No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPW Andersen Dr. SMARTciry of Agenda Item No: 5.a Meeting Date: February 1, 2016 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Public Works Prepared by: Paul Jensen, City Manager Approval:�1 > Community Development Director Dean Allison, Director of Public Works File No.: 18.06.52 TOPIC: Andersen Drive/SMART At -Grade Crossing SUBJECT: Review and consider action to: a) adopt the Andersen Drive/SMART At -Grade Crossing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b) approve the At -Grade crossing design (Alternative 6); and c) direct staff to proceed with filing an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Accept public comment; and 2. Adopt the attached resolution(s)- a. Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 1); and b. Approving the Andersen Drive -SMART At -grade Crossing (Alternative 6) and directing staff to proceed with filing an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). BACKGROUND: SMART In 2006, the voters of Marin and Sonoma County passed the Measure Q sales tax funding the development of the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) commuter rail service along the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way (NWP Mainline ROW, now SMART ROW). Based on available funding, the construction of SMART has been planned in phases. Phase 1 (referred to as the "Initial Operating Segment'), which covers the rail service from Sonoma County Airport to Downtown San Rafael is currently under construction and is expected to be completed and operating this year. SMART staff informed the City of its intent to proceed with Phase 2, which includes the extension of commuter rail service from downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Landing, subject to securing funds for this phase. There is one segment of the SMART ROW where Andersen Drive, a public City street, crosses at grade with the rail line. As summarized below, the City of San Rafael is responsible for designing, funding and securing the needed permits/approvals for this rail crossing with Andersen Drive. If the improvements for a crossing are not implemented before train operations, Andersen Drive would be closed at this location to accommodate the train. FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: 245 Council Meeting: 02/01/2016 Disposition: Resolutions 14065 & 14066 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 2 History of Andersen Drive In the mid-1990s the City identified a need to improve the connection between downtown San Rafael and Bellam Blvd. which serves the canal neighborhood, 1-580, the Richmond -San Rafael Bridge and US -101. This effort culminated in the construction of Andersen Drive in 1997. In 1995 the City of San Rafael filed an application to the California Public Utilities Commission to allow Andersen Drive to cross the rail tracks. At that time the Northwestern Pacific Railroad line was not active. On July 16, 1997 the CPUC filed Decision 97-07-055 which approved the crossing with five conditions. In particular the second condition states as follows: 2. This authorization to blockade the tracks shall expire upon the scheduling of regular train service over the tracks which intersect Andersen Drive. Upon such expiration of authority, the City shall take all actions necessary to ensure the unimpeded use of the intersection by the rail service, absent further order of the Commission. With recent funding allocated for the Larkspur extension, SMART has given the City notice that rail service will commence across Andersen Drive. Based on the proposed activation of the rail across Andersen the City of San Rafael is legally obligated to ensure unimpeded use of the intersection by the rail. Status of Andersen Drive Andersen Drive is a heavily traveled, two lane arterial, oriented in a general northbound/southbound direction. The roadway is skewed approximately eleven degrees in relation to the adjacent SMART rail line and ROW. A southbound left turn pocket is located at the intersection of Andersen Drive and Francisco Boulevard West, which serves as a feeder to a southbound US -101 on-ramp. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on Andersen Drive, which were collected in 2008, indicate over 15,000 vehicular trips north of Francisco Boulevard West, and over 24,000 trips south of Francisco Boulevard West. Andersen Drive is a major bicycle commute route featuring Class II bike lanes in both directions and a wide sidewalk on the west side of the road. The Class II bike lanes provide non -motorized access between Downtown San Rafael and the Larkspur Ferry Terminal via the recently constructed bridge over Auburn Street and the Cal Park Hill Tunnel. Status of SMART Rail Service to Larkspur Landing (Phase 2) SMART is currently designing and constructing the 42.5 mile Initial Operating Segment of its commuter rail service, which features a northern terminal station at Airport Boulevard in Windsor, and a southern terminal station between Third and Fourth Streets in Downtown San Rafael. The Downtown San Rafael Station will serve as a temporary terminal until the agency implements the southern extension of its commuter rail service to Larkspur Landing (Phase 2). Concurrent with these design and construction activities, SMART has sought both regional and federal funds to complete the extension to Larkspur Landing. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has granted SMART $20 million in Regional Measure 2 funds, and SMART has pursued and secured federal funds for this extension. With additional funds, SMART's plans to bring regularly scheduled rail service through Andersen Drive will occur soon after construction of the Initial Operating Segment, scheduled to open in late 2016. SMART's proposed Larkspur Extension would bring thirty trains through Andersen Drive on a daily basis, with the majority of the trips made during San Rafael's peak commute hours between 7:00am to 9:00am and 4:00pm to 6:00pm. Consequently, SMART put the City on notice that Phase 2 will be proceeding and that approvals for a crossing at Andersen Drive would need to be pursued and secured. The current alignment for the rail tracks crosses local roadways at Francisco Boulevard West, Irwin Street and Rice Drive prior to crossing Andersen Drive. SMART has examined this section to determine if there is an opportunity to remove two of these crossings if Francisco Boulevard West can be realigned with the rail system. Realigning the rail tracks as close to Highway 101 and reconstructing a section of Francisco Blvd. West to the south side of the tracks would eliminate two crossings, a highly favorable safety improvement in that two conflict areas between vehicles and rail are eliminated. Regulatory agencies such as the California Public Utilities Commission also view the realignment as an opportunity to increase safety for the public. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 3 SMART/Andersen Drive Rail Crossing Alternatives In preparation for extending the SMART rail service to Larkspur Landing, San Rafael identified and studied six alternatives to accommodate a rail service crossing at Andersen Drive. The analysis of these alternatives are presented in the City of San Rafael -Andersen Drive -Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service, Final Report, prepared by the City of San Rafael Department of Public Works (January 2015). This report is posted on the City of San Rafael SMART webpage and can be accessed via the following link: http://docs.citvofsanrafael.ora/CitvMa r/SMART/Appendix%20A%20AIternatives%2OAnalvsis%20for%20A ndersen%20Drive%20Crossina.pdf The six crossing alternatives are: 1. Grade Separated Crossing (Alternative 1) 2. At -Grade Crossing with Chicane (Alternative 2) 3. Closure of Andersen Drive (Alternative 3) 4. One -Way Southbound Bypass via Woodland Avenue (Alternative 4) 5. Two -Way Bypass via Woodland Avenue (Alternative 5) 6. At -Grade Crossing with Additional Storage Capacity (Alternative 6) In 2015, a seventh alternative (Alternative 7) was prepared in response to a specific public request. Alternative 7 involves re-routing Andersen Drive, just northward of the SMART rail crossing. Andersen Drive would be routed southward to connect with Woodland Avenue (referred to as the "Two-way By-pass via Woodland Avenue with Andersen Connector"). The analysis of Alternative 7 was also completed by the Department of Public Works and is presented in a memorandum to the Community Development Department, dated October 9, 2015. This memorandum is posted on the City of San Rafael SMART webpage and can be accessed by using the same link shown above. Project Description — Alternative 6 At -Grade Crossing Each crossing alternative was evaluated according to five criteria: traffic impacts; cost; feasibility; safety; and timing (schedule for readiness). The analysis concluded that the City should pursue Alternative 6, At - Grade Crossing with Additional Storage Capacity. The assessment found that Alternative 6 would provide a safe, relatively low cost crossing while also providing minimal impact to the surrounding roadway network. Initial estimates indicate that this alternative also fits within the City's existing budget, is feasible, and can be constructed within the existing timeline for rail service operations. Alternative 6 involves the construction of an at -grade crossing of Andersen Drive and SMART's tracks in a configuration that retains the existing 11 degree roadway and track geometry, as depicted in the following figure: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 4 WOODLAND AVE Commuter rail speeds will be restricted to 15 MPH through the Andersen Drive crossing, which is enforced by the railroad's Positive Train Control system. Active grade crossing warning devices will be installed as part of this alternative and will include cantilevered flashing lights and automatic gates at both the northbound and southbound approaches to the crossing. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic will be separated from rail and vehicular traffic and channelized to at -grade crossings located north and south of the vehicular crossing. The pedestrian/bicycle crossings will be oriented 90 degrees to the track alignment and will be equipped with flashing lights, automatic gates and emergency egress swing gates. Grade crossing warning devices are controlled by a train -activated grade crossing predictor, which is interconnected with the City's traffic signal controller at the intersection of Andersen Drive and Francisco Boulevard West. This interconnection will be used to provide advance preemption notification of the approach of an oncoming train to the signal controller which allows the signal controller to route traffic away from the crossing. Additionally, during advance preemption, a pre -signal governing traffic on the southbound leg of Andersen Drive will stop traffic from entering the crossing and prevent the development of further queuing in the crossing. With this alternative, presence detection cameras will be installed to continuously monitor vehicular queuing at key locations on several nearby arterials. The upstream intersection of Andersen Drive & DuBois Street will terminate southbound Andersen Drive movements if the queues exceed predetermined values to meter additional traffic approaching the rail crossing. For the majority of the time, there will be no impacts to vehicles, bicycles or pedestrians. However, in the event that southbound vehicles are not permitted to continue on Andersen Drive due to the presence of the queuing, vehicles will be rerouted to adjacent roadways such as Francisco Boulevard West and Woodland Avenue. In order to provide additional capacity downstream of the crossing, Francisco Boulevard West will be restriped from one to two lanes between Andersen Drive and the US -101 southbound ramps. The City has retained Kimley-Horn to design and prepare the construction documents for this crossing as well as assist with the coordination with SMART and the CPUC. Inclusion of Quite Zone equipment at this crossing is anticipated at this point of the design process. While the City is committed to designating the area from the Downtown Station to the Cal Park Tunnel as a Quiet Zone, there may be safety issues that will not be identified until the design has progressed significantly that preclude our ability to do so. Public Works anticipates bringing this issue back to the City Council as the design of the Andersen Drive crossing develops. Required Action The at -grade crossing project requires the approval of the City of San Rafael and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). As the lead agency and project proponent, the City is required to take action to approve the crossing before an application is filed with CPUC. The action requested of the City Council is to approve the at -grade crossing (Alternative 6) and authorize staff to proceed with filing an application with the CPUC (see resolution, Attachment 2). It is anticipated that the CPUC application process takes up to one (1) year, so it is critical that an application is filed as soon as possible. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 5 In addition to the CPUC, other agencies would have permit or approval authority over this project. They include the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Federal agencies involved in the review of this project include the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). ANALYSIS: Relationship to the San Rafael General Plan 2020 The SMART rail line service is addressed in several elements of San Rafael General Plan 2020. When that document was adopted by the City in 2004, SMART had been formed, and it pre -dated the passing of Measure Q. So, the policies and programs are written assuming preparation for commuter rail service in the community. As proposed, the project would be consistent with the following key General Plan policies and programs specific to SMART and Andersen Drive: Circulation Element Policy C-17, Regional Transit Options - Commuter Rail. Encourage development and use of a viable commuter rail service through San Rafael operating on the Sonoma Marin Area Transit (SMART) right-of-way. Though SMART service will initially have its southern termination point Downtown, encourage efforts to ultimately connect it with ferry service to San Francisco. Response: This project would facilitate the extension of SMART from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur. Circulation Element Program C -14a, SMART. Should voters approve funding of SMART commuter service support the following design features within San Rafael: (pertinent excerpts)... 2. Design stations and rail crossings safe for pedestrians and with minimal impacts on the roadway traffic. ... 6. Include noise mitigation as described in Policy N-9 ... 7. Provide a north/south bicycle/pedestrian path on or adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. Response: As designed, the at -grading crossing would be safe for pedestrians and would have a minimal impact on the local roadway system, specifically Andersen Drive, Francisco Boulevard West and Bellam Boulevard. A safety has been completed and is addressed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Environmental Review section below). The project has been designed to incorporate a north/south bicycle/pedestrian path in SMART right-of-way. Sustainability Element Policy SU -2, Promote Alternative Transportation. Decrease miles traveled in single -occupancy vehicles. Response: SMART will provide an alternative transit mode for commuters, which will promote a decrease in miles traveled in single -occupancy vehicles. As proposed, the project would facilitate the extension of SMART to Larkspur Landing, which could further increase SMART ridership because of the connection to the Larkspur ferry terminal. This increase in ridership should further decease the potential miles traveled in single -occupant vehicles. Sustainability Element Program SU -2d, SMART. Encourage continued funding, development and use of SMART, which will provide residents and employees of San Rafael an additional transportation alternative. Response: Federal funds have been earmarked to extend SMART from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur. In order for this extension to be realized, approval of a SMART crossing with Andersen Drive is necessary. As proposed, the project provides the least costly option/alternative (of those studied) to a crossing of Andersen Drive with the SMART right-of-way. Noise Element Program N -8a, Future Transitway Mitigation Measures. A detailed noise assessment and appropriate mitigation measures should be prepared for any rail project on the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit right-of-way. The analysis should address the City's Noise Ordinance standards and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 6 Response: See Environmental Review section below. A complete noise assessment was completed for the SMART rail segment from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur, including the proposed Andersen Drive crossing. For the Andersen Drive/SMART crossing, the noise assessment recommends the use of "wayside" horns (mounted on poles at the rail crossing) in lieu of train -mounted horns, which would reduce projected noise levels experienced by the sensitive receptors in the area.. Neighborhood Element Policy NH -109, Andersen Drive Access. Continue to minimize vehicular access points to Andersen Drive to maintain maximum traffic flow. Response: N.A. This policy is intended to address private development proposals for new vehicle - access driveways along Andersen Drive. Nonetheless, the rail crossing is an access point at Andersen Drive. The project would not violate this policy in that, as designed and analyzed (see Environmental Review section below), maximum traffic flow would be maintained. Environmental (CEQA) Review: In 2005, SMART prepared and certified the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). This FEIR analyzed the environmental impacts of developing the SMART commuter rail system from Cloverdale to Larkspur, including the associated infrastructure such as the at -grade rail/roadway crossings along the rail line. The FEIR includes the impacts and identified mitigation measures for permitting and constructing SMART from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur. However, the FEIR acknowledges (Volume 1 DEIR, page 2-55) that the existing Andersen Drive/SMART at -grade crossing (crossing MP 16.0) is not permitted by CPUC as a crossing for rail, and, thus the FEIR did not analyze the at -grade crossing design that is currently proposed. Therefore, CEQA review of the proposed at -grade crossing must be completed in order for CPUC to review and authorize a crossing of Andersen Drive and SMART. In pursuit of federal funding for the Phase 2 extension from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Landing, it was determined that the project would need to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). In 2014, SMART commissioned AECOM, environmental consultants to prepare a NEPA Environmental Assessment, which analyzed the rail improvements and impacts from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Landing. As the assessment of the Andersen Drive/SMART crossing alternatives is current, the NEPA Environmental Assessment included the City -prepared crossing alternatives, including Alternative 7. The NEPA document entitled, Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Extension Environmental Assessment- SMART (December 2014) is posted on the SMART website and can be accessed for review at the following link: htti)://www2.sonomamarintrain.ora/index.i)hi)/docs/eir/. On May 20, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Transit Administration) issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on this assessment. The proposed at -grade crossing is defined as a "project' under the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is therefore subject to environmental review. The City is responsible for approving and securing CPUC approvals of this crossing. For this reason, the City is serving as the lead in preparing the environmental document to comply with CEQA Guidelines. In May 2015, the City contracted with environmental consultants AECOM to complete the environmental document required for this project. AECOM was hired because this firm prepared the NEPA Environmental Assessment, which incorporated and studied the Andersen Drive/SMART crossing alternatives. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, AECOM prepared an Initial Study to determine the potential environmental impacts of the at -grade crossing project. AECOM prepared the Initial Study utilizing many of the relevant and current technical studies prepared for the NEPA Environmental Assessment. The Initial Study concludes that the project will result in significant environmental impacts related to: biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soil; hazards and hazardous materials; and noise. However, measures have been identified and recommended which can reduce all significant environmental impacts to a less -than -significant level. Consequently, the Initial Study recommends the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A summary of the key areas studied and presented in the Initial Study follows: 1. Biological Resources. The project area is an active paved roadway in an urbanized setting. Al the edges and the northern and southern boundaries of the project footprint the groundcover is barren gravel and mowed, non-native annual grasses. While special -status species are not SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 7 considered likely to occur in the project area due to the lack of suitable habitat, the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects the habitat of migratory birds. If construction plans for the project fall within the avian nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the potential for impacting migratory bird nesting in areas where there is vegetation is possible. As mitigation, the Initial Study recommends that a pre -construction survey for migratory bird nesting be performed prior to the removal of vegetation if construction is planned to occur between February 1 and August 31 (Mitigation Measure BR -3a). 2. Cultural Resources. According to the City of San Rafael Archaeological Resource Sensitivity Map (2001), the project site is in an area of "low sensitivity." Within the last 30 years, approximately two dozen archaeological resource assessments were conducted in the general area of the project and no archaeological resource sites were recorded. However, as this project is subject to environmental review, Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 (AB 52) requires that the City initiate and offer consultation to the local Native American tribe(s). Consultation with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Federated Indians) was conducted. Following initial contact and discussion, on September 15, 2015, the Federated Indians formally responded requesting specific mitigation. As a result, the Initial Study recommends Mitigation Measure C-1, which requires cultural monitoring during construction. This measure requires that prior to project construction, an agreement be executed between the City (and a qualified archaeologist) and a cultural monitor designated by the Federated Indians. The agreement would cover monitoring all project construction activities. If resources are encountered during construction, appropriate protocols will be implemented. 3. Geoloav and Soils. The project area is flat and is former bay marsh that was filled. Consequently, the Initial Study finds that the project would be subject to hazards and events commonly associated with these geology and soil conditions. The mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study recommend the preparation of a site-specific geotechnical investigation that includes sub -surface review. It is recommended that this investigation include: a) an evaluation of the potential for fault rupture hazard; b) recommended construction design measures to address impacts from seismic ground shaking and risk; and c) recommended design measures to reduce the potential for liquefaction (Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-8). 4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project site is located in a developed, urbanized area that includes industrial uses and a historic railroad line. The Initial Study finds that hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. Mitigation Measures HM -1 and HM -2 are recommended, which would require implementing specific precautions prior to and during the site grading and excavation process. Precautions would include the sampling of soil and groundwater prior to work activities to determine constituents and remediation measures if needed. 5. Noise. The project site is primarily bordered by non-residential land uses. However, there are several sensitive noise receptors in the area including an RV park (east) and residences along and near Woodland Avenue. The City of San Rafael Noise Ordinance (SRMC Chapter 8.13) sets forth exemptions for construction noise associated with City construction projects, and exempts railroad operational noise from the general noise limits. Nonetheless, consistent with General Plan 2020 Noise Element Program N -8a (discussed above), the Initial Study assessed construction noise (short-term) as well as operational noise from the SMART rail service. The Initial Study presents the following findings and recommendations to address noise impacts: Short-term construction noise. The Initial Study finds that construction noise impacts would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the project improvements. The most prevalent noise source for construction would be from equipment and vehicles with internal combustion engines, as well as jackhammers and hydraulic or electric -powered tools. Pile drivers are not anticipated for this project. Sensitive noise receptors could be exposed to noise levels in excess of 75 dBA Leq (noise averaged over the day -night). The Initial Study recommends that noise abatement measures be implemented, including the limiting of construction hours to between 7:00am and 6:00pm on weekdays and 9:00am to 6:00pm on Saturdays (Mitigation Measure N-1). SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 8 SMART operational noise. The noise assessment assumed and studied worst case conditions that SMART trains approaching from the north and south would be required to sound their horn 15-20 seconds from the Andersen Drive at -grade crossing. Sounding the horn would have an effect on the sensitive receptors located 100 feet from the rail track centerline up to the rail line/road crossing. At and through the crossing, the train would have an effect on residential uses 200 feet from the alignment along Woodland Avenue. A train - mounted horn would result in a noise level of 79 dB (dB = decibel level in a single noise event), which would exceed the acceptable noise levels for the sensitive receptors as set forth in San Rafael General Plan 2020 and the City's Noise Ordinance. As noted in recommended Mitigation Measure N-2, the use of "wayside" horns (mounted on poles at the rail crossing) in lieu of train mounted horns is recommended. Use of "wayside" horns would reduce noise levels experienced by the sensitive receptors from 79 dB to 66 dB, thus resulting in a "moderate impact" that is deemed to be less -than -significant. 6. Transportation and Traffic. The traffic/circulation impacts were analyzed as part of the crossing alternatives assessment. With the storage capacity that is designed with the Alternative 6 (project) crossing, the traffic analysis concluded that the Bellam Boulevard/Andersen Drive intersection would drop from level of service (LOS) D to LOS E. However, the increase in intersection delay would be negligible (addition of 1.5 seconds of delay) and the intersection would meet the San Rafael General Plan 2020 LOS E standard for this intersection. Therefore, it was determined that the project traffic impacts would be less -than -significant and that no mitigation is recommended. A hard copy of the completed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to the City Council. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting technical studies (appendices) have been posted on the City of San Rafael website, SMART webpage, which can be accessed for review via the following link: httD://www.citvofsanrafael.orq/Dubworks-Droi-smart/. A Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was published on December 15, 2015 and revised on December 18, 2015 to correct the project description. As the project requires permits/approvals from at least one State agency, a minimum 30 -day public review period on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. However, a 40 -day public review period was observed because it was published during the holiday season. The public review period closed on January 25, 2016 and the City received numerous comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Copies of these written comments are attached (see Attachment 5). AECOM and City staff reviewed and prepared responses to the comments that are specific to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which are provided in Attachment 6 of this report. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and made available for public review in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. Therefore, adoption of this document is recommended in order to proceed with review and action on the project, which is presented in the attached resolution (Attachment 1). CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires that the lead agency prepare and approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is required to list all recommended mitigation measures and identify how and when these measures will be satisfied or met as the project is implemented. An MMRP has been prepared and is presented in Attachment 1, Exhibit A for approval concurrent with action to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTICING: In addition to the CEQA Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, property owners, residents and businesses within 400 feet of the Andersen Drive -SMART crossing were provided notice of this public hearing (see Attachment 4). Further, notice of the project was published in Snapshot, the City Manager's bi-weekly newsletter. Lastly, the City of San Rafael website includes a SMART webpage, which was updated to include a description of this project and a direct link to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: httD://www.citvofsanrafael.ora/Dubworks-Droi-smart/. As noted above, correspondence has been received on this project and on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Correspondence received to date is provided in Attachment 5 of this report. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 9 Please note that some of the correspondence that has been received raises specific questions and comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. As noted above, Attachment 6 of this report provides a response to these comments and questions. Some of the correspondence requests that this crossing be designated as a "Quiet Zone." OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options: 1. Adopt the resolutions (2), as proposed; 2. Reject the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and direct staff to prepare revisions to this report; or 3. Reject the At -Grade Crossing with Additional Storage Capacity (Alternative 6) and instruct staff to pursue the closure of Andersen Drive rail crossing in compliance with CPUC Decision 97-07-055. FISCAL IMPACT: The following is a summary of the current costs for the project: Funding Source I Amount Successor Agency Bonds (2002 Bonds) $1,459,395 Successor Agency Bonds (2009 Bonds) $594,608 Successor Agency Bonds (1999 Bonds) $30,746 Total Funding $2,084,749 Category -Eden Expense Code Amount Note(s) Already Charged Expenses Environmental Document $109,289 AECOM Design -01 $507,688 Kimley-Horn Associates Construction $1,467,772 Estimated Available for Construction Total Expenses $2,084,749 At this time the exact cost of the project is not known. A determination of whether additional funding is needed to construct these improvements will be forthcoming as the design is developed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit A) 1. Resolution approving the Andersen Drive -SMART At -Grade Crossing (Alternative 6) 2. Revised Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration -December 18, 2016 3. Public Hearing Notice 4. Correspondence received to date 5. Memorandum -Response to Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, January 27, 2016 RESOLUTION NO. 14065 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE ANDERSEN DRIVE/SONOMA MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT (SMART) RIGHT-OF-WAY AT -GRADE CROSSING (ALTERNATIVE 6) The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that: WHEREAS, in 1997, the City extended Andersen Drive north from the intersection of Francisco Boulevard West to A Street in Downtown San Rafael. As part of this road extension, the City paved over the existing railroad track along the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way (now SMART right-of-way). The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) authorized the construction of the road crossing, but ruled that this authorization would expire once regular train service was scheduled through Andersen Drive. The CPUC ruling directed that, once train service is scheduled through this crossing, the City must apply to CPUC for authorization to continue utilization of this road crossing; and WHEREAS, in the early 2000's, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Agency (SMART) was formed to plan for use of the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way for commuter rail service from Cloverdale (Sonoma County) to Larkspur. In 2005, SMART prepared and certified the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which analyzed the environmental impacts of developing the commuter rail service from Cloverdale to Larkspur. While the FEIR analyzed roadway crossings along the rail line, it acknowledges that the Andersen Drive/SMART at -grade crossing (ref. Crossing MP 16.0) is not permitted by CPUC, and thus the FEIR did not analyze the current at -grade crossing condition for the establishment of rail service; and WHEREAS, in 2006, the Marin and Sonoma voters passed Measure Q, establishing a sales tax funding for the development of SMART. Phase 1 of SMART, the Initial Operating System (IOS) is under construction and is scheduled to be completed in 2016; and WHEREAS, SMART has sought and secured funding for Phase 2, which would extend the commuter rail service from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Landing, which includes a crossing at Andersen Drive. Federal funding was pursued and the extension project was subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA); and WHEREAS, in 2014, in preparation for Phase 2, SMART requested that the City study and address the Andersen Drive/SMART crossing consistent with the CPUC ruling, which is to apply for and secure authorization to continue utilization of this crossing with the Phase 2 SMART operations. In response, the City identified and studied options/alternatives for this crossing; and WHEREAS, consistent with NEPA Guidelines, an Environmental Assessment was prepared assessing the environmental impacts of the SMART extension from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur. This NEPA document entitled, Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Extension Environmental Assessment- SMART (December 2014) was completed and published. The Environmental Assessment analyzed six Andersen Drive/SMART rail crossing options/alternatives including Alternative 6, "At -Grade Crossing with Additional Storage Capacity." On May 20, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration issued a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) based on this Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Assessment can be accessed for review at htti)://www2.sonomamarintrain.or2/index.vhD/docs/eir/; and WHEREAS, the City staff selected Alternative 6 as the preferred crossing design to pursue CPUC approval. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, it was determined that the Alternative 6 proposal is defined as a `project,' making it subject to environmental review. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an Initial Study was prepared to determine the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study is supported by several technical studies and reports, including the analysis of the seven crossing options/alternatives. These crossing options/alternatives are presented in the City of San Rafael - Andersen Drive- Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service, Final Report (January 2015) and the Report of Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service- Analysis of Alternative 7 (memorandum dated October 9, 2015), which are incorporated as Appendix A of the Initial Study; and WHEREAS, in preparing the Initial Study, an offer of tribal consultation was made to the local Native American Tribe (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria) consistent with Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3 and 21080.3.2 (AB 52). On September 15, 2015, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria responded to the offer of consultation requesting specific mitigation measures that require cultural monitoring during project construction. The Initial Study has incorporated this request (Mitigation Measure C-1); and WHEREAS, as demonstrated in the preparation of an Initial Study, the proposed project would result in a number of significant environmental impacts for which mitigation is recommended to reduce these impacts to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, the Initial Study supports and recommends the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be prepared to identify how mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study will be implemented if the project is approved. The MMRP must identify how the mitigation measures are met, the entity responsible for carrying out the mitigation and the timing for completion of the mitigation. The MMRP must be approved prior to or concurrent with the project. An MMRP has been prepared addressing these requirements and is presented in attached Exhibit A to this resolution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, on December 15, 2015 (revised December 18, 2015), the City published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for 40 -day public review period. Comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration were reviewed and responses have been provided by AECOM, as presented in a memorandum to the City Council (dated January 27, 2016), which is on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to review and consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP, considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Public Works and Community Development Departments; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the City Clerk. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Andersen Drive/SMART At -Grade Crossing (Alternative 6) based on the following findings: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the provisions of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. Further, in preparing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City followed the steps and procedures required by Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3 and 21080.3.2 (AB 52) by offering and completing tribal consultation with the local Native American Tribe (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria). As a result of this consultation, mitigation measures required to address potential archaeological resources have been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. As prescribed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a public review period of a minimum of 30 days was observed for public comment (40 -days observed commencing on December 15, 2015 and closing on January 25, 2016). Comments received during the public review period have been reviewed and responses to these comments have been provided and are presented in a Memorandum to the City Council from AECOM, dated January 27, 2016, which is on file with the City Clerk. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been presented to the City Council who has reviewed and considered the information in the Initial Study, which includes technical studies and assessments supporting the findings and conclusions for adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Further, the City Council finds that the studies and assessments prepared for the Initial Study are adequate and complete to support the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. The City Council has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the Initial Study and has considered the comments received during the public review period and public hearing. Based on this review, the City Council has determined that the project will: a) result in potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials and noise for which mitigation measures are required; and b) result in either no environmental impacts or impacts that are deemed to be less -than -significant in other topic areas listed in the Initial Study Checklist. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to support approval of the Andersen Drive/SMART At -Grade Crossing project (Alternative 6, At -Grade Crossing with Additional Storage Capacity) based on the following findings: 1. The MMPR has been prepared consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 in that it: a) incorporates all mitigation measures recommended in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and b) includes the appropriate steps and requirements to ensure that these mitigation measures are implemented and that impacts are reduced to levels of less -than -significant. 2. The MMRP meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3 and 21080.3.2 (AB 52) in that it acknowledges completion of required consultation with the 3 local Native American Tribe and incorporates measures (Mitigation Measure C-1) to ensure that the potential for encountering cultural resources are addressed during construction. I, ESTHER BEIRNE, City Clerk of the City of San Rafael hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, February 1, 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Colin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gamblin ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey st , ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk Attachment: EXHIBIT A- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 2 u, e � �Q V O o — w 'ti a'a o 0 c e a C c a c 0 o w C o o w 3 aci abi C C C ,�'C OL N C zV] ° ° rL q a U w .r- 14 y 0 00 �•«;Y�a'Ee CR Cd dJ = C C. C C y Y •C 'j U O U' bA U C q C a) Cz. •,�_, N v . E O 00 Gn Ll>Eab'v°�.`QOv�Si��nE2�c "> c a23 o c a s E 8 ° v n 0 u v, ° c E o 8 0 aaaia.o o` E rz o D vp >oo o "a, E v c oQ ELaOi 90 o.2n?3x a v o 0 o cc o z C b� `o Q aai aci o p v°, v o OoU4i 10,3 E 3 aci� c G7 °' z� a C n n Q L cn b o ca Q 0 w c o 3 6a ° ° ° >, o ° ❑, w w g 0 a � 0> c C3c003a cn o3e_�C7O C •b V y y a.n = y ca 0 •j y. C u d0 o p- = ao c c— c O d u U y O. Cl. C w U ` w s 3 0 3 n v 3 v e o .� a 0. F" aci aci C e 3 a� aci b y lu 0 E ;?>EabicabiE:aoq �`°E�°a'�` na0 a-U� cb o Cl. w Uv o a: wLl ca�q E a mq a, =w E cd = o0 `O 0 Cto v L) 03 e� e H .5 o m ami - ,CO., :y c �`o C cco o c_ 0 c`d w 0 a' 3— E a w w y ate' ° a� ca E . to o .0 O w b« o C H o o `° 'a>i 3 •= v `' D 000.2 c V C L 0 V y OE �y o ='- E L`a 0 2 coE aai Ooa ad w o c�' o a>i� aY u 0 u 5 o�u4E D o n cU C C v E a•- w ta C w w �'N _ > y E o 0 E o 0 a' W �.0 is -6 o:y: �02°a cCaci, 3Nfic� wU YUd�'Eg WE r- OgO0 0 C •cCb O "rO a 3 —o� o o i a'- U .0 -0 -0 C* c v w 0hW e°U -, W N a a° M" C° .n y i �, ❑_ w 0' o 5« c�.E aEi °�' 0 ° �z °rb o o� c e ~cq oz, Qaxi a ca a`� abi E n LY 1a 0 0 at (� Ca Y 'e ¢ w !' w y 3 c° cYd Ob > aCi ' .a o a a°i y o V O c 3 Y ° e cCa U o E a° o U c •o .n G E Z n. o > a W o 0 o o v o .. ow b E o� a— g o o•- c n.> 0 w ws gY E O F- U n a E— U— ._ w a� ._ w c+i v U 0 y q w w v s F„ 0. �., .a O w � a 0.� in ri 00 ri U r c 0 ►� u 4' •L � YN o a �a E ►� U N O 0. ❑T❑ u p0 O cd C m C4 Q CdO .0 tN 7 • d0 C E �' w e C.7 O O40 E y Y N Q C 0 3 U E cid o o E 5 r�ii U N U V .p a0.. a i3 U i6 g > C �d N y •b N > :: o r❑3 035 CD C C C N" r- 5 C O 0 N .O Ycwd N cd U 3 o 0r.5� E m b= abi 5 C7 O �C '� RS cd •a0 U id N O yo a p o o CD. c u ai o a n Ku E CC aXi o c o b o �EZ o BEd o .o a rr v u; en : w o p V •Y C O voi C a+ Y t Y p T v -0 c`d N D T O p •ty O O O o N 7 O .d � 0. •� • V � U� .Y U tOii y y C O ` � y Y � G � � � � •� � U a��ocoa 0.— d0 U C E' :: s ao E C E o .0 0 v cd 3 a •v vpi o 4" a .�' cd M O A. U d1 'v > 7 00 O C to 'D H p •p � Q. �' O tU. ;b O C O ci E ai O a`di C •� C L U v .O 'N '� .Y U C �d v; oD on N 00 u as, p,7S � eq 'r 7 O C O O O O N O b o❑ >t O on E a o w` w cd o C p 2 °-' cad c°!. w �d N M M ►a •L � h C o a �a E ►J O 0. r m > C. O C •'�' `o aCi C o O . ami O .fl O cC z °' E OU O O -o 7�,E Y> 0 C i.. o it cw Y cdox 0 am a) . E N O �d o�U.c�"OEoa'EOUEA o a G O C .ice O C L z� Q b L= U a) /6w� .I y ax O cOj Q 'o p y E C 0 0.0 `3 Z d aa. N ��3� O Q 6 U d, p � p O U U p f] o .E P" C O O a� 0 $ > t Eci Cd E s 9 ao >, a`i w azi -= E0cs .--0 ,�c O 0 b C 7 U t-� r� L :3 Cd rpiJ O 0UU^. tu 0 •C 0�+3 amu°' tn 0 y a) �y E �, •p O CZ p•.� p• O vl a) C .0 •O O O C v� Y .O L N I.Ln N..rCq �'t-.44 t+ O O ,•C,., p U p N C O U %p a14 y a>i ia�a�C'cdv,�c Cd cpiUr-x.E o O'.— .p� ✓ N i oD YO ✓� vi � ' � G 4.3.00�G=•�c O N .o G a GU 3 000 0 O �� N N l�1 ao N p �- t^r an G� U 6' O aU O V v cd G p G H y 3 N G y Gp Tj N cid G• y v p N� L� L• G N d a m vS :oc�Ro�� RQ ✓ oaC u � G a,���� 9_� a'oaaaioc•�+c' o N�Gi•°r,�� �.o �ot�c�•o7� 3;% � fj (y N N 6 �' G ,o a N °' G � °' `^ G 3 �^ •G '. E g in v W N �' ✓ f. . d N N �. O✓ O 9 p G y i v ca d " a J° G G O O! p d1 G , ye00 A p � % � %� G ' N N GO G N •O aai a� G a� s' G C 'cC � �� � 6 v O i � o G S G J U 3E'• O7 G O o4 a7 O 9 O rG G O t✓ v O ca 46 T 0 'yN� U v J, C pp O L R'✓ ,� by '✓ ,! y G Z 9 G O 6 0. �• G w N v 0� " N O a N G G c4 i N O �,• 3' 3ty� d N O•✓ 7 7 J 7 OD N Y U „�� v y J• N V N G yam,. �" V+ 00 `cd oa t/� a w N pp N 6' a 3 00 y ed t7A J O N v •� ii an .O N N N pD 0 cd O� i^ .� N O G O Y@ •• v O p .i G X --' O O G G N G N v N in- N c t A N W d Ga id i G J OD 3 o ✓ Nis"+. ✓OG�pWoop'N���o'voo?�'2Osw ��✓N0Nya�3 p o 7 O o0 G OD cr T eJi cOi N U a y p y^ J O O v N Y on W p N N @ p O N J d �-' y d ev A U v aGi N^} tip OD d1 [/l � •O GO S A N p. � a N6 °).opt m� i9`ca G dfl'G O d A 'N v O O p .N ca p,.� • OW a'�cnU•a ' � g U V � en U M u � u aQ o 0 ^o 0 o b, O O O cd t' cd 7 o M. O O .,,. O C C O 'O ca.E A a O.o C Ca O°C CL v °�C 0. Z v v a v 0 c T uJ °- c m O e ° � o ' °`=r. i+ 0 O C O C d0.O U U o° Ee� aa�, cc c.�cc vCL C.. C4 u °p ° 0 o o •=0 0 9-0 0 0. oc CL = •V O O Q •cOi O O Gn ' r- 0 a) p C a O C �• 9 C aYO. ° =.d N O = v U U O> U U �,.,0 .� C o d Y e o o e� a �i o u �p L C�i o U v CL u U aU• aaai C4 u 00c`d a ca o0 c qac $cn caA o H a o o Cw a == 3E 3E 00E U° � eMi ti i. C 'd N 'd ° 0 Cd 4. vl U V « `o 0 o c 3 0==.r oc^u °Z.0 c= U 0 000 E �s e c I�1 y Z = o --a -6-0 2 •v, c o cd `cd 5 c° y G7 y ^ 6I U C�. 0.N C0.r6.C� C C'1 O•C v, E e 3 o0c a2 y oL 3 Q•�«..o o 3> U c d L y C cd O o N C u F C O O `� ami " a C C O B-0 -d ca O= E Ec-v.°Q0 >EE'"''nC :'>CE°'v.5on� QI C O y O� er .y� O ow 0 C � o � 0 w c,:d a`ni .op QQa�ciog>ccoqE ° cd �a°a' ExU cu a'3°�te °ogcc i G7 � a cx A. aS OA °-a•o In y w 2 .O C O '-' 3 c w N O O O t'+ ftS •C c m a`di o a3i o u E °``d' ��', 3 -0 o E `d c 2 0 v°i 0.b w 3 U u ca Ua .a o^ Y� U °''� °' U °'�❑ywc 3bu wXc a°'> d `��'oo o°' y� i;;E in$d GG u o �; . .n w a] w c C F •C 'd •2 40 C by w° 'O �. O Q. W w Y pOq iy a' V s C -N N Q C .0 a N° E o raw ov x F d C•U c U d a� c a� o a E o .. w v U �o �hU+ v c 3 a� a� o a� a... N %. '0 T° c^~ V r {�-. �'+ y Q 0 Vl 0 E y .� u •� > U y ca L. Q o c ° °' Q �' ��. O a� y °' yw a o.o �, ca 0 �� aci > Y� av c Av _ E.o a ° w >•E > ° ova c ow ccia E n oo-a c °a'=x u C e�+=_ $ o g E �,•N o0 n. O a '—' °°b y D E E c 9 u oac 3 0 w au o u U u °' E aci �•E o o. 3 3E c3 2�, Eck a°' moo. EY�aUioe°'cacia 'a0'+ .� yR •cd tiO 3 pCa� N >ix i �C U(1� �vC - Cv0..DO N o > Cfl O CO •�Oc�" �n' � . �pa $yE u cd O 0.0 'b •0CO OcO O CF d 'Ciy ' E ° C CoC- Gu C - =N od o O4 i �CX = v o c U ` bcn u WF0y ❑ .v.. •Eod �C nC; CL ti ca �cC m C uj N^ v _ p0. oE O >, o O i °7 5 _> a d a u u aa CL N 00 00 0 "i x t2 N O 3 .IA p D• oras r N y O 3 Q G N N R � r A G i 0 .fl N J� d O fl•9 J� F N J p„�,�92�0• Jd3��oc2 pp• G p. J 4 � •p O O✓ V �d � y J • � y � '� oo baa G E S d s in a N v' y o o a' a E y � aNi '' �''' 'p 'a a`�i G •OD a op O s cCd ✓ y �, G'� i se.y ei 2 OG- G' N J Tw•O.Gp U .' G �i'•CiaV � w.�E N G� _ i vd�s 9 n;oy?o�.00°r' '�'� � �p.�'+ ��� �y y�N`oi y•-°nyaNi� O N J •a O T .' w p N y v N 0 7 G •O '� O U 9 y N bAa. J'OGG p A N.p Ni N N Q v = s o 4+ N✓ N 6` o a� �� a O v J� o o w J y. G N N OG O cno O d N✓ i o d cd 'nbni w Li G 6 s G ^' cd y t•• C 'O N✓ G G a N O N •6 6 N O J N O a N O O i0 N p• G•=•. N "s J �•'�' �'4 w a v O G N u N ✓ylaN v, O J G p G d G cO r- ''✓ G G �. 9.^ A. c-6 Oy V .O S •.+ N O Q, p 'I p, cO p a N i 7 c ' 3 0 ,� a o.:: ,o s 3 •c o c6 ' ' � cd•o a� � � � J •s A d � '' � •..ot ra J w U N O G o0 3 3 J i CV a0+ TrCA e _ o -a O. u u o E 0 E �u z C � •a' d C O tV 0 G. •++ 0 O •U y N cO O Y Uu °u�oaEi o� >pE C C .•. to C ..''o F. p O O C Z Ou E E T +_+ 0 3 O•o 'oCLO p p O � U � E •U a u�s c o off' c u on y .� o •[ 0 0 � `SJ N 0 3 7 c� � 0 O u• L C p 0 U N 0 0 E c, Ey 3oY� Eml 2' CA O od `-'E•�a•�a"fo� -'ocrd�+`,•°a� �- Edo i ua�__.� IuEa �caaA'>ur. G7 -4 L a O G La o c o e E 3 E y� °� c afli c aai rrLr�� b cO tq 4- cv0 °=a ° E �, ua E E o o� =o L 0 W O '= O N O O O T'^ 'n ' C U O a o s Dia a� � 3 cV EU c CIO a. ccsCC❑a�paOCE0-$� o uF3oc�g,s3 uca Z EaE 3 �o.'-'=E n°°'>•A='>c='aE 7=e° co cd CL oc° °` oo aoo ao0ar a 3 0 Eu E._ 3.= o 2 2 E C4 ca u u.rU E 'n u cq0 1-4 V7 Vl C .� N 0 .o O .T• N w cd O EC) c o o � c tV �. o, •o ami j b C cd N 0 0 0 C C C C ca O YO ._ •C O .2 E p O OCd Y U-❑ isw«c= °'ce aEif``30cLC c 4 aoiEo a ECca 0 0 O p b C 7 �-• 3 > •o C cd OOp L 0 dE *6 .0 7 ^ w O 'E id = O. • E C w a ,E T o U U ,�'� N +0, [YOd C cz O E C u V] _ � 0 Cd c V = 0 .2 s= cn Ou o- 2-0-0 a=i .= o moo c 3 E u O.U.- ° 'o u u `� T b a� a. 0 0 y 0. �' C C 'fl E V O C O =- C 16 0 U O iC 0 0 « . u z iG vi C r,MO—, '� 'u N b 0.'N iC .b U r 7 O OD •� > vi C 4r. 0 C F. rii E o •y o°'n c = 3 0a.� r� C0 c 3 n EL •C cd «; G cO ° abi ,�•' o' A crd• 0 0 rn 'O C ai •^o = 0 U p Iwo E•>_ O E bDp i °�' o �'� = 0 c� L.�� o- E Y > o- q0 b •U 9¢ = 0 7 O 2; 0. U 0 0 — O •U y v°i o w E •� yr 'A = E 0 cq �. Cd •C 'C „ • y N U u 0 E °' ca 0 b 0 „ 0 _ c 2 6Yvoi 3 :N c „ C N o C � � � °��' � � `0cc# $ � E pox ° ccdi b • 0 U m C« =CO3�o00�co❑�,m. C 0E'c- cua 2 ami 0 ° g � 0�� E 3 g�° u �; g C'E � 2 E' 0 0. 3 0 0 °oywyNia�,Ec wino. c���.� o, �Na c�- =3ca�� w °o = E o'E uX o r�•o °' o-xv O� o ec.°Y' o� o W w 0° e� to u ti E 0 a� ca U c� ca m E u 0 n yr u C1 u v] *- N • • O z N —7 M z a 00 0 C z `o d C4 G 0 .o 0 e 0 7-0 Ej x G 0 o .d ✓o o � G QAo°= sa��oe� J� ✓ G y N o .s �� ,�,✓" N� ,✓y, C y N° ��� i .� A a $s� 7,3a�,o i � ova 3 may,° o`cadi°•���sN°�oC]a3., c G +� O9 G� �� ✓ � OHO vs G G pp •'n J E p� J O �, doG A N p G O a� ✓ G "00 to G d o���cs3�,�o�GN�oa3c'�3°0 � � � � � • o, o E � '`� o N ° •`,°�� • Y 3 0 A � G �°' 3 G N � � �'Oo � o � 9 v� E yd Y 'o. c', cNn d�Ac��°ooRJo�Ns�au��°'�;.�%moo y' O G J N J G N N U N G 9 O V ✓ v ,. oD 7 y v✓ v Gn A '✓' R °" A !J,� J A As" A J A d p' N cl-. ' m J N d J' ✓ 0- F '' N N° 'd ° Ui v N' J p I" J '4 • p U O ° O G N✓ J G � w 4 N i y✓ N v r G i �o y p i 0 0' ':�i �' � O '�• N •Op 'G¢ o G N V O v id 0 G w N NO U Js 03 y'Y ✓G N'cd p= a 3 N N y 2 "" s N A ✓ U O Sj 3 ' ;° t c`d N .G O �, `� 7,• v� °� is '✓ ^� d �° E L's G✓ D O G A 7 v✓✓ o0 3 s 3 d N E i O✓ •N O J `cd ✓ A 9 GO d Oca O N GC �'• N pC G O .d v C Jr - o0 G �p on OD �° Q b 6 0 foo a�1G✓ p �„ A O N o0'p ✓ v .� a C: J 3 J✓ • • N 7- F5 Fj x d C�wr.>•.: a� 3 ob y moo Vl v o O O O U O m 'O GO O. b �' y 7 �C U n E O O % Z • t0.. vi O '� to O U Z on G 0 o'v..3 ❑,� o RESOLUTION NO. 14066 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE ANDERSEN DRIVE/SONOMA MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT (SMART) RIGHT-OF-WAY AT -GRADE CROSSING ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 6) AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH FILING AN APPLICATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that: WHEREAS, in 1997, the City extended Andersen Drive north from the intersection of Francisco Boulevard West to A Street in Downtown San Rafael. As part of this road extension, the City paved over the existing railroad track along the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way (now SMART right-of-way). The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) authorized the construction of the road crossing, but ruled that this authorization would expire once regular train service was scheduled through Andersen Drive. The CPUC ruling directed that, once train service is scheduled through this crossing, the City must apply to CPUC for authorization to continue utilization of this road crossing; and WHEREAS, in the early 2000's, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Agency (SMART) was formed to plan for use of the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way for commuter rail service from Cloverdale (Sonoma County) to Larkspur. In 2005, SMART prepared and certified the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which analyzed the environmental impacts of developing the commuter rail service from Cloverdale to Larkspur. While the FEIR analyzed roadway crossings along the rail line, it acknowledges that the Andersen Drive/SMART at -grade crossing (ref. Crossing MP 16.0) is not permitted by CPUC, and thus the FEIR did not analyze the current at -grade crossing condition for the establishment of rail service; and WHEREAS, in 2006, the Marin and Sonoma voters passed Measure Q, establishing a sales tax funding for the development of SMART. Phase 1 of SMART, the Initial Operating System (IOS) is under construction and is scheduled to be completed in 2016; and WHEREAS, in January 2015, the City of San Rafael's Department of Public Works prepared the City of San Rafael- Andersen Drive- Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service, Final Report, which examined six initial crossing alternatives (Alternatives 1-6), and on October 9, 2015 prepared a Memorandum report on one additional alternative (Alternative 7); and WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael- Andersen Drive- Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service, Final Report concludes and recommends that the City should pursue Alternative 6, At -Grade Crossing with Additional Storage Capacity, which will provide a safe, relatively low cost crossing, while providing minimal impact to the surrounding roadway network. The additional analysis of Alternative 7, which is presented in an October 9, 2015 memorandum from Leslie Bloomquist, Public Works Department, to Paul Jensen, Community Development Department (Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Services - Analysis of Alternative 7); and WHEREAS, the City is developing a detailed plan for the signal system and infrastructure at this intersection and is working closely with SMART on these details; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to review and consider Andersen Drive/SMART crossing Alternative 6, considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Public Works and Community Development Departments; and WHEREAS, the Alternative 6 at -grade crossing is defined as a "project" under the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063 and is therefore subject to environmental review. An Initial Study was prepared supporting the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is accompanied by a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). By separate resolution, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the MMRP; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council approves the At - Grade crossing Alternative (Alternative 6) and directs staff to proceed with the filing of an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) based on the following findings: A broad ranee of crossing alternatives was identified and studied. In preparation for the extension of SMART from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur, the City of San Rafael identified seven rail crossing alternatives with Andersen Drive to study and consider for action and submittal to the California Public Utilities Commission. A broad range of crossing alternatives was scoped by the City, including the additional alternative submitted by the public. The broad scope of alternatives include: 1) grade separation; 2) at grade crossing with Chicane; 3) full closure; 4) one way southbound bypass; 5) two-way bypass; 6) at grade crossing with additional storage capacity; and 7) two way bypass via Woodland with Andersen connector. 