to all parties on the attached servic▪e list via electronic mail or US Mail. , Executed on.December', +, 20.1yat Oakla d;aCalifornil 94607x- I 1747197.1 d• • D • tj ;' • 4 - 2"1