HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.A 03/19/2012 •
Age,v Ite,vw#4.A
cSP'LUdr
off? .
ae
185$
DATE: March 19, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Eric W. Danly, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding Revisions to the City of Petaluma Application with the
California Public Utilities Commission for Re-Authorization of the Caulfield
Lane Railroad Crossing Project
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss, as desired, the attached revised
application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for the re-authorization of
the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing project. Formal Council re-authorization is not requested.
BACKGROUND _
On June 21, 2004, the City of Petaluma filed an application with the CPUC requesting authority
under Public Utility Code sections 1201-1205 to relocate an at-grade mainline railroad crossing
from Hopper Street,just south of 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 at Hopper Street. CPUC Decision 06-02-036 included two conditions of approval:
(i) the Caulfield Lane.crossing would need to be re-authorized at the time that passenger rail
service was initiated; and (ii) the City of Petaluma would make changes to the design or
signalization of the intersection of Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane as required by CPUC
regulations prior to extending Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street. The conditions required that
any such application.include compliance with appropriate environmental review under CEQA.
Construction was started on July 6, 2010 for the new Caulfield Lane crossing. The new crossing
was opened to traffic on February 8, 2011. The old crossing at Jefferson was closed to traffic on
February 11, 2011. Commencement of Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) passenger
rail service using the crossing is several years in the future.
Agenda Review:
City Attorney \l Finance Director City Manager
On December 19, 2011 the City Council adopted a mitigated negative declaration of
environmental impact (MND) and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project
consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and authorized the City
Manager to file an application to the CPUC for re-authorization of the crossing by the then-
existing deadline of December 31, 2011. A CEQA notice of determination for the approval was
filed on January 3, 2012. Since that time, the City received an extension of time to file from
CPUC staff, discussed below, and has-made minor revisions to the application, which now has a
submission deadline of March 30, 2012.
DISCUSSION
The request to the CPUC fora 90-day extension and certain revisions to the application resulted
from a request received December 12,2011 from the CPUC Rail Crossing Engineering Staff
(RCES) for a Caulfield Crossing-specific diagnostic review at the site before the City filed its
application. This did not provide adequate time to schedule the site visit and include
information from it in the draft application the Council reviewed on December 19, 2011, At that
time, Council authorization to file an application was required in order to meet the December 31"
deadline, which had not yet been.extended. The CPUC granted the filing extension to March 30,
2012.
The revised application adds detail about supplemental safety measures identified in response to
RCES staff recommendations at the on-site diagnostic review on February 2, 2012. One
mitigation measure from the MND Which would be needed at the time of construction of the
Caulfield Extension Southern Crossing was replaced with an "equally effective alternative
measure...." as envisioned in the approved MND. The modification substitutes vehicle detection
traffic loops for an additional turn,lane at Caulfield/Lakeville. At the time this mitigation is
needed, the traffic loops will be installed just east of the Caulfield Crossing. The traffic
loopswill sense a vehicle on the roadway near the tracks and will give preference to clear the
Caulfield queue by sending a signal to keep the traffic signal green in the eastbound direction.
This change is within the scope of and actually anticipated in the MND. Therefore, it does not
require re-approval of the MND or any subsequent CEQA document.
Wording in the application has also been changed for consistency with General Plan policy
relating to construction of the Caulfield Extension/Southern Crossing traffic improvements
projected to accommodate the General Plan citywide build out scenario. All changes are
highlighted in Attachment 1, a redlined-version of the December 19,2011 draft application. A
version with all changes,accepted is included as Attachment 2. It is possible that
additionalchanges may be made to the application prior to submission by March 31, 2012 as
appropriate to further clarify and/or strengthen the application.
Subsequent to the City's adoption of the MND, at the City's diagnostic review with RCES on
February 2, 2012, questions were raised about whether the City should have included the North
Coast Railroad Authority's ("NCRA") Freight Rail Project among the cumulative projects
potentially impacting the Caulfield Crossing. In the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for
the Freight Rail Project, certified by NCRA in June 2011, NCRA envisions the resumption of
freight service through Petaluma, including the Caulfield Crossing. According to NCRA's EIR,
the Freight Rail Project, could involve up to 6 trips by 60=car trains (three northbound and three
southbound) and two trips by 25-car trains (one northbound and one southbound) six days a
week at full build-out.
The statute of limitations for any challenge to the City Council December 19 decision on the
PUC application filing, and the City's MND, has run, and the MND is now beyond legal
challenge. Nonetheless, City staff have examined the NCRA EIR to determine whether the
NCRA EIR identified any new or different transportation or hazard impacts at the Caulfield
Crossing.
The NCRA EIR does not raise any new concerns regarding hazard or transportation impacts.
The NCRA EIR itself conducted an examination of potential safety and traffic impacts along its
route and did not find any significant impacts at any crossing in Petaluma. The NCRA EIR also
took into account the SMART EIR (2006) and SMART Supplemental EIR (2008) and agreed
with SMART's conclusions that the combination of SMART operations and resumed freight
operations would not result insignificant cumulative impacts. Specifically, the NCRA EIR
concludes that "freight and passenger rail operations would not create a significant cumulative
increase in travel times and queues at at-grade crossings." (NCRA DEW, p. 4-24.) Part of the
reasoning for this conclusion was that freight trips are likely to occur at night, on weekends or
off-peak hours to avoid conflicts with the commuter rail service. Night, weekend and off-peak
trips would also avoid conflicts with peak vehicular travel times. Finally, NCRA's operations
are currently limited by a consent-decree with the City of Novato ("Novato Consent Decree").
The Novato Consent Decree restricts operations through Novato (and therefore, through
Petaluma as well) to no more than a cumulative total of six one-way commercial freight train
trips per week with no more than 18 cars until certain improvements are made to the route
through Novato. (NCRA DER, p. 2-15.) While the NCRA EIR expresses optimism regarding
the completion of these improvements, the EIR describes neither a funding source for these
improvements, nor a definitive schedule for their completion. As such, it is unclear when NCRA
could even begin full-scale operations. For all of these reasons, the NCRA EIR does not raise
any new concerns regarding cumulative hazards or transportation impacts at the Caulfield
Crossing.
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 environmental review. The total anticipated cost is $100,000. Basin Street has
assisted financially with the at-grade relocation project in the past.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Redline of December 19, 2011 application showing revisions to City application for
Caulfield Crossing Re-Authorization
2. Clean copy of revised application
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF PETALUMA APPLICATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR
RE-AUTHORIZATION OF THE CAULFIELD
LANE RAILROAD CROSSING PROJECT
(SHOWING REVISIONS)
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�=3- - .- {Deleted:n-
the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District
APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING
THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF1ONE AT-GRADE CROSSING OF THE .
TRACKS OF THE SONOMA-MARIN.AREA RAIL TRANSIT'DISTRICT
TY
NoN.,,,,..,
vy
s � , .
�N N 1, Sky Woodruff,Esq. (S13N: 197204)
W: % Ed Giutzmacher(SBN: 228649)
Jessica\lullan(SBN:ciiik
I\ YERS,NAVE,RI BACK SILVER&WILSON
`� r9j 555 12th Street,Suite 1500
``ar� / Oakland,CA 94607
f {+� Telephone: (510)808-2000
Facsimile:(510)444-1108
Email: swoodru fKdlmcversnave.com
J iW&: Mach 2012 Attorneys for the CITY OF PETALUSL1 i
BEFORE THE PUBLIC.UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of the City of Petaluma for an
Order Permanently Authorizing the Relocation
Application 11-12-
of One At-Grade Crossing of the Tracks of
the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District
APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA FOR.AN ORDER AUTHORIZING
THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF ONE AT RADE CROSSING OF THE
TRACKS OF THE SONOMA-MARIN ARE 'GA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT '
i \ ? ..
Pursuant to Sections 1201 through 1205„768 and 7604 of the California Public Utilities •
(
Code,General Orders 75-D and 88-&issuedbv tfie California Public Utilities Commission(the
\'. IA'4, 7Y
"Commission"),and in accordance with Rules 2 1 3t77and 3'.8 of the Commission's Rules of
G
Practice and Procedure("Commission Rules"),the City ofiPetaluma(the"City")hereby submits
this Application requesting a Commission&Fder,to permanentlg,authorize the City's relocation
`t .
of an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks of the'Sonoma-MariiTArea.Rail Transit District
✓
eit
("SMART") from the mtccsee ti n of 1-IopperStn.0 and Lakeville Street(milepost 5-38.3) to
r
Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane:(milepost 5-37.8)(the"Caulfield Crossing")in the City of
\aim
Petaluma,County of Sonoma\caulfield Crosstnghas"functioned successfully and safely since
its construction. Therefore,no perm nalichangees or additional improvements to the existing
-‘4,„‘
railroad crossing are proposed at thIS time as pan of the request forpermanent authorization of --.-•(Deleted:continued •
Caulfield'Gro sing. I Ioweverytthe Cit ccoenizes that it may be necessary in the future to work
with developers .SNIAR7•and the North-Coast Rail Authority("NCRA'')to ensure that
necessary improvements to protect safety are installed at Caulfield Crossing where there is new
development or new mail.operations.
In addition,.the•City respectfully requests that the Commission (1)provide interim relief
to continue authorization for the 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 of the SMART line at the intersection of Hopper-Street and Lakeville
Street(milepost 5-38.3);and (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
5-383)and construct a new at-grade crossing to replace it at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane
(milepost 5-37.8)) The railroad line intersecting both crossings is the main line of the former
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company. S\L\RT currently ownsthe railroad tracks.'
Commission Decision 06-02-036("D.06-02-036")conditionally aotliorized 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 tfie'City's autHOiization for the
/f
Caulfield Crossing only remained in effect while SMART did•not operate passenger rairservice
along its tracks.Once S\L\RT initiated passenger rail'sen ,th:ticee'Commisston's,,approval would
V
expire and D.06-02-036 specifically obligated the City oireiapply to the Commission for
continued authorization of the Caulfield:Crosing. In add ti> D.06-02-036 explicitly directed
the Can to include appropriate environment:d redicy,as part of its�.stibsequent application.
�_
In November 20�08 voters in Sonoma and\lann Counties approved a ballot measure
Ati t i
(`Measure Q") to trnpose,a one-quarter cent transaction and use tax in both counties to fund
passenger rail service alo ig he SMART tracks. The Board of Supervisors in Sonoma and \larin
`-
counties subsequently approvedithe officlaLcanvasa of election results on December 16,2008.
D.06--03-036 directed tli'City to fil a new application within 90 days of an announcement that
passenger rail service would commenceralong the START tracks. However,the Commission
granted the City:an extension to'file a new"Application for continued authorization of the
Caulfield Crossing_by December 31,2011- -r{Deleted:On keen be'19,2011.the Petaluma
Application of the City of Petaluma for an Order Authorizing the Relocation of One At-Grade Crossing of
the'Tracks of the Sonoma tMarin Area Rail Transit District in the City of Petaluma,County of Sonoma(\.04-06-030)
(the"2004 Application").
2 SMART is a rail district created via enactment of Assembly[till 2224(Nation)in 2003.
'The Commission subsequently clarified that 13.06-12-036 only applied to the at-grade mainline track crossing
of the S\IAR I'tracks and not the separate,at-grzade industrial lead track crossing for one-way Hopper Street from East
D Street.See 1309-06-007.
'13.119-09-1918(extending Application deadline to December 31,2010);See a[ro,I<uer'from 61x.Paul Clanon,
Executive Director to Sky Woodruff,Attorney for City of Petaluma,dated December 29,2010(extending Application
deadline to December 31,21111).
7
•
The City worked to,ensure the timely preparation of,a new Commission Application, - {Deleted Council tuok filactio,,
together with-a Mitigated Negative Declaration( \IND"),_and\vas.prepared to file its Deleted n 'he re s
{Deleted this
Application in advance of the December 31,2011 deadline' . However,comments.on the `---- --- - —
City's\IND filed by the Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division's("CPSD")
Rail Crossinp Engineering Section ("RC?S")on December 12,2011 recommended that_.the
City conduct an additional on-site diagnostic review focusing specifically on the City's new
application wid) both SMART and the NCRA before the City filcd•i[S!ncw application with the
Commission. On December 22 2011 the City requested a ninety(90)day extension to tile its
ti!f \
new application.° 1'he Commission authorized the extension snd"diieaed the to tile its
application by March 30,2012.1 The City participated hi the ch tgnostic[review requested by
RCF.S on February 2 2013.
II. DESCRIPTION OF CAULF.IELD CROSSING -
In 2011,the City constructed th�ew,'at-grade Caulfield Crossing(milepost 537.8). •
The former at-grade crossing across.the Sb1AR ilt`rac"`kss,(milepost;5-38.3)was closed and lino
longer exists within the;public right-of-way. At present,herCaulfeld •Crossing•is located
•p
approximately 0 2 milesfsouthwest<of the inter ection of Highway 101.and Highway 116
(Lakeville I ligh\4ay)and app'roimatel.0.3-milesrth'of the Petaluma River. Caulfield Lane is
ep. h 'o in
a four-lane puhli s[rree[with Class li bicycle lanes/in both directions. Caulfield Crossing
currently crosses two sets of SMART.railroad tracks,and iris designed to operate safely with the
v
w tv •
addition a hird set of railroadd tracks in'the future. The nearest existing crossings to the
Caulfield C sing are the a[g
ro yfdo industrial lead track crossing for one-way Hopper Streerfrom
East D Street(milepost 5-38.3)and the at-grade Rush Creek crossing to the east(milepost 5-
28.5,in the Ciry of Novato)'
`(In December 19.21)11 the 1'c talu nn Croy Council hx'k final action to approve its MND and authorized the
[dig of cheulpviranon eyithlltc Cotmnis=ion.
"mil tnk from ay WIARIr-g(f...4 urrney for i"in tl PelAllitir Mr.Paul(Ian n Executive Du,yt >; ats!
D:mtha_° 20Ii( u, tnMnncty(29.)d t an8htuf App1c.ttiszCdc10h111
r Sat Letter from Alr.Paol<aaomi.lise'Rniee Director t Sky Woodruff Au.'racy I;Pr Cr.'ui Pcialunt>_dated
December 2$ °011 iectcndinv Anal ieation deadline to larch 311 211121
3
A. Safety
Caulfield Crossing has functioned successfully and safely since its construction. It was
constructed in accordance with the Commission-approved design set forth in the November 9,
2004 Supplement to the City's original Application,A.04-06-030.
1. City Compliance with D.06-04-036
In constructing Caulfield Crossing,the City fully complied,with all the conditions the
Commission set forth in D.06-04-036,including:
o Relocating the at-grade crossing from its previouslocation at milepost 5-38.3 to
milepost 5-37.8,according to the design set out-in the City's.November 9,2004,
Supplements to its 2004 Application;
o Ensuring that the construction and safety featurei-of the Caulfield Crossing are
consistent with all applicable safety requirements,inclurng,but not limited to
•
Commission General Order("GO")26-D(Clearances),GO 72-B(Pavement
Construction);GO 75-C(Crossio`geProtection);an`d GO 118(Walkways);
X .
o Filing final construction plans with thel2CES prior to construction of the Caulfield - Deleted Consumer Protection gwren D m
. n
Crossing',an�d>fi',t_ :\ Deleted )
m
o Subnvng;a` completed standard Commission Porto G (Report of Changes at
Highway Gr d Crossingf and Separations) to RCES within 30 days of construction
completion 10
e°t✓ �'.
\1
The new Caulfield Crossing°includes grading,paving,signage,striping and utility
installitibnand relocation '\Vaming atid-sa ety devices were also installed at Caulfield Crossing.
On the southwest side,the City-installed'two entry gates with flashers to block traffic from
Hopper Streetihio''eastbound Caulfield.Lane. The City also added one entry gate with flashers,
a cantilevered section with II hers,:and a landscaped median approximately 100 feet long on the
northeast-side of the relocated crossing.
The City's November 9,2004 Supplement to its 21104 Application is incorporated as part of this Application
by reference.