2. The studies conducted for the crossing alternatives find and recommend that the Alternative 6 at -grade crossing is the preferred alternative. The City's action to approve crossing Alternative 6 is supported by the findings and recommendations of the City of San Rafael- Andersen Drive- Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service, Final Report (January 2015) together with the analysis of a seventh alternative presented in an October 9, 2015 memorandum from Leslie Bloomquist, Public Works Department, to Paul Jensen, Community Development Department (Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Services - Analysis of Alternative 7). The City finds that Alternative 6 will provide a safe, relatively low-cost crossing, while providing minimal impact to the surrounding roadway network. Consistent with the CEOA Guidelines, environmental review of Alternative 6 was completed finding that impacts associated with this proiect can be reduced to less - than -significant levels. An Initial Study was prepared supporting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes recommended mitigation measures to reduce project impacts to less -than -significant levels. By separate resolution, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) finding that the environmental document adequately analyzes the impacts of the project and that suitable mitigation measures have been approved to address project impacts. The 2 Mitigation Measures presented in the MMRP can be incorporated into the construction and operational phases of the project. 4. Action to approve Alternative 6 would be consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 in that: a. The project is critical in supporting the extension of SMART from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur by encouraging efforts to connect commuter rail to ferry service in San Francisco. Therefore, this project and the SMART extension are consistent with Circulation Element Policy C-17 (Regional Transit Options — Commuter Rail). b. As designed and as demonstrated in the studies prepared for this project, the at -grade crossing would be safe for pedestrians and would have a minimal impact on the local roadway system, specifically Andersen Drive. Therefore, the project is consistent with Circulation Element Program C - 14a (SMART), which supports specific design features including: 1) a rail crossing that is safe for pedestrians and has minimal impacts on the roadway traffic; 2) an assessment of noise; and 3) provisions for a north/south bicycle/pedestrian path in the SMART right-of-way. C. SMART will provide an alternative transit mode for commuters, which will promote a decrease in miles traveled in single -occupancy vehicles. The crossing project would facilitate the extension of SMART to Larkspur Landing, which could further increase rail ridership and thus further decrease the potential miles traveled in single -occupant vehicles. Therefore, the project is consistent with Sustainability Element Policy SU -2 (Promote Alternative Transportation), which supports alternative transportation modes that would decrease miles traveled in single -occupant vehicles. d. A complete noise assessment was prepared for the SMART rail extension from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur, which included the proposed Alternative 6 crossing. Consistent with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration assessed worst case conditions for noise impacts by assuming that the train horn will sound through this area. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration noise assessment section recommends the use of "wayside" horns to reduce projected noise levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors in the area. Therefore, this noise assessment and its recommendations would be consistent with Noise Element Program N -8a (Future Transitway Mitigation Measures), which recommends a detailed noise assessment and appropriate mitigation measures. I, ESTHER BEIRNE, City Clerk of the City of San Rafael hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, February 1, 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Colin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gamblin ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk 3 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF "470doom atWbe Cly r. DATE: December 15, 2015 (REVISED DECEMBER 18, 2015) TO: Public Agencies, Organizations and Interested Parties FROM: City of San Rafael Department of Community Development j SUBJECT: REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department of Community Development of the City of San Rafael has prepared an Initial Study on the following project: Project Name: .Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing with Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Rail Line, City File No. PI 5-005 Location: Andersen Drive public right-of-way, north of Francisco Boulevard West intersection (see location map) Property Description: The subject property encompasses the stretch of the City of San Rafael -owned Andersen Drive public right-of-way where it insects with the SMART rail line. The intersection of the road right-of-way with the rail line occurs at an 11% angle, running a distance of approximately 450 feet. The right-of-way is developed with a two-lane arterial, which includes curb, gutter, sidewalk and Class 2 bicycle lane improvements. The current at -grade crossing was constructed in 1997- At that time, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) authorized the crossiag-with the then inactive rail line, but ruled that the crossing authorization would expire once regular train service was scheduled through this crossing. Further, CPUC ruled that in order to accommodate rail service through Andersen Drive, the City must apply for authorization to continue to utilize the crossing, and the City would be financially responsible for malting necessary improvements to the crossing -deemed necessary by CPUC. Project Description: The project proposes to seek CPUC authorization to approve the Andersen Drive. intersection with the SMART rail line as an at -grade crossing. - Improvements are proposed to Fealign Andersen Drive to leagh te 60 fee maintain the existing roadwav and track aeometry and increase the storage capacity for eastbound Francisco Blvd West.= The project action required by the City of San Rafael is for the City Council to authorize the filing of an application to the CPUC for approval of an at -grade crossing of Andersen Drive with the SMART rail line. Initial Study Completed: Consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this project is subject to environmental review and an Initial Study has been prepared. This Initial Study and supportive appendices have been posted on the City of Sin Rafael website and can be accessed via the following link: htto://www.citvofsanrafael.ore/nubworks-nroi-smart/ (scroll down the webpage to "Key Topics") Hard conies of this Initial Studv are available for review at the Citv of San Rafael Department of Community Development, Plannina Division (address below) and at the San Rafael City Library located at 1100 E Street, San Rafael, CA. Environmental Issues: The Initial Study finds that the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts in Biological Resources, Cultural (Archaeological) Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials,. Hydrology & Water Quality, and Noise. The project impacts would be mitigated to a less- tban-significant level through implementation of recommended mitigation measures or through compliance with existing Municipal Code requirements or City standards. Recommended measures are summarized in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting PIan (MiVERP) and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration- The Initial Study/1Vlitigated Negative Declaration document has been prepared in consultation with local, and state responsible and trustee agencies and in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will serve as the environmental compliance document required under CEQA for any subsequent phases of the project and for permits/approvals required by a responsible agency. Public Review Period for Comment: A forty -day (40 -day) public review period shall commence on Wednesday, December 16, 2015. Written comments must be sent to the City of San Rafael, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 1400 5th Avenue, San Rafael CA 94901 by Monday, San -nary 25, 2016. The City of San Rafael City Council will hold a public hearing on the Initial. Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and project merits on Monday, Febimary 1, 2016, 7:00 PM in the San Rafael City Council Chambers at City Hall (address listed above). Correspondence and comments .can be delivered to Paul Jensen, Community Development Director, phone: (415) 485-5064, email: paul.iensenna.citvofsaurafael.ora. +- o � f N U C7 _ N r,CL to ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING You are invited to attend the upcoming City Council hearing on the following project: PROJECT: ANDERSEN DRIVE / SONOMA MARIN AREA. RAIL TRANSIT (SMART) CROSSING. SMART is planning the second phase of the commuter tail service, which includes an extension of the service from Downtown, San Rafael to Larlcspur Landing. A segment of the SMART rail line along this stretch crosses "at -grade" with Andersen Drive. This road crossing with the SMART rail line requires the authorization of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The City of San Rafael IS required to secure this CPUC authorization. Consistent will: the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this project is subject to environmental review and an Initial Study/ilfitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Initial Study and supportive appendices have been posted on the City ofSan Rafael website and can be accessed via the following link: irtlo., %wit <a_ citvofsatu afael ora✓pubworlrs-proi-smart,`. Hard copies of the Initial Study are available for review at the City Department of Community Development (address below) or at the San Rafael City Library, 1100 E Street, San Rafael. BE, DATE: Monday. February 1. 2016 at 7:00 PAL LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street San Rafael, California WHAT WILL The City Council will review and consider action to: a) adopt the Andersen HAPPEN: Drive/S1b1ART At -Grade Crossing initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b) approve the At -Grade Crossing Design (referred to as "Option 6"); and c) direct City staff to proceed with filing an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for crossing approval. You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to take the proposed actions. IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the City Clerk, City of San Rafael, 1400 5 h Avenue, San Rafael, ATTEND: CA 94901. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. FOR MORE For information on the crossing design, permitting and process, contact Kevin McGowan, INFORMATION: Assistant Public Works Director at (4)5)485-3389 or kevin.mct=-owan(a.eitvofsan rafael.orQ. For information on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, contact Paul Jensen, Community Development Director at (415) 485-5064 or Paul. iensen(dlcitvofsanrafael.orta. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL 's/ Esther C. Beirne City Clerk At the above time and place, all letters received wil I be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge m court the matter described above, you may be Ignited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2))• Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-308S (voice) or• (41 S) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 how s in advance. Copies of docurnents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transpoilation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate 71•ansit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling "isdestap Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental ilhress or multiple, chemical sensitivity to attend the meetuig/hewing. individuals are requested to rArnin from topm4na crPnrsd nrndurtc ATTACHMENT 5 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED TO DATE (Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) 1: 146.: 'UI'll J:1 1:.'Nil' _ 14), G DZPART;MENT OF TRANSPORTATION 13ISTRICT 4 P.O. Box 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623.0660 PHONE (5 10) 29&SS29 FAX (510) 286.5559 TTY 711 www.dotoe.90V January 25, 2016 14Ir. Paul Jensen City of San Rafael Community Development Department 1400 501 Avenue, 3 Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 5erlaw DrInWh% 1kipsm wamre MRN101448 MRN -101.9.96 SCH # 2015122037 Andersen Drive At -Grade Cross" with Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Rail Rigbt-Of-Way — hEdgeted Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Jensen: Thank you for including the California Department of Tmusportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossings Project. Caltrans' new mission, vision, and goals signal a modernization of our approach to California's transportation system, in which we seek to reduce statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and increase non -auto modes of active transportation. Our comments seek to promote the State's smear mobility goals and are based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (RNID). Additional comments may be forthcoming pending final review. Project UnderstaWing The proposed project would construct an st-grade crossing of Andersen Drive with the planned SMART rail service, which would cross north of the Anderson Drive/Francisco Boulevard West intersection. The crossing would retain the existing 11 -degree roadway and track geometry, restrict train speeds to 15 miles per lour, install crossing warning devices, install a new Class I pathway, and install a crossing dedicated to pedestrian and bicycle ' traffic. Additionally, Francisco Boulevard West would be restriped from one to two lanes between its intersections with Andersen Drive and U.S. 101 southbound ramps, and southbound Andersen Drive would also be widened to two lanes between Francisco Boulevard West and Bellam Boulevard. The City of San Rafael (City) would coordinate with Caltrans in order to modify an existing Caltrans -operated traffic signal located at the intersection of Francisco Boulevard West and southbound U.S. 101. Construction would begin in spring 2016 and would last approximately six monfhs. Please coordinate with Calhum office of Permits, Signal Operations and Highway Operations if the intersection modification will require the closure of U.S. 101 on- and off -ramps on Francisco "Prav* as*, sustatna8k, UltagmMdand e(jFeia>!(m.syrardaffan 4wtem to enhmioe Cal j{ornia Is acmamy and thabONy" Mr. Paul Jensen, City of San Rafael January 25, 2016 Page 2 Boulevard West. Tfgfflc An*sis Please provide Caltrans with the following information so that we are able to give full consideration to all project -related impacts an the State highway system; • bevel -of -service calculations that were used for the alternative conditions presented in the MND. Please ensure that the associated volumes used is the calculation(s) are included; • Software and version that was used in the intersection analysis; and ■ Scheduled hours in which all construction activities wrorild take place. Encroachment PeriW1 Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a - completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentarion, and five (5) sets.of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to the following address: David Salladay, District Office Chief, Office of Permits, California Departtnent of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Traffic -related mitigation treasures should lie incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit process. See the tivebsite linked below for more information: http://www.dot.ca,gov/hq/traffbps/developsery/permits Should you have any questions regarding this letter or require additional information, please contact Cole Iwamasa at (510) 286-5534 or by email at; colcdwamasa@dot.ca,gov. Sincerely, P,6�� L-- PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review Cc; State Clearinghouse 7mvuk a ro, raufaanaNa, +nlerafed and qffloloW ftm4 vAwl n .nurern to avaAmire Ca1(j0rnla'a enacaoMy a>rd lfvQbfUcy Paul Jensen From: Toms, Christina@Waterboards <Chdstina.Toms@Waterboards.ca.gov> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 4:58 PM To: Paul Jensen Subject: Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing IS -MND Hi Paul, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the IS -MND for the Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Project. My only question about the document concerns the description of "drainage improvements" on page 2-9; such improvements do not appear to be discussed elsewhere in the project description or the impact analysis for hydrology and water quality (section 3.9). Cah you please describe what the proposed drainage improvements are? This information is necessary for us to assess potential impacts on waters of the state and beneficial uses. Thanks, Christina Christina Toms Environmental Engineer San Francisco Estuary Partnership San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay 5t., Ste. 1400, Oakland, CA 94612 T 510-622-2506 1 F 510-622-2460 1 M 510-847-7670 Christi na.Toms@waterboards.ca.eov IY L � li Marin Audubon Society I P.O. 11,113. j99 MM \�,;irr.�. I:A L)ay•I=-0S9) I i r SON otic; January 25, 2016 Paul Jensen, Director Community Development Paul,jensen@cityofSan Rafael.org RE: SMART ANDERSON DRIVE AT GRADE CROS5ING Dear Mr. Jensen: Thank you for sending the notice for the Anderson Drive At -Grade Crossing with SMART track project. We have reviewed the Initial Study and have the following comments: 1. The Existing Habitat discussions at 3.4.1 and the response to Issue 3.4.1 cj are in error. Freshwater wetlands exist on the project site between the track and Woodland Avenue across from the northern intersection with Auburn Street. The wetland vegetation is primarily cattails. This wetland drains the Calpark wetland and watershed to the city's drainage channel and that drains to the Bay. Marin Audubon Society owns a parcel within the Calpark wetlands. The Existing Habitat discussion should be revised to Identify and describe the wetlands and their location. The "No Impact" discussion at 3.4.1 should be revised to correct the error that the nearest wetland is .07 miles away from the project area, and to discuss the impacts of the project on these wetlands. Figure 2.3 should be revised to show the wetlands, It appears likely that the project would have adverse impacts on the wetland, thus the conclusion that the project will have no impact on wetland resources should be revisited. Figure 2.3 shows the following operational system components located on or nearthe on-site wetland: warning strips, Health indicator for wayside horn system, and flashing active beacons to warn the train operators of vehicles obstructing the tracks. The proposed location for these facilites in relation to the wetlands should be described and how they would or would not impact the wetlands should be discussed. The dlscuss'on should address how impacts are avoided and if they are not, why not. Mitigation by restoring In-kind replacement wetlands on-site or nearby, should be provided, if the impacts are truly unavoidable. 2.. Mitigation Measure BR 3a states "To the extent feasible, trees and shrubs In the construction zone will be trimmed or removed between September 1 and January 31, to reduce potential Impacts to nesting birds>" What reason could there possibly be for it to be infeasible for SMART to trim or remove trees within the identified five month period, As SMART is certainly capable of planning ahead, this qual`fying phrase should be removed. h L;,,��•r.l•a�,i„•.\arrnrl„(.•I„dr��a,: So.ir; Thank you for making the above changes. Sincerel.J Barbara Sal man, -c it 'lam Fhil Peterson, Co-chair Conservation Committee Conservation Committee cc: RWQCB ACOE Paul Jensen From: Brian Magner Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 12:55 PM To: Paul Jensen; Gary Phillips; Maribeth Bushey; Kate Colin; Andrew McCullough; John Gamblin Subject: SMART Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Dear Mr. Jensen and members of the City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study for the Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing with Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Rail Line; (City File No. P15-005) ("Initial Study"). As a resident of the Bret Harte neighborhood of San Rafael, I reviewed the Initial Study with a particular focus on potential impacts to my neighborhood from noise and traffic. I provided a list of questions to the Initial Study to City Planner Paul Jensen on January 13, 2016 via email and received a response letting me know that my questions will be answered on January 28, 2016 via a memorandum as an attachment to the City Council staff report and this will be posted as part of the February 1 meeting agenda on the City's website. Given that my questions will be answered after the completion of the public comment period, I am writing this letter to express my concerns that the SMART train extension from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur will introduce significant noise, traffic, disruption and potentially a resulting loss of property value to my neighborhood both during construction and operation. Traffic: The proposed traffic solution poses issues for vehicles travelling straight on Anderson Drive (east or west), vehicles entering the highway from Anderson and vehicles exiting the highway to Anderson. This area is heavily travelled and there is already heavy eastbound and westbound congestion at this intersection, especially during rush hours. The proposed solutions did not include options which would come at no cost or inconvenience to motorists, like a bridge over Anderson. The at -grade crossing does not sufficiently address the existing traffic and motorists who use this street on a daily basis, The Initial Study should be amended to address other crossing options, such as a bridge, which would more notably reduce traffic impacts to the residents of the area. Noise: Although I feel the construction of the train crossing will cause construction noise and disruption, understand that these will be temporary impacts. I am more concerned about noise impacts during the operating period. The number of trains proposed and information contained in Appendix D of the Initial Study indicate that the train crossing will introduce significant noise to the area. Both the Initial Study and Appendix D reference the possibility and process for obtaining a "Quiet Zone" designation for the Anderson Dr. crossing, but state: "the specific constraints at the Andersen Drive crossing could preclude the implementation of a Quiet Zone at that crossing." No further information as to how this was determined and if additional efforts will be made to conclusively rule out a Quiet Zone possibility is included in the Initial Study. According to the Initial Study, Mitigation Measure (MM) N-2 will reduce noise impacts at the crossing to neighboring properties from "significant" to "moderate" and therefore, the Initial Study states this impact will be "less than significant with mitigation." While including MM N-2 might satisfy CEQA requirements to qualify the project for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, as representatives of this community, City Staff and the City Council should require the most effective mitigation possible that would maximize the reduction of impacts to their constituents. Therefore, while MM N-2 should be included as mitigation in the Initial Study, it should be implemented as an alternative mitigation measure if the crossing cannot qualify for a Quiet Zone. Should the existing plan prevail, at a minimum, I am requesting that the City either add a new mitigation measure or condition of approval to the permit to obligate City Staff to file for a Quiet Zone status from Downtown San Rafael, through the Anderson Drive crossing to Larkspur. The Initial Study should be amended to include other crossing options, such as a bridge, which would more notably reduce noise impacts to the residents of the area. Property Value: Finally, 1 would like to request that funds be set aside to mitigate the loss in property values experienced by local residents from the noise, traffic, disruption and changed environment brought on by the SMART train. Thank you, Brian Magner Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Ada Friday, January 22, 2016 4.24 PM Paul Jensen Re: Smart Train Public Comment Mr. Paul Johnson City of San Rafael Community Development Department Planning Division 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 oaul.iensenna citvofsanrafael.ora. January21, 2016 Re: Smart Train Stop Public Comment Dear Mr. Johnson and Planning Division, As a homeowner in the Lomita Park area of the county of Marin, we would like to make our concerns known regarding the high decibel warning horn sound requirement for trains at Smart Train crossings. We have learned that there will be a crossing at Andersen Drive and Woodland Avenue across from the Office Depot store. In this.location, this warning sound will be not only be perceived as extremely loud; it will be heard 30 times per day and blasted four or five times each occurrence, by the neighbors on Auburn, Gilbert Streets and Albion Avenue, as well as Orange Street and Orange Court and likely beyond on Altena and Tiburon Boulevard as well. This area is a small canyon below the Greenbrae hill and not within the city limits. The canyon geography will likely intensify the sound even more than the Smart rating which has been designated as "very loud to deafening". We are writing with the intention to request mitigation of this intrusive new auditory affront by declaring our neighborhood a "Quiet Zone". Please consider our request seriously and replace the warning horn sound with alternative alerting signals of oncoming trains in this location. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ada and Clive Endress 9 Gilbert Street San Rafael, CA 94901 M�6■�iiiiiii City of San Rafael Community Development Department January 18, 2016 Planning Division 1400 5'h Ave., San Rafael, CA 94901 g�FCF-IVF-D ATTN: Mr. Paul Jensen 34N 19 2016 Dear Mr. Jensen. We are writing regarding the proposed SMART train crossing at Anderson Drive in our neighborhood. The sounding of extremely loud train whistles 24 hours a day at the unacceptable level of 96 —110 dBA will have a seriously detrimental effect on our quality of life and our health. I direct your attention to the report of December, 2015 titled; Technical Report on Noise - Anderson Drive At -Grade Crossing. Page 12, table 2, Summary of Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines shows that in a residential, low-density single family area in which our home is located a decibel level of 75+ is listed as Clearly Unacceptable. In the San Rafael Code of Ordinances, section 8.13.040 it clearly states that in residential property, no noise is allowed exceeding 60 dBA during the day, and 50 dBA at night. Particularly with North bound trains, the whistle would be blown starting in a location in line of site, without obstructions, directly across the open space which abuts our yard. In both directions the whistle would have a path of travel for sound straight down Auburn Street, again without substantial obstructions impacting every home on the street. We have very serious concerns about the impact this will have on our health, not to mention our property values. There are many Seniors and small children in our neighborhood as well. We have experienced the reality of train horns in urban environments and have found ourselves unable to sleep in motels which were farther away from the crossings than we are now, with substantial development between our room and the tracks. Since it appears that we may be forced to live with the reality of SMART trains in our neighborhood, we must urge the planning department, at minimum, to allow the Mitigation Measure N-2 proposed in the above referenced Report of establishing a Quiet Zone for our area. This will allow safe passage of the trains using crossing horns and lights and barriers rather than sounding the train's extremely loud horns. Although, for some reason Auburn Street homes are not acknowledged in the report, we guarantee that all homes on Auburn Street and the neighboring areas will be drastically impacted by this change. Sleep will be interrupted causing serious complications in our daily activities including work performance and quality of life. In our household, Darrell is already under a doctor's care for insomnia issues and we purchased this home 12 years ago with the satisfaction of knowing that we would have quiet night time hours_ When we purchased our home, we were assured that the train tracks were being removed and would not be re -built. Obviously, if we had known then what would happen in the future we would not have purchased our current home (even at the drastically reduced price -a future train in the neighborhood would have given us). I am sure that we speak for many of our neighbors, as well. Respectfully, Darrell Justus and Shawn Rossiter 121 Auburn St. San Rafael, CA 94901 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Jensen, Brian Magner Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:03 PM Paul Jensen SMART Train Anderson crossing My name is Brian Magner and I live at 1 Dolores St. in the Bret Harte neighborhood of San Rafael. I have reviewed the SMART train Anderson Drive initial study and am hoping you can provide clarity on the following points: 1) The IS -MND and Noise Technical Study (Appendix D) reference the possibility and process for obtaining a "Quiet Zone" designation for the Anderson Dr_ crossing, but state: "the specific constraints at the Andersen Drive crossing could preclude the implementation of a Quiet Zone at that crossing." No further information as to how this was determined is included. a. Is the City still pursuing a Quiet Zone designation? b. If so, how is the City pursuing a Quiet Zone designation? b. What specific constraints at Anderson Dr. would preclude the implementation? 