',The City's final construction plans are attached to this Applicatitm as Exhibit,A. --Deleted:
1" the City's completed Commission I,orm G is attached to this Application as Exhibn J7...................... .„-.— Deleted:
11 See City of Petaluma,Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing tie-audit trintion,Initial Study/Propnsed'Dlit igared
Negative Declaration(November 17,2011)(the"\LND")at fi(photograph of the Caulfield Crtissing).The City's MN')
is attached to this Application as Exhibit"[,,,
4
Future modifications to Caulfield Crossing will he necessary in the future to adapt to
changes in rail operations and surrounding devcllpment patterns. These modifications are
specifically identified and accounted for in this Application. operations
commence and the Riverfront Project is developed,it will he necessary to install: (a)a
Commission standard 9-f exit te in the westbound direction at the crossing gnd:Ub)ADA
compliant tactile strips on the sidewalks approaches to the tracks. When the Caulfield Lane
Extension/Southern Crossing is developed in connection with Gelieral Plan Build Out,it will he
necessary to install: (a)a traffic signal.at Hopper Street-and Caulfield Lane:and(c)a `queue
\
cutter"signal and advance detection at the Lakeville Street/CaulfieldhLane intersection.,
2. SMART Rail.Crossing SafctyiEfforts'Undenvay afthe Commission
SMART is currently working with the Commission and local jurisdictions along its
417N b. t;\
proposed 70 mile rail corridor to establish what additional ssafety":measures ma} be necessary at
individual crossings once passenger service commenceste,In November 2011,..1111\[ART,the City
and the Commission conducted diagnosticsurvevs and determined that an additional exit gate
should be installed at the southwest side of the crossing to prevent vehicles from negotiating
1
around the gate. Theyirgelfe,also requires're-routing anlexisting sidewalk.
B. Traffics
1. Estimated SMART Rail Traffic,
"fhe S\te\R1 Distncct w ide p�asssengeiservice along an approximately 70-mile rail
corridor from Cloverdale,to the Larkspur ferry ter inal.13 SMART has tentatively scheduled
construction of the segmentifiom do vntown San Rafael,through Petaluma,to Railroad Square
in Santa Rosatto begin in 2012P's Passenger service on this segment is expected to commence by
}
late 2014.0 SMART estimates that its passenger service will make 28 station stops per weekday
at the Downtown Petaluma Sinnott According to SMART,there will be 14 northbound and
southbound trains each day'16 SMART's plans for weekend service are,preliminary,but four
12 AIND at 37.
n Sonoma tMarin Area Rail Transit District,Passenger]tail and Pathway Project Descript it,n at 2(3 lay 19.
2010).
"Tee Sonoma-\larin Area Rail Transit District:Initial Operating Segment,Construction Industry
Symposium(fan.27,201 I). •
15 Sonoma\larin Area Rail Transit District;Passenger Rail and Pathway Project Description at 4(illay 19,
2010).
1,See START Draft Cllt 2005.
5
roundtrips per day are expected.'? The passenger trains are expected to travel at an average of
approximately 46 miles per hour,including stops.t"
2. Potential Riverfront Project Vehicular Traffic
The City has received an application for Riverfront,a 35.7 acre Riverfront Mixed Use
Development Project(the"RiverfronCProject").t9 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-family residential units.2° Work
on the Project is currently projected to begin in 2013 with crorn1ple-.t�ionwithin 2 to 3 years, 1,
although the timing of build out is dependent on markercconndivons.iAs proposed,the
Riverfront Project may increase average daily traffrcon Caulfield Lanefrom present levels of •
between 1,000 and 1,500 trips per day("ADTs )to between 5,000 and G 000-ADTs.zl The
NE
Riverfront Project does not propose to extend CaulFeld Lane past Hopper StreaS but does (Deleted:.
contribute to the traffic load that could lead to that extension in the cumulative scenario
discussed below. -
3- Potential Vehicula�fiuiE(Due to the Caulfiela I.-ane
Extension/Southern Crosing,
1 he City's.General Plan•2i127 includes plans to extend Caulfield Lan`past Hopper Street - Deleted At this time.the City is nomet
. considering.: ding Caulfield lane psi Hopper
at_iti the roadway across the Petaluma River ff:aulfield Lane Extrusion/Southern t. :total("Cedfickl LapIc t zt ) is it
entertaining third pany proposals that ke such an
X _
extension In ddb conditions
Crossin« ) TThe Crty s G inviriuunentalshupact Report also addresses the Caulfield
ke it highly unlikely tint dilier the City or n d,nb
gamy' top woularnnucthe Caulfield lane
Lane Exist ion/Southern(rossiog '_Although the.Caulfield'Lane Extension/Southern Crossmu.is t,n,na an In the per to
" '
\ Although the City has no
a t art"SF=th City's 1011>_ terns General Plait7it'is not riurenth•needed to scare¢a file from the —
'3.A \ar . Deleted
proposed Rivet-front Protect al0tre,and the re are currently no other acti cc development in Formatted Font: 12 pt
Zl . ormatted:Font: l2 pt
the area of the(3rtp=closest to the Caulfield Lane Bsteusinn/Southcnr Cr. ssum which would �
5/
substantially increase:tratlie volume.
ra/
",See SVLART h'nai supplemental 131st 2008..
1"See S(\IA WI Drait't ti It 2005.
0 1th et-front,Application,No.i i-'i SiM:0130.
ID Rivet-front,Application No. t 11SM.0130.
zi MNIJ at 37.
z-11t (a,tlti_clda mc.l•stc•razirnis tilii_crdyitice u4ucss netuic_ude_Ditam--uusxicasduhLIISs?ul-hi,tL 5tiing'
tth•r• .'1 - • =r ' 1 .�, .r.- ,.s n, c tl r.I't oat , i • •
ar
bi ld,tlra ll s,..nnll lycr.thcistalaara :s:k.tvooctcu151alumn liatdy.. {I S ab with Lal<talillgiarses Six with C itaLe I
Pc aiuma:tsncral Plan 3Q25 at i-1C7 2-5,=11.2-18,5-1n;tntl 5-12_05151—Q jat 1,J'NSA): 41ailablQat:
GLLz ipctahtwammtV it pilUgeo,cral Plan ma1hA„LFgnc.t1 phionmiil)utl psh Lla-?zisitrd
2'(51y of Pctalumm'General Plan 2005 at -10 2-5 2.11 2-1 s.5.10 and 5-1,
6
. The City's General Plan 2025225Fyaluates a scenario that,includes full build out of all ..-{Deleted:projects
vacantxopern-in the Qty. Its rime,hq;tznn at adoption in 200$was Jdepttuud.�2025,bnulie -,-I Deleted such rxnn.,on may be included under
{Deleted conditions. Under
total impacts of development analyzed will not occur until full build out which will almost
certainly be later than 2023 given the current pace of development in the City,compared to the •
period in which the analysis for the Ccncnl.Plan was The General. lap Fully)
anticipates and the City has specifically planned for the Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern .
Crossing to be part of the full build out condition. Under build otitconditions,Caulfield Lane
would be extended to connect Lakeville Street to Petaluma Boulevard South via a"southern
crossing",Petaluma River bridge. To create that connection,Caulfield Lane would extend past .....--I Deleted:oxen he 1
.S ''-• tt i.
Hopper Street,and the intersection at Caulfield Lane and}Hopper Street-would be signalized.
full build out is estimated'to increase average,da traffic on Caulfield Li Ni,„to between 20,000 ... {Deleted:Buildour In 2025 i
and x,000 ADTs,which may require two southbound lanes o Caulfield Lane-and-widening of __. {Deleted:23 )
s;\„a% ,
the Caulfield Crossing,though specific,improvements would be finally identified as part of.the
City's consideration of proposed construction of the Caulfield) ane Extension/Southern ,..--f Deleted them crossing j
Crossino:e - -
Importantly the City has specifically constdered�[he Caulfield Lane'Extension/Southern Deleted 1 i1 n n Caulfield Lane I
de 9 Extension ( h gt he deign
Crossing as part of.thtenvIromcntal review at conducted f sspart'of this:Application The
gin's ' tlrItl°t -� gdl`
Xb n required by the
City's MND sets forth n oisoecifcnntigation measures (HAZ-I,HAZ-2) that reduce the in acts I nnrrr r o,o.or ur.0se.
x i..._ I sn' h
�i°' Formatted @Normal Keep with next
impact of jhc`Gatilfield Lane Fxcenston�!tioutbem.Crossing'ro less significant without
WS, '^:i,a.,, _-._ Deleted:any future
the need for grade separation.27 Un�der Mitigation Measure HAZ-1,the City-sshall-ensure that mitigation is required that isssufficient ici uce queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane at
Lakeville I-Tighway.u8 To address pote tial safety hazards in connection with the Caulfield Lane
IIxtension/Southern Crossinp,f■(itigation,Measures HAZ-I and 1-IA7.-2.ensures-installation of ... -- Deleted r .ton
-- Delted Musure �.
(1)all reconfiguration of the Caulfield Crossing intersection to reduce queuing on h:asthound
Caulfield Lane at Lakeville l'liehway:(2)a traffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield Laney and . ..={Deleted:
(3)if the existing median on Caulfield Lane is removed,installation of an exit gate on eastbound _...-.{Deleted:2) I
Caulfield Lane to prevent cars from navigating around entry gates,or equally effective Deleted the mem that the existing median is
remiss
alternative measures.''-' The cry subsc que tth-determined that a"queue cutter-si gnal and Deleted:
advance detection at the Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane intersection is an equallyeffective
25 City of Petaluma:Generid Plan 21125 at i-10,2-5,2-13,2-18,5+10 and 5-12, —{Deleted:.
26 r\IND at 38(citing W-TRANS 2011).
means for reducing safety and traffic-related impacts as reconfiguration of the Caulfield
S rossing_n ter_cction,.
III. GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THECITY'S APPLICATION • {Formatted:Line spacing: 1.5 lines
Section 1201 of the California Public Utilities Code provides that no public road,
highway,or street shall be constructed at-grade across a railroad track without prior approval of
the Commission.Applications for relocation of an at-grade crossing must demonstrate(1)the
public need to be served by proposed crossing;and(2)why.a scpacation of grade is not
practicable.3°
A. There is a Public Need to'Permanently'Relocate Caulfield Crossing
The Caulfield Crossing has improved rairsafety within the City. Specifically{the
//,+ i
Caulfield Crossing replaced the at-grade crossing of S TART railroad tracks'previously
located at the intersection of Hopper Street.and Lakeville'Sttreet(milepost 5-38.3)(the"Former
Lakeville Crossing"). The Former Lak ille Crossing interseeccted•the,Si'LART rail tracks at an
acute angle,was located within 600 feat of the bus} non-signalized intersection of"D"Street
...$l, ,..
and Lakevill&Street and mcludecrold and outdated crossing protection devices. The Caulfield
Crossing intersects with the SALIRT railroad tracks at a 90 degree angle,is located at a new,fully
\t`7+-
signalized intersection,and utilize`s the latest state df.the art crossing protection equipment.
Closure of thciForiner Lakeville Crossingng also allowed'the City to eliminate a frontage
road pproximately 40 feet from Ln6evi11uStreet that provided access from"D"Street to three
properties b tsveen `D Stree sod Hopper Street ,1 limm won.of the frontage road cmoscu a . _'{['detect: I iiii444444.
circulation hazard and improvedrsafety and operations at the D Street and Lakeville intersection.Deleted u
S
B. Grade Separation isNot Practicable
No "tss
The Commission i1 has adopted seven criteria for evaluating practicability in all at-grade
crossing cases,includingcrossings involving light-rail transit,passenger railroad,and freight
27.-HIND et 42-43.
=r\IND at 42-43.
29111N IA at 42-43.The exit yale on cca,tbound r;a ul Feld Lune is different fowl the exit rale on Westbound
f:aulfieI i Lane the exit"ate UT) srs',b and t:aulndd Lane is necessary if the Ritcrtioni Proieet is,ipnrcwed or SMART
begins"menu ink'.
-0 Per Commission Rule 3.8,Applicants for relocation aim existing radrnad crossing must comply with Rule
3.7.
8
railroad traffic.3t The seven criteria used for judging practicability are:(1)a demonstration of
public need for the crossing;(2)a convincing showing that the City has eliminated all potential •
safety hazards;(3) the concurrence of local community and emergency 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 a grade separation;(6)a recommendation by Commission staff that it
concurs in the safety of the proposed crossing,including any conditions;and(7)Commission
precedent in factually similar crossings.M12
1. Demonstration of Public Need N
The public need for the Caulfield Crossing is-discussed in SecnomIILA of this
Application. Although there is a strong public need for the Caulfield Crossing,there is
absolutely no such public need for any form of grade separation at the Caulfield:Crossing. The
onlyporablc increase in vehicular traffic identified in the City's BIND for the Caulfield Crossing Deleted:.;gaihoat
dtlnFS,„ Deleted umal retie..of
,involves increasing ADT's on Caulfield01ane'to between 20;000 and 25,000'vehicles in — - -- —
Deleted: tolved
connection with,the Caulfield Lane Extensio /Southern Crossui'.which is-antici ated if and ' Deleted 3
7 - -
When the City reaches fill hti ill-our as analp eil in the( ener'tl Plia.:'' Deleted but only
y D ei-eted extension or Caulfield u n d
At the time offuture construction of the Caulficldde Extension/Southern Crossing,
II phi t t - „, ,„„,„,,,j,;„„
Ri the Petaluma
the City will require changes'to the design or signalization of the Caulfield Crossing and the ;s,to ' hl gh t across
Rlplcat on,the City is
past
as required by the.CPSD s"RCESin accordance with 1).06-04-036. Furthermore proposals perS Mat�Sgt(notisn it taiMng.a dbpart mint
Mitigation Measures HAZ 1 and FL*Z 2 in theCity's 1 IND are specifically focused on any n - -- -- - — —
` t
Deleted: x
oenaiim)acr from the Caulfield lanelFw tension
Southern Crossin lfiri taooa t\Icasures
1 ` \
HAZ-1 and l-LkZ-2 ensure thetfollowing,or other equally effective measures adopted in the •
course of projeecct:1eeve1 CEQA review: (1)reconfiguration of the Caulfield Crossing intersection
\r .\ .f7
to reduce queuing on+Eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway;(2)installation of a traffic
key
signal at Hopper Streets and Caulfield Lane;and(3)installation of an exit gate in the event that
n DA4-08-013(approving the City of Bakersfield's request ut construct four at-grade crossings over a freight
railroad);D074)}027(appmring City of(1lendale's request us construct:in n at-grade crossing over a combined
passenger/freight railroad line)
'21102415-047(Pasadena Blue I.ine)(establishing a hst of six issues to be used as criteria for judging
practicability in that case,and all further grzade 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).
as,MN I)at 42.
9
the existing median is removed.35 These Mitigation Measures reduce any cumulative safety
impact of J,hc fuat _a Caulfield Lane Extension/am-hem CALSnM,_to less than significant __-{Deleted:20y
'{Deleted:.should h ever occur,
levels without the need for grade separation.36
Importantly, the City's environmental review,specifically considered and ultimately did . - Deleted Even it the City did ca,aempmc extension
of Caulfield Lbeyond hopper Street it same point
not recommend grade separation as a means to reduce potential impacts of the Caulfield Lane in future
'{Deleted:does 1
Extension/Southern Crossingeto less than significant levels 37
Instead,the City's environmental review,.discussed at length Jielow,recommends ..-.f Deleted:in Section V
modifications to existing lanes and phasing,along with installaiion of a new traffic signal at the
intersection and exit gate at Caulfield Crossing to successfiilly mitigate any queuing that could•
present a safety hazarditssociated with construction �h.Caulfield Lane.Extensior\/Southern Deleted:it
47 t Deleted: is mmmd
Crossing3s t-,4 '�,
ety. ,
2. Elimination of All Safety Haiards
Section ILA.'I describes the Warning and safety features currently installed at the
Caulfield Crossing and the specific Comissi
mon conditio s'the City complied with when it
constructed the Caulfield Crossing. In ad'didon;the:City's environmental review of the Caulfield
i
Crossing indicated that�,c-o_n_tiiiuing operation of the crossingwou d create nonsignificant safety
'-`' `N s.
hazards or traffic impacts,but thattsupplemental safes'measures,such as an additional exit gate
on the southwest side of l e cross g for westbound Caulfield Land traffic should be installed - {Deleted:— j
NoL kl ,,
Huber if SAART begins operating or the Riverfront Project is approved as proposed.As the .....•f Deleted:it
MND notes,the City will,requir theejgdnevelop er of the Riverfront Project to fund those
supplemental safety measures,:if the,R ierfront Proicct is approved.The MND assumed that the -.{Deleted:proles
CPUC,as paitof approving the<initiatin of ST\LART service,would similarly require SMART to
install such measures,if they hadlnot previously been installed by the time S:\I:\RT begins
service.Therefore,th'e're is adequate assurance that those measures will be installed,although the
responsible parry will likel}'depend on timing..
The MND also potentially significant safety impacts under the cumulative
condition in which the Caulfield lane Extension/Southern Crossing is constructed as part of ...(Deleted:souther,crossing
"\IND at 42-43.
"0 MND at 42-43.
"See 3IND at 36-50.
3X MND at 42-43.