2) Table 3.12-1 of the IS -MND (and Table 3 in the Technical Report) lists the number of "at grade crossings" as 23 trains during the hours of 7 am -10 pm and 5 trains during the hours of 10 pm -7 am. Can you please clarify: a. If 28 trains will occur both on weekends and weekdays? Will there be fewer night trains on weekends, for example? b. If the "at grade crossing" count of 28 trains means that a total of 28 crossings will occur in one day (i.e., 14 trains will cross north to south and 14 trains will cross south to north) 3) Page 2-8 of the IS -MND states: Per 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 222.21, SMART's train operators will be required to sound their horns at all public grade crossings. The rule would require operators to sound their horns at least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade crossings. Train horns - would be required to be sounded in a standardized pattern of two long, one short, and one long blast. The pattern would need to be repeated or prolonged until the train occupied the at -grade crossing. a. Due to the diagonal nature of the crossing, "occupation" of the at -grade crossing is longer than a perpendicular crossing. How is "occupation" described? Would the train need to initiate the horn sequence a minimum of 15 seconds before the first crossing and continue the sequence until the last car in the train has crossed the road? b. Does the Anderson Dr. crossing also constitute a signal crossing? According to Table 3.12- 1, a signal crossing would last 120 seconds. If the horn pattern must continue throughout that crossing, at a minimum that would 24 horn blasts per crossing? (120 seconds T 20 seconds horn sounding = 6 "rounds" of horn sounding. Each round has 4 blasts, which means a total of 24 blasts.) 4) Mitigation Measure N-2 requires the use of wayside horns mounted on poles at crossing gates in lieu of train -mounted horns. Can you clarify: a. Would the wayside horns follow the same blast pattern as required for train -mounted horns? b. Would the wayside horns be triggered at both the north and south crossing gates regardless of train direction? c. Would the wayside horns continue until the last train car has fully exited the crossing gate (which is a longer distance..than the at -grade crossing itself)? 5) Table 3,12-2 in the IS -MND (Table 4 in the Technical Report) measures the Ambient Noise Level (without trains) for Anderson Drive and Woodland Avenue using Ldn. Is this ambient noise level averaged over a 24 hr period? What would be the average ambient noise level just at night? Thank you. Brian ICouncil Contact Form City of San Rafael city Council Contact Form Thank you for visiting the City of San Rafael website. This form is available to facilitate contacting our Mayor and Councilmembers concerning topics of interest to the community. Please contact the City Manager's office at 415-485-3070 for any additional assistance. Note that the City of San Rafael considers email to Councilmembers as an informal and non -confidential method of communication. Please send a signed letter if you would like to make your commenYquestion a matter of public record. Mail formal letters to San Rafael City,Council, PO Box 151560. San Rafael, CA, 94915. * First Name Dwayne * Last Name Warren Address 1 Harte Ave ' Address 2 City San Rafael 2 State CA Zip Code 94901 Phone Number Email Address * Send email to (select one All City Councilmembers * Please enter your questions/comments below My family and 1 live in the Bret Hart neighborhood which is in close proximity to the Anderson "At -grade" crossing. 1, we STRONGLY urge the city council to extend the city's existing Quite Zone established for the initial Operating Segment (IOS) to include the Anderson crossing. In addition to the many families with young children and elderly residents in our neighborhood, there is also the consideration of the many nearby businesses, at least one daycare center as well as Laurel Dell Elementary School and Davidson Middle School. There is no reason the residents in the vicinity of SMART Phase 2 should not be given the same consideration as the residents of this city were given for the IOS. Sincerely, Dwayne Warren Paul Jensen From: Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1125 AM To: Paul Jensen Subject: Smart Train We live in the upper Bret Harte neighborhood and are VERY concerned about the changes that the arrival of the SMART TRAIN will make to our neighborhood. We have been lead to understand that the crossing at Anderson will require a loud and lengthy whistle each time it makes the crossing. The loudness has been described I understand by SMART itself as close to deafening. This is just one of a long list of concerns we and our neighbors are concerned about. Parking? Traffic congestion (and does the county much less San Rafael need any more traffice issues?). Many of us, myself include, intend to attend the City Council meeting scheduled for 2/1 at 7 pm. In preparation for that meeting we just want to be on record as being extremely concerned about the overall impact of the train from San Rafael to Larkspur. Donna Wayne Gerald Sax 121 Irwin Street Paul Jensen From: Richard Bernstein Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 3:00 PM To: Paul Jensen Subject: SMART Phase 2 - Andersen Dr. Crossing January 7, 2016 To the San Rafael Community Development Department, Planning Division Re: SMART Phase 2 — The "At Grade" Andersen Dr. Track.Crossing I am a resident of Lomita Park in unincorporated San Rafael. Our neighborhood consists mainly of Auburn St., Gilbert St., Orange St., and a portion of Woodland Ave. and we will be significantly impacted by SMART Phase 2. Specifically, I am concerned about the "at grade" track crossing on Andersen Dr. inunediately adjacent to our neighborhood. I hereby request that that crossing be designated as a "Quiet Zone" so the trains are not required to sound their horn, and that alternative warning methods be utilized. Thuik you for your consideration and I will be attending the February 1 San Rafael City Council meeting where hopefully this topic will be discussed. Thanks for your attention and consideration. Richard Bernstein 6 Gilbert St. San Rafael, CA 94901 January 7, 2016 To the San Rafael Community Development Department, Planning Division Re: SMART Phase 2 - The "At Grade" Andersen Dr. Track Crossing I am a resident of Lomita Park in unincorporated San Rafael. Our neighborhood consists mainly of Auburn St., Gilbert St., Orange St., and a portion of Woodland Ave. and we will be significantly impacted by SMART Phase 2. Specifically, I am concerned about the "at grade" track crossing on Andersen Dr. immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. I hereby request that that crossing be designated as a "Quiet Zone" so the trains are not required to sound their horn, and that alternative warning methods be utilized. Thank you for your consideration and I will be attending the February 1 San Rafael City Council meeting where hopefully this topic will be discussed. Thanks for your attention and consideration. Richard Bernstein 6 Gilbert St. San Rafael, CA 94901 w, JAN g,� 201E _ PLANNING Transportation Solutions .Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 January 25, 2016 By E -Mail to: Paul.Jensen@City ofSanRafael.org Paul Jensen Community Development Director City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA 94915 Re: Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Initial Study Dear Mr. Jensen: The Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, TRANSDEF, is a Marin - based environmental organization working to reduce the impacts of transportation on the climate. While our work is primarily at the state and regional levels, we occasionally get involved in local issues. One of those issues is the proposed at -grade crossing of the SMART railroad mainline by Andersen Drive (MP 16). TRANSDEF, and its prede- cessor organization Marin Advocates for Transit, have advocated for the resumption of passenger rail in Marin and Sonoma Counties for the past twenty-five years. Part of that effort has been protecting rail crossings from local government expedience. INTRODUCTION TRANSDEF's President successfully litigated a Protest to the City of San Rafael's 1995 Application to the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") for an at -grade crossing at Andersen Drive. The result of that litigation, Decision 97-07-055 (Attachments, p. 1), is that Andersen Drive will be split in two at the tracks, as a matter of law—with no permission to cross --once SMART starts service to Larkspur: This authorization to blockade the tracks shall expire upon the scheduling of regular train service over the tracks which intersect Andersen Drive. Upon such expiration .of authority, the City shall take all actions necessary to ensure the unimpeded use of the intersection by the rail service, absent further order of the Commission. (Decision 97-07-055; Final Order #2, Attachments, p. 12) TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 2 Under California law, the CPUC has exclusive jurisdiction over railroad crossings. (Public Utilities Code § 1201.) Whether or not Andersen Drive continues to function as a crosstown connector to Highway 101 is solely up to the discretion of the CPUC. This is why San Rafael ("The City") is now considering an Initial Study ("IS") and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). Environmental review is a prerequisite for an Application to the CPUC for the right for Andersen Drive to continue crossing the tracks. TRANSDEF is pleased to provide the following comments on the IS, MND and Alternatives Analysis: The analysis in the IS/MND does not meet the requirements of CEQA. Contrary to the assertions on page 1-1, it neither "demonstrate[s] provisions for a safe rail crossing" nor "meet[s] the -requirements of the CPUC." The proposed project does not achieve its first (and primary) project objective: Meet the requirements of the CPUC's 1997 order by designing and constructing.an at -grade crossing of Andersen Drive over the SMART ROW -to ensure the unimpeded use of the crossing by trains. (IS, p. 2-1.) It simply is impossible for the proposed project "to ensure the unimpeded use of the crossing by trains" when the IS discloses that: In order to ensure safety at the Andersen Drive crossing, SMART would modify the operation of commuter rail service to permanently restrict the speed of trains through and approaching the grade crossing to 15 miles per hour. When implemented, this speed restriction would be enforced by SMART's Positive Train Control system, so that any train would be forced to reduce speed well before it reached the near edge of the at -grade pedestrian crossings that are planned for the north and south sides of Andersen Drive. The clear sight distance approaching the crossings in both directions would be in excess of 1,000 feet, twice the distance required for the train to come to a full stop from 15 miles per hour. This restricted approach speed, combined with the clear sight distance to the crossing in both directions, would provide the train operator ample distance within which to bring the train to a stop in the event that the crossing was obstructed. (IS, p. 3-75.) SMART's Preliminary Engineering Design Track Schematic (Attachments, p. 67) shows that SMART had planned for a 60 mph maximum speed (identified as the light blue line) between the Bellam Blvd. trestle and Irwin Street. That extended stretch provides enough acceleration distance for trains in standard service to typically reach 60 mph by the time they pass through the Andersen Drive crossing. TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 3 Slowing trains down to 15 mph cannot reasonably be considered "ensur[ing] the unimpeded use." A permanent speed restriction would violate the CPUC's Conclusion of Law #6, which states: "Absent further order of the Commission, rail service will have priority right to use the intersection." (Decision 97-07-055, Attachments, p. 11.) The CPUC's Conclusion of Law #12 states: The City will bear the burden of proving that any modifi- cations it proposes to accommodate rail services through the intersection will meet the Commission's standards for safety. (Decision 97-07-055, Attachments, p. 12) This burden has not been met. This burden is especially weighty, given the Commission's Finding of Fact #8: The proposed configuration of the intersection is not safe for use by both trains and automobiles." (Decision 97-07-055, Attachments, p. 10) That finding was the basis for the CPUC's Conclusion of Law #5: The Commission will not allow both trains and automobiles to use this intersection as currently configured. (Decision 97- 07-055, Attachments, p. 11) TRANSDEF incorporates by reference all the documents in the CPUC's proceeding A.95-08-020, The City's 1995 Application for an at -grade crossing at Andersen Drive. Those documents, and the official State agency Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law based on them, constitute evidence that the geometry of the existing intersection is inherent y unsafe. TRANSDEF asserts, on the basis of this substantial evidence, that the proposed project creates a hazard to the public --a significant impact. The proposed project therefore requires further environmental review, or further mitigation or selection of an alternative that avoids these impacts. INITIAL STUDY IMPACT ANALYSIS 3.16.1( ad. Conflict with Aci3licable Plan The analysis of impacts on transit is incomplete and inadequate: Potential impacts to transit service would primarily consist of a. marginal .increase in travel times as a result of additional delay at the grade crossing and at other intersections in the vicinity of the project. Given the magnitude of the delay increase as indicated in Table 3.16-1, however, the project is not expected to substantially impact overall travel times for transit service. (p. 3-75.) TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 4 The reference to Table 3.16-1 in this quote makes it clear that this analysis refers only to bus transit, as its data on delays and LOS apply only to rubber -tired vehicles passing through the crossing, and not to rail transit vehicles. Obviously, rail transit is impacted by the proposed project. The question of how much remains unaddressed. TRANSDEF attempted to secure that information from the City, but the City did not have it on file. (See Letter from Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney, January 20, 2016; Attachments, p. 59.) The IS is incomplete without that analysis. 3.16.1(d). Substantially Increase Hazards As discussed above, the geometry of the existing intersection is a design feature that makes an at -grade crossing there inherently unsafe. The City has the burden of demonstrating that the proposed project would be safe. ... the proposals need to be well justified, specifically as it relates to justification why a grade sep structure is not prac- ticable there, and why the City chose not to follow through on its commitments made during the hearings and testimony from the original proceeding. The application needs to clearly layout the case as to why an at -grade crossing is safe here. All the potential safety concerns and mitigations should be identified. (Farhad Mansourian email quoting Daren Gilbert, Manager, CPUC Rail Transit and Crossings Division Branch, March 18, 2014; Attachments, p. 65.) Although the IS provides a description of the proposed mitigations, it offers no substantial evidence to support an assertion that "an at -grade crossing is safe here." Given the evidence in the CPUC proceeding that the crossing would be unsafe, TRANSDEF asserts that the proposed project creates a significant impact. The IS/MND is therefore inadequate. According to PRC §21080 (d) and (e), if there is substantial evidence of significant effects, an EIR is required. 3.16.1(f). Conflict with Adopted Policies The analysis of impacts on transit is incomplete and inadequate, because it is entirely silent on impacts on rail transit. It is incorrect when it concludes: The project would not fundamentally alter transit service, routes, or stops, and potential impacts to transit service would primarily consist of a marginal increase in travel times as a result -of additional delay at the grade crossing and at other intersections in the vicinity of the project, as discussed in Question a). Given the magnitude of the delay increase as indicated in Table T-1, however, the project is not expected to substantially impact overall travel times for transit service. (p. 3-77) TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 5 The imposition of a permanent speed restriction on SMART does "fundamentally alter transit service." It obviously would decrease the performance of rail transit facilities. The proposed permanent speed restriction stands in direct conflict with the SMART system's brand-new half -billion dollar design to provide fast connections between North Bay cities. There are no other intersection -related speed restrictions in the system_ The IS is incomplete because it has not determined whether "the project is ... expected to substantially impact overall travel times for (rail] transit service." In addition, as discussed above, the proposed project conflicts with the CPUC's Conclusion of Law #6; "Absent further order of the Commission, rail service will have priority right to use the intersection." (Decision 97-07-055, Attachments, p. 11.) That conflict with an adopted State Agency policy constitutes a significant impact. Additional lmnacts The Alternatives Analysis identified the following disadvantages to the proposed project (p. 22), but neither it nor the IS provides an analysis or commentary on the significance of these mpacts: • Lower commuter rail operational speed • Potential for low -speed train/vehicle collisions . • Potential for low -speed train/vehicle conflict Secondary Impacts The proposed safety mitigations create secondary impacts, which have not been analyzed: • The permanent speed restriction will affect the travel time for rail passengers, affecting future ridership and the diversion of commute trips from the highway. This could interfere with SMART's efforts to reduce GHG emissions, both by impacting ridership, and requiring rail vehicle rb-acceleration. after the crossing. • The permanent speed restriction imposes costs on SMART, which could impact how much rail transit service it can afford to provide, and therefore the number of passengers it can carry and the GHG emissions reductions possible: o Programming the enforcement of the speed restriction into the Positive Train Control system. (iS, p. 2-8.) o "Installation of a vehicle presence detection system within the queuing area at Andersen Drive, which would be used to activate wayside beacons to warn train operators of obstructions in the crossing." (IS, p. 2-8.) o "Installation of active in -pavement lighting to clearly delineate the trackway, which would be intended to assist train operators in determining the presence of a vehicular obstruction in the crossing area." (IS, p. 2-8.) TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 6 o "Installation of cameras with clear views of the queuing area, which would be monitored by SMART dispatch staff, who would issue emergency train handling orders in scenarios where traffic queues could not be cleared." (IS, p. 2-8.) This additional responsibility imposed on dispatch staff could result in the need for more employees, thereby increasing operations cost. o "develop and implement Special Operating Procedures (SOPs) and associated training for train operators and dispatch staff that would be specifically tailored to operations through Andersen Drive. In addition, all SMART operations staff would attend required retraining on these SOPs annually." (IS, p. 2-8.) o "the specific constraints at the Andersen Drive crossing could preclude the implementation of a Quiet Zone at that crossing." (IS, p. 2-9.) Even if all other San Rafael crossings are part of a Quiet Zone, this could result in SMART having to install wayside train horns at Andersen Drive. o The permanent speed restriction creates a non -standardized operating environment, resulting in a distraction for SMART employees, impacting their effectiveness. o Operational costs. Slower travel times means fewer trips can be accomplished with the same number of vehicles and staff. • Enforcing and monitoring the permanent speed restriction will distract SMART dispatch staff from necessary duties, thereby creating the potential for hazardous conditions. Absent the proposed project, dispatch staff routine duties would not include video monitoring of intersections. Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.18.1(c): The comments above have identified a large number of potential impacts on humans, either directly or indirectly, which the IS does not adequately evaluate. Text Corrections 1-1: Commission order, not court order. 1-3: The Andersen Drive crossing was never a grade separation. It also was never a rail crossing. It was a switching point, where one rail line diverged from another. 2-1: Northwestern Pacific, not North West Pacific. (See p. 1-1.) 2-1: Commission order, not court order: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The IS does not support a Mitigated Negative Declaration. "Mitigated negative declaration" means a negative declaration'prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 7 or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where c ear y no significant effect on the environment wou d occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §21064.5) 1. The IS is inadequate in its analysis, as discussed above re: 3.16.1(a). 2. The assertion of a significant impact re: 3.16.1(d) makes the proposed project ineligible for an MND. 3. The IS is inadequate in its analysis, as discussed above re: 3.16.1(f). 4. The assertion of a significant impact re: 3.16.1(f) makes the proposed project ineligib�e for an MND. 5. The IS is inadequate in its analysis, as discussed above re: failure to analyze the additional impacts of the disadvantages of the proposed project. 6. The IS is inadequate in its analysis, as discussed above re: failure to analyze secondary impacts. 7. Mandatory Findings of Significance cannot be made, due to the impacts above. 8. A project is not eligible for an MND when the proposed mitigations are still tentative. A complete list of mitigations has not been "agreed to." a. Many of the proposed, mitigations would be implemented by SMART, rather than by the lead agency. There is no commitment in the record by SMART to implement the proposed mitigations. b. The full set of mitigations has "not been finalized, a preliminary list is as follows" (IS, p. 2-8_) Because the full set of mitigations has not been incorporated into the project before the proposed MND was released for public review, an MND is not allowed (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d. 296) ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Alternatives Comparisons TRANSDEF submitted a design that was later studied as Alternative 7 (See Attachments, pp. 28, 30 & 36), as a result of our dissatisfaction with the City's design. TRANSDEF appreciates The City's willingness to ana yze it for the S. TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 8 1. SMART expected the crossing design to be quite different from the proposed project: "At Andersen Drive, MP 16.0, an at -grade crossing is proposed which requires the realignment of the angle at which Andersen Drive currently crosses the track(s). The current acute crossing angle is not acceptable to the CPUC for an active crossing." (2005 SMART FEIR, p. 2-55) 2. It is unclear from the document whether the intersection delay calculations and Queue and Intersection Impact Diagrams for the various alternatives are directly comparable. In response to TRANSDEF's Public Records Act request, The City disclosed that a different traffic model was used to analyze Alternatives 6 & 7. (Letter from Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney, January 20, 2016; Attachments, p. 59.) Because the diagram for Alternative 6 existed in January 2015 when the Alternatives Analysis was published, it must be presumed that the diagram for Alternative 7, published in October 2015, was based on calculations produced by a different model. 3. TRANSDEF attempted to verify the comparability of the traffic calculations via an informal request for them soon after the IS/MND was released. The input and output data from the later model was still not available, as of the comment deadline. (Letter from Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney, January 25, 2016.) 4. The queue lengths in the Queue and Intersection Impact Diagram for Alternatives 6 and 78 are quite similar. 5. The intersection delay at Bellam and Andersen for Alternatives 6 (55.0, LOS E) and 713 (61.1 sec., LOS E) are quite similar, both numerically and in LOS. (Alternatives Analysis, PDF pp. 22 & 33 of 37, respectively.) Both meet the General Plan's LOS E standard. (Initial Study, pp. 3-73 - 74.) However, the Queue and Intersection Impact Diagram for Alternative 7B shows this intersection as failing, while the one for Alternative 6 does not. (Alternatives Analysis, PDF pp. 29 & 37 of 37, respectively.) Clearly, these diagrams cannot be relied on for valid comparisons. 6. Interestingly, the comparison matrix on PDF p. 35 of 37 finds that Alternatives 6 and 7B have equivalent, low permanent traffic impacts, despite the difference in the diagrams. 7. The comparison's analysis of feasibility is flawed. Either a project is feasible or it- is not. The Webster's definition of feasible is "capable of being done or carried out." The evaluation of feasibility should result in a "feasible" or infeasible" result. There is no rational basis upon which to distinguish the feasibility of Alternative 6 from Alternative 7b: 8. The listing of the advantages of Alternative 7B on PDF p. 34 of 37 is incomplete. a. This alternative is distinctly safer than Alternative 6, as it does not rely on a host of technological kluges. [Wikipedia: A kludge (or kluge) is a workaround or quick -and -dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, difficult to TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 9 extend, and hard to maintain, yet an effective and quick solution to a problem.] b. The gate -down time is substantially less than that of Alternative 6: 35 seconds --the same as all the other crossings in San Rafael. For Alternative 6 "the long, acute angle of the crossing and the necessary times to ensure clearance of the intersection could require closures for as long as 2 minutes."' c. It does not impede the train. d. Because it is a conventional crossing, it can be part of The City's Quiet Zone program, thereby avoiding some of the noise impacts of train operations, unlike Alternative 6, where "the specific constraints at the Andersen Drive crossing could preclude the implementation of a Quiet Zone at that crossing." (IS, p. 3-61.) 9. The listing of the disadvantages of Alternative 7B on PDF p. 34 of 37 is inaccurate. a. See immediately below for a critique of the Analysis' cost and timeline estimates. b. Because the site proposed for right-of-way acquisition is used only as a holding area for storage containers, with the possibility of a swap for land nearby, the conclusion that acquiring right-of-way would impose significant impacts on local businesses is unsubstantiated and likely incorrect. Cost and Timeline Estimates The cost and timeline estimates for Alternative 7B are highly overblown (Alternatives Analysis, PDF p. 34 of 37), most likely in an effort to justify the retention of Alternative 6 as the preferred alternative. A short retaining wall, a short section of widened city street, a new traffic signal, and an interconnection with a nearby traffic signal cannot possibly cost $5 million. These elements require only straight -ahead engineering. Nothing about them is technically difficult or challenging. A 5 -year project timeline is absurd. Given the limited choices that will be available to The City when the CPUC denies an application based on Alternative 6, Alternative 7B is unlikely to be controversial. In TRANSDEF's initial submission of the concept that led to Alternative 7, we wrote: This one [alternative] requires acquisition of a part of the storage facility rather than the auto repair place, although the latter would work as well. The real estate value may be less for this piece due to the low income generation of a storage ' See p. S-3, the 2014 Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Extension Environmental Assessment ("EA"). Because it was referenced on p. 3-27 of the IS, the EA's contents are appropriately part of this IS. TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 10 use. A land swap might be possible for newly surplus Andersen Dr. ROW (with access from the new NB lane). A land swap would gain the storage property owner significantly more land for storage units, thus dropping the cash cost for the City. (Email to Nader Mansourian, Public Works Director, May 27, 2014; Attachments, p. 28.) It is clear that the cost estimate for right-of-way acquisition did not consider either the current use of the land as a location for storage containers, or the possibility of a land swap (See map with legend "Surplus ROW, Land swap?"; Attachments, p. 29). In addition, the relocation costs for moving containers would be much less than had the proposed right-of-way been occupied by a traditional building. There are no demolition costs. TRANSDEF believes that, had The City been serious about evaluating Alternative 7B, it would have produced documented estimates of cost and timeline. No spreadsheets or calculations exist to substantiate the reasonableness of these estimates. (Letter from Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney, January 20, 2016; Attachments, p. 59'.) In the absence of any supporting factual information, these estimates cannot be considered substantial evidence. The Secondary Impacts section, above, makes it clear that the proposed project shifts capital costs from The City to SMART, placing future capital costs and operating costs on the transit agency. This violates The City's commitment to the CPUC to undertake the costs of making the crossing safe. The City should be liable for all the costs of mitigation. Analvsis Criteria The skewed nature of the analysis criteria used in the Alternatives Analysis resulted in the selection of a preferred alternative that fails to meet the primary project objective: Meet the requirements of the CPUC's 1997 order by designing and constructing an at -grade crossing of Andersen Drive over the SMART ROW to ensure the unimpeded use of the crossing by trains. (IS, p. 2-1.) The analysis criteria consider the project solely according to the interests of The City. SMART's acceptance of the conclusions of such an Altematives Analysis is a glaring example of unhealthy interagency influence. The analysis criteria ignore SMART's costs, the burden placed on SMART dispatchers and the needs of vehicle drivers and train passengers. The criteria for a valid alternatives analysis would include: • rail travel time • rail ridership • GHG emissions reductions (from avoided auto trips) • gate -down time TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 11 • noise (Quiet Zone eligibility) • SMART operational costs • SMART operational burdens • ongoing systems maintenance costs Cost is not an appropriate criterion, other than as a tie-breaker, because cost is not an element of practicability, the CPUC's legal standard for the threshold question of why approval for an at -grade crossing rather than a grade separation should be approved. Schedule is not an appropriate criterion. As long ago as 2010, TRANSDEF attempted to enter into dialogue about the crossing with San Rafael DPW via the City Manager and City Attorney, but received no response, The passage of SMART's Measure Q in 2008 placed The City on notice that Andersen Drive was in jeopardy of being closed at the railroad tracks. Because the City delayed doing anything whatsoever about the safety of the crossing for the twenty years between 1995 and 2014, it -must accept the conse- quences of SMART starting service to Larkspur without there being an approved and operational crossing at Andersen Drive. CONCLUSION Continued dependence on solo driving is leading towards gridlock in Downtown San Rafael. For 2040 PM conditions, EA Table 3.13-13 (p. 3.13-27) shows five intersections at LOS F, two at LOS E and only one at LOS D. The only realistic solution is a major mode shift to transit, which will rbquire a fast, convenient transit network. SMART is intended to be the backbone of that effort. Providing an unimpeded rail crossing at Andersen Drive is important for San Rafael's future mobility. TRANSDEF believes its design. (Alternative 713) is much safer than the City's proposed project, and better for both rail and vehicular operations, as the gate -down time would be the same as other crossings in the City, while trains could.go fu I -speed through the crossing. It is entirely feasible. It should be a no-brainer. TRANSDEF has attempted on multiple occasions to engage the City in joint problem - solving, to no avail. (See Attachments, pp. 15, 16, 17, 25, 28, and 37.) By the time we were finally invited in to speak, DPW had already selected Alternative 6. That forces the question: Why has San Rafael been so stubborn in refusing to change the alignment of Andersen Drive to accommodate the rebirth of rail? The rail has been at that location for a hundred years. The fact that TRANSDEF is now challenging the proposed project cannot come as a surprise. In the above-cited communications, TRANSDEF made it clear that it objected to what has now become The City's proposed project. For example. Our understanding is that there is nothing the City can do to change these Conclusions of Law. Because of that, any TRANSDEF 1/25/16 Page 12 Application by San Rafael seeking permission to maintain the current intersection geometry after the resumption of rail service is bound to fail. This is a brick wall. TRANSDEF would vigorously oppose such an application. (Letter to Ken Nordhoff, City Manager, February 12, 2010; Attachments, p. 24.) The Andersen Drive crossing quandary is a City -created problem --one that the City has steadfastly refused to resolve. TRANSDEF thinks that, after twenty years of pretending it had no railroad problem, the time has finally come for the City to deal with this reality. Back in 1997, The City put itself on the hook for whatever costs were not borne by other agencies. The City's current concerns about costs are actually a criticism of the project team twenty years ago. By not providing for all the costs of building Andersen Drive back then, they stuck the current City Council with the responsibility of cleaning up after them. It is high irony that the CPUC's Administrative Law Judge for the Andersen Drive case is now a member of the City Council, tasked with that responsibility. TRANSDEF asserts that the Initial Study has failed to justify a Mitigated Negative Declaration because 1). the Initial Study is incomplete and because 2). the record of the CPUC's Andersen Drive proceeding supported a Commission Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law that the geometry of the existing crossing is inherently unsafe; 3). TRANSDEF demonstrated that the 15 mph speed restriction is a significant impact on rail service, as it is so much slower than what was planned, and 4). the speed restriction conflicts with the CPUC's granting of priority to rail transit to use the crossing. TRANSDEF has presented substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of several significant impacts, so that an EIR is required. In this case, we believe an EIR focused on safety and transportation impacts to be the proper level of environmental review. TRANSDEF is committed to successful implementation of SMART and the land use planning that relies on SMART. We continue to be willing to work with The City to make a rail crossing at Andersen Drive fit into San Rafael. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the IS/MND, and hope the matter can be resolved for the benefit of both San Rafael and rail transit. Sincerely, /s/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN David Schonbrunn, President David@Schonbrunn.org CC: Mayor Phillips Supervisor Kinsey, Marin County Farhad Mansourian, SMART TRANSDEF 1125/16 Page 13 Attachments, (bookmarked on the volume by date CPUC Decision 97-07-055 TRANSDEF and TRANSDEF predecessor correspondence with the City: Letter to Andy Preston, Public Works Dep't., undated (prior to 1995 CPUC Application) TRANSDEF correspondence with the City: Letter to Ken Nordhoff, City Manager, February 12, 2010 Letter from Rob Epstein, City Attorney, March 9, 2010 Email to Rob Epstein, City Attorney, March 17, 2010 Email to Nader Mansourian, Public Works Director, May 3, 2014 Email to Nader Mansourian, Public Works Director, May 27, 2014 Email from Nader Mansourian, Public Works Director, May 29, 2014 Letter to Nancy Mackie, City Manager, August 10, 2014 Letter from Lisa Goldfien, Assistant City Attorney, August 21, 2014 Letter to Jim Schutz, City Manager, July 21, 2015 Includes TRANSDEF's SMART Larkspur Extension EA Comments, Jan. 22 & 30, 2015 Letter to Rob Epstein, City Attorney, January 8, 2016 Letter from Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney, January 15, 2016 Letter to Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney, January 18, 2016 Letter from Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney, January 20, 2016 Letter from Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney, January 25, 2016 Emails from 2014 produced for a Public Records Act request: (note separate bookmark PRA Results grouping) Aaron Parkes to Leslie Blomquist, June 13, 2014 Farhad Mansourian to Nader Mansourian, March 7, 2014 Farhad Mansourian to Daren Gilbert, March 18, 2014 SMART Corridor Schematics; Track, Right -of -Way, Bike/Pedestrian Path; MP 14.7 to MP 26.5; June 2006. TRANSDEF's Comments on the IS/MND for the proposed Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Attachments 1/25/2016 1 . AL]/NfAB/rmn Malled JUL-11-6. M7 Decision 97-07-055 July 16,1997 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Amended Applicatton by the City bf Sfin Rafael to construct brie grade-crci!Wng of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway Arid Transportation District ritalo lige (formerly 1\1orthivestern Pacific Railroad Company) at Andersen Drive in said City of San Rafael, State of California. kIN b� Appltcatlon 95 08-020 (Filed August 7,105; 'amended September 25, 1996) h1cCutchen, Doyle, Brotvii & E iersert; by Term 1. Houlihan, Attorney at Law, for the City of San Rafael, applicant. Dai -id Schonbrulin and'Harutah Creighton, for Marin Advocates for Transit, ltlteron' or, ]amesT duinri, Attorney At TANv, and Alex E. Lu for the Rail Eriginee'rhig Safety Branch. • FINAL OPINION Backgfbund On August 7,1995, the City of San Rafael (The City) filed Application 95-05-020 seeking Commission authorization to �or%struct an at -grade crossing at the bitersection of The City's eatenstort of Andersen Drive and the tracks of the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad, now owned by.the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. Following the application, the Commission Staff met xvith representatives of The City and discussed safety issues primarily due to the angle at which the sireet and the tracks would meet. This 11 degree angle presented Visibility and other concerns for an at -grade crossing of trains and automobiles. To address these issues, The City filed an amended applicatidn on September 25,1%6, which proposed a "blockaded crossing:' The City reasoned that, because no trains had used the tracks for over a decade and ilo such use is contemplated in the foreseeable future, the tracks could be conveniently -1- AttacoTegts,. p:1: . A.95-03-020 ALJ/\1AB/rmn 'k blocktA and paved o1 er with a thin layer of asphalt to allow unfettered automobile 40 traffic. Shotild rail traffic resume at some point in the future, The City promised to either secure the funds for a grade separation or close the Andersen Drive extension. On October 2S, 1996, the Marin Advocates for Transit filed a proWst to the application which alleged that the proposed blockaded crossing would prevent use of the rail line for contemplated passenger and freight service. A prehearing conference, discovery, and prefiled written testimony led up to formal evidentiary hearings ort April 29-30 and May 1-x,107. A public participation hearing was also held on ]March M, 1997. SuMmary of Evidertt:e Presented A. The City The City presented three witnesses. Michael Christensen, a consulting railroad engineer, examined the proposed at -grade dossing and seven altenratives. These alternatives involved reconfiguring Andersen Drive to allow for a safer, i.e. ctoser to 90 degree angle, intersection artd constructing a grade separation. The least expensive of these alteniatives would cost $7 ftW116n, and range up to $30 million. Mr. Christensen concluded that The City's proposed crossing is the only practical alternative because the other alternatives are costly, disrupt local businesses, infringe on wetlands, cause visual disneptions, and lead to significant safety concerns. Aridrenv Preston, The City's Senior Civil Engineer, provided a description of the proposed crossing and the public benefits from the extension of Andersen Drive. Ile, too, concluded that the proposed crossing is the only presently practicable alternative. Rod Gould, City Manager, described The City's coinnutMent to using the railroad right-of-way for mass transit purposes. He noted that the existing City generat plan calls for such a itse, and that San Rafael would benefit frons rail transit. However, Mr. Gould Continued, there is uncertainty over whether rail service of any kind will be resumed, and, if so; when, as nO rail transit plan has yet been approved or funded. Mr- Gould also provided copies of letters front the Iviaybr of The City of Larkspur401 -2- Attachments, p2 A.95-03-020 AL)/NIAB/rmn : indicating The City's reluctance to hast significant land development in conjunction with the resumption of rail service. Mr. Gould also testiffed tb the sources of funding that The City would explore to finance a grade separalion, sholild rail service resume in the future. Mr. Gould stated that The City wid the Transit District have agreed to Cooperate in attempting to secure state and federal funding for the grade separation. If such funding is not available, The City can rely on bonds issued by the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency:' To effectuate this, the parties agreed (withbut Rualificatiob) to modify the existing Fiscal Agreement aritoiig The City, the Redevelopment Agency, the County of Marin, and three school districts (the San Rafael Elementary School District, the gan Rafael High School District, and the College of Marin) regarding the allocution of tax increment revenue should fundLng be required to firiarice the grade separation. Mr. Gould testified that tax inCrertherit consists of the property taxes generated by increases iti the assessed value of property in a redevetgftkent area following adoption of a redevelolinient plan for that project area. The City and County's pledge of their shares of the tax increment reventies from property taxes to which they are entitled under the Fiscal Agreement wilt result in a mWnium of approximately $17 millieli annually that Could be pledged to repay the proposed debt, allowing Mr. Gould to conclude that the RedeveIopnient Agency w6uld have ample resources to service the proposed debt. lair. Goold also stated that the Agreement is binding on The City, the Redevelopment Agency, and the County now, and on future governing boards of those three entities. B. the Coninvssion Rail Safety and Carriers Division The Commission staff presented Donald D. Edmisten, Associate Transportation Operations Super%isor, whb testified regarding the actual state of the tracks. Beginning at the south terminus, in Larkspur, the track is missing in places and is in generatly boor Condition up to the Cal Park Hill Tunnel, which is caved in at the south end due to a fire in 1990. From the north end of the tunnel to Bellum Boulevard, near the Andersen Drive extension, the track is in place but requires rehabilitation. From San Rafael north to Ignacio, the track is serviceable but requires maintenance. -3- Attachments, p.3 A.95-.03-020 r1i.)AMB/min t' Mr. Edmisten also- testified to the ownership chain of the San Rafael Branch and other rail right-of-way purchases inade by public bodies. Avlin Odviar, Assistant Transportation Engineer, testified regarding staff's evaluation of The City's application acid the proposed design as it related to public safety, and provides comments ori alternative designs presented by The City's consultant. Mr. Odviar stated that the crossing at hand should be classified as "skae%ved crossing with nearby roadway interaction." These two hazards amplify each other. Crossings in general sliould be designed to meet at a right angle and without ricarby intersections or driveways_ This enhances the ititomobile driver's view of A crossing, tracks and trains, and eliminates the potential for conflicting vehicular moveme' nils at the crossroad or driveway. All of Mr. Odviar's safety analysis presumed regular train traffic through the intersection. The Rail Safety and Carriers Division's final witness was Alegi E. Lutkits, Chief of the Rail Engineering Safety Branch. Mr. Lutkus etplahn td staff's concerns with the proposed crossing. He stated that, due to the substantial expendihrre of public funds to acquire the right-of-way, rail service will coexist with motor vehicle traffic at the Andersen Drive intersection sornetinie in the future. For this reason, he supports requiring The City to piovide a bond or funding mechanism that guarantees sufficient fluids to construct A grade separation when rail service is re-established. C. The Marui Advocates for Transit (MAT) The Transit Advocates presented Four witnesses. Michael Strider, railroad engineer, testified to the cost of iniprovift the existing track sufficiently to allow for demonstration (rains to coirle to Sar► Rafael, potential customers for freight service, the standard of rails necessary for service, and the need for a grade separation after rail service begins. Mr. Strider also commented oil Mr. Christensen's testimony. Another Transit Advocates witness, Johri Holtzclaw, recommended preserving the rail line rather than blockading it. Transit Advocates also presented. Arthur Lloyd to testify on whether two- lane streets commonly have grade separations, and the potential t=or tourist trains in San Rafael. 4_ Attachments, p:4 A.95 08-020 Al J/hIAB/rmn 0 Transit Advocates' final witness was John D. Iiugunin, engineer, who testified that a safe but reconfigured at -grade crossing could be constnicted at Andersen Drive which could accommodate passenger and freight service as well as arttomohile traffic. Mr.1 htguniit's recommended reconfiguration of the intersection would require additional right-of-way and reduced Automobile speeds. In its opening brief, hfAT contended that the application must be denied because it seeks to block the rail line. MAT stated that from its origins as the California Railroad Commission, the PUC has been actively involved in the preservation and maintenance of CalifonUa's railroads. The Commission has historically been actively involved in the fate of the Noithwestern Pacific Railroad: protecting Oassengers feoM excessive fares, protecting passengers front service discontinuance, protecting shipper from the $1000 per car surcharge and protecting shippers from distontintiance of freight service. A1AT concluded that these activities reflect a clear understanding by the Cont mission of the value of a railroad to the economy of a region and the entire state. iMAT further sta ted that progress is being made towards resurningsemice on the San Rafael Branch. The Sonoma/Marin Multiniodel Transportation and Land Use Study, which will be c6mpleted in June 1997, recommends the implementation of a light rail system front llealdsburg to Larkspur. MAT noted that political discussions are underway for the development of sales tax measures in 1998 in both Marin and Sonoma Couittles and that a demonstration train idea in htariti Colony evoked Nvide5pread interest. NIATsuggested that there are potential near-term uses of the San Rafael Branch that would not require the major expenditures of a full rehabilitation of the track. MAT advised the Commission to determintwhether the application serves the PUblit eonVenierice and necessity. MAT proposed that the Coniniission "do no harm" and leave the right-of-way functional, so that it could; be used soon. In MAT's view, the Comniission must weigh the benefit a functioning rail litre cart bring to all entire region against the benefit that closing it would bring to the residents of one toNsm. MAT also urged the Commission Piot to reward The City for its p66r handling of this project. The City's history with this project, according to MAT, has -5- Attachments, p.5 A.95 -OS -020 AI.JAIABAnin ` been a striking case of grievous errors in the handling of this project have inevitably resulted in delays and additional costs. MAT asked the Commission to deny the application because The City's promise to construct a grade separation does not guarantee a safe future crossing. The City has not demonstrated the ability to finance a grade separation, which has been estimated to cost between $5 milli6n and $U million. h1AT state) that City Manager Gould admitted that the Redevelopment Agency died not now have the bonding capacity to issue "M million in debt without a further amendment to the fiscal agreement. Such agreement would require the cooperation of three school districts and the County of Marin. MAT also stated that She City's promise is predicated on the County then contributing its share of additional tax increment to a grade separation project. t4AT contended, however, that there is no direct evidence in the record that any Marini County Supervisor knows anything about the contents of [lie funding agnement with The City or Tixe City's claim that the County is contractually bound to ACN provide the funding. D. The Public Participati6ri Hearing The hearing was attended by approxiiniately 70 members of the community who expressed a wide range of views on the proposed cr6ssirig. Some commenters urged the Commission to reject The City's application and require that the intersection be redesigned t6 allow f6r either a safe at -grade crossing or a grade separation. These commenters believed that a resumption of fail service was eery likely and that the blockaded crossing proposed by The City would constitute an additional impediriuent. Other members of the community spoke of the benefits from the Andersen Drive extension. A business leader noted that the existing primary streets are overcroNvded, which results iri frustrated drivers taking aggressive and perhaps dangerous actions. A resident of a street which would possibly see a decrease in traffic spoke of the difficulty in seeing children due to the angle of the sun as they walk to the neighborhood school along what is now a busy street. A corniiniinity teadei addressed • the connection that the Andersen Drive extension will create between downtown, San Attachments, p.6 , A.95-03.020 ALJPMA13/rmn * Rafael and the Canal neighborhoods, a connection that would serve as "a conduit of human, cultural, social, and economic capital of these neighborhoods and businesses." The balance the Commission needs to strike, however, was best illustrated bya, representative of a large Marin business'which is currently proposing to build its new headquarters in San Rafael at the northem end of the Andersen Drive extension. This representative stated that its employees, and the employees of other downtown businesses, need theshort-tem relief to immediate trafficcongestiorl that the Andersen Drive extension represents. Thesesame employe s, however, desire the long-term commute relief that rail service would provide. The representative concluded that these goals are not Awtually exclusive; one means of accomplishing both is to proceed with the Andersen Dive extension and to have rail service, when available, at the current transit cen tet in San Rafael. The commenters suggestions as to the tinting of the resumption of rail service reflected a wide range of views. Some commenters suggested that it was imminent; others fell that it would not occur in their lifetimes; the only speaker who hazarded a guess picked 30 years. Dlsousslon For analytical purposes, we will evaluate this application first, under current circumstances, and second, when and if train service resumes. Current Circumstances The current factual circumstances are straightforward_ no trains have run on the tracks which intersect Andersen Drive for over a decade. just south of the proposed intersection is a tunnel which is caved in due to fire. Beyond that is a portion of right-of-way where the tracks have been removed. This track then terminates in a city which has indicated its reluctance to host significant train traffic. These facts rather dramatically illustrate that it is virtually certain that the tracks will remain unused by trains for the immediate future. Under these circumstances, %ye agree with The City that expending millions of dollars of public -7- Attachments, p.7 A.95-08-020 ALIAM/rntn funds to construct a grade separation or realign the intersection would be irresponsible. Similarly, the future potential for rail service --hould not outii eigh the current need for enhanced street connections in San Rafael. The Commission's rail safety expert agreed, and ho other party's expert disputed, that the current configuration of the proposed intersection, the "blockaded I ntersection; is safe so lone as no regular train service exists. For this reason, we will approve The City`s proposed ittitersection. This authorization, however, trill expire upon the re,4untption of regular rail service. Resumption of Ralf Service Much of the testiniony and hearings in this proceeding focused on disputes over tyhether or when rail service would resurtle through hlarin County over the tracks which intersect Andersen Drive. 