I0
full City build out under the City's General Plan.It found,however, that those impacts could be
reduced to less than significant level with the implementation of two mitigation measures (HAZ-
1 and HAZ-2).39 The City proposes that the Commission condition continuing authorization for
the operation of the Caulfield Crossing on the implementation of those mitigation measures,'° - {celeted: 1
3. Concurrence of the Local Community and Emergency Authorities
On December 19,2011,the Petaluma City Council authorized the filing of this
Application with the Commission" On \larch 19,2012,the Citv:Cduncil discussed the latest
revised application and staff report addressing the results of the'-February 2,220E on-site
diagnostic review. In addition,the Emergence'Vehicle'\ssessment for the'Riverfront Project
prepared for the City of Petaluma in October 201 I!found'that worst case delays to emergency
3
service access associated with normal rail operations at the Caulfield Crossing are not expected
to exceed one minute. '2
The SMART Final EIR determined that any poteenntial impact on emergency response
time from passenger mil service was less than,significant:'" cccoording to the SMART Final EIR;
the cumulative impacts from freight and passenger rail service o Id'also be less-than significant
because the two services=typieally operate at different threes'"
4. • Opinions'oftthe GeneralPublic -'
The City received'!cbmmeni letters from RCES-and"IRANSDEF on its\I\ll 45 No Deleted Ito IsC fli 11 D i irfi'a vw+lac
ilEARI\r'ON\t[DIA
Other pubhc commenCs were'srthmittechliefore or:if the City's December 19 2011 hearing on
the Citys Application andi3IND.
/�#
ry? 5.
Comparative Cos of At-Grade.Crossing and Grade Separation
I'be immediate cost f maintaining the Caulfield Crossing at its current location is$0."
' \ e
Grade separanonlgould be expected to costa$2Gmillion for an overpass and,$28 million for an .—{Deleted:the 6rc
Fst,, , -----
underpass:° The Cityyis notpresently in„financial position Jo make such an investment„_ - Deleted
\))r�D.'%r, -'. Deleted pre:eiai
`o MN D at 41-43. 1/ DDeleted:.partihaa ly wt,rie it Is far from mnatn
'SIND at 36-50. that any of the significant incre-ares iir traffic proieoN
in the Gtr',2025 General Plan in en,madon with a
”The City Council Adopted the MN I)on December 19,2011 and in connection with adopting the MN t),the rosin],Caulfield Lane Yarn„on will nor acmalk
City Council specifically authorized the filing Of this Application. (See City Resolution attached to this Application as mareriatitc
Exhibitp)) - Deleted:
”-Emergency Vehicle Access Assessment:Ricerfront Mixed-Use Development(5(101 hipper Street,Petaluma
California)for the City of Petaluma at IN(Prepared 11)/I 1/I1).
"Se rg.SMART FEIR at 3.2-23 to 3.2-24.
"See e.g.SMART hEIR at 3.2-23 to 3.2.24.
"(nmment letters from 120:5 and'I'li ANSI WI"are attached to this Application as Exhibit 1!,
II
JLS■L1RT passenger rail service begins and the Riverfront Project is approved as --{Deleted:tyith i
proposed,the Caulfield Crossing can be operated safely with minor improvements,including: (a)
an additional exit gate on the southwest side of the crossing to preclude westbound vehicles
from navigating around entry gates:and(b) installation of ADA compliant'tactile strips on the
sidcwal-lsc approaches tithe track.. These supplemental safety measures will be installed,ither ...- Deleted:by �'
by SMART or the Riverfront developers,depending on which Project is completed and
operational first.., .,:� --.•-{Formatted:Font:Bold
_.--.._..-- - ----- . .,.----- ..._._._.
Significant increases in traffic over the Caulfield Crossing only occur with the
construction of the Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern�Crtissing. Although the Caulfield Lane
Nt
Ex tension/Southern Crossing is contemplated as part of"the City's ffullhGeneral Plan build out -- Deleted:2025 1
,that-is not expected for many years,and there areno current applications f�development .- Deleted the City is in no financial position to
sider p g. h an _ If' hcnar
which would add subsranri:tl amounts of traffic ro the•Caulfteld*bane area,other.than the terni, Furthermore,tier econinnic dowimiro makes it
highly unlikely that a third pany developer - II I
contemplate- n - the M future
Riverfront Project. Even when the Caulfield Lane L xtcnsion Southern Crossing is undertaken, do., in the unlikely on 1 ( Caulfield ham
lA.
Extension undertaken.the
as shown by the City's \INI),there is still'no.need for grade separation of Caulfield Lane and
the S\L1RT line. The City's MND identifies specific.mitigation-measures that obviate the need - _---(Deleted: is gucaionabk at best J
qa „4" "yc...„
for grade separation to address potential safety and traffre-;,concerns. To reduce safety and
traffic-related impacts-from a potential Caulfield`I ane I xten"sion/Southern Crossing to a less
than significant level,Mitigation Measure HAZ I and I-IAZ 2-in the City's MND)nsrrld ......,-1 Deleted:siunph ..
recommend (1-)? configuration of the Caulfield Crossing intersection to reduce queuing on
Eastbouynd Caulfield Lane at Lakeville lle FLghwat;(2)installation of a traffic signal at Hopper
h»
Street nd Caulfield Lane;and'(3)installation of an exit gate in the event that the existing median Deleted:
vca I
is removed to-accommodate.a[ddinon.il travel or turn lanes. The City has subsequently .- Deleted:cost --- - -
`S5j' g;l - Deleted t ated ton s h s represents
determined that'a•squeue cutters signal and advance detection at the Lakeville Street/Caulfield -. -— —
V\ py. Deleted:and equally cffecu,e
lane intersection is an,equallyceftecrive means for reducintr safety and traffic-related impacts as Deleted:.t
\ -ter .If heC If ldl Extension snned,
reconfit iiration of the Caulf etd Crossing intersection. 1'he\lirigafion Measures set forth in hye) p cis I he Car Bead I;de`
Y Estensiori at that time will consider grade separation
HAZ-1 and I-lAZ-2 frpresent a far more economicalitltemative to grade separatiorlr and he' _.. ---- Deleted I her the sl h +lame. 1. tied
. -
in the Curs tixii ate sufficient using thenscurrent
are fully effective fans rctrithnt to traffic and s fty If the Mitigation
Mt-sores set Inrth in the City's\IND
- Deleted:not sultetena or there are other compelling
reasons that cowls,I in favor of grade.aparndon.the
e The Cin-has already invested over S300.001 to close the unsafe at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks at Pminnt peciuc analysis for the Caulfield Late
Hopper Street and Lakeville Street(milepost D-38.3)and replace it with the ness;safer:Caulfield Crossing. Extension will address them. In doing so,that ramie
anthsis wit rex isit the issue dr Tilnr and asp of
''The Assessment by Stevenj.latranchi&Associates,Inc.regarding Caulfield Lane Grade Separation grade separation
feasibility(December 14,2011)(the"IaFranchi Assessment)is attached to this Application as I?chibit J - Deleted:
12
The City investigated the physical feasibility of constructing a grade separated
Caulfield Crossing as either an overpass or underpass in 2011.48 ,f33.itlier an overpass or .-{Deleted:Both
underpass grade separation design would be a significant undertaking at the Caulfield Crossing.
Grade separation would likely require closing Caulfield Lane during construction,which would
generate potentially significant traffic impacts on circulation and businesses in the area.
The overpass and underpass design option would also require the City to engage in
extensive grading that could have serious impacts on adjacent private•:properties''t At least four
property owners would be affected by.grade changes:McPhail,_Chevron,In-N-Out Burger and
the former Hammer Marine site:50 Additionally,the CieS:Planning-Conunission has approved ___33-- Deleted:city ru.neyr twins
;to
an application fora proposed Oil Stop facility at 3004 Lakeville Highway.between In*Out _--{Deleteeo-iaal(,.:hr pmpeny
Burger and Chevron.il The necessary grading,Would require condemnation of private property Meted:
orpegotiation of easements with private property y owners,bor\th3of which would:indease .. Deleted:onrss;ure
V' >
potential costs for the City.'' In addition,the necessary:grading would require extensive
reconfiguration at the existing Chevroiisite,to.address accessibility'tinder the Americans with
Disabilities Act,and to allow fuel trucks a'nd galbage,collection fluckF3to enter the site?;
Chevron might lose accce sIs^ the rear of the'site entirely. °%
In addition,the recess:rs ertical clearance for either the overpass or underpass design __:-.•-{Deleted:both
would force the City toe lose off Hamburger Lanelorcompletely reconfigure it. Any closure _...-'{Deleted:timer
C' bili .. "s.
would presents'ignifrcant feasibility challenges because it would conflict with the conditions of
.�
the 2004 approval for theconstructiom of the adjacent-In-N-Out Burger Project." In addition,
it would.dose off future access to the H rimer Marine Site;as well as potentially land lock the
r
McPhails property located between the railroad and Hamburger lane.i6 Lastly,to complete
tl I
construction within-the availableifootprint,the grade of the overpass or underpass would need
to be 12%,which exceeds Americans with Disabilities Act limits.
's Sec Exhibit J_. --{Deleted:
"'LaFranchi Assessment at 1.
sir LaFranchi Assessment at 1.
s'Planning Commission Resolution I'ei ruan' 11,2010 Application No.)14:131'1190. -- - {Deleted:_ {
'2 I.alr:mehi Assessment at 2.
Si LaFranchi Assessment at 1-2
"LaFranchi Assessment at 1-2.
ss l,al;ranchi Assessment at 1-2
"laFnnchi Assessment at I.
13
•
•
Construction of a grade separated underpass presents paclditional challenges distinct from - _---f Deleted:separate
Ihosg associated with building an overpass.. For instance,it would be necessaryto relocate three
forty-eight inch storm drain culverts that cross Caulfield Lane 37 Raising the current invert grade
affects the entire drainage basin upstream.ie An elevated aqueduct would be necessary to
replace the three existing storm drain culverts 59 Relocation of an existing drainage ditch parallel
to the rail tracks and replacement with a conduit in Lakeville Highway is not feasible because the
required depth for the storm drain would conflict with other utilitiescOf The City would also be
required to relocate a forty-eight inch sanitary sewer gravity mink line in Hopper Street°t To
complete that relocation,the City would need to conducfa hydraulicatudy and possibly relocate
other utilities (e.g.power,telephone)'2
Under any circumstances,the magnitude,and technical challenges ofan underpass or
overpass of the SMART line at Caulfield Lane o dtbe prohibitive. In addition:the City's --- {Deleted.afire li for theCity to undertake.Indent, )
\'v/
existing fiscal constraints preclude tic Cu) front pursumg..uch a project..The economic .-i Deleted k- rmgnri hle
downturn has forced the City to adopt fo
'TNN
downturn a of budget cuts.63 In addition to
X ' s.
the difficult economic climate,the City faces increased costs ofdoing'business,particularly with
respect to employee benefits i.The City reduced its General Furid spending from$48.9 million jj_
in 2007-2008 to less than$32 million in 2011/20112. 5 Since2008,the City has taken a number
of dramatic measures to address declining revenues and reduce spending including:eliminating
funding for ca`paal.im mt t;
provee deferrmg(and,reduciing facility maintenance;laying off,
eliminating or freczuig"over 50 positions;eliminating parr time positions;reducing overtime and
standby costs;depleting tv eserves to prevent further negative staffing level impacts;
4s-
eliminating alt, feral Fund financed vehicle replacement;and privatizing.current planning
lal'ranchi Assessment at 2-3.
IaFranchi Assessment at 2-3.
^°I,aFranchi Assessment at 2-3.
u' ,aFranc hi Assessment at 2-3.
61 I.aFranchi Assessment at 2-3.
"3 I a',ranch;Assessment at 2-3.
63 City of Petaluma.Califimnia,Fiscal Year 2012 Budget,City Manager's Budget Message("City hanager's
Budget Message')at I-1.
64 City Manager's Budget Message at 1-I.
61 City Manager's Budget Message at 1-1.
14
•
•
functions,janitorial services and aquatics'center management:0 In short,unprecedented
financial challenges have forced the Ciry'to cut back on essential services like never before.
In Fiscal Year 2011/2012 alone,the City's forecast projected a$2.3 million budget
deficit 6% To address the budget shortfall,the City was forced to lay off two community services
officers,one police records assistant,one public works inspector,and one office assistant 68
•Two police captain positions were abolished. I firing for approximately nine full time.equi alent
positions has been frozen. " The effect,of these extraordinary budget.y eutsnnd layoffs has been Deleted:
that the City has had to struggle with existing staff and resources,to carry out its existing 7
?$ g t // �` g :_.- Deletes:hours r. tr
workload. \�j S, Deleted Give.Elul na City's es depend on
the economic l' rel bly of funding.and other
Notable increases in traffic over the Caulfield Cro"sssing occur ohli•when the Caulfield factors outside the city's control, possmk to
predict whether the southern g Caulfield
1 I .fated- 1 t2 ( al pia
Extension/Southern Crosslnr would otentia ,2 Although the Caultrcld Lane equir s h a w. t p dots not
Lane Extension/Southern Crossing is constructed
' � 1d� ,,nY require I i such an 1 unnfj
' p ]h increase traffic levels at the Caulfield Crossing - -
Deleted: the cent that
to between 20,000 and 25,000 ADTs1,11 the resulting traffic volume does not;eq'uire a grade Deleted 23
' R .. .'
separation for the intersection to operate'safely lI The MLugation Measures set forth in the City's Deleted:
—.
} \ Deleted:necessarily
MND address additional traffic;elated to construction of the Caulfield Extension,12 a Deleted:should
Specifically,Mitigation Meisuke.FAZ-1 and Hr AZ 2 in h
e C!}s%MNll recommend the "- Deleted: ever occur
_ �
following or other equally effective measures adopted in the course of project-level CEQA
is
review: (1)reconfiguration of the.Caulfield Crossing intersection to reduce queuing on
Eastbound Cittilfield'Lane at Lakeville Highway;and(2)installation of a traffic signal at Hopper
4
Street and CaulfieldIanee;"and(3)Installation=of an exit gate for eastbound traffic in the event
&e
that[he`ea isting median is emovedJ3111he-Cif}subsequently determined that a"queue cutter"
signal and ad[nee detection atythe Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane intersection is art equally
effective means fonreducing safety and traffic-related impacts as reconfiguration of the Caulfield
v
Crossing intersection thus It General-plan build out and construction of the Caulfield Lane Deleted:even nhe e a It hi l Extension
_± tea�,r occurs and the ann<paud'additional talfierasnh,
City Managers Budget Message at I-I m 1-2. •
cr Cite Manager's Budget Message at 1-3.
cx City Manager's Budget Message at 1-6.
67 Cite Manager's Budget Message at 1-7.
70 MND at 42.
t'6IND at 36-511.
MND at 42-43.
"I\IND at 42-43.
•
•
15
Iixtension/Southern Crossing,changes to the Caulfield Crossing and adjacent intersections can
ucallr dtfhrulr.-.;auti
safely accommodate the additional traffic without the need for techr„_, ,
prohibitively expensive grade separation.
Maintaining the existing,safely operating Caulfield Crossing.does not impose any
additional costs on the City and does not present any significant safety risks. Installation of
supplemental safety measures as described in thi _lpplication.to address SMART passenger rail
satiice or Riverfront,whichever comes first,are economical S ippleMe tal_safety measures are _.--{Deleted I his ppimu a t- r t „,.,urs is
estimated to.cost approximately$75,000 to$100;00071 to install and will reduce potential safety
impacts from S\LART and Riverfront to less than significant ley els.rldditional changes to the
.
Caulfield Crossing and adjacent intersections to accommodate addtttonal traffic from the
Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossing„aoequired bv1the mitigation:measures in the --{Deleted .atiso
City's MND,wouldbe an additional expense,but substantiallvless costly than grade separation
while ensuring safe operation of the crossing. By contrasq grade separation costs$26 million
for an overpass and$28 million for an underpass. The cosao€grade separation is prohibitive
and the City is not in a financial position at resent to make suchaneez enditure. Moreover, = Deleted
requiring the significant e\pendtture represented by gradejjseparatron js unnecessary ecause;he - Deleted.seems
y,-'.
Gry's\IND,bas identified mitigation measures that would effectively address that traffic volume Deleted both
Deleted at pressot that the traffic
increases caused by the din tof the City as envisioned in the.General Plan. vislunics that Multi u'S it will eccut and because
‘17allo reye --¢ Deleted -- l
.. : Recommendano iby Commission Staff
Deleted ,-C the eanlicla I.anc I -1 'ion occur=
CPSD's RCES Division wnllrreview this Application for permanent authorization of the
ct
Caulfield'Crossing. Howe er,kit is unportaitit to note that the Caulfield Crossing was constructed
with CPSD's''RCES Division'syoversight and approval 7s In accordance with D.06-04-036,the
City final consstructon plans for the Caulfield Crossing with the CPSD's RCES Division
prior to Caulfield Ciossing's,consrmction7° When construction of the Caulfield Crossing was
complete, the City submitted a completed'standard Commission Form G (Report of Changes at
Highway Grade Crossings and Separations) to CPSD's RCES Division within 30 days 77 Since
*'[SC)u RF.li for cost esthnatel
r'See Sccnnn I I.A. sierra.
74 See lishibir,L_ --{Deleted:
a Sec I .hibil _---(Deleted: j
16
Caulfield Crossing has operated safely since its construction,the City does not propose any
modifications to the existing,RCES Division reviewed and approved site.
J3efore filing this Application,the City participated in several diagnostic reviews at Deleted:The RCIS Division fubmitted comments
to the CtetHers in p sent its V'ND(1 °1501
Caulfield Crocsine in the interim,including a review with Commission staff and the North Coast 'tiler The R(IS Letter recommended that the
City schedule diagnostic he
Ratl.4 hots ,a
Caulfield Crossing 'I- g 5ilAI21' v di Coast
S ty (`iNCl on-cpr cr21,2010. he City also participated ated in a technical, mil Authority and the Commission in adsmnce of j
filing its Application. At such diagnostic maim'.the
diagnostic review of the Caulfield Crossing with SMART and Commission representatives on Commission may or may not recommend additional
treatments to Caulfield Crossing. ,
November 29,2011 in connection with the SMART project. tit that diagnostic review,RCES
Division representatives concluded that SMART senger servi
pas ce would necessitate an
additional exit gate jgbe installed at the southwest side of the crosiing,which involves re- ,...... Deleted:should
routing of an existing sidewalk,to prevent vehiclesst@om`negotiating$mind the Caulfield
Crossing gate. ..
. .t
The RCES Division submitted comments td'the City in response to its\1ND on ,-_. Deleted I .- d m,to the cy whether the
diagno he review nrommended' die RCIttS letter is
December 12,20l1(the"RCES Letter!!)i"I The RC I S lietter recommended Ihai the City
schedule an on-site dia nosric,c view ttCaulfield Crossin.involvin>S\1A R'I' the North
'yy
Coast Rail Authority and the Commission in ad"vane of filing ifs''Application. As a result in
addition to Prior 2010 and 2011 diagnostic reviews at Caulfield Giossingr the City'ngaged the . .Deleted h n h I November ?.
` hp' If the C n RCES Division believes that
Commission in a Caulfield Crossing&specific diagnostic review with RCES S\1ART,NCRA,and additional dagn e w of the
' Deleted:
Summit Signal on February:2 2012. 'e Deleted:proposes
that such supplemental renew
take place I I Application'_pending. If
AS discusedtat the Febivan 2012 d:ignocuc review the Citye spects the r l:ow:gm l supplemental than-titlark rnicw,the
J/
RCES Division concludes that
implementation of supplemental safety insoles at Caulfield Crossing for SM\RT and - - - -
44iy`, - .__-.. .........._ Deleted Ix model n, dinstallation ot
Riverfro tito include installation of (a)ra'Commission standard 9-F;exit gate in the westbound n'ean now toe.f pe on a,i.(-moot
'VA Deleted: rinloptration or constniction of the•direction at h.crosinang ompant tactile strips on the sidewalks approaches to Rivetfroni Project) h SMART and/or the
`.r
Rivet-front Project,the
the tracks Supplemental mental safetyjmeasures Jaeees ary for the Caulfield Lane i',xtension/Southern Formatted @Normal Indent First line: 05",
'} P1 ' ,(No bullets or numbering
Cr OSstn)1 should nnelude-(1)Installa loll ofrl traffic sio tlal at lb ipper Street and Caulfield l anc Deleted I pn-- M1 h Comm ixs on authorize
and('2)installation of an exxitgate in the event that the existing median is removed continual operation of me
# Deleted:subject to the following conditional
accommodate additional tenet or mrn lanes,and(c)a"queue cutter"signal and advance 'the din shall supplement its ono as nece`.aty to
address any additional
detection at the I.akeville Street/Caulfield I_ane intersection. - Deleted identified into ppl mental diagnostic
sit
The City shall ensure.
Deleted:additional safety'natures identified at the
supplemental diagnostic mine and hoc supplement to
die SISD.
-°See litter from Nit-.David Stewart.Ill'iitie<limnincer Rail(rosins I`buetneerine Saaiun to Goat Roller,
Planning\iiaijitger Cilr of l etnlluna,rcgnrjmg Nonce of 0 nnplclien—.0i¢dGpld.Lane Railroad(;sowing,
Rcaulln,ra,ttiun(December 12 20 I71. The IRCIiS Le tier is attached no this An ite:11 on as Itsb last C).
17
,The Cit@ determined that "gueuc'curtet" signal and advance detection at the Lakeville :--1 Deleted 1
Street/Caulfield Lane intersection is an equaht effective-Gems For reducing safety and traffic_
_elated impacts as reconfiguradon of.the Caulfield Crossing intersection. The"queue cutter'
.si mat and advance detection will be nccessa 'because tinder future conditions with the b aid
out of f th General In 21125,the maxii jum queues for northbound traffic-arc p ojectedto
extend across the Caulfield Lane railroad--erosion-These queues of vehicles will be reduced by
adding a"queue cutter"sional and advance detection at the I.akevilleeStreet/Caulfield Lane
intersection because this t -e of si-nal detect•tvehicle.ucucs before they extend across the
railroad cracks and will trigger.the Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane signal controller to eive-a
-"greed"indication to=the northbound traffic cle tnng these queues befforerthey extend'across the
railroad tracks.
In addition to recommending a Caulfield Crossine-speutic diagnostic review,the RCES
Letter recommends that the Riverfront,Project specifically:set asideifunrhng td-mitigate future -,{Deleted:may
cumulative'impacts at the Caulfield Crossing:.fhe City recognizes that its ilfND for the Deleted itkercont Project,and th d
a din apply a r p I-
Caulfield Crossing concludes that the RiverfrontPiojec[will be al mong those projects,along Application I A i l Iconcerned i
h the martigs that fall d Commission's
purvicati,namely anilirgatton for permanent
with SbIdRT rail service and}build-out conditi ns anticipated in the City's General Plan,that at of C2 a ld Co i,g
� �. .hoer the.
contribute to the need for measures to mitigate potentialll ,stgmficant safety impacts at some
r
point in the future. The Ci t's'standard-practice for addressing potential future impacts of a
given dev elopmentprolect is ro condition City approval of the,project on the developer making
bu 3a .� "�.. 1t ' Deleted used
afar share eommbunoni[o be,ppplicd by the C14 toward,the cost of mstalladom of the i Deleted
necessary,tmprovements I'he�City proposes that the Commission condition its permanent --- ------- -- - '�
<xe Deleted
authorizano eoof the Caulfield Crossmg on-the City requiring the Riverfront Project to make
such a contribution as a condition of.appioval,should the City ultimately approve the Riverfront
'e
f •
Pioject.
tc
7. Commission Precedent
The Commission has addressed the issue of practicability many times and approved
numerous at-grade crossing applications and settlement agreements involving at-grade
• 18
crossings.X" Importantly,prior Commission at-grade crossings approvals have involved similar
or higher vehicular ADT volumes'',rail traffic speeds"and rail traffic volumes 83 The
•
Commission has also granted authority to construct at-grade crossings over tracks serving
similar types of railyservice.81 {oeleted:s
Furthermore,the Commission Decisions that deny at-grade separation are
distinguishable from the 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 Coniinisssion denied the request
for at-grade crossings because it was found a separation of grade-was practicable. Unlike the
City's request=here,these proceedings all involved high-Speed(70 mph)passenger railroad traffic
and were denied based in part on the number of trains and'train speeds,and also on the position
of various federal rail and highway safety agenciee,that generally opposed'any at-grade crossings
•
along mainline railroad track with high-speed passenger traffic
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CEQA COMPLIANCE
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality.Aci"s ("CEQA")and
Commission Rule 2.4 the Commission mu reonsider the.enviion ental consequences of the
City's proposal because the Commission has discretionary'authority to approve or deny the
1�(
permanent location of the @aulfield'Crossing.At 1ITe,City is the Icad agency for the Caulfield
xu°See',e.g.D.06-11-037(granting City of Santo Maria authority to construct at-grade highway rail crossing);
1108-09-032(gdpting City of San\laws authority to construct at-grade pedestrian crossing);1107-101-0113(granting
Pon of Stocks nn's'rcquest for authori0'iii construct at-grade highway crossing);D07-07-003(approving a settlement
agreement that permits the County of San Luis Obispo to construct at-grade pedestrian crossing);1106-11-037(granting
City of Santa Maria auihority to construct at-tirade rail crossing);.D.05-02-016(granting City of Dinuba authority to
construct at-grade cruvsih over track oISan Joaquin Valley Railroad);and 1.05-I11-023(granting authority to State
Coastal Conservancy to construct at-grade bicycle/pedestrian crossing over SMART tracks).
e,.See,eS.17.04-08-t i.V(granting(City of Bakers(ekl authority to construct at-grade crossing at intersecti■n with
6,000 AD1).
e2 See.e.g.1108-09-032(granting City of San plarcos nutty wity to construct a2-grade pedestrian crossing over
North County'transit District tracks where trains travel 50 mph)
ss See,e.g.D.08-09-032(granting City of San Marcus authority to construct at-grade pedestrian crossing over
North County Transit District tracks inhere 64 daily Sprinter trains utiliac the tracks)
"See,e.g.11.115.01-023(granting authority to State Coastal Consemmcy to construct at-grade
bicycle/pedestrian trussing over Sty IA RT tracks).
"Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.eq.
"The Commission has the exclusive authority to approve the rail ens pursuant to Section 1202 of the
Public Utilities Code.
19
Crossing. As a responsible agency under CEQA,the Commission must consider the City's
environmental documents and findings before acting on or approving this project."
The City prepared an initial study and proposedr\IND,and circulated theMND for the ...--j Deleted:MIitiMmdNgi:hee okdaa,im„p
mandatory public review beginning on November 17 2011.88 Following the public review Deleted:')
period,the City Council held a'hearing on December 19,2011 regarding the ilIND,heard public
testimony,and considered such other evidence.that was presented at the hearing. At the
conclusion of the hearing,the City Council voted to adopt the MND The City filed a Notice
of Determination ("NOD")with Sonoma County and the StatteCl 'earinghouse on January 3, .-{Deleted:Decembtrr mti
2012. -----
The MNI) considered the environmental imp acts-ohmaking the:�C',�a.ulfield Crossing
permanent at its existing location." In addition,the NIND'considered the Dimential cumulative
environmental impacts of the permanent authorization of the Caulfield Cros gin
combination with the potential impacts of SMART rairpassenger service,the proposed
Riverfront Project,and the Caulfield Lam e°F'xtension{Southern Crossing expected as part of --'{Deleted:L itision
11 -A� ..�Deleted:tt
hill General Plan build out.91 After considering„all'of these factors-individually and then _
drmsi„„,, _ r
cumulative impact,the City Ciff found that all potentially significant impacts that arise from
continued authorization of the Caulfield Crossing g could bcitd ced to less-than-significant levels
with mitigation measures
A SSNo'Proiect Specific lnipactstfrom the Reauthorization of the Caulfield Crossing
NIND-.c‘;' 1kd sded thai there would'be no project-specific environmental impacts
\a
from hf
ee ccconntinued authorization of the Caulfield Crossing at its existing location
B. �`.r No Cumular mpacts from S\L1RT Passenger Rail Service and the Riverfront
Protect €r
When SNIARTipasscruier rail service is operating,the additional traffic on Caulfield Cane
r
from Riverfront may cause,a queue to form on Caulfield Lane waiting to turn right onto
st CIiQA Guidelines,Sections 15050(6)and 15096.
s”CEQA Guidelines.Sections 15073 and 151050)).
”The City Council Adopted the MND on December 19,2011. (See City Resolution attached to this _
Application as Exhibit J2)- --{Deleted:— J
"°VIND at 36.
HIND at 36-49.
12'IN D at 36.
20
Lakeville l-lighwwv,93 The 95e"percentile queue length on eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville
Highway with the Riverfront project is projected to remain well within the500 feet of available
storage under the Existing plus Riverfront project condition?' 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 in combination with the continued authorization of the existing Caulfield
Crossing and SMART passenger rail service 95
Even with SMART passenger rail service and the Riverfront Project,the Caulfield
:\
Crossing can be operated safely with minor improvements,mcludingon additional exit gate on
the southwest side of the crossing to preclude westbouid vehicles from--navigating around entry
NL
gates.06 In addition, AD; comnli:on tactile steps on nce sidewalks approaches to the tracks are
necessary. These supplemental safety measures will.be installed by the first of'either S\L\RT or
the Riverfront developers,dependin�r.�o�n which Projecrrs;completed and operational first.
C. No Cumulative Impacts from•SMART Passenger Rail Service the Riverfront
Project and Extension of'Caulfield-Lane with slid ag lion
The Cln's \l\D only identifies tip. mon' measures is necessary in connection with the Deleted: .mitigaTion mt,sures are only necessao`r
_, Caulfilt 1 Ip past pp Street a.pan
Caulfield Lane Extension As:noted above the Caulfield.Lane and Ii:xtension/Southern Crossing caneY nl south g it the con
Petaluma W ' Although ugn h an intension is
is rotected to be art ofjthe full city build out under the General Plan. ueihn 1 h chin intending General Plano,e past-
I neither d r gC II 41p p:
Iloppel on- teethed third 'I p- L
The MND„estimates thaCrhe 95'n percentile queue length on eastbound Caulfield Lane at that,. - rCaulfield l ra.st Hopper
4115.:L44„ - -” Steen.There il foreseeable plans to
Lakeville Highway would be up to 578 feet long if Caulfield Lane were extended beyond N n hero ti r h Petaluma Riser.
x6
I IopperStreet in connecneri with the southern crossing project.100 Queues on Caulfield Lane in
‘7S. \
excess of 500 feet would cause cars to he waiting on the railroad tracks,an unsafe.condition."
k50:
Althoo hi he Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossing could lead to,significant Deleted;a potential Caulfield line extension at 1
- - sootcl t n Iffitirc
incretses in measures neieherle`tr ffic at Caulfield Crossing,the MND makes clear that two mitigation Deletes . r condition
whidi�uirc grade separation,would reduce any cumulative impact to less . Deletes rea et-re con.tmered
API
than significant levels. Specifically,the\IND proposes the following mitigation measures:
95 VIN)it 42
w VINI)at 42(oiling W--Prune 2011 at 41-42).
\IND at 42.
261511s:1)at 41.
"MI.2.411 4474.42,
I`a!VIND at 42.
'cl VIND at 42.
21
Mitigation Measure i-IAZ-1.Reduce Queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highmrg.
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 956 percentile queue
length on eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville l-Iighway 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 outhern Crossing project: ..--{Deleted:,outh.m crossing
(i)add or 100-foot long eastbound right turn pocket from Caulfield Lane onto Lakeville
Street;(il)convert the current left-left/through-right lanes bn the westbound approach
of Caulfield Lane to single left-through right lanes:(iii)conveir1the phasing on Caulfield
Lane to protected phasing;and (iv)add right turn overlap phases on southbound
Lakeville Street and eastbound Caulfield Lane.t0'- ,
- , —--{Deleted:;
\litigation Measure HAZ-2. biitallAdditionalSifeh�tllearures At,klopper Street and Canfield
Lane. At such time as the Caulfield Lane e nsion/Coutbern Ciossine of the Petaluma _..{Deleted:sottthentcrossiog
River is constructed,the City shall requireanstallation of a traffic signal at I-Topper Street
and Caulfield Lane.or an equally effective alternative measure adoptedin the•course of
• project-level CEQA review for the Caulfield'Lane E.rertision/eSouthern'Crossing project. . {Deleted:soumcm rros;oe
If the existing median on Catilfield Lane is-removed to accommodate additional turn
lanes or travel lanes,the City shall install an exit gateon eastbound Caulfield Lane to
,�
prevent cars from navigating around4ti t[heentry gates:"'t
The improvementsxdescribed in Mitigation Measure I-IAZ'I are estimated to reduce
queues on Caulfield Lanee to 4 0 feet long,thereby preventing'cars from being trapped on top of
th
the railroad tracks and reducing the cumulative impact to less than significant.IQ'
"NSA
improvements described in H AZ-2 would reduce safety hazards as much as is feasible and
would reduce cumulative=safety impacts to lessathan significant. a It should be noted that
mitigation measures proposed in I I.Zal�and HAZ-2 are only necessary;vhen the Caulfield ---{Deleted:Hand
t
Lane Extension/Southern Cios`sin is pl mented 'urthermore,the City will ensure that the _- 'Deleted:sunthem crossing
desigrvsignalizationaor other safety measures at the Caulfield Crossing and the intersection are Deleted r-or
Deleted:These mitigation mosums are not ryuired
implemented as requited by CPSD's ACES in accordance with D.06-04-036 in connection woh - slmeit berm'noot'raft t<t. poet(rod acn„ai n,n
the Caulfield Lane,Extension/Southem Crossing when such modifications are made as part of Deleted:change
the General Plan build out.. Deleted: or
Deleted:.of
D. No New linpactcfrom Proposed NCRA Freight Rail Service.
Deleted: ent that the C deckles to undertake atl
extension of
Deleted:beyond I topper Street —
tm NINE)at 43.