6Ve are generally supp6rdve of mass transit and seek to balance competing interests when exeicishig our jurisdiction under Public Utilities (PU) Code § 1201. However, due to substantial uncertainty regarding the timing of the resumption of the rail service, the type of service which may be provided, and whether the service route will extend south through the Andersen Drive extension or terminate uiorth of it, we are unable to determine how best to balance the public's interest in the intersection. We inutst altoty the future to unfold before we resolve this dispute. In the meantime, however, we wish to preserve options for the future, while meeting current needs. One means of accomplishinig our objective, which we adopt herein, is to authorize The City to construct its proposed blockaded crossing, but to leave it in place only as long as no regular train service` is scheduled. Upon the scheduling of such service, The City's authorization will expire. This is absolutely necessary because the ` We define regular train service as the scheduled running of trains, including pa�enger and freight, through the iintersection with Andersen Drive on at least a %cekly basis for an indefinite period of. time. Train service for a lirMted period of time and demonstration trains would not ineet this definid6ribid will be subject to the directives set out irk this decision. -8- Attachments, p.8 A.95-08-020 Ai.J/MA13/rmn * tak intersection, as presently configured, is not safe for use by both trains and 1tutoruobilcs. We will not altow an unsafe crossing to be used. IF The City wishes to continue to cross this riglit-of-way after regular rail setvice is scheduled, it will need to apply to the Commission and demonstrate that it can address our safety requirements in a way that allows both trains and autoinobiles to use the intersection. At that time, the Commission will be able toassecs the facts and determine the best rrieans of balancing the competing interests of rail users and Motor vehicles while providing for the safety of both. By limiting the authorization in such a wi jy, the Commission also ensuros. that The City will be required to submit another application to the Corinmission for continued use of the intersection. Similarly, The City will beat the risk that the Andersen Drive intersection may at some point in the future require substantial investment to retain its fuuiWon as an intersection. Thus the risk that `the City`s proposed means of financing a grade separation will not prove reliable will fall entirely on The City. DenrwWration Trains One likely precursor to regular train service wilt be the ntnntng of occasional trains for derlion'stration purposes. The blockaded intersection approved above would preclude such trains. The City has conimitted in its testimony to make temporaryarrangements to allow such trains to run. The City's cooperation in the ninnLng of denionstratiort trains shall be a further requirement of its authorization to conslnrct the blockaded intersection. Deulonstration trains will, by their very nature, be unusual activities for (lie user} of the streets, bike lanes, and sidewalks- All parties involved in such an effort will be expected to maintain the highest standards of safety. The Rail Safety and Carriers Division is directed to carefully supervise The City's plans for accomnnodating these trains. Environfnenfrrl Reviery The Comrrltssiori is a responsible agency for this project tinder California Environmental Ouaiity Act (CEQA) incl has reviewed and coruidered'the lead agency's Attachments, p.9 A.95-09-020 ALJ/\W/rmn * Final EnviroAniental Impact Report (FEIR). (The City is the lead agency.) The application meets the filing requirements of the Commission's Rules of Prattler and Procedure, including Rule 3S, which relates to the construction of a public road across a railroad track. Siffing Track and Snitch The City removed the siding track and switch would had been located in the center of what Will be the intersection- The City stated that they intend to replace the siding track and locate the switch north of the intersection_ Commission staff supports this replacement MAT requests that the Comrnissl6h order The City to replace the switch south of the intersection. Such placement, however, w6uld have two sets of tracks through the intersection. For this reason, ive trill not order The City to deviate front their planning restoration. Findings of FAct 1. Rail sewice over the tracks Which the proposed Andersen Drive extension will intersect has been suspended for ovet a decade. 2. The Cal Park tunnel is south of the proposed intersection. It is obstructed at the south end due to a care -in which followed a fire. 3. South of the Cal Park turinel a liortidn of the tracks has been removed. 4. The City of Larkspur has indicated its reluctance to host significant land development in conJuficti6A with the resttniption of rail service. S. The tracks with tybich Andersen Drive is proposed to intersect will remain unused for the irnniediate future. 6. The future potential for rail service does not outweigh the curient need for enhanced street connections in San Rafael. 7. The configuration of the proposed intersection, the "blockaded intersection," is safe so long as no regular train service eAsts. S. The proposed configuri ation of the iritersectioh is not safe for use by both trains and Automobiles. -10- Attachments, p.10 IC i 4. I A.95 -0S-020 ALJ/N1AB/rmn '"'°-,'c 9. It is unkno,%YA «when or if rail service through San Rafael might resume. Similarly, it is unknown what type of service may be provided and whether the service route A vill extend south through the Aildersen Drive extension or terrrlinate north of it_ 10. The City testified that it is committed to funding a grade separation at Andersen Drive, should the Commission determine a grade separation is required.. 11. The City+ testified that it will rzly on tAk Increment financing through the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency should no other source of funds be available. I2. The Rail Safety And Carriers Division should carefully supervise The City's plans for accommodating derrlonstration tracts. 13. Locating the switch south of the proposed intersection will result in h4vo sets of tracks over the street. Concluslons of LAW A. The Conimission seeks to balance competing interests when exercising its jurisdiclion,irnder PU Code§1201. i2. The current reeord iii this proceeding does not support the Coniniission deterniining if or in What manner the curientlyv proposed intersection should be modified to.Accrimmodate rail traffic. 3. The public interest requires that the Commission retain as nia6y optiorisas possible for the future configuration of the proposed intersection, consistent with meeting current needs. 4. The City should be authorized to construct the proposed blockaded crossing, but to leave it in place only as long'as no regular train service is scheduled over the affected tracks_ 5. The Conimissiori will riot allow both trains and aiutoniobiles to use this intersection as currently configured. 6. Absent further order of the Commission, rail service will have priority right to use the intersection. 7. Grade separation at the proposed Andersen Drive intersection would be inipractie-able so long as iro regular train service is scheduled over the affected tracks. Attachments, p.11 A.95 -OS -020 ALJ M B/ruin * S_ The Commission is a responsible agency for this project tinder CEQA and has reviewed mid considered the lead agency's FEIR. (The City Is the lead agency.) 9. The application meets the filing requlrements of the Comrtiicsto�t'c Rule, of Practice and Protedttre, including Rule :�S, which relates to the coAs.truction of it public road across n"railroad track. 10. The City is ori A6Ha that it is responsible for securing continuing authority to use the intersection for automobile traffic, should rail service resume 11. unless another so.tirce of funds is avallable, The Cify will be responsible for funding any needed changes to the intersection. 12. The City will bear the burden of proving that &riy modifications it proposes to accommodate rail services through the inter_section will meet the Commission's Standards for safety. 13. The public interest does not support locating the switch south of the proposed intersection. FINAL ORDER Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The City of Sari RafaLAs (The City) application, as amended, to construct an at - grade intersection with the tracks of the forei?er Northwestefo Pacific Railroad Company, currently owned by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, at Andersen Drive in such a way that the tracks are blocked with temporary structures which prevent any trains from entering the intersection, is granted so long as no regular train service is scheduled over the tracks. 2. This authorization to blockade the tracks shall ekpire upon the scheduling of regulai train service over the tracks which intersect Andersen Drive. Upon seech ekpiration of authority, The City shall take all actions necessary to ensure the unimpeded use of the intersection by the r.til service, absent further order of the Commission. -12- Attachments, p.12, .4 CUY OF Mayor Albert J. Boro Council Members Greg Brockbank Damon Connolly Barbara Heiler Marc Levine OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Eric T. Davis, Deputy City Attorney 11 Lisa A. Goldfien, Deputy City Attorney If March 9, 2010 David Schonbrunrl TRANSDEF PO Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 RE: Andersen Drive Dear Mr. Schonbrunn: This will confirm our one-hour meeting yesterday morning attended by you and your associate, Walter Strakosch, and me and my legal assistant, Jessica Durfee. We discussed the facts and background concerning the intersection between the railroad tracks and Andersen Drive. You shared your ideas for a solution to the intersection issue, which included a rerouting of Andersen Drive and/or a rerouting of the traffic from Andersen Drive to nearby streets. Also, in response to my questions, you described the new double gate technology likely to be employed in "Quiet Zones" in San Rafael. Mr. Strakosch volunteered that perhaps such warning devices could provide a less costly solution to the Andersen Drive issue. While you cautioned that an at -grade crossing was viewed as an unacceptable solution at the intersection during the CPUC proceedings in the mid-1990s, you agreed that today, with the available new technologies, perhaps such a solution could be viable. You offered your opinion that San Rafael bears the sole responsibility to pay for any solution to the Andersen Drive issue. I suggested that, in my judgment, I do not agree with your conclusion, and I cited to you the settlement agreement and amendment to settlement agreement among the City, County, Bridge District (and others) that concerns cost-sharing. 1400 Fiflh Avenue (P.O Box 151560) San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (415) 485-3080 r FAX: (41S)495-3109 I EMAIL: city.attomey@cityofsanrafael.org Attachments, p.14 David Schonbrunn March 9, 2010 Page 2 of 2 At your request, we are providing you with copies of those agreements under separate cover. You requested that we provide you with notice of any CPUC application that the City may initiate in the future concerning Andersen Drive, and I agreed that we would endeavor to provide you with such notice. You also requested an opportunity to meet with City staff to discuss your concepts regarding various potential solutidns to the Andersen Drive issue, and I promised to get back to you regarding your reque9t. Very truly yours, Robert F. Epstein RFE/}Id cc: Mr. Ken Nordhoff Mr. Nader Mansourian Attachments, p.15 From- David Schonbrunn <David@Schonbrunn.org> Subject: Confirmation letter Date; March 17, 2010 9:53:31 AM PDT To. "Robert F. Epstein" <repstein@rflawlip.com> Thank you for your letter confirming our discussion on .the Eighth of March. 1 believe your characterization overstated my opinion about the possibility of new technologies obviating a more major change to the intersection. In fact, I remember concluding that part of the conversation by stating that the safety issue arose from the angle of view, which would not be improved by quad gates. Therefore, i didn't think technology was going to result in a solution, despite your hope that it could. A small correction to your last paragraph: It isn't that I specifically wanted to discuss my concepts. I want to discuss the problem with City staff, and attempt to find solutions. --David David Schonbrunn, President Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915-1439 415-331-1982 David @Schonbrunn.ora www.transdef orr Attachments, p.16 Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 May 3, 2014 By E-Maii Nader Mansourian, Director Department of Public Works City of San Rafael 111 Morphew Street, San Rafael 94901 Re: Andersen Drive At -Grade Rail Crossing Dear Mr. Mansourian: Thank you for inviting me to join you and Farhad Mansourian, General Manager of SMART, on April 30 to show us your efforts at resolving the challenging problem of the at -grade rail crossing at Andersen Drive, near West Francisco Boulevard in San Rafael. You presented a series of simulations of the Bypass alternative I provided you (attached) and of the at -grade crossing configuration you designed. You identified serious traffic problems resulting from the Bypass, and looked at several mitigations, including adding more traffic lanes to Auburn where it goes under the railroad tracks, which themselves go underneath the Highway 101 viaduct near the Bellam/Andersen Drive intersection. Your impression, as I understood it, is that the Bypass created too many problems, including a breakdown in access to the southbound Highway 101 on-ramp at West Francisco Blvd, making it undesirable. You then presented an at -grade crossing concept using the existing roadway and track alignments, proposing use of sophisticated preemption circuits to prevent vehicles from being trapped on the tracks before an oncoming train, and requiring SMART trains to reduce speed to 15 mph going through the intersection. I firmly believe this at -grade crossing concept is sub -optimal for the railroad. While the concept might be tolerable for SMART, no one can seriously argue that it would be good for rail operations—no railroad would voluntarily limit itself to 15 mph on a brand-new rail line. The only interest being served here is that of the City of San Rafael. In my opinion, the concept does not adc1quately respect the needs of rail operations. Where We Are I've verified with PUC staff your account of their recent meeting with you. I spoke with Dave Stewart for the purpose of information -gathering (and did not engage in advocacy). He did confirm that your at -grade crossing concept could be a reasonable approach, if several issues (which he didn't identify) were addressed. Attachments, p.17 TRANSDEF 5/3/14 2 After talking with Dave, I believe that neither the City nor SMART comprehends the difficulty of the legal test it must meet to successfully apply for an at -grade crossing. The City would have to complete the environmental review of the proposed project before an Application could be deemed complete. The review would need to consider alternatives, including a 1) grade separation, 2) a realignment of the road to achieve at least a 45° skew, and 3) elimination of the crossing. It would need to find each of them infeasible. The impact on travel times and ridership of lowering the speed through the crossing would have to be evaluated in such a review. The mere fact that a road realignment would require wetlands permits is not in and of itself an adequate legal basis for declaring that kind of alternative to be impracticable. Environmental review would have to be done to support such a conclusion. Given all these issues, there is no way that Farhad's timeline for the TIGER grant can be met. It is clear that the at -grade crossing concept is not the best solution that can be achieved here. TRANSDEF's sense of civic duty and its desire to see SMART achieve its full potential demand we try to do better. TRANSDEF wants the project done right, as does SMART and on a good day, the City. If we put our heads together, we can come up with a much better solution. Here's something on the regulatory front that could make things much quicker and easier. The following CEQA categorical exemptions could substantially reduce the burden of implementing a better solution: 21080.13. This division [i.e., CEQA] shall not apply to any railroad grade separation project which eliminates an existing grade crossing or which reconstructs an existing grade separation. 21080.14. (a) This division does not apply to the closure of a railroad grade crossing by order of the Public Utilities Commission, pursuant to the commission's authority under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1201) of Part 1 of Division 1 of the Public Utilities Code, if the commission finds the crossing to present a threat to public safety. With findings of fact and law already adopted by the Commission, it should be easy for it to issue a closure order based on imminent rail service. TRANSDEF's Unusual Role at the PUC TRANSDEF, the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund is an environmental non-profit advocating the regional planning of transportation, land use and air quality. For the past two decades, we have worked for the restoration of passenger rail service in Marin and Sonoma Counties. We want SMART to be a local exemplar of the integration of land use and transportation, a practice we are trying to bring to the Bay Area region. Because the General Manager of SMART is your brother, his support of your concept places SMART in the unusual position of arguing against its own interest. As long as this railroad has been owned by public agencies, it has been subject to political considerations that have resulted in situations where management was unwilling to act Attachments, p.18 TRANSDEF 5/3/14 3 on behalf of optimal railroad operations. TRANSDEF or its predecessor intervened in several previous PUC proceedings, representing the interests of the railroad when they were different from those articulated by its owners: 1. Marin Advocates for Transit, the predecessor of TRANSDEF, protested the City of San Rafael's 1995 Application 95-08-020 to the PUC, which sought to pave over the NWP tracks where they crossed Andersen Drive, then under construction. The owner of the NWP, the Golden Gate Bridge District, had agreed to give the City what it wanted. We protested that this was contrary to the long-term interest of passenger rail. The Public Utilities Commission agreed with us in its Decision 97-07-055, which ordered: This authorization to blockade the tracks shall expire upon the scheduling of regular train service over the tracks which intersect Andersen Drive. Upon such expiration of authority, the City shall take all actions necessary to ensure the unimpeded use of the intersection by the rail service, absent further order of the Commission. 2. TRANSDEF protested the 2004 Application 04-06-030 of the City of Petaluma to have an at -grade crossing at Caulfield Lane. While SMART supported the Application, TRANSDEF protested that it was contrary to the long-term interest of passenger rail, because of the potential that high traffic volumes would make the crossing unsafe if the City built a bridge over the Petaluma River. The Public Utilities Commission again agreed. Its Decision 13-07-005 later authorized a permanent at -grade crossing that included a condition of approval that was negotiated by TRANSDEF with the City of Petaluma: a new Application would be required if a bridge over the river was ever built. The City cannot be allowed to have its way here in 2014, at the expense of the railroad. As the PUC concluded in 1997, we do not believe the crossing can be operated safely at -grade. The City has refused to accept that fact for the past twenty years. The City acts as if there is a painless outcome to this controversy. We do not believe that to be the case. TRANSDEF placed the City on notice four years ago (see 2010 Letter to City Manager, attached) that it was wasting its money pursuing an at -grade crossing. Although DPW was recently willing to look at a Bypass alternative, the City has never wavered over the last 20 years in its resolve to retain the existing alignment. If the City insists on proceeding in this direction, it will not only run into opposition, it will be held responsible for SMART project delays, because it ignored TRANSDEF's offer back in 2010 to engage with DPW in developing a mutually satisfactory solution. TRANSDEF will do what is needed to make sure the City lives up to its 1997 commit- ments. We will file a Protest if that becomes necessary, but would much rather have an amicable resolution. Proposal At this point in the process, TRANSDEF is unconvinced that the Bypass alternative has been shown to be impracticable. The PUC policy is very clear: an at -grade crossing cannot be approved if a grade separation (or crossing elimination) is practicable. Because a further exploration of the practicability of alternatives will be needed for the Attachments, p.19 TRANSDEF 5/3/14 4 filing of a complete PUC Application, TRANSDEF suggests that the following proposal would benefit all parties: TRANSDEF will refrain from advocacy with public agencies, non -profits and the media if DPW is willing to assign a traffic engineer to work with its representative, David Schonbrunn, and model alternative mitigations with traffic simulation software. If TRANSDEF is convinced that all alternatives are truly impracticable, it will not oppose or advocate against an Application for an at -grade crossing. The proposed agreement would terminate with 1) the withdrawal of DPW's cooperation in the investigation of alternatives; 2) the filing of an Application with the PUC; 3) the identification of an alternatives package that provides a level of service consistent with the City's General Plan. Once you confirm that the proposed alternatives analyses will be needed anyway for the PUC's process, I hope you will take us up on our willingness to collaborate with you in looking for a better solution. I know you've got a lot on your plate, and I certainly don't want to add to the pressures facing you. I would like you to be recognized as having come up with a good solution that made the project better. I request a copy of the minutes of the meeting you had with PUC staff. I look forward to hearing from you, Sincerely, /s/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN David Schonbrunn, President Attachments Bypass Alternative 2010 Letter to City Manager Coes Mayor Gary Phillips Farhad Mansourian, SMART Attachments, p.20 -,A S7 r7l AT, V, t,l Merge area for SB Jr I 'Andersen Dr. & Woodland Ave. T 4, 44 4-A Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 "Solutions Is Our Middle Name" February 12, 2010 Nand Delivery Ken Nordhoff, City Manager City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA 94915 Re: Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Dear Mr. Nordhoff: In a recent discussion with a CPUC Rail Safety engineer, I was disturbed to learn that your DPW is seeking to revive its thoroughly rejected request for an at -grade crossing at Andersen Drive (near the Office Depot). Fifteen years ago, Marin Advocates for Transit accurately foresaw that The City was placing itself in a bind by arrogantly proceeding with the Andersen Drive project under the assumption that commuter rail would never happen. Your current problems with this intersection are the result of DPW's refusal to solve the at -grade crossing problem back then with a changed project design. am writing you to urge you to not throw good money after bad. Years ago, Mayor Boro informed me that the earlier proceedings at the CPUC cost the City a quarter of a million dollars, but failed to produce the desired results. In this fiscal climate, you don't want to repeat that debacle. In a letter to your DPW," Marin Advocates for Transit, our predecessor organization, recommended that the City consider low-cost alternatives to a grade separation. That letter is attached for your convenience. It recognized that there is already a nearby grade separation for those tracks: a rail trestle goes over Auburn Street, where it passes under the freeway to become Bellam Blvd. Andersen Drive could be re-routed onto Woodland and thus entirely eliminate any conflict with rail traffic. We believe that this and other suggestions merit serious consideration by your staff, while an attempt to secure CPUC authority to preserve the current intersection does not. 1 The original was undated, but was written prior to the City's filing its CPUC Application in 1995. Attachments, p.23 TRANSDEF 2/12/10 Page 2 In its Decision 97-07-055, the Public Utilities Commission found that the 11 degree angle between the tracks and Andersen Drive constituted an inherent hazard: "Upon the scheduling of such [passenger rail] service, The City's authorization shall expire. This is absolutely necessary because the intersection, as presently configured, is not safe for use by both trains and automobiles. We will not allow an unsafe crossing to be used." (at 8 - 9, emphasis added.) In that Decision, the Commission adopted the following Conclusions of Law: 5. The Commission will not allow both trains and automobiles to use this intersection as currently configured. 6. Absent further order of the Commission, rail service will have priority right to use the intersection. 11. Unless another source of funds is available, The City will be responsible for funding any needed changes to the intersection. 12. The City will bear the burden of proving that any modifications it proposes to accommodate rail services through the intersection will meet the Commission's standards for safety. (at 11.) Our understanding is that there is nothing the City can do to change these Conclusions of Law. Because of that, any Application by San Rafael seeking permission to maintain the current intersection geometry after the resumption of rail service is bound to fail. This is a brick wall. TRANSDEF would vigorously oppose such an application. Please allow me to remind you that previous City staff insisted on making the City fully responsible for the cost of a future grade separation, and even modified its Redevelopment Agreement to make the necessary financial capacity available, as recorded in the Commission's Findings of Fact for Decision 97-07-055: 10. The City testified that it is committed to funding a grade separation at Anderson (sic) Drive, should the Commission determine a grade separation is required. 11. The City testified that it will rely on tax increment financing through the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency should no other source of funds be available. (at 10.) The City is not going to get out of this situation for free (i.e., with the current intersection geometry). Having thus placed itself firmly on the hook as the financially responsible party, The City has waived all future arguments as to fiscal capacity. Your choices come Attachments, p.24 TRANSDEF 2/12/10 Page 3 down to moving the road, so as to either create an intersection acceptable to the CPUC or eliminate the intersection entirely (as we proposed 15 years ago), or building a grade separation. TRANSDEF suggests that collaboration with us is likely to be more fruitful than staff's current approach to resolving this situation. Since the time of the Andersen Drive matter, TRANSDEF succeeded in limiting the City of Petaluma's proposed Caulfield Lane at -grade crossing to an authority that ends with the announcement of SMART passenger service. (Decision 06-02-036.) Like San Rafael, Petaluma will have to file a new application with the CPUC, either demonstrating that the crossing will be safe, or proposing a grade separation. We stand willing to work with the City and support its Application, as long as it does not result in shifting the cost burden onto SMART, or in creating a safety hazard. If you check with the City of Petaluma, you will find we were able to negotiate a satisfactory agreement that resulted in the CPUC issuing Decision 09-06-007, allowing the industrial spur at Hopper Street to remain open. On the other hand, should the City insist on disregarding the Andersen Drive safety hazard, the consequences. are likely to be as unrewarding and costly as the previous proceeding. I look forward to speaking with you or your designee in reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. Sincerely, /s! DAVID SCHONBRUNN David Schonbrunn, President cc: Mayor Boro Lillian Hames, SMART Deborah Fudge, SMART Chair David Stewart, CPUC Attachment: MAT letter to DPW Attachments. p.25 MARIN ADVOCATES FOR TRANSIT BOX 690, LARKSPUR, CA 94977 PHONE: 415 9250718 Andy Preston Public Works Department City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Anderson Drive Extension ROW Conflict Dear Mr. Preston: January 11, 1996 [file date] Our organization has been concerned about the ongoing conflict between the City's Anderson Drive Extension project and a future transit project on the NWP right-of-way. In particular, we are concerned about anything that could harm the feasibility of a future transit project, either from an engineering or a fiscal standpoint. The Extension, as currently designed, will add a significant cost to a future transit project. After reading the Final EIR, I was struck by the possibility of eliminating this cost through a project redesign. After discussing this idea with Mr. Strom, he suggested that I write you and get your reaction. Several site visits and study of the project maps have convinced me that an alternative routing of the initial segment from Bellam to the area of the proposed grade separation would eliminate the need for that grade separation. if the Extension passed under the mainline at the Woodland trestle, and joined the spur after it veered off the main line, there would be no conflict. I saw several potentials for this route: (1) pave a new road west of the existing track, using the undeveloped area between the road and the track, or (2) convert the section of Woodland between the two Auburn intersections to thru traffic only, with the greatly reduced local Woodland traffic diverted to Auburn. The latter appears preferable, because it concentrates crossings between the local and the thru traffic at the divider west of the trestle. These turning movements might have to be signalized. Either way, this segment would merge into the spur just southeast of Brown Bear Upholstery at 10 Woodland. In thinking this through, I realized that there would be an objection to not connecting to the Southbound 101 ramps. However, there probably isn't much demand to short cut to the on-ramp from the northern terminus, since there is still capacity at the Second Street on-ramp_ From the off -ramp, there would be even less demand, because the traffic could have'taken an earlier off -ramp. - Attachments, p.26 If anything, separating out the freeway traffic from the Anderson Drive Extension traffic would be desirable, eliminating both the cost and delay of a traffic light. While I recognize that this route goes outside the City's corporate limits, I'm sure that the county would be willing to work with you on your project, since it would solve a difficult and potentially expensive problem. Additional right-of-way might need to be acquired to use this route, but I don't believe the cost of the little lots would be significant, especially in comparison to the legal fees that would accrue from vigorous litigation. In addition, I recognize that the trestle under 101 would need to be rebuilt to provide additional roadway width for Woodland. I do not believe that this would add any significant costs to a future transit project, which would rebuild the trestle anyhow. A major question that remains is what this proposal would do to operations at the Bellam/Anderson intersection. Would separating the southbound ramp traffic from the Extension traffic be a plus at this intersection or a minus? It might balance the signal phases. The answer to that question is outside my ability. Mr. Strom thought you might have considered this route at an earlier stage, but wasn't sure if the operations question had killed it. Incidentally, I did run this idea past Art Brook at County DPW, and he thought it sounded feasible. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 415-383-9321. If possible, Marin Advocates for Transit would like to help resolve your conflict with the County. Sincerely, David Schonbrunn cc: Supervisor Roumiguiere Art Brook Attachments, p.27 From: David Schonbrunn <david@schonbrunn.org> Subject: Andersen Drive ��T J Date: May 27, 2014 2:30:17 PM PDT -®: "Nader Mansourian (Nader.Mansourian@cityofsanrafael.org)" <Nader. Mansourian @ cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Gary Phillips <Gary. Phillips@'cityofsanrafael.org> 1 Attachment, 4.2 MB Nader, A friend of mine gave me a design for a grade crossing alternative which has the road meet the tracks at a right angle. I did a site visit yesterday, modified his plan to fit conditions there, and came up with the attached drawing. I hope you find it useful. It is consistent with existing traffic patterns and so, shou d be more straightforward than the bypass design yet safer than the existing a ignment. This one requires acquisition of a part of the storage facility rather than the auto repair place, although the latter would work as well. The real estate value may be less for this piece due to the low income generation of a storage use. A land swap might be possible for newly surplus Andersen Dr. ROW (with access from the neva NB lane). A land swap would gain the storage property owner significantly more land for storage units, thus dropping the cash cost for the City. Please note: To keep it simple, this design does not accommodate NB Woodland traffic- That would be diverted onto Andersen, unless a more complicated engineering solution is implemented. --David David Schonbrunn, President Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915-1439 415-370-7250 cell & office David@Schonbrunn.org www.transdef.org Attachments, p.28 From: "Nader Mansourian" <Nader, Mansourian@ cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: RE: Andersen Drive. Date: May 29, 2014 11:48:50 AM PDT To: "David Schonbrunn" <david@schonbrunn_org> Thank you David. Nader Mansourian Public works Director City of San Rafael 111 Morphew Street San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 485-3355 -----Original Message ----- From: David Schonbrunn (mailto:david@schonbrunn.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:30 PM To: Nader Mansourian Cc: Gary Phillips Subject: Andersen Drive Nader,. A friend of mine gave me a design for a grade crossing alternative Which has the road meet the tracks at a right angle. I did a site visit yesterday, modified his plan to fit conditions there, and came up with the attached drawing. I hope you find it useful. It is consistent with existing traffic patterns and so, should be more straightforward than the bypass design yet safer than the existing alignment. This one requires acquisition of a part of the storage facility rather than the auto repair place, although the latter would work as well. The real estate value may be less for this piece due to the low income generation of a storage use. A land swap might be possible for newly surplus Andersen Dr. ROW (with access from the new NB lane). A land swap would gain the storage property owner significantly more land for storage units, thus dropping the cash cost for the City. Please note: To keep it simple, this design does not accommodate NB Woodland traffic. That would be diverted onto Andersen, unless a more Attachments, p.30 complicated engineering solution is implemented. . 4 David Schonbrunn, President Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915-1439 415-370-7250 cell & office David @Schonbrunn.org http://cp. mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6g Ug6h8SyNt5ddN CZPtPrbVEVos76zB4SO-gem77Cn Prb VEVos76zBASOU PuWab9K6Ev7BtxiHspr05mBcJlSCMzHK-vM04TgkORngr2eKXV_00jg2b5T TCn-LP8VNAQszKLsKCCDvDS3hOMyzORQXBEGTd7b7axVZicHs3jg9J4TvAXTLuZXTKrKrate eM ExXL00jg6Cp80G Byto48JMxM04SVsQsL1816N227NFY3h07hApYSyMrVd3Zl UFN Mrie Attachments, p.31 Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 August 10, 2014 By Email Nancy Markle, City Manager City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Street San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Public Records Act Request Dear Ms. Mackle: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code Sections 6250 et seq., we request that you make available to us, within ten (10) days for our review and copying the public records in the possession of the City of San Rafael pertaining to: The at -grade railroad crossing at Andersen Drive It is our desire to secure these records with as little burden as possible on you and your staff; accordingly, please do not hesitate to contact us if there are alternative ways of securing the requested information in a more streamlined fashion. Definitions Used in this Request With regard to the following requests, these definitions are provided in an effort to specify as clearly as possible the nature of each request: "Record" or "Records' means and includes all "writings" as defined in Section 50 of the California Evidence Code, namely,."handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored." "The Crossing" refers to the crossing of Andersen Drive with the SMART rail tracks in the vicinity of West Francisco Blvd. Records Requested We request that you allow us to inspect and copy the Records specified below. Please treat each of these numbered paragraphs below as a separate request under the Attachments, p.32 California Public Records Act and respond to each separately as to (1) the existence of such Records; (2) whether you intend to make such Records available; (3) whether you claim any exemption or privilege; and (4) when Records are produced or made available, the paragraph to which such Records are intended to respond. This procedure is intended to avoid the waste of sending separate requests as to each of these categories of Records. Unless we hear promptly from you to the contrary, we will assume that sending separate requests will not be necessary. These records requests pertain solely to records from calendar year 2014: 1. Minutes of all City Council agenda items that pertained to the Crossing. 2. All Crossing -related reports received by the City Manager. 3. All correspondence between City staff and staff of the California Public Utilities Commission pertaining to the Crossing, including minutes of all meetings. 4. All correspondence between City staff and staff or consultants of the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) pertaining to the Crossing. 5. All CEQA-related notices pertaining to the Crossing. Conclusion As noted, we have attempted to be as specific as we can in designating public records without having access to the records themselves. If you find any of these requests insufficiently focused or effective, we request that you provide the assistance required by Government Code Section 6253.1, including "assisting the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request." If you believe any portion of the information we have requested is exempt from disclosure by express provision of the law, Government Code Section 6253(a) additionally requires segregation or deletion of that material and the release of the remainder of the information. Please make the information requested available for our review before charging us for copies. Where records are already in electronic form, a PDF compilation file is preferable to a printout. I can drop off a blank DVD if that would be helpful. Thank you in advance for your timely attention to this request. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions at the number above. Sincerely, Isl DAVID SCHONBRUNN David Schonbrunn, President Attachments, p.33 CIT_ Y OF ;_ MAYOR GARY O. PHILLIPS VICE MAYOR DAMON CONNOLLY � • • • • - COUNCILMEM13L'RIV1AR16ETHBUSFIEY Vhdun l'h} -- -- _ COUNCILMEWBU KATE COLIN �COUNCILMEMSER ANDREW CUYUGAN MCCULLOUGH OFFTCL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Lisa A. Goldfien, Assistant City Attorney Eric T. Davis, DepUly City Attorney 11 August 21, 2014 Mr. David Schonbrunn Transpoltatiorr Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 Re: Public Records Request Dear Mr- Schonbru m: Your Public Records request dated August 10, 2014, addressed to City Manager Nancy Mackie and received by her office on August 11, 2014, has been referred to our office for a response. You have asked to inspect and copy certain public records of the City of San Rafael concerning "the at -grade railroad crossing at Andersen Drive" during calendar year 2014. The City's responses to your requests are set forth below. Request No. 1.: Minutes of all City Council agenda items that pertained to the Crossing. Response: The only City Council agenda item relating to the Crossing was item 5(b) on the Council's agenda for August 18, 2014, and there are no approved minutes for that meeting at this time; however, you may view a video of this Council meeting, at l3-L4)://www.citvb# 4fae1.orMneetinP_s/,. Request No, 2: All Crossing -related reports received by the City Manager: Rest3onse,: There are no public records responsive to this request. Re uest No. 3: -All correspondence between City staff and staff of the California Public Utilities Commission pertaining to the Crossing, including minutes of all meetings. Response: There are no public records responsive to this request. Request No. 4: All correspondence between city staff and staff or consultants of the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) pertaining to the Crossing. 1400 Fifth Avenue (P,O. Box 151560) San Rafael, CA 9}915-1560 PHONE- (415) 485-3080 / FAX: (4)5) 485-3109 / EMAIL: city. atlorney a cityofsanrafael;org Attachments, p,34 Mr David Schonbrunu August 21, 2014 Page 2 Response: The City's Department of Public Works staff has public records responsive to this request; however because City staff is still in the process of studying options for the Crossing and has . not yet finalized any analyses, designs, reports or recommendations to the City Manager or the City Council, certain of these records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code sections 6254(a) and/or 6255. Such exempt records are either. "preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra -agency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business," and/or they reflect the deliberative processes of City staff, and it is the City's position that the public interest in withholding such records to promote the thorough and frank consideration of design and policy options clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure within the meaning of those statutes. (See, Times Mirror Co. v-Snperior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325.) The public will have ample opportunity to review and comment on any recommendations, reports or plans concerning the Crossing at such time as they are ready for presentation to the public and the City Council. To the extent the responsive documents are not so privileged, they will be provided to you for inspection on or after September 2, 2014, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in the office of the City Clerk, 1400 Fifth Avenue, Room 209, San Rafael, telephone number (415) 4.85-3066. Request No. 5: All CEQA-related notices pertaining to the Crossing. Response: There are no public records responsive to this request. cc Nancy Maclde, City Manager Nader Mansourian, Public Works Director Esther Beime, City Clerk Leslie Blomquist, Associate Civil Engineer Very truly yours, OA4S�� LISA A. GOLDFIEN Assistant City Attorney Attachments, p.35 Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund -P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 July 21, 2015 By E -Mail Jim Schutz, City Manager City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA 94915 Re: Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Initial Study Dear Mr. Schutz: The Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, TRANSDEF, is a Marin - based environmental organization working to reduce the impacts of transportation on the climate. While our work is primarily at the state and regional levels, we occasionally get involved in local issues. One of those issues is the at -grade railroad crossing at Andersen Drive. Because the City is currently preparing an Initial Study on a proposed project dealing with this crossing, we wanted to formally advise you of the comment set we submitted on SMART's draft Environmental Assessment for its Larkspur Extension. We offered extensive comments on the City's Preferred Alternative, and proposed a 90 degree crossing alternative which the City's previous DPW Director had refused to study. This design resulted from our dissatisfaction with the City's design, which was revealed to us over a year ago in an attempt by DPW and SMART to secure our support. We believe our design is much safer than the City's Preferred Alternative, better for both rail and vehicular operations, and feasible. The gate -down time would be the same as other crossings in the City, and trains could go full -speed through the crossing. We ask you to direct that this design be shown as an alternative in the Initial Study. TRANSDEF believes the Initial Study should take note of the Findings of Fact in the CPUC Decision on the Andersen Drive crossing, which found the geometry of the crossing to be inherently unsafe. We believe this to constitute precisely the kind of substantial evidence needed to support a fair argument that an EIR is required. In this case, we believe an EIR focused on safety and transportation impacts to be the proper level of environmental review. Attachments, p.36 TRANSDEF 7/21/15 Page 2 Finally, we thought you should be aware of the cordial settlement TRANSDEF reached with the City of Petaluma over the at -grade crossing at Caulfield Lane. TRANSDEF had previously won a CPUC Decision requiring Petaluma to submit a new Application when SMART announced the start of passenger service, a situation that closely resembles San Rafael's current situation. The City's concession, which eliminated any traffic being added to the crossing by a new Petaluma River bridge, enabled Petaluma to file an unopposed Application. TRANSDEF sent letters to City Manager Nordhoff, proposing to work with DPW on a solution to the Andersen Drive problem. By the time we were finally invited in, DPW had already decided what it wanted to do. We think that, after twenty years of pretending it had no railroad problem, the time has finally come for the City to deal with that reality. We renew our offer to collaborate on a solution. Sincerely, /s/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN David Schonbrunn, President David@Schonbrunn.org Under separate cover: TRANSDEF SMART EA Comments CC: Kevin McGowan Paul Jensen Attachments, p.37 Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 January 30, 2015 By E -Mail Hamid Shamsapour, P.E. Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) District 5401 Old Redwood Highway, Suite 200 Petaluma, CA 94954 Re: Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Extension Environmental Assessment Dear Mr. Shamsapour: Following the publication of the final version of the City of San Rafael's Andersen Drive Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service (the AA) and the extension of the formal comment period, the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) finds it needs to offer this supplement to its comments on the Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Extension Environmental Assessment (the EA): Correction On page 2, our 1/22/15 comment letter mistakenly identified the alternative proposed by Marin Advocates for Transit prior to the construction of the Andersen Drive extension (sometime before 1996) as equivalent to the one studied as Alternative 6 in the 2014 City of San Rafael Andersen Drive Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service. It had been equivalent to Alternative 5. A corrected version of the entire comment packet is attached. San Rafael's Alternative Analvsis The new Executive Summary explicitly identified the five evaluation categories used in the AA: 1. Traffic Impacts 2. Cost 3. Feasibility 4. Safety 5. Schedule (AA, p. 2) Please note that none of these criteria pertain to the interests of SMART and all of them pertain to the direct interests of the City of San Rafael (the City). Attachments, p.38 TRANSDEF 1/30/15 2 SMART's Alternative Analvsis There is no evidence in Section 2.0 of the EA, Alternatives, that SMART conducted its own alternatives analysis. On the contrary, the text indicates that SMART uncritically accepted the preferred alternative that was the conclusion of the City's alternatives analysis. It did not exercise independent judgment or evaluate alternatives in keeping with fts own operational requirements, notwithstanding the EA's claim that: The City and the County, with SMART's assistance, have been working to finalize a design for the crossing that would be acceptable to the CPUC while meeting SMART's operational requirements. (EA, p. 2-25, emphasis added.) The EA provides no analysis of the following secondary impacts of a lowered speed through the crossing: 1. on travel time, 2. on ridership, 3. on overall GHG emissions reductions (from avoided auto trips), or 4. on operational costs. These should have been SMART's alternatives analysis criteria. In accepting Alternative 6, San Rafael's preferred alternative, SMART deferred to the wishes of the City and failed to exercise independent judgment consistent with the operational needs of the agency. TRANSDEF believes that SMART will be unable to identify any railroad that willingly accepted operational limitations as severe as those of Alternative 6. If SMART were to protest an Application by the City of San Rafael to implement Alternative 6, CPUC precedent strongly suggests to us that the Commission would deny it. Because of the priority within the crossing given by the CPUC to SMART, the City's criteria of cost, feasibility and schedule were irrelevant considerations for SMART. Andersen Drive would have to be barricaded on either side of the tracks if the City fails to construct an approved crossing by the time SMART is ready to commence scheduled service. It should not have been a consideration for SMART that Andersen Drive would no longer be able to serve as a through street. As recently as 2010, TRANSDEF attempted to enter into dialogue with San Rafael DPW via the City Manager and City Attorney, but received no response. Because the City delayed fixing the safety of the crossing for twenty years, any schedule issue must remain the City's problem. The City squarely placed upon itself the responsibility to fix the safety of the crossing. SMART abdicated its responsibility to its taxpayers by allowing the City to shirk its legal obligation to make SMART whole. SMART accepted an alternative that harmed its own interests. Attachments, p.39 TRANSDEF 1/30/15 3 SMART needs to perform its own alternative analysis, using relevant criteria as discussed above. The EA is legally inadequate without one. TRANSDEF appreciates this opportunity to supplement and correct its comments on the EA. Sincerely, /s/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN David Schonbrunn, President David@Schonbrunn.org Attachment Corrected version of 1/22/15 comment letter CC: Gary Phillips, Mayor of San Rafael Nader Mansourian, San Rafael DPW Farhad Mansourian, SMART Daren Gilbert, CPUC Attachments, p.40 Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 January 22, 2015 By E -Mail Hamid Shamsapour, P.E. Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) District 5401 Old Redwood Highway, Suite 200 Petaluma, CA 94954 Re: Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Extension Environmental Assessment Dear Mr. Shamsapour: The Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) is an environmental non-profit promoting the regional planning of transportation, land use and air quality. Starting from before the founding of TRANSDEF, the undersigned has advocated for the restoration of rail passenger service on the SMART corridor for the past 25 years. In a case at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that started in 1995, 1 successfully litigated with the City of San Rafael (the City) over the at -grade crossing at Andersen Drive. Marin Advocates for Transit, the group I co -led and represented, received a CPUC Decision that terminates the City's right to have Andersen Drive continue crossing the SMART tracks once SMART resumes passenger rail service, unless the City obtains CPUC approval for a crossing that cures its inherent safety hazard. The Decision clearly places the burden on the City to resolve the safety issue. With that long background in issues integral to the Proposed Action, TRANSDEF is pleased to offer its comments on the Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Extension Environmental Assessment (the EA): Future Traffic Conditions Table 3.13-13 demonstrates that continued dependence on solo driving will lead to gridlock in Downtown San Rafael. Therefore, a fast, convenient transit network is needed to support a major mode shift to transit. SMART is planned as the backbone of that effort. TRANSDEF believes the ridership projections for the Proposed Action are exceedingly conservative The ridership model was known to not adequately capture the dynamics Attachments, p.41 TRANSDEF 1/22/15 2 of the rail -ferry interface. It also failed to consider the potential for tourism. Expert evidence submitted to the CPUC in the A.95-08-020 Application proceeding established that the SMART line had the potential to become the most popular tourist railroad in the United States. (The Declaration of Arthur Lloyd, incorporated herein by reference.) Please label the units in the Forecasted Transit Ridership in Table 3.13-18. Proiect Purpose and Need TRANSDEF supports the Proposed Action (although not the alternative selected for the crossing at Andersen Drive). Nonetheless, the Purpose and Need statement needs to be accurate. It is not correct to state that "The proposed rail termini [sic] in Larkspur lies adjacent to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal..." (EA, p. 1-2.) The Ferry Terminal is 0.6 miles away. This is a significant walk, which will likely result in less than optimum ridership. The Proposed Action needs to be considered to be a Starter system --an affordable first phase that later will be extended to be closer to the Ferry Terminal. Because of the possibility that Marin County could seek the relocation of the Ferry Terminal to a new deep water landing on the San Quentin peninsula as part of a larger land use program, it is reasonable to not invest heavily in better access to the current ferry landing at this time. History of the Andersen Drive Crossing Andersen Drive is a former railroad ROW that went to a ferry landing at San Quentin. It was purchased by the City for a future road. I contacted the City in 1996, prior to the road construction, to urge the DPW Director to resolve the crossing issue. (I presented the same proposal back then as was studied as Alternative 5 in the 2014 City of San Rafael Andersen Drive Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service.) The City secured permission from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District, the owner of the rail ROW back then, to pave over the tracks. Marin Advocates for Transit, represented by the undersigned, filed a Protest to the City's Application to the CPUC for an At -Grade Crossing involving the paving -over of the crossing. The City's position was that rail would never return to San Rafael, and therefore, did not need to be considered. The CPUC disagreed, and ordered the preservation of the absolute priority of rail at the Andersen Drive crossing: "This authorization to blockade the tracks shall expire upon the scheduling of regular train service over the tracks which intersect Andersen Drive. The City shall take all actions necessary to ensure the unimpeded use of the intersection by the rail service, absent further order of the Commission." (D.97-07-055.) It is clear from the citation above and from the entirety of the CPUC Decision that the EA statement below is incorrect. Because the crossing was the subject of a formal Commission proceeding, the following paragraph needs to be rewritten: Attachments, p.42 TRANSDEF 1/22/15 3 Andersen Drive currentiv is not recognized as an existing crossing by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Andersen Drive was constructed over the former Northwestern Pacific (NWP) Railroad tracks in the late 1990s. A grade crossing had not been located there because at the time of NWP operations, Andersen Drive did not cross the rail line. When Andersen Drive was extended over the tracks in the late 1990s, the trackbed and rails were covered with paving material. Because the tracks at that time were inactive, no crossing controls or signage was installed. Despite this lack of official recognition as a crossing., for all practical purposes the area is a crossing and would be recognized officially as such on approval of the CPUC, installation of required crossing controls, and the return of rail service to the area envisioned as part of the Proposed Action. (EA, p..3-12, 3-13, emphasis added.) Hazards: Safetv and Securitv In 1997, the CPUC made the following Finding of Fact in the above-mentioned Decision D.97-07-055: 8. The proposed configuration of the intersection is not safe for use by both trains and automobiles. Decision D.97-07-055 then adopted these Conclusions of Law: 5. The Commission will not allow both trains and automobiles to use this intersection as currently configured. 6. Absent further order of the Commission, rail service will have priority right to use the intersection. 10. The City is on notice that it is responsible for securing continuing authority to use the intersection for automobile traffic, should rail service resume. 