NIND at 43.
tw tAIND at 42-43.
Ia'a1ND at 43.
77
Subsequent to the City's adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration("\IND")on •
,December 19,2011 at the City's diagnostic on-site review with RCF_S on February 2 2012,a
question was raised regarding whether the City should have considered the North Coast
Railroad Authority's ("NCRA")Freight Rail Project as among the cumulative projects
potentiallyimgactingthe Caulfield Crossing. In the Environmental linpact Report CiEIR')_for
the Freight Rail Project certified by NCRA in June 2011,NCR\envisions the resum lion of
freight service through Petaluma,including the Caulfield Crossing:�"A`ccording to NCR\'s EIR.
"
the Freight Rail Project could involve up to 6 trips by 60-ear
./(7 trains (three northbound and three
*.-47 \-4N
southbound)and nvo trips by 25-car trains (one northbound andirthe southbound)six dais;l
week at full build out.The City examined the NCR.A DR to determine whether the NCR\AsE112 identified any
new or different transportation or hazard impacts a?the Caulfield Crossing. TIMINCRA EIR
does not raise ally new concerns re tdi hg hazard or Ira isp xruioh impacts. The NCRA IIIR
�..
itself conducted an examination of potetinaL'safe[ysnd traffi'c!im_ parrs along its route and did
Nsi not find any significant crossing any rttificanC impaca at any crossing tn,Petalum:t "I'heNCRA EIR also took into
account the SMART EIW(2006>>and the SMART SEIR+(2008)aril agreed with S\IART's
ggnclusions that the'combinatioa operations SMART and resumed freight operations would
nor result in cumulative impacts. Specifically the NCRA EIR concludes that"freight and
passenger rail tope itt�hs would not create a-.significant cumulative increase in travel times and
qucuesat at-grade crossings. (NCRA DIJ.1R,p.4-24.) Part:of the reasoning for this
con sfo was that freight traps are likelvito occur at night,on weekends and off-peak to avoid
conflicts wibrthe commuter jail?service. Night weekend and off-peak trips would also avoid
i
conflict cith pcak,vchicular travel times. Finally,NCR.\'s operations irc currently limited by a
\i i. l�
consent decree with the'.City-of Novato ("Novato Consent Decree'). The Novato Consent
Decree restricts operations through Novato(and therefore through Petaluma as well)to no
V
more than a cumulative tout of six one-way commercial freight train trips per week with no
more than 18 cars until certain improvements are made to the route through Novato. (NCR_A
DEAR p. 2-13.) While the NCRA EIR expresses optimism rc"arding the completion of these
improvements the EIR neither establishes a funding source for these improvements nor a
definitive schedule for their completion. As such,it is unclear when NCRA could even begin
23
increased operations. For all of these reasons the NCRA EIR does not raise any new concerns
rcgardin cumulative hazards or transportation iint�acisat the Caulfield Croscine
•
V. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF - I Formatted:Line spacing: 1.5 lines,Keep with
next
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE GOVERNING APPLICATIONS
A. Compliance with Rule 2.1 (a)
The City is a duly organized municipal corporation,operating under a charter and in
4' \- v
accordance with California law. .As a municipal corporation,the Gity,exercises jurisdiction over
all municipal functions,including the construction,r
functions, econstruction agd¢naintenance 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 iiifihusinesile,11 English Stfeet Petaluma,
California 94952. tb l
B. Compliance with Rule
Correspondence and communications regArding this Application should be directed to:
John C.Browd. .:
City Manager _
City of Petaluma 1 's,,
11 English.Street
Petaluma;CA-94952
Telephone: (707);778-4345
Facsimile: (707)778-4419
Email:scitymgr(rici.petaluma.ca:us _.._-{Formatted:Not Highlight
With a'copy to:
Sky Woodruff,Esq.,(SBN: 197204)
MEYERS,NAVEjRIBACK SILVER&WILSON
555 12°h Street,Stiite 1500
Oakland,CA 94607
Telephone: (510)808-2000
Facsimile: (510)444-1108
Email:swrmdm ff(amcycrsnavc.com
(Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.5"
24
C. Compliance with 2.1 (c)
1. Category for the Proceedinp
Pursuant to Commission Rules 1.3(e)and 7.1(c)(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(d)."
2. Need for a Hearing
The City does not believe that hearings are.neccssai in thisp oceedin The-City's
Y g ry' P,r ' S
� . .
Application includes sufficient evidence to allow[he Commission to make the requisite findings
J
pursuant to California Statute and CommissionRu-les.
`
3. Issues to be Considered i+
The only issue,to be considered is,whether to authorize the City to permanently relocate ..– Deleted:
the Caulfield Crossing because the City has demonstrated (1)pudic need for the permanent
i;.. . .r,;yr
relocation;and(2)a separation of grade is not practicable.
4. ISchcdule
The City respectffu''++lly'srreeuSts that the Commission approve this Application on an •
expedited basis:•Specifically,the,City requests that'the Commission complete its review and
approve this Application by/May .Although the City does not believe that hearings are
necessary';'should the CommiS,Sioner assigned to the Application determine that hearings are
necessary,die City proposes the follou`ing schedule:
Application Filed: i\hmh 30, 2 Deleted:Deconber
Deleted:2011
Prehearing Conference: ;April 30,2012
.__.__. ___—_...-. •: Formatted:Not Highlight
Evidentiary Hearings: \lay 10,2012 Deleted:Damn..
Briefs Filed: June 5,2012 Deleted:r t uie _
-.. - Deleted:snatch
Proposed Decision Issued: htv 4,2013 — ---
____ .. _____ ...._._.- .. --- Deleted April
Comments on PD filed: July 16,2012 --- Deleted \pnt
°w Where'a proceeding}lees not fall within any of the Commission's Rule I_3 categories,Rule 7.1(c)(2)directs
these proceedings to be eonducted in accordance with the rules for ratesetting proceedings.
73
Reply Comments filed: ulv 20,2012 ...-{Deleted:.q,di )
IFinal Commission.Decision: ,4pgnst 20,2012 Deleted:May )
S?LART 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.
eik
D. Summary of the City's Compliance with Applicable Rules
Rule(s) Requirement ",.( Nv.N, Section/Exhibit
2.1 (a) Legal Name and Address - . V.A
2.1 (b) Persons to Receive Noticed N'.B
Categorization/Hearing/Issues to be
a' ,
1 (c) Considered/Proposed Schedule` ' ., 2 1
22 Organization and Qualification to Transact Business J;+v VA
I 2.4 CEQA Comphancet`*, V, Exhibit
3.7 (a),3.8 Rail Milepost/Locatidh f.the Crossing \ II
3.7 3 8 Crossing Identification Nyumber of the Affeeted, II .
ro)' Crossing ' N
3-7 (cO(1) 38 Public Need:Served by Relocated CISliing IILA
3.7 (c)c),3.8 Grade Separation is Not Praaicable N1.1/ Ill
3.7(c) ) 3.8 Sings_:Signals and'Other Warning Devicest ILA,Exhibit
3 7 d 3 8 Map of locations_iht least400 feet alloonng'the railroad Exhibit
O ...,Rand 200 fe`et,alo ngthet highway in each direction
^'iblap of relati n_of proposed;crossing to existing roads
3.7(e)43'.8 l o Exhibit
and railroads
37(f)3:8 Profile showing ground line and grade line and rate of Exhibit
`t: grades of affected highways and railroads
VI. CONCLUSION it
For the rea�set forth above,the City submits that(I)the permanent location of an
Ng:3<
at-grade crossing at Floppei Street and Caulfield Lane serves a public need;(2) grade separation
at the CaulfieldCrossing is not practicable;(3),adequate signs,signals and other crossing .,,--f Deleted:„m.installed )
warning devices have been installed at Caulfield Crossing and the City proposes installation of
additional signaling ADA improvements:and loop detection devices per recommendation from
the Commission;and (4)the City has conducted an adequate environmental review of the Deleted:it
Caulfield Crossing under CEQA that considers the impact of SMART passenger rail service, the
Riverfront Project and the future Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossin . Therefore,the ..... Deleted:an)
26
City respectfully requests that the Commission issue an order permanently authorizing the at-
grade Caulfield Crossing 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 Crossing granted in Commission D.06-02-036 while this Application is
pending;(2)permanently authorize closure of the former at-grade crossing of the SMART line
at the intersection of Hopper Street and Lakeville Street(milepost 5-38.3);and(3)process its
Application on an expedited basis,without a hearing.
V
DATED r\Inrch3Q 2 201 Respectfully submitted . —- oeletm n(mthc,3I.2nn. .
' . City oFPetaluma is.
Bv:� \s\
,; y.. Sky Woodruff
182582.1
_ 4.1\\\ "qb 14j.M
27
•
TABLE OF rim-II BITS
Exhibit Document
A City of Petaluma final construction plans for Caulfield Crossing
B City of Petaluma Form G
City of Petaluma,Caulfield Lane Railroad Crossing Re-authorization.
C; Initial Study/Pe posed Mitigated Negative Declaration(November 17
20111.
D City Council Resolution Adopting the+0IND tin December 19,2011.
E Comment letters on the City's_ML\`D.from RCES and TRANSDEF.
Assessment by Steven).LaFra`nclii cC 71ssociates,Inc.repatdim,
1' Caulfield Lane Grade Separtio i Feasibiliiy-(December 14,20111 (the
"Lalranchi Assessment1=1f /`
Letter from Nir.Davidktewart,Utilities Engine rr Rail Crossings
Engineering Sectiorniteoff Bradley,Planning Manger,City of
Petaluma.(emoting Non e of Coumile'tion—Caulfield Lane Railroad
Crossing Reauthorization'(7irce nber 12,2011), ,.
•
•
28
VERIFICATION
',John Brown,hereby declare that I am the City Manager of the City of Petaluma,and ...-f Deleted:daSiial I
that I have read the foregoing"Applicationjof 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 connee ni tg the City of Petaluma
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge,informatioh,abehef.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregois true:Ma,correct.
Executed this day of,M:trch'2p12 at Petaluma,California:, .-.{Deleted KC 1
V\Pr - Deleted Decunber 2011 in
•------(Formatted:Line spacing: single 1
John Brown
Manager �w•' - -
°T N"
/
O.4.a-r.4.i7Nor„
�Ah
it
IV
29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, [NAME],hereby certify:
I am employed in the City,of Oakland,California,am over eighteen years of age and am Deleted:and County
not a party to the within entitled cause.My business address is 555 12th Street,Suite 1500, Deleted:Sao Francisco
Oakland,California
On December at,2011,I caused the following to be served:\
APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA FOWAN9RDER AUTHORIZING
THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF ONE AT=GRADE]sCROSSING OF THE
TRACKS OF THE SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAILITRANSITRICT
via electronic mail to all parties on the attached service list via electronic mail or US Mail.
`"�'tiTa,
Executed on December.Y-C,2011 at Oakland,California,9467
•
)822582.1, Ae a --{Deleted: 1747157.1
-{Formatted:Font 125 pt
•
30
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF PETALUMA APPLICATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR
RE-AUTHORIZATION OF THE CAULFIELD
LANE RAILROAD CROSSING PROJECT
1812230.5
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 "Pracks of Application 12-3-
the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District a4L.
APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING
THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OFEONE AT-GRADE CROSSING OF THE
TRACKS OF THE SONOMA-MARINAREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT
r4"- 1 "
,
A N.
y Sky Woodruff, Esq. (SBN: 197204)
Ed Grutzmacher (SBN: 228649)
• Jessica Mullah(SBN: 263435)
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK SILVER & WILSON
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 808-2000
Facsimile: (510) 444-1108
Email: swoodruff@)"mevcrsnave.com
Dated: March , 2012 Attorneys for the CITY OF PETALUMA
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-
the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District
APPLICATION.OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING
� t
THE.PERMANENT'RELOCATION OF ONE AT-GRADE CROSSING OF THE
TRACKS OF THE SONOMA-MARIN AREA;RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT
k.
Pursuant to Sections 1201 through 1205, 768 and 7604 of the California Public Utilities
Code, General Orders 75-D and 88-B issued by the California-Public Utilitics2Commission (the
"Commission"), and in accordance with Rules 21 3w7 and 3:8 oFthe Commission's'Rules of
Practice and Procedure ("Commission Rules"), the City of,Petaluma (the "City") hereby submits
this Application requesting a Comtrussion order to permancn ,authorize die City's relocation
of an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks of the:Sonoma-Mann:Area Rail Transit District
("SMART") from the inter non of Hopper Street and Lakeville Street (milepost 5-38.3) to
Hopper Street and Caulfield La ct(milepost 5-37.8) (the "Caulfield Crossing") in the City of
Petaluma, County of Sonom Caulfield Crossing has functioned successfully and safely since
its construction. Therefore, no,operational changes or additional improvements to the existing
railroad crossing are proposed at this hme as part of the request for permanent authorization of
Caulfield Crossing. However, the City recognizes that it may be necessary in the future to work
with developers;:SMART and the North Coast Rail Authority ("NCRA") to ensure that
necessary improvements to protect safety are installed at Caulfield Crossing where there is new
development or new rilloperations.
In addition, the City respectfully requests that the Commission (1) provide interim relief
to continue authorization for the 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 of the SMART line at the intersection of Hopper Street and Lakeville
Street (milepost 5-383); and (3) process its Application on an expedited basis,without a hearing.
1
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).' The railroad line intersecting both crossings is the main line of the former
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company. SMART currently ownsthe railroad tracks.=
Commission Decision 06-02-036 ("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 Novembei?, 2004°3
Ordering Paragraph 2 of D.06-02-036 statcdbthat the City's aud[drtzation for the
Caulfield Crossing only remained in effect whtletSMART did not operate pa'senger rail service
along its tracks. Once SMART initiated passenger i'aihsenTice,tthekCommisston approval would
expire and D.06-02-036 specifically obligated the City to-reapply to the Commission for
continued authorization of the CaulfieldkCrossing. In addition D.06=02-036 explicitly directed
•the City to include appropriate environmental review as part of its subsequent application.
In November 2008 voters in Sonoma and MannkCounttes"approved a ballot measure
NT/
se
("Measure Q") to impo a one-quarter centtraannsactton and%use tax in both counties to fund
passenger rail service along the SMART tracks. Th hoard of Supervisors in Sonoma and Marin
u
counties subsequently•approved_the official canyass of election results on December 16, 2008.
D.06-031:036 directed the City to file anew application within 90 days of an announcement that
eta 'S
passengerulservice would co mm ence along the SMART tracks. However, the Commission
granted the City,.an extension toifile a new Application for continued authorization of the
\
Caulfield Crossing;by Decembc X31, 2011.'
' Application of the City of Petaluma 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 SMART is a rail district created via enactment of Assembly Bill 2224(Nation)in 2003.
3 The Commission subsequently clarified that D.06-02-036 only applied to the at-grade mainline track crossing
of the SMART tracks and not 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 Canon,
Executive Director to Sky Woodruff,Attorney for City of Petaluma,dated December 29,2010(extending Application
deadline to December 31,2011).
2
The City worked to ensure the timely preparation of a new Commission Application,
together with a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"), and was prepared to file its
Application in advance of the December 31, 2011 deadline.5 . However, comments on the
City's MND filed by the Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division's ("CPSD")
Rail Crossings Engineering Section ("RCES") on December 12, 2011 recommended that the
City conduct an additional on-site diagnostic review focusing specifically on the City's new
application with both SMART and the NCRt\ before the City filed;i s;new application with the
Commission. On December 22, 2011, the City requested a ninety(90) day extension to file its
new application.° The Commission authorized the extension and'directed the City to file its
application by March 30, 2012.7 The City participated-in'the4dlagnosticFreview requested by
RCES on February 2, 2012. °
%
II. DESCRIPTION OF CAULFIELD CROSSING
In 2011, the City constructed the;new, at-grade Caulfieldr ossing (milepost 5-37.8).
The former at-grade crossing across the SMART,tracks (milepo t,5 38 3) was closed and it no
longer exists within the pub right-of-way. At present;theCaulfield Crossing is located
R.
approximately 0.2 le outhweestof 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.pdblic street with Glass II bicycle lanes,inboth directions. Caulfield Crossing
currently crosses two sets of,SMART4rr�ailroad tracks,.and it is designed to operate safely with the
addition a-third set of railroad tracks in`th€ 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 5-38.3)'and the at-grade Rush Creek crossing to the cast (milepost 5=
28.5, in the City of Novato). .
s On December 19,2011, the Petaluma City Council took final action to approve its MIND and authorized the
filing of this Application with the Commission.
L See Letter from Sky Woodruff,Attorney for City of Petaluma,to Mr. Paul Clanon,Executive Director,dated
December 22,2011 (requesting ninety (90)day extension of Application deadline).
7 See Letter from Mr.Paul Clanon,Executive,Director to Sky Woodruff,Attorney for City of Petaluma,dated
December 28,2011 (extending Application deadline to March 30,2012).
3
A. Safety
Caulfield Crossing has functioned successfully and safely since its construction. It was
constructed in accordance with the Commission-approved design set forth in the November 9,
2004 Supplement to the City's original Application, A.04-06-030.
1. City Compliance with D.06-04-036
In constructing Caulfield Crossing, the City fully complied with all the conditions the
Commission set forth in D.06-04-036, including:
o Relocating the at-grade crossing from its previous location at milepost 5-38.3 to
milepost 5-37.8, according to the design set outiritthe City's.November 9, 2004,
Supplements to its 2004 Application; ,,t"
o Ensuring that the construction and safety featurestof the Caulfield Crossing are
AN
consistent with all applicable safety requirements, including, but not limited to
Commission General Order-("GO") 26-D (Clearances), GO 72-B (Pavement
Construction); GO 75-C (Crossing Protection); a'ndSGO 118 (Walkways);
o Filing final construction plans with theiRCES prior tONconstructlon of the Caulfield
Crosstng9 and
o Submitting a completed standard Commission Form G (Report of Changes at
Highway Gr d Crosssing and Separations) to RCES within 30 days of construction
completion,10 � v
The new CaulfieldoCrossing t,mclude5 grading; pacing, signage, striping and utility
installationand relocation.'`Warning d'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 sectioncWith flashers, and a landscaped median approximately 100 feet long on the
northeast side of the relocated crossing.
X The City's November 9,2004 Supplement to its 2004 Application is incorporated as part of this Application
by reference.
9 The City's final construction plans are attached to this Application as Exhibit A.
10 The City's completed Commission Form G is attached to this Application as Exhibit B.
Ii.See City of Petaluma,Caulfield Lane.Railroad Crossing Re-authorization,Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration(November 17,2011) (the"MIND") at 6 (photograph of the Caulfield Crossing).The City's MIND
is attached to this Application as Exhibit C.
•
4
Future modifications to Caulfield Crossing will be necessary in the future to adapt to
changes in rail operations and surrounding development patterns. These modifications are
specifically identified and accounted for in this Application. When SMART operations
commence and the Riverfront Project is developed, it will be necessary to install: (a) a
Commission standard 9-E exit gate in the westbound direction at the crossing; and (b) ADA
compliant tactile strips on the sidewalks approaches to the tracks. When the Caulfield Lane
Extension/Southern Crossing is developed in connection with General,Plan Build Out it will be
necessary to install: (a) a traffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield L ne; and (c) a "queue
cutter" signal and advance detection at the Lakeville.Street/Caulfield>Lane intersection.
2. SMART Rail Crossing Safety Efforts Underway'at the Commission
`a. ��
SMART is currently working with the Commission and local jurisdictions along its
proposed 70 mile rail corridor to establish what additional safetynmeasures mayli ecessary at
individual crossings once passenger service commencesa?cln November 2011,1SMART, the City
and the Commission conducted diagnosue sun eys and determined that an additional exit gate
should be installed at the southwest side of the-Crossing to prey ent,vehicles from negotiating
fo
around the gate. '171e new_gate.also requires re xouttng ate-,,existing sidewalk.
B. Traffic'
1. Estimated SMART Rail Traffic
The SMAIRlR.Distrie Avillpro3�ide;passenge service along an approximately 70-mile rail
corridortfrom Cloverdaleyto the Larkspur ferry teiminal.13 SMART has tentatively scheduled
construction of the segment f m downtown San Rafael, through Petaluma, to Railroad Square
in Santa Rosa-to begin in 201 11APassenger service on this segment is expected to commence by
late 2014.15 SMART estimates that its passenger service will make 28 station stops per weekday
at the Downtown PetalumaaSStation. According to SMART, there will be 14 northbound and
lal
southbound trains each`dap9.'N6 SMART's plans for weekend service are preliminary, but four
12 MND at 37.
13 Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District,Passenger Rail and Pathway Project Description at 2(May 19,
2010).
14 See Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District: Initial Operating Segment,Construction Industry
Symposium (Jan. 27,2011).
15 Sonoma:farin Area Rail Transit District,Passenger Rail and Pathway Project Description at 4(May 19,
2010).
16 See SMART Draft EIR 2005.
5
roundtrips per day are expected.17 The passenger trains are expected to travel at an average of
approximately 46 miles per hour, including stops.18
2. Potential Riverfront Project Vehicular Traffic
The City has received an application for Riverfront, a 35.7 acre Riverfront Mixed Use
Development Project (the "Riverfront Project").1J 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-family residential units.21 Work
on the Project is currently projected to begin in 20 13 with completion within 2 to 3 years,
although the timing of build out is dependent on market'conditions',As proposed, the
Riverfront Project may increase average daily trafft �Caulfield Lane from present levels of
between 1,000 and 1,500 trips per day ("ADTs")ro beaveent000 and 6,0001AD'I x.21 The
Riverfront Project does not propose to extend Caulfield Lanetpasstt�Hopper Street;btIi does
contribute to the traffic load that could lead to that extension in the cumulanvescenario
discussed below. AN
3. Potential Vehicular'TraffibDue to the CaulfieldsLane
Extension/Southern Crossing The City's General Plan 2025 includes plans to extend Caulfield Lane past Hopper Street
and extend the roadway c across the Petaluma River (`-`Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern
Crossing").22"1'he City's General Plan Em iionmental Impact Report also addresses the Caulfield
NC 3 • 'yam `-'--i
Lane Extension/Soutli'ern Crosstng.2.\JClthough the Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossing is
a part of,the City's long-term General Pln„ s not currently needed to serve traffic from the
proposed Riverfront Project alone, and there are currently no other aetive development projects in
the area of the City,closcst to the Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossing which would
substantially increase;tfaffic volume.
See SMART Final Supplemental SIR 2008.
18 See SMART Draft'EIR 2005.
19 Riverfront,Application,No. I I-TSM-0130.
20 Riverfront,Application No. 11-TS\I-0130.
21 \IND at 37.
22 The Caulfield Lane Extension would only become necessary upon construction of the"Southern Crossing."
As contemplated in the City's 2025 General Plan, the Southern Crossing world be 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.net/cdd/pdf/general-plan-mav08/general-plan-may08.pdf(last visited 12/15/11).
23 City of Petaluma: General.Plan 2025 at i-10,2-5,2-13,2-18,5-10 and 5-12.
6
The City's General Plan 202521 evaluates a scenario that includes full build out of all
vacant property in the City. Its time horizon at adoption in 2008 was identified as 2025, but the
total impacts of development analyzed will not occur until full build out, which will almost
certainly be later than 2025 given the current pace of development in the City, compared to the
period in which the analysis for the General Plan was developed. The General Plan fully
anticipates and the City has specifically planned for the Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern
Crossing to be part of the full build out condition. Under build out conditions, Caulfield Lane
would be extended to connect Lakeville Street to Petaluma Boulevard South via a "southern
crossing" Petaluma River bridge. To create that connection;Caulfield Lane would extend past
Hopper Street, and the intersection at Caulfield Lane ?Hopper Streetwould be signalized.
Full build out is estimated to increase average daily traffic on Caulfield Lane,to between 20,000
and 25,000 ADTs, which may require two sou hb nd lanes oii;Caulfield Lane,andAvidening of
the Caulfield Crossing, though specific.improvementsWould be finally identified as part of the
City's consideration of proposed construed on,of the CaulfieldbLane Extension/Southern
may\
Crossings
Importantly, the Cityihas specifically considere&theCaulfield Lane Extension/Southern
Crossing as part of heenvrron 'Mental review itieonducred`a- 1"h
s Part of this Application. ` c
City's MND sets forth two"specific mnitigation measures (l IAZ-1, HAZ-2) that reduce the
S., nsiOn S
impact of he Caulfeld Lane Extension/Southern Crossing to less than significant levels without
FT`a -- .ice
the need'for grade separation.''-6 Under Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the City shall ensure that
mitigatiOnyis required that t sufficient t r�eJduce queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane at
}'./
Lakeville 1-Iighway.22 To addresspoteniial safety hazards in connection with the Caulfield Lane
viz
Extension/Souutn rere n Crossing, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 ensures installation of
(1) (1) reconfigure on of ,the Caulfield Crossing intersection to reduce queuing on Eastbound
Caulfield Lane at Lakeville/Highway; (2) a traffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane; and
67
(3) if the existing median on Caulfield Lane is removed, installation of an exit gate on eastbound
Caulfield Lane to prevent cars from navigating around entry gates, or equally effective
alternative measures.22 The City subsequently determined that a "queue cutter" signal and
advance detection at the Lakeville Street/Caulfieldtane intersection is an equally effective
24 City of Petaluma: General Plan 2025 at i-10,2-5,2-13,2-18,5-10 and 5-12.
25 D(\D at 38(citing W-TRANS 2011).
7
means for reducing safety and traffic-related impacts as reconfiguration of the Caulfield
Crossing intersection.
III. GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S APPLICATION
Section 1201 of the California Public Utilities Code provides that no public road,
highway, or street shall be constructed at-grade across a railroad track without prior approval of
the Commission. Applications for relocation of an at-grade crossing must demonstrate (1) the
public need to be served by proposed crossing; and (2) whyi ssepaar lion of grade is not
practicable.29
a :
A. There is a Public Need to Permanently'Relocate Caulfield Crosso
in
` -
The Caulfield Crossing has improved rail'safetti within:the City. Specifically,.the
t4�
Caulfield Crossing replaced the at-grade crossing of the'SMART railroad tracks/previously
Ctlocated at the intersection of Hopper Sireet and Lakeville Street (milepost 5-38.3) (the "Former
Lakeville Crossing"). The Former Lakeville C'ssing intersected the SMART rail tracks at an
acute angle, was locate within 600 feet of the busy, non si
d gnalizedintersection of"D" Street
and Lakeville Street and included old and outdated crossing=.protection devices. The Caulfield
Crossing intersects with die SMART railroad track t a 90 degree angle, is located at a new, fully
signalized intersection,and utilizes the latest state of�'the art crossing protection equipment.
Clo'suc of theFormer Lakeville Ciosung also allowed the City to eliminate a frontage
road appro m ximately 40 feet fro I akeville Streetthat provided access from "D" Street to three
vs properue between "D" Stree nd Hopper Street. Elimination of the frontage road removed a
circulation hazatdiand improveickafety and operations at the D Street and Lakeville intersection.
P1
B. Grade Separation is Not Practicable
The Commissionhas adopted seven criteria for evaluating practicability in all at-grade
1
crossing cases, including` slings involving light-rail transit, passenger railroad, and freight
26? ND at 42-43.
27 NEVI)at 42-43.
28 IN END at 42-43.The exit gate on eastbound Caulfield Lane is different from the exit gate on westbound
Caulfield Lane.The exit gate on westbound Caulfield Lane is necessary if the Riverfront Project is approved or SMART
begins operating.
29 Per Commission Rule 3.8,Applicants for relocation of an existing railroad crossing must comply with Rule
3.7.
8
railroad traffic.30 The seven criteria used for judging practicability arc: (1) a demonstration of
public need for the crossing; (2) a convincing showing that the City has eliminated all potential
safety hazards; (3) the concurrence of local community and emergency 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 a grade separation; (6) a recommendation by Commission staff that it
concurs in the safety of the proposed crossing, including any conditions; and (7) Commission
precedent in factually similar crossings.3'
1. Demonstration of Public Need
The public need for the Caulfield Crossing ,ddiscusSed to Secaon,dILA of this
Application. Although there is a strong public need for the Caulfield Crossing; there is
absolutely no such public need for any form of g de separat o at the Caulfield Crossing. The
only notable increase in vehicular traffic identified in the City's MND for the Caulfield Crossing
involves increasing ADT's on Caulfield Lane to between 20;000 and 25,000 vehicles in
t
connection with the Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crosstng;,which is anticipated if and
when the City reaches fu�ll builpd out as analy edtrn the General Plan'-
'l �
At the time ofrfuture const emction of the Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossing,
the City will require changes+to the. design or signalization of the Caulfield Crossing and the
intersection asrequired by the GP,SD's-ROES in accordance with D.06-04-036. Furthermore,
la.-
Mitigation Measures HAZ?l and FltAZ-2 in the City's MND are specifically focused on any
potential from the Caulfield Iatic Ectension/Southern Crossing. Mitigation Measures
td
HAZ-1 and'H�AZ-2 ensure the,following,,�or other equally effective measures adopted in the
course Of projectie,el CEQA review: (1) reconfiguration of the Caulfield Crossing intersection
to reduce queuing on Eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highway; (2) installation of a traffic
signal at Hopper Street aiidtaulfield Lane; and (3) installation of an exit gate in the event that
30 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)
3' D.02-O5-047 (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).
32 MND at 42.
9
the existing median is removed.33 These Mitigation Measures reduce any cumulative safety
impact of the future a Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossing, to less than significant
levels without the need for grade separation.14
Importantly, the City's environmental review specifically considered and ultimately did
not recommend grade separation as a means to reduce potential impacts of the Caulfield Lane
Extension/Southern Crossing to less than significant levels.35
Instead, the City's environmental review, discussed at length,below, recommends
modifications to existing lanes and phasing, along with installation of a new traffic signal at the
intersection and exit gate at Caulfield Crossing to successfully( mitigate-any queuing that could
present a safety hazard associated with constructionlpf theeCaulfield Lane"Extension/Southern
Crossing.36
2. Elimination of All Safety I-1azards
Section II.A.1 describes the warning and safety featuures currently installed at the
Caulfield Crossing and the specific Commission conditions4the City complied with when it
constructed the Caulfield Crossing. In ad ditioii,,the City's environmental review of the Caulfield
WLMILt
Crossing indicated that continuing operationof-the crossing would create no significant safety
hazards or traffic impacts, but that;supplemental,safety measures, such as an additional exit gate
on the southwest side of`thecrossing for westbound Caulfield Land traffic, should be installed
either if SiV41:I ' begins operating or die Riverfront.t.Project is approved as proposed. As the
MND notes, the City cvil�lrr.equire theEdevelopEof the Riverfront Project to fund those
supplemental safety meal ressVif the Riverfront Project is approved. The MND assumed that the
CPIJC, as r,of approving tthhe inmation of SMART service, would similarly require SMART to
install such measures, if they hacle of previously been installed by the time SMART begins
service. 'Therefore thereis 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 Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossing is constructed as part of
13\ND at 42-43.
31 MND at 42-43.
35 See MIND at 36-50.
36\ND at 42-43.
10
1 full City build out under the City's General Plan. It found, however, that those impacts could be
reduced to less than significant level with the implementation of two mitigation measures (1-IAZ-
1 and HAZ-2).37 The City proposes that the Commission condition continuing authorization for
the operation of the Caulfield Crossing on the implementation of those mitigation measures.38
3. Concurrence of the Local Community and Emergency Authorities
On December 19, 2011, the Petaluma City Council authorized the filing of this
Application with the Commission.39 On March 19, 2012, the City
k3/4.Council discussed the latest
revised application and staff report addressing the results of thelFebruary 2, 2012 on-site
diagnostic review. In addition, the Emergency Vehicle Asse`ssmefor the Riverfront Project
prepared for the City of Petaluma in October•2011 found'th"at worst case delays to emergency
service access associated with normal rail operations at the Caulfield Crossinglare not expected
to exceed one minute.
3,4
The SMART Final EIR determined that any potential impact on emergency response
time from passenger rail service was less than significant 41 "Recording to the SMART Final EIR,
the cumulative impacts from freight and passseengertrail service would-also be less than significant
because the two services typically operate at different times 42 ,
4. Opinions of the Generalf`Public
The City received.comment!letters from RCES and TRANSDEF on its AMND.43 No
other public comments were'stilimltfed`before or at/the City's December 19, 2011 hearing on
the ,4'7\pplrcanon
Ci andtMND.-
C
5. Comp rata ati3 e Cost ofAt-Grade Crossing and Grade Separation
Ihelimmediate cost of maintaining the Caulfield Crossing at its current location is 50.44
Grade separa n ould be expected to cost $26 million for an overpass and $28 million for an
't .
underpass:45 The Cityi's not presently in a financial position to make such an investment. .
y1.gf /
37 'tND at 41-43. t2
38 MND at 36-50.
3 The City Council Adopted the MND on December 19,2011 and in connection with adopting the \IND, the
City Council specifically authorized the filing of this Application. (See City Resolution attached to this Application as
Exhibit D)
10 Emergency Vehicle Access Assessment: Riverfront Mixed-Use Development(500 Hopper Street,Petaluma
California) for the City of Petaluma at 18 (Prepared 10/11/11).
"See e.g. SMART FEIR at 3.2-23 to 3.2-24.
12 See e.g. SMART FEIR at 3.2-23 to 3.2-24.
13 Comment letters from ACES and TRANSDEF are attached to this Application as Exhibit E.
11
If SMART passenger rail service begins and the Riverfront Project is approved as
proposed, the Caulfield Crossing can be operated safely with.minor,improvements, including: (a)
an additional exit gate on the southwest side of the crossing to preclude westbound vehicles
from navigating around entry gates; and (b) installation of ADA compliant tactile strips on the
sidewalks approaches to the tracks. These supplemental safety measures will be installed either
by SMART or the Riverfront developers, depending on which Project is completed and
operational first..
Significant increases in traffic over the Caulfield Crossing only occur with the
construction of the Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern'Croesing:N,Although the Caulfield Lane
Extension/Southern Crossing is contemplated as part thve,City's fu1h eneral Plan build out,
that is not expected for many years, and there are i current,apphcations for`development
which would add substantial amounts of traffic to tbe.,Caulfield-Lane area, other"than the
Riverfront Project. Even when the Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossing is undertaken,
as shown by the City's MND, there is still,no need for grade3eparation of Caulfield Lane and
the SMART line. The City's MND identifies specific,nutigationMeasures that obviate the need
for grade separation to addresspotential safetyrand traffic concerns. To reduce safety and
traffic-related impacts from a p to potential Caulfield�Lane Extension/Southern Crossing to a less
than significant level, uhg Lion Measure HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 in the City's MND instead
` ,
recommend.(1)'reconfiguranon=of the^Caulfield Crossing intersection to reduce queuing on
Eastbound Caulfield Lane at Lakeville Highwa0(2) installation of a traffic signal at Hopper
Street and Caulfield Lane; anTP(3) installation'of an exit gate in the event that the existing median
is remov ed;''to accommodate additionalttravel or turn lanes. The City has subsequently
determined that a `4queue cutter~'-,"`signal and advance.detection at the Lakeville Street/Caulfield
Lane intersection is anrcqually,-effective means for reducing safety and traffic-related impacts as
reconfiguration of the Caulfield Crossing intersection. TheMitigation Measures set forth in
HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 represent a far more economical alternative to grade separation, and they
are fully effective.
41 The City has already invested over$300,000 to close the unsafe at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks at
Hopper Street and Lakeville Street(milepost 5-38.3) and replace it with the new, safer Caulfield Crossing.
15 The Assessment by Steven J.LaFranchi&Associates,Inc.regarding Caulfield Lane Grade Separation
Feasibility (December 14,2011) (the"LaFranchi Assessment") is attached to this Application as Exhibit F.
12
The City investigated die physical feasibility of constructing a grade separated
Caulfield Crossing as either an overpass or underpass in 2011.46 Either an overpass or
underpass grade separation design would be a significant undertaking at the Caulfield Crossing.
Grade separation would likely require closing Caulfield Lane during construction, which would
generate potentially significant traffic impacts on circulation and businesses in the area.
The overpass and underpass design option would also require the City to engage in
extensive grading that could have serious impacts on adjacent private,properties.47 At least four
property owners would be affected,by grade changes: McPhail;Chevron, In-N-Out Burger and
the former Hammer Marine site.48 Additionally, the Cits Planning Commission has approved
N
an application for a proposed Oil Stop facility at 10044]akeville Highway;ybetween 'In-N-Out
Burger and Chevron.49 The necessary grading would require condemnation of private property
i
or negotiation of easements with private property Owners, boditoff which would'inciease
potential costs for the City.50 In addition, the necessa grad g would require extensive
*b1*
`s,w,
reconfiguration at the existing Chevronsite"tto address accessibility under the Americans with
dZ
Disabilities Act, and to allow fuel trucks and garbage collection trucks,:to enter the sites'
N'6 4.tir
Chevron night lose accessito,the rear of the ite'entirely'
In addition, thctnecessary ertical clearance for either overpass or underpass design
I
would force the City to close off Hamburger Lanc or completely reconfigure it. Any closure
would present significant feasibility challenges beca ee it would conflict with the conditions of
tea, 4
the 2004 pproval for thesconstruction of the adjacent In-N-Out Burger Project.53 In addition,
it would close off future actekskto the Hammer Marine Site, as well as potentially land lock the
McPhails pioperty located bets n the railroad and Hamburger Lane.54 Lastly, to complete
construction within3the availabl4footprint, the grade of the overpass or underpass would need
to be 12%, which exceeds Americans with Disabilities Act limits.
V(
36 See Exhibit F. G�
17 LaFranchi Assessment at 1.
AN LaFranchi Assessment at 1.
19 Planning Commission Resolution,February 13,2012,Application No. 11-CUP-0903.
$0 LaFranchi Assessment at 2.
LaFranchi Assessment at 1-2
52 LaFranchi Assessment at 1-2.
53 LaFranchi Assessment at 1-2
SJ LaFranchi Assessment at I.
13
Construction of a grade separated underpass presents additional challenges distinct from
those associated with building an overpass. For instance, it would be necessary to relocate three
forty-eight inch storm drain culverts that cross Caulfield Lane.55 Raising the current invert grade
affects the entire drainage basin upstream.56 An elevated aqueduct would be necessary to
replace the three existing storm drain culverts.57 Relocation of an existing drainage ditch parallel
to the rail tracks and replacement with a conduit in Lakeville Highway is not feasible because the
required depth for the storm drain would conflict with other utiliti s sa The City would also be
required to relocate a forty-eight inch sanitary sewer gravity trunk line in Hopper Street.59 To
complete that relocation, the City would need to conduct a(hydradui tstudv and possibly relocate
other utilities (e.g. power, telephone).60 \
Under any circumstances, the magnitude Viand technical challenges ofon underpass or
overpass of the SD4 1R'1' line at Caulfield Lane would be prohibitive. In addition; the City's
existing fiscal constraints preclude the,City from pursuing such a project.. The economic
downturn has forced the City to adopt fouvi onsecutive yeaitof budget cuts.61 In addition to
the difficult economic climate, the City faces innCreased costs of doing business, particularly with
respect to employee benefits 62 The City reduced its General Fund'spending from $48.9 million
in 2007-2008 to less than$32 million in 2011/2012.63 Sin et2 8, the City has taken a number
of dramatic measures to address declining revenue"s_,anndd reduce spending including: eliminating
a
funding for capitalirmprovement; dcferring;and reducing facility maintenance; laying off
eliminating or freezmg.over 50 pox bons; eliminating part-time positions; reducing overtime and
standby costs; depleting Ctyersen es to prevent further negative staffing level impacts;
eliminating General Fund--financed vehicle replacement; and privatizing current planning
xi
J5 LaFranchi Assessment 2-3.
56 LaFranchi Assessment at 2-3.
LaFranchi Assessment at 2-3.
i8 LaFranchi Assessment at 2-3.
LaFranchi Assessment at 2-3.
60 LaFranchi Assessment at 2-3.
61 City of Petaluma,California,Fiscal Year 2012 Budget,City Manager's Budget Message ("City Manager's
Budget Message") at 1-1.
62 City Manager's Budget Message at 1-I.
63 City Manager's Budget Message at I-1.
14
•
functions, janitorial services and aquatics center management.°° In short, unprecedented
financial challenges have forced the City to cut back on essential services like never before.
In Fiscal Year 2011/2012 alone, the City's forecast projected a $2.3 million budget
deficit's To address the budget shortfall, the City was forced to lay off two community services
officers, one police records assistant, one public works inspector, and one office assistant.«
Two police captain positions were abolished. Hiring for approximately nine full time equivalent
positions has been frozen.6° The effect of these extraordinary budgetcuts and layoffs has been
that the City has had to struggle with existing staff and resources'to carry out its existing
•
workload.
Notable increases in traffic over the Caulfield essijng occur onl'y,when the Caulfield
Lane Extension/Southern Crossing is constructed68Although the CaulfieldTLane
Extension/Southern Crossing would potentially increase trafblevels at the Caulfield Crossing
to between 20,000 and 25,000 ADTs;,the resulting tr fv me does not require a grade
separation for the intersection to operate safely.G9 The Mitigation Measures set forth in the City's
MND address additional traffic related to construction of the Caulfield Extension.7"
Specifically, Mitigation Measure and HAZ-2 ij the City's MND recommend the
following or other equally effecfivthe/course measures adopted in the ourse of project-level CEQA
review: (1) reconfiguratiomof the Caulfield Crossing intersection to reduce queuing on
NrIN
Eastbound Caulfield:Lane at Lakeville+Highway; and-(2) installation of a traffic signal at Hopper
,,,!'
Street an Caulfield Lane,"and (3) installation ofan exit gate for eastbound traffic in the event
that`the existing median is removed n @he City subsequently determined that a "queue cutter"
signal and adh ante detection at the Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane intersection is an equally
effective means'for•reducing safety and traffic-related impacts as reconfiguration of the Caulfield
Crossing intersection, Thus,at-General Plan build out and construction of the Caulfield Lane
61 City Manager's Budget Message at I-1 to I-2.
65 City Manager's Budget'Message at 1-3.
66 City Manager's Budget Message at I-6.
6I City Manager's Budget Message at.1-7.
ex MND at 42.
G9 MND at 36-50.
70 MND at 42-43.
MIND at 42-43.
15
Extension/Southern Crossing, changes to the Caulfield Crossing and adjacent intersections can
safely accommodate the additional traffic without the need for technically difficult and
prohibitively expensive grade separation.
Maintaining the existing, safely operating Caulfield Crossing does not impose any
additional costs on the City and does not present any significant safety risks. Installation of
supplemental safety measures as described in this Application to address SMART passenger rail
service or Riverfront, whichever comes first, are economical. Supplenental safety measures are
estimated to cost approximately $75,000 to $100,00072 to.install;and will reduce potential safety
impacts from SMART and Riverfront to less than significant`levels 'Additional changes to the
Caulfield Crossing and adjacent intersections to acco inodate additional traffic from the
Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossing, as'required by the mitigation measures in the
City's MND, would be an additional expense, but substantiallyhess costly than g ade.separation
while ensuring safe operation of the crossing. By contrast;igrade separation cots $26 million
for an overpass and $28 million foran tiliderp2ss. The cost.of grade separation is prohibitive
and the City is not in a financial position at presenttto make sucfi an.expenditure. Moreover,
requiring the significant expenditure represented by g d°etseparation is unnecessary because the
City's MND has identified mitigation measures that would effectively address that traffic volume
increases caused by the full build out of the City asi nvi_sioned in the General Plan.
6 .,,Recotrimendation:6y-Commt sioon Staff
CPSD's RCES'Dnnsion vtll review this Application for permanent authorization of the
CaulfiercliGrossing. However,tit is important to note that the Caulfield Crossing was constructed
with CP D'RICES Division'sYco\versight and approval.73 In accordance with D.06-04-036, the
City filed final co strucnon plans for the Caulfield Crossing with the CPSD's RCES Division
t iV
prior to Caulfield Crossing's construction.74 When construction of the Caulfield Crossing was
complete, the City subnutted a completed standard Commission Form G (Report of Changes at
4
Highway Grade Crossings and Separations) to CPSD's RCES Division within 30 days.75 Since
72 [SOURCE for cost estimate]
73 Sec Section ILA.I,supra.
A Sec Exhibit A.
7'Sec Exhibit B.
16
•
Caulfield Crossing has operated safely since its construction, the City does not propose any
modifications to the existing, RCES Division reviewed and approved site.
Before filing this Application , the City participated in several diagnostic reviews at
Caulfield Crossing in the interim,including a review with Commission staff and the North Coast
Rail Authority ("NCRt\") on September 21, 2010. The City also participated in a technical,
diagnostic review of the Caulfield Crossing with SMART and Commission representatives on
November 29, 2011 in connection with the SMART project. At that diagnostic review, RCES
Division representatives concluded that SMART passenger servic would necessitate an
additional exit gate to be installed at the southwest side of+thecrossing, which involves re-
routing of an existing sidewalk, to prevent vehicles froin negotiating around the Caulfield
Crossing gate.
The RCES Division submitted comments to the City in-response to itbIND'on
December 12, 2011(the "RCES Lettejr:') 76 The RCES Letter recommended that the City
� N
schedule an on-site diagnostic review ankhe'Caulfield Crossing.involving SMART, the North
dV
Coast Rail Authority and the Commission in advance of filing its Application. As a result, in
addition to prior 2010 and 201-1 diagnostic evie at Caulfield Crossing, the City engaged the
Commission in a Caulfield Crossing-specific diagnostic review with RCES, SMART, NCRA, and
Summit Signal on I ebruarl 2, 2012
As discussedyat the February 2012'diagnostii review, the City expects the
implementation of supplemental safety upgrades-at Caulfield Crossing for SMART and
Riverfrotit+to include installation of: (a)-a'Commission standard 9-E exit gate in the westbound
direction at the,crossing and (b)ifADA compliant tactile strips on the sidewalks approaches to
the tracks. Su plc ental safetyirieasures necessary for the Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern
4
Crossing should include (1) installation of a traffic signal at Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane;
and (2) installation of aann ti g to in the event that the existing median is removed, to
J
accommodate additional travel or turn lanes, and (c) a "queue cutter" signal and advance
detection at the Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane intersection.
76 See Letter from Dlr. David Stewart,Utilities Engineer,Rail Crossings Engineering Section to Geoff Bradley,
Planning Manager,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 G.
17
The City determined that a "queue cutter" signal and advance detection at the Lakeville
Street/Caulfield Lane intersection is an equally effective means for reducing safety and traffic-
related impacts as reconfiguration of the Caulfield Crossing intersection. The "queue cutter"
signal and advance detection will be necessary because under future conditions with the build
out of the General Plan in 2025, the maximum queues for northbound traffic arc projected to
extend across the Caulfield Lane railroad crossing. These queues of vehicles will be reduced by
adding a "queue cutter" signal and advance detection at the Lakeville-Street/Caulfield Lane
intersection because this type of signal detects vehicle queues before they extend across the
railroad tracks and will trigger the Lakeville Street/Caulfieldtane final controller to give a
"green" indication to the northbound traffic clearingteseyqucues before they extend across the
railroad tracks.
In addition to recommending a Caulfield Cc ssing-speeiftcc diagnostic review, the RCES
at x
Letter recommends that the Riverfront Project specifieallyiset aside funding to mitigate future
cumulative impacts at the Caulfield Crossing., The City recogru es that its RIND for the e
Caulfield Crossing concludes that the RiverfronfProject will be among those projects, along
with SMART rail service andtbuild-out conditions anticipated in the City's General Plan, that
contribute to the needtfor measures to mitigate potentially significant safety impacts at some
point in the future. The City,s standard practice for addressing potential future impacts of a
given development toondmo%tty tipproaal of the project on the developer making
'�.
its fair share contribution to be applied by the 'Ciiy 5 toward the cost of installation of the
necessarylimprovementti The'City p opuses that the Commission condition its permanent
authorization of the Caulfield Crossingrn the City requiring the Riverfront Project to make
such a.contribuhofi as a condition of approval, should the City ultimately approve the Riverfront
Project.
7. Commission Precedent
The Commission has addressed the issue of practicability many times and approved
numerous at-grade crossing applications and settlement agreements involving at-grade
•
18
crossings.77 Importantly, prior Commission at-grade crossings approvals have involved similar
or higher vehicular ADT volumes78, rail traffic speeds" and rail traffic volumes.NO The
Commission has also granted authority to construct at-grade crossings over tracks serving
similar types of rail service.81
Furthermore,.the Commission Decisions that deny at-grade separation are
distinguishable from the 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 was found a separation of gradt. was practicable. Unlike the
City's request here, these proceedings all involved high speed (70\mph) passenger railroad traffic
w
iron
and were denied based in part on the number of trains and train speeds and also on the position
of various federal rail and highway safety agencies, that generally opposed anyya-t-grade crossings
along mainline railroad track with high-speed passenger traffic. � 0
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWRAND CEQA COMPLIANCE
In accordance with the California Environmental Quahty>Ac 82' ("CEQA") and
Commission Rule 2.4, the Commission must Consider the environmental consequences of the
City's proposal because.the Com n'ission has discretionary a rity to approve or deny the
permanent location of the Caulfield Crossing83 The,,C°ity is the lead agency for the Caulfield
Y
Ed
�'See .g.D.06-11-037 (gr n�tng 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 pedestrian crossing);D.07-101-003 (granting
Port of Stockton's-request for authonrv, o construct at-grade highway crossing);007-07-003 (approving a settlement
agreement that permit?thhe County of Sian,Luis Obispo to construct at-grade pedestrian crossing);D;06-1.1-037 (granting
City of Sama Maria authont-9 to constnh at-grade rail crossing);D'.05-02-016 (granting-City of Dinuba authority to
a ' �
construct at-grade crossmg.over backs of San Joaquin Valley Railroad);and D.05-01-023 (granting authority to State
Coastal Conservancy to con striict a g de bicycle/pedestrian crossing over SNLART tracks).
1",
78 See, e.g. D.04-08-0131-(granting City of Bakersfield authority to construct at-grade crossing at intersection with
6,000 AD1).
79 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 trains travel 50 mph)
8°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)
81 See,e.g. D.05-01-023 (granting authority to State Coastal Conservancy to construct at-grade
bicycle/pedestrian crossing over SNLART tracks).
82 Public Resources Code Section 21000 et feg.
83 The Commission has the exclusive authority to approve the rail crossings pursuant to Section 1202 of the
Public Utilities Code.
19
Crossing. As a responsible agency under CEQA, the Commission must consider the City's
environmental documents and findings before acting on or approving this project.84
The City prepared an initial study and proposed MND and circulated the MND for the
mandatory public review beginning on November 17 2011.85 Following the public review
period, the City Council held a hearing on December 19, 2011 regarding the MIND, heard public
testimony, and considered such other evidence that was presented at the hearing. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the City Council voted to adopt the The City filed a Notice
of Determination ("NOD") with Sonoma County and the State°Clearinghouse on January 3,
2012. '? i Ni h,
The MND considered the environmental impacts of.making the Caulfield Crossing
permanent at its existing location.87 In addition--the MND considered the potential cumulative
environmental impacts of the permanent authorization of theiCaulfield Crosstngm�
combination with the potential impacts of SMART rail passenger service, the proposed
• l\
Riverfront Project, and the Caulfield 1 ane.-Extension/Southern Crossing expected as part of
full General Plan build out.88 After considertng"aWof these factors;individually and their
cumulative impact, the Crty•found that all potentially significant impacts that arise from
4 is
continued authorizatiomof the'Caulfield Crossing could be reduced to less-than-significant levels
with mitigation measures
A. r-No Project Specific linpaets:from the°Reauthorization of the Caulfield Crossing
The MND concluded that`there would be'no project-specific environmental impacts c
from the continued authonzauon of the Caulfield Crossing at its existing location.89
r
B. � No Cumulati�eMmpacts*from •SMART`Passenger Rail •Service •
and the Riverfront
ProlNt
When SMAR1passenger rail service is operating, the additional traffic on Caulfield Lane
from Riverfront may causea4queue to form on Caulfield Lane waiting to turn right onto
yjr
s� CEQA Guidelines,Sections 15050(1) and 15096.
85 CEQA Guidelines,Sections 15073 and 15105(b).
86 The City Council Adopted the MND on December 19,2011. (See City Resolution attached to this
Application as Exhibit D).
•
87 MIND at 36.
88 MIND at 36-49.
t9.NEND at 36.
20
Lakeville Highway.90 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.9' 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 in combination with die continued authorization of the existing Caulfield
Crossing and SMART passenger rail service.92
Even with SMART passenger rail service and the Riverfront Project, the Caulfield
Crossing can be operated safely with minor improvements,t including an additional exit gate on
the southwest side of the crossing to preclude westbo�tw,ehicles from,navigating around entry
gates.93 In addition, ADA compliant tactile strips on the sidewalks approaches to the tracks are
necessary. These supplemental safety measures wilhbe installedtby the first of eithee'SMART or
the Riverfront developers, depending on which Project4is completed and operational first.
"4,
C. No Cumulative Impacts\fi m SMART Passenger Rail Service, the Riverfront
Project and Extension of Caulfield.Lane with Mitigation
The City's MND only identifies mitigation measures as necessary in connection with the
..
Caulfield Lane Extension 9'4"As noted above, the f Caulfield-Lane Extension/Southern Crossing
N
is projected to be part oftthe full eity build out under the General Plan.
s
Arc
The MND estimates that,the 95a' percentile queue length on eastbound Caulfield Lane at
�k. 4 .
t�
Lakeville Highway°would be up fo,'S78 feet Iorig iE3Caulfield Lane were extended beyond
Hopper;Street in connecnon`with the southern crossingproject.95 Queues on Caulfield Lane in
excess of 500'fcet would cauSe'cars to bv>'wa ling on the-railroad tracks, an unsafe condition.9%
Although the Caulfield L-ahe Extension/Southern Crossing could lead to significant
increases in vehicle'ttaffic at Caulfield Crossing , the MND makes clear that two mitigation
measures, neither of which require grade separation, would reduce any cumulative impact to less
than significant levels. Specifically, the MND proposes the following mitigation measures:
J0 MND at 42.
'I MND at 42 (citing C4-Trans 2011 at 41-42).
92\1ND at 42.
95 i\LND at 41.
94 'tND at 42-43.
''MND at 42.
96 MND at 42.
21
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Reduce Pueuins on Eastbound Cau/field 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 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/Southern Crossing project:
(i) add or 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
r .M
Lane to protected phasing; and (iv) add right turn overlapphases on southbound
Lakeville Street and eastbound Caulfield Lane.97
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. Install Additional Salety'Meawiei a HopperStree/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 adoptedin�the,course of
project-level CEQA review for the Caulfield'Lane Extension/Southern Grossing project.
If the existing median on Caulfield Lane is removed'to accommodate additional turn
lanes or travel lanes, the City Sliall:install an exit gate on eastbound Caulfield Lane to•
•prevent cars from navigating around the entry gates.ost
The improvements described in Mitiganon MeaSUre H1V-1-are estimated to reduce
U . �
queues on Caulfield Lane to 460-feet long, thereby prce entirf'g,ears from being trapped on top of
the railroad tracks and'reducing the'cumulative impact to less than significant.99 The
improvements described in HAZ'2 Would reduce said), hazards as much as is feasible and
would reduce cumulative•ssaffety impacts to less,than significant.RE It should be noted that
mitigation measures proposed in HAZ-1,and HAZ-2 are only necessary when the Caulfield
Lane Exttc i iion/Southern Cr sing is implemented. Furthermore, the City will ensure that the
VA
design signalization or other safety measures at the Caulfield Crossing and the intersection are
implemented as required by CPSD's RCES in accordance with D.06-04-036 in connection with
the Caulfield Lane Extensioon/Southern Crossing when such modifications are made as part of
the General Plan build out..
D. No New Impacts from Proposed NCRA Freight Rail Service.
97 MND at 43.
MND at 43.
MND at 42-43.
1UU MND at 43.
22
Subsequent to the City's adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") on
December 19, 2011 at the City's diagnostic on-site review with RCES on February 2, 2012, a
question was raised regarding whether the City should have considered the North Coast
Railroad Authority's ("NCRA") Freight Rail Project as among the cumulative projects
potentially impacting the Caulfield Crossing. In the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for
the Freight Rail Project, certified by NCRA in June 2011, NCRA envisions the resumption of
freight service through Petaluma, including the Caulfield Crossing..rxticcording to NCRA's EIR,
the Freight Rail Project could involve up to 6 trips by 60-car trains (three northbound and three
ezON
southbound) and two trips by 25-car trains (one northboundand`one southbound) six days a
week at full build out
The City examined the NCRA EIR to determine whether the NCR!MEIR identified any
new or different transportation or hazard impacts at'the Caulfield Crossing IINCRA EIR
does not raise any new concerns regarding hazard or tfan'sportation impacts. The NCRA EIR
itself conducted an examination of potentia safety and traffiO
l mpacts along its route and did
^v
not find any significant impacts at any crossing in,Petaluma. The NCR\ EIR also took into
account the SMART EIR (2006) and the SMART SEIR#(2008) and agreed with SMART's
conclusions that the combination of SMART operations anthresumed freight operations would
not result in cumulative impacts. Specifically, the NCRA EIR concludes that "freight and
passenger raThoperations would not create ;a.signifi ant cumulative increase in travel times and
queues at at-grade crossings,;" NCRA DEIR, pi74-24.) Part of the reasoning for this
conelusiomavas that freight trips are likely=to occur at night, on weekends and off-peak to avoid
conflicts withithe commuter rail service: Night, weekend and off-peak trips would also avoid
conflict with pealotiehicular travel times. Finally, NCRA's operations are currently limited by a
consent decree with"the'City of Novato ("Novato Consent Decree"). The Novato Consent
Decree restricts operations-through Novato (and therefore, through Petaluma as well) to no
more than a cumulative total of six one-way commercial freight train trips per week with no
more than 18 cars until certain improvements are made to the route through Novato. (NCRA
DEIR, p. 2-15.) While the NCRA EIR expresses optimism regarding the completion of these
improvements, the EIR neither establishes a funding source for these improvements, nor a
definitive schedule for their completion. As such, it is unclear when NCRA could even begin
23
increased operations. For all of these reasons, the NCRA EIR does not raise any new concerns
regarding cumulative hazards or transportation impacts at the Caulfield Crossing.
V. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE GOVERNING APPLICATIONS
A. Compliance with Rule 2.1 (a)
The City is a duly organized municipal corporation, operating under a charter and in
accordance with California law. As a municipal corporadon/the Ciry exercises jurisdiction over
all municipal functions, including the construction, reconstruction and Maintenance of a system
if
of public roads within its geographic boundaes'� 1'he City's,governing body
n is the City Council
of the City of Petaluma. The City's principal place of businessnsy11I English Street.^Petaluma,
California 94952.
,kI ph
B. Compliance with Rule 21\(b) I
i
Correspondence and communications regarrding this Application should be directed to
nfrp
I ki, y
John C. Brown. �
City Managet.p."L _
City of Petaluma '��,�
11 English Street `4
Petaluma, C1* 94952 `' , ,. K ;. .;f
Telephone: (707) 778-4345f
Facsimile: (707) 778-4419
k
,
Email: cityingr aci:pefaluma.cau
With a copy to: J
Sky Woodruff;Esq. (SBN: 197204)
MEYERS, NAVE;RIBACK SILVER & WILSON
555 12111 Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510).808-2000
Facsimile: (510) 444-1108
Email: swoodruff(a)meyersnave.com
24
C. Compliance with 2.1 (c)
1. Category for the Proceeding
Pursuant to Commission 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(d).'°1 y
2. Need for a Hearing "�
The City does not believe that hearings are necessary in thist oceeding. The City's
Application includes sufficient evidence to allow the Comm"scion to the requisite findings
pursuant to California Statute and Commission.Rules.
'7
3. Issues to be Considered
The only issue to be con sidere'd itwhether to authorize the City to permanently relocate
the Caulfield Crossing because the City has demonstrated (1) a public need for the permanent
relocation; and (2) a separation of grade is not pracncable
4. Schedule •
The City respectfully-requests_that the Commission approve this Application on an
expedited basisSpecifically, the City requests that Commission complete its review and
approv e this Application by yMay 20 2012. Although the City does not believe that hearings are
NA
necess�should the Comrrussioner assigned to the Application determine that hearings are
necessary, the City proposes the following schedule:
t..1
•;- ppli a[ion Filed: March 30, 2012
PrehearmgiConference: April 30 2012
is
Evidentiary Hearings: May 10, 2012
Briefs Filed: dune 5, 2012
-------_—..__._..-----
Proposed Decision Issued: July 4, 2012
Comments on PD filed: July 16, 2012
101 Where a proceeding does not fall within any of the Commission's Rule 1.3 categories,Rule 7.1(e)(2) directs
these proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the rules for ratesetting proceedings.
25
Reply Comments filed: July 20, 2012
Final Commission Decision: August 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. n
D. Summary of the City's Compliance with Applicable'Rules'.
Rule(s) Requirement Y( Section/Exhibit
2.1 (a) Legal Name and Address •? V.A
2.1 (b) Persons to Receive Notice V.B
2.1 (c) Categon ti '%
zatlon/Heang/Issuesbe C 1-3
Considered/Proposed Schedule
9.2 Organization and Qualification to TransactBusiness WV.A
2.4 CEQA Compliance "V, Exhibit
3.7 (a), 3;8 Rail Milepost/Location'of the,Crossing IT
3.7 (b) 3.8 Crossing Identification Number of the Affected
\ -. II
Crossing
3.7 (c)(1) 3.8 Public Need Sen ed by Relocated Crossing III.A
3.7 (c)(2), 3.8 Grade,SeriatatiolLis Not Practicable -N-zw III.B
3.7 (c)(3), 3.8 Signs`;#Signals aid Other \Varnuig Devices/ II.A Exhibit
3.7 (d), 3.8 Map of locations 'at east 400 feet along the railroad Exhibit
and 200 feet.alongxhc;highway in each direction
Map of relation;of proposed crossing to existing roads
3.7 (e), 3.8 ,' Exhibit
and railroads tl
Profile showing ground,line and grade line and rate of
3.7 (� 3,8 grades of affected highways s and railroads Exhibit
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth-above, the City submits that (1) the permanent location of an
at-grade crossing at Floppei Street and Caulfield Lane serves a public need; (2) grade separation
at the Caulfield Crossing is not practicable; (3) adequate signs, signals and other crossing
warning devices have been installed at Caulfield Crossing and the City proposes installation of
additional signaling,ADA improvements and loop detection devices per recommendation from
the Commission; and (4) the City has conducted an adequate environmental review of the
Caulfield Crossing under CEQA that considers the impact of SMART passenger rail service, the
Riverfront Project and the future Caulfield Lane Extension/Southern Crossing. Therefore, the
26
City respectfully requests that the Commission issue an order permanently authorizing the at-
grade Caulfield Crossing 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 Crossing granted in Commission D.06-02-036 while this Application is
pending; (2) permanently authorize closure of the former at-grade crossing of the SMART line
at the intersection of Hopper Street and Lakeville Street (milepost 5-38.3); and (3) process its
Application on an expedited.baSis, without.a hearing.
DATED: March 30 , 2012 Respectfully submitted'
City of Petaluma
.
A .+i;= C;
b
By: « \s\
Sky Woodruff
1820236.6
' '�,2.��4 t
fix.
m. ,
27
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit • Document
A City of Petaluma final construction plans for Caulfield Crossing
B City of Petaluma Form G
IN
City of Petaluma, Caulfield Lane Railroad•Ccossing Re-authorization,
C Initial Stude/Proposed Mitigated Ncgatibe Declaration (November 17,
2011). Acte:,w,
D City Council Resolution Adopt g the MN�DNon December 19, 2011.
E Comment letters on the City's IMND from ROES and TRANSDEF.
Assessment by Steven J. 1/1franchi& Associaies;Inc. regarding
F Caulfield Lane Grade Separation Feasibility (December 14, 2011) (the
`°Lafranchi Assessment")`. , N),--0
Letter from Mr. David Stewart, Utilities-Engineer, Rail Cs ssings
G
Engineering Section to Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager, City of
Petaluma, regarding Notice of Completion- Caulfield Lane Railroad
Crossing Reauthothation (December:-1.2, 2011).
r
44
I,k,,.._,._.✓ '
28
VERIFICATION
I,John Brown,.hereby declare thatI am the City Manager of the City of Petaluma, and
that I have 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 co cerning the City of Petaluma
mw"'
is talc and correct to the best of my,knowledge,information analbelief.
tt ;q' r,
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true andtcorrect.
„y .. SG .
Executed this day of March 2012 at Petaluma, California.,
1 s
$ I:,
John Brown
City Manager
A 43
v 1
eke
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
29
i
I,'[N'tT'ME],hereby certify:
I am employed in the City of Oakland, 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 XX 2011, I caused the following to be served:
APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMAFOR AN v0R0ER AUTHORIZING
THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF ONE AT-GRADE CROSSING OF THE
TRACKS OF THE SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT
via electronic mail to all parties on the attachedcer Tice list via-,electronic mail or US Mail.
Executed on December XX, 2014 at Oakland, California,
il my
i P �
: m'f'e.
hh, e1
..
1820236.6
yea
30