12. The City will bear the burden of proving that any modifications it proposes to accommodate rail services through the intersection will meet the Commission's standards for safety. These actions by the Commission establish conclusive proof that the current geometry of the Andersen Drive crossing is unsafe, and that the burden to make it safe is on the City if it desires to continue to operate Andersen Drive for its full length. Attachments, p.43 TRANSDEF 1/22/15 4 Andersen Drive Crossing Alternatives Analvsis The City produced an alternatives analysis that was seemingly intended to address the safety concerns: City of San Rafael Andersen Drive Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service (the AA). It is clear from the document's internal structure that the City's priority was to preserve the current road geometry, presumably to avoid complaints from San Rafael drivers. All the alternatives other than the City's preferred Alternative 6 were found infeasible to implement, having either terrible traffic impacts (Alternative 3), terrible costs (Alternatives 1, 4 and 5), or have safety and environmental problems (Alternative 2). Constraining the alternatives to non-viable ones is the preferred technique when a project sponsor wants to move a preferred alternative forward through an otherwise challenging Alternatives Analysis process. The City did not honor the priority through the crossing that SMART was granted by the CPUC. SMART's needs were clearly not important to the City. A "Lower commuter rail operating speed" (AA, p. 20) did not disqualify Alternative 6. The crossing alternative selected by the City, Alternative 6, could best be described as a kluge. [Wikipedia: A kludge (or kluge) is a workaround or quick -and -dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, difficult to extend, and hard to maintain, yet an effective and quick solution to a problem.] Alternative 6 maintains the current unsafe crossing geometry, and attempts to compensate with two -and -a -half pages of measures (EA, pp. 2-26 - 2-30). Most egregious of all is: As a primary means of addressing the challenge associated with this location, SMART would modify the operation of commuter rail service to permanently restrict the speed of trains through and approaching the grade crossing to 15 miles per hour. (EA, p. 2-29.) It is clear that Alternative 6 fails to perform reasonably: With crossing gate movement delays before and after each crossing, street blockage at crossings would be expected to total approximately 35 seconds. The exception to this would be at Andersen Drive, where the long, acute angle of the crossing and the necessary times to ensure clearance of the intersection could require closures for as long as 2 minutes. To further improve traffic flow, the rail crossing signal system would be integrated with local, centralized traffic signal operations, which would electronically coordinate traffic lights with grade -crossing signals. (EA, p. S-3.) After meetings with SMART and the City DPW staff to discuss the design that became Alternative 6 in the AA, TRANSDEF supplied a further alternative design (see attached and the reply indicating receipt) that proposed a standard 900 crossing of the tracks at West Francisco Boulevard. This alternative did not have the excessive costs of the Attachments, p.44 TRANSDEF 1/22/15 5 other alternatives, was logical for drivers, would not require a slow order through the crossing, and would operate like other crossings, with a 35 second street blockage. As an alternative far more feasible than the ones studied, it should have been considered in a head-to-head comparison with Alternative 6. The City's decision to not study this alternative was unreasonable, making decisions and studies based on the AA flawed, inadequate and incomplete. This EA must be redone, after a full analysis of the 90° crossing alternative has been completed. It is extraordinary that SMART, a half -billion dollar brand-new rail operation, published an EA permanently limiting itself to 15 mph through an at -grade crossing --especially where it had unquestionable legal priority. Clearly, SMART did not vigorously protect its interest: the normally contested process between a railroad and a municipality broke down here. Outside experts must be brought in to review the Alternatives Analysis, because the parties' top-level staffers cannot be presumed to have exercised independent judgment (the San Rafael Director of Public Works and the SMART General Manager are brothers). SMART's interest must be vigorously protected. TRANSDEF will undertake that role, if the SMART Board doesn't. Interestingly, the 1995 CPUC case had a parallel dynamic, in that the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District did not protect its ROW from San Rafael's desire to sever it. At that time, Marin Advocates for Transit stepped into the role of protecting future rail service_ CEQA Review We note parenthetically that the adoption of the EA, with its Alternative 6 would require further CEQA study before the project can be approved. Given the past CPUC findings, analysis would need to determine if the implementation of Alternative 6 would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or create indirect environmental impacts (i.e., reduce the performance and ridership of the proposed rail service). FRA Regulations It is no longer true that "Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations prohibit light rail from operating on the same line as freight without temporal separation, which would render passenger service infeasible." (EA, p. 2-3.) Alternate compliance waivers are now available that do not require temporal separation between light vehicles and FRA - compliant vehicles. Prosect Cost Estimates We note that the $40 million cost estimate appears to be extremely high for a 2 mile extension. For example, it would be highly unusual for a basic station platform to cost $3.25 million. We request publication of the detailed cost analysis that resulted in the Table S-1 summary. West Francisco Boulevard Relocation TRANSDEF strongly supports this element of the Proposed Action. It is engineering at its finest, solving problems at low cost. Attachments, p.45 TRANSDEF 1/22/15 6 Woodland Avenue/Bellam Boulevard Trestle The EA determined that the trestle "lacks sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance to accommodate modern traffic. To remedy this condition, a new trestle of modern design would be required." It says nothing about the structural integrity of this trestle, describing it as being "in fair condition," (EA, p. 2-10) while describing two others as "in poor condition and would require complete replacement" (EA, p. 2-30) and "also would require replacement." (EA, p. 2-31.) The only other information given about the Woodland trestle was that "An impact by a truck or other heavy vehicle could seriously damage the structure, and evidence on the current structure indicates that such impacts have occurred in the past." (EA, p. 2-31, emphasis added.) Note that there is no assertion that impacts over the past 90 years have resulted in actual damage to the structural competence of the trestle. A structural engineer evaluated the trestle at Sir Francis Drake Boulevard on behalf of TRANSDEF after it was hit by a crane, and reported the trestle there was as strong after the impact as it had been when it was built. (Report incorporated by reference.) If the one at Woodland has withstood 90 years of incidents, there is no reason to believe it will not be good for another 50. Although SMART compiled a report on the structural condition of all the bridges on the SMART corridor, none of that analysis is presented here. In the absence of information to the contrary, it must be assumed that the trestle has the same structural strength it had when it supported heavy freight locomotives. Increasing clearances for vehicular traffic does not fall within the responsibilities of the SMART District. If some agency decides that historic clearances no longer suffice for its users, that agency should bear the cost of replacement. Rebuilding the trestle will do nothing for rail passengers, and does not advance SMART's mission. TRANSDEF appreciates this opportunity to comment on the EA. Sincerely, /s/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN David Schonbrunn, President David@Schonbrunn.org Attachments TRANSDEF Alternative Design email DPW Replv email Attachments, p.46 TRANSDEF 1/22/15 CC: Gary Phillips, Mayor of San Rafael Nader Mansourian, San Rafael DPW Farhad Mansourian, SMART Daren Gilbert, CPUC Attachments, p.47 .From: David Schonbrunn <david@schonbrunn.org> � =t Subject: Andersen Drive Daiie: May 27, 2014 2:30:17 PM PDT To: "Nader Mansourian (Nader.Mansourian@cityofsanrafael.org)" <Nader. Mansourian @ cityofsanrafael. org> Cc: Gary Phillips <Gary. Phillips@ cityofsan rafael.org> Dcc: Steve Birdlebough <affirm 9 friends house. org> o- 1 Attachment, 4.2 MB Nader, A friend of mine gave me a design for a grade crossing alternative which has the road meet the tracks at a right angle. I did a site visit yesterday, modified his plan to fit conditions there, and came up with the attached drawing. I hope you find it useful. It is consistent with existing traffic patterns and so, should be more straightforward than the bypass design yet safer than the existing alignment. This one requires acquisition of a part of the storage facility rather than the auto repair place, although the latter would work as well. The real estate value may be less for this piece due to the low income generation of a storage use. A land swap might be possible for newly surplus Andersen Dr. ROW (with access from the new NB lane). A land swap would gain the storage property owner significantly more- land for storage units, thus dropping the cash cost for the City. Please note: To keep it simple, this design does not accommodate NB Woodland traffic. That would be diverted onto Andersen, unless a more complicated engineering solution is. implemented. --David David Schonbrunn, President Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915-1439 415-370-7250 cell & office David@8chonbrunn.org www.transdet.org Attachments, p-48 From: "Nader Mansourian" <Nader. Mansourian@ cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: RE: Andersen Drive Data. May 29, 2014 11:48:50 AM PDT do: "David Schonbrunn" <davidgschonbrunn.org> Thank you David. Nader Mansourian Public works Director City of San Rafael 111 Morphew Street San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 485-3355 -----Original Message ----- From: David Schonbrunn [mailto:david@schonbrunn.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:30 PM To: Nader Mansourian Cc: Gary Phillips Subject: Andersen Drive Nader, A friend of mine gave me a design for a grade crossing alternative which has the road meet the tracks at a right angle. I did a site visit yesterday, modified his plan to fit conditions there, and came up with the attached drawing. I hope you find it useful. It is consistent with existing traffic patterns and so, should be more straightforward than the bypass design yet safer than the existing alignment. This one requires acquisition of a part of the storage facility rather than the auto repair place, although the latter would work as well. The real estate value may be less for this piece due to the, low income generation of a storage use. A land swap might be possible for newly surplus Andersen Dr. ROW (with access from the new NB lane). A land swap would gain the storage property owner significantly more land for storage units, thus dropping the cash cost for the City. Please note: To keep it simple, this design does not accommodate NB Woodland traffic. That would be diverted onto Andersen, unless a more Attachments, p_50 complicated engineering solution is implemented. --David David Schonbrunn, President Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915-1439 415-370-7250 cell & office David@Schonbrunn.org http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6gUg6h8SyNt5ddNCZPtPrbVEVos76zB4SO-gem77CnPrb VEVos76zBASOUPuWab9K6Ev7BtxiHspr05mBcJISCMzHK-vM04TgkORngr2eKXV_00jg2b5T TCn-LP8VNAQszKLsKCCDvDS3hOMyzORQX8EGTd7b7axVZicHs3jg9J4TvAXTLuZXTKrKrate eMExXL00jg6Cp80GByto48JMxM04SVsQsL1816N227NFY3h07hApYSyMrVd3ZIUFNMrie Attachments, p-51 Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-370-7250 January 8, 2016 By Email Rob Epstein, City Attorney City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Street San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Public Records Act Request Dear Mr. Epstein: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code Sections 6250 et seq., we request that you make available to us, within ten (10) days for our review and copying the public records in the possession of the City of San Rafael pertaining to: The spreadsheets and associated records that support the City's 1). Initial Study, 2). Mitigated Negative Declaration, and 3). the associated alternative analyses for the at -grade railroad crossing at Andersen Drive. In our desire to secure these records with as little burden as possible on you and your staff, we attempted to secure this information informally, via a, call to the Public Works Department. While Hunter Young did return my phone call on December 23, and has been cooperative, nothing has been produced to date. The looming comment period deadline and the key employee out on compassionate leave force us to make the request formal. Given our good faith effort to secure this information over the past 15 days, we request the City expedite the processing of this request, to make the information we request available to us in time to provide informed comment on the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We would very much appreciate a return email indicating receipt of this letter, and additional emails when the requested files become available. In the interests of meeting the deadline, we are willing to serially review documents as they are identified. We would prefer to not wait for the completion of the entire request or for the delivery of U.S, mail. Definitions Used in this Request With regard to the following requests, these definitions are provided in an effort to specify as clearly as possible the -nature of each request: ' Attachments, p_52 TRANSDEF 1/8/16 2 "Record" or "Records" means and includes all "writings" as defined in Section 50 of the California Evidence Code, namely, "handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon ahy tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored." "The Crossing" refers to the crossing of Andersen Drive with the SMART rail tracks in the vicinity of West Francisco Blvd. Records Requested We request that you allow us to inspect and copy the Records specified below. Please treat each of these numbered paragraphs below as a separate request under the California Public Records Act and respond to each separately as to (1)'the existence of such Records; (2) whether you intend to make such Records available; (3) whether you claim any exemption or privilege; and (4) when Records are produced or made available, the paragraph to which such Records are intended to respond. This procedure is intended to avoid the waste of sending -separate requests as to each of these categories of Records. Unless we hear promptly from you to the contrary, we will assume that sending separate requests will not be necessary. 1. All calculations, including cost calculations, performed for these Initial Study references: a. City of San Rafael. 2015. Andersen Drive Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service and b. City of San Rafael. October, 2015. Analysis of Alternative 7, Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service 2. All travel demand model inputs and outputs developed for the two alternatives analyses referenced in Request #1. 3. The definition for each variable name or abbreviation reported in Request #2 above. 4. A copy of Initial Study reference AECOM. 2014a. Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit San Rafael — Larkspur Segment Transportation Impact Study. 5. All records indicating the results of engineering prior to San Rafael's introduction of a permanent speed restriction: a. the design speed for SMART trains through the Crossing, b. the San Rafael -Larkspur trip time, and c. the San Rafael -Larkspur ridership. 6. All records referring to, or comprising, CPUC applications in which at -grade crossing safety relies on permanent speed restrictions.. Attachments, p.53 TRANSDEF 1/8/16 3 Conclusion As noted, we have attempted to be as specific as we can in designating public records without having access to the records themselves. If you find any of these requests insufficiently focused or effective, we request that you provide the assistance required by Government Code Section 6253.1, including "assisting the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request." If you believe any portion of the information we have requested is exempt from disclosure by express provision of the law, Government Code Section 6253(a) additionally requires segregation or deletion of that material and the release of the remainder of the information. Please make the information requested available for our review before charging us for copies. Where records are already in electronic form, transmission by email is preferred to printouts. Thank you in advance for your timely attention to this request. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions at the number above. Sincerely, Is/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN David Schonbrunn, President David@Schonbrunn.org Attachments, p.54 CITY OF VICE 14 Minion Chy - OFFICE OF THE C[TY ATTORNEY Robert F, Epstein, City Attorney Lisa A. Cloldfien, Assistant City Attorney Enc ,r. Davis, Deputy City Attorney 11 January 15, 2016 , Via Email On1v(David -Schonbrunn. David Schonbrunn Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 Re: Public Records Act Request Dear Mr. Schonbrunn: MAYOR GARY O. PnILLIPS AYOR ANDREW CUYUGAN MCCULLOUGH COUNCILN4EM13ERIvlARME7H BUSHEY COUNCILMEMBER KATE COLIN COUT4CILMEMBERJoi4N GAMBLIN I am responding to your Public Records Act request, by email letter on January 8, 2016, addressed to our office. Unfortunately, the City's Traffic Engineer, Linda Zeng, the only current City employee familiar with the calculations and computer analysis supporting the Reports identified in Items 1(a) and 1(b) of your records request, has been out of the country since January 2 and just returned to her office today. Accordingly, the City has not been able to date to work with her to identify and locate all of the documents that may be responsive to your request. We also are not clear as to the scope of Items 5 and 6 of your request as more fully set forth below. I have the following responses to the six enumerated items in your request: Item 1. Except for the cost calculations, the calculations appearing in two Reports referenced in this request were made by a PTV Vissim Traffic Simulation Model software, Version 6.0-21, which the City used to generate the data contained in the Report. The City will make available to you in electronic form the inputs and outputs used in generating those Reports, but cannot make available for your use the Vissim Traffic Simulation Model. With respect to cost calculations, I understand that the estimates for the alternative costs were based upon the engineering experience of the persons who worked on preparing the Reports. To the extent we can locate any records with respect to the costs calculations, we will provide them to you. 2. Item 2. As stated above, the City will make available to you in electronic form the data inputs and outputs used in generating the Reports with the Vissim Traffic Simulation Model software. Item 3. We are not clear as to the scope of your request for definitions in this Request, and request your clarification of the scope of yow• request The requested definitions may be contained in the data inputs and outputs that the City will provide to you in electronic Form, or 1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560) San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (415) 485-3080 / FAX: (415) 485-3109 / EMAIL: city.aLtarney@cityDfsanrafiiel.org Attachments, p.55 David Schonbrunn January 15, 2016 Page 2 may be contained in the Vissim Traffic Simulation Model software, which is copyrighted and which we cannot provide to you. 4.. Item 4. The City is emailing to you a PDF of the document identified in this request along with this letter. Item 5. The City does not understand the scope of this request and ask you to clarify what is being requested. Specifically, please explain what you mean by "San Rafael's introduction of a permanent speed restriction", and what specifically you are seeking with respect to subitems (a), (b) and (c). To the extent that you asking in subitem (a) the speed assumed for SMART trains at the respective crossings in generating the Reports, we understand that this speed was based upon input from SMART, and we will produce any documents that we can locate that relate to such speed. 6. Item 6. The City does not understand the scope of this request and ask you to clarify what is being requested. Specifically, what do you mean by "CPUC applications in which at -grade crossing safety relies on permanent speed restrictions." We will produce for your inspection all City documents that we can locate relative to CPUC apptications relative to the Andersen Drive crossing. The City will make available for your inspection all of the additional records that it is able to locate which are responsive to your request, at the Public Works Department Conference Room at 11 I Morphew Drive, in San Rafael, from 1:00 pm -3:30 pm on January 21, or from 3:00 am -3:30 pm on January 22. However, the City will not produce any records that are protected by the attorney-client or work -product privilege, or'protected by copyright with respect to the Vissim Traffic Simulation software. Please advise when you would like to inspect the additional records, and I will make arrangements for the records to be made available for your inspection at the requested time(s). I look forward to hearing from you. Enclosure Copy: Paul Jensen, Community Development Director Dean Allison, Public Works Director Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Sincerely, ERIC T. DAVIS Deputy City Attorney II Attachments, p 56 Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-370-7250 January 18, 2016 By Email Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Street San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Public Records Act -Request Dear Mr. Davis: Thank you for your very thorough letter of January 15. We especially appreciate the consideration afforded us by your office in providing us with materials as they become available. A few point -by -paint responses: 1. a). We had not requested the traffic model. b). If you are unable to locate any records with respect to the cost calculations, please advise us of that fact, and identify the individuals that provided the estimates. 3. Item 3 was designed to cover the possibility that the report with the inputs and outputs will be labelled with undefined abbreviations. Our hope is that a full set of definitions can be located in the model's software manual. 4. Thank you for getting the study out to us right away. 5. The safety of San Rafael's preferred alternative depends on a permanent speed restriction in the vicinity of the crossing: In order to ensure safety at the Andersen Drive crossing, SMART would modify the operation of commuter rail service to permanently restrict the speed of trains through and approaching the grade crossing to 15 miles per hour. When implemented, this speed restriction would be enforced by SMART's Positive Train Control system... (Initial Study, p. 3-75.) Attachments, p.57 TRANSDEF 1/18/16 2 Item 5 is intended to produce documents reviewed by City staff and consultants that indicate how the trains would operate if not impeded by a permanent speed restriction. Essentially, we seek to create a Before vs. After comparison, as that vital information was missing from the Alternatives Analyses.' 6. Item 6 was intended to discover any CPUC applications for at -grade crossings not within the Citv, reviewed during the City's research in preparation for its application for the Crossing. (The City might be intending to use one or more applications as models for its own application.) We wish to review any City documents relating to non - San Rafael CPUC applications. We hope these responses provide the City with adequate clarifications. Please contact us by phone if any questions remain, so as to not impede the City's response. We appreciate your timely response to this request and your cooperation. Thank you for arranging for the inspection of the records. Is there a specific person we should contact at DPW to confirm our visit? Sincerely, /s/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN David Schonbrunn, President David@Schonbrunn.org 1 This information was foundational in TRANSDEF's decision to not oppose Caltrans' realignment of the tracks in the vicinity of Brookdale Ave. during the San Rafael Gap Closure project. Attachments, p-58 CITY O MhWon Cily - - of Marin OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Robort F. Epstein, City Attamey Lisa A. Goldfien, Assistant City Attamey Eric T. Davis, Deputy City Attomey IT January 20, 2016 Via Email 0n1v (David(R.Schonhrunn.orz) David Schonbrunn Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 Re: Public Records Act Request Dear Mr. Schonbrunn; MAYOR GARY O. PHILLIPS LYOR ANDREW CUYUGAN MCCULLOUGH COUNCILMEMBER MARIBETH BUSHEY COUNCILMEMBER KATE COLIN COUNCILMEMBER JOHN GAMBLIN I am responding to your letter of January 18 concerning your Public Records Act request. With respect to Item No. 1, we have not been able to locate any records of calculations regarding the cost estimates contained in the two reports referenced in your request. Furthermore, with respect to Items No. 1 and No. 2, I also have learned that while the traffic calculations for Alternatives 6 and 7 appearing in the reports were done using the PTV Vissim Traffic Simulation Model, the traffic calculations for Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 were done using the Synchro 7 traffic model. We are in the process of working with Linda Zeng, the City's Traffic Engineer, to identify and assemble in electronic form, to the extent possible, the inputs to and outputs from the two traffic simulation software models used in generating the reports. With respect to (tem No. 3, we did not find in the user manuals for the two traffic simulation software models any definitions for "undefined abbreviations" that may appear in the inputs or outputs, and we do not know that any such abbreviations exist. The user manual for the PTV Vissirn Traffic Simulation model does contain designations and descriptions for certain file extensions used in that software, but we do not believe that is what you are requesting. With respect to Item 5, we have not been able to locate any records regarding how the trains would operate if not impeded by the 15 miles per hour grade crossing speed restriction as stated in the Initial Study excerpt referenced in your letter. With respect to Item 6, we have not been able to locate any records regarding CPUC applications for at -grade crossings not within the City. The City has not as yet commenced preparation of an application to the PUC for the at -grade crossing at Andersen Drive, as suggested in your letter. 1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560) Son Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (,115)485-3080 / FAX: (4t5) 485-3109 / EMAIL- eity.attomey@cityofsanrarael.org Attachments, p.59 David Schonbrunn January 20, 2016 Page 2 I can arrange for your visit to the Public Works Department at I I 1 Morphew Street this Friday, January 22, between 1:30-3:30 p.m., or to the City Clerk's Office in Room 209 here at City Hall next Monday, January 25, between 1:30-3:30 p.m. Please contact me to make any arrangements. Copy: Paul Jensen, Community Development Director Dean Allison, Public Works Director Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Sincerely, ERIC T. DAVIS Deputy City Attorney II Attachments, p.60 OrCICE Or THE CITY ATTORNEY Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Lisa A. Gold ficn, Assistant City Attorney Eric T. Davis, Deputy City Attnrney IT January 25, 2016 Vib Email Onlv (David0Schonhrunn.org)_ David Schonbruttn Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 Re: Public Records Act Request Dear Mr. Schonbrunn: MAYORGA0.Y O. PMI -LIPS ,YOR ANDREW CUYUGAN MCCULLOUGH COUNCiLMFivtBER MA.RIBM BUSHEY COUNCILMUMBER KATE COLT! COUNCILMEMBER JOHN GAMBLIN I am responding to your telephone inquiry. this morning. As you know, 1 advised you by telephone last week that I could provide you with a CD of the inputs to the Synchro Traffic Simulation Model used for Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, but that 1 had not been able to obtain the inputs to the Vissim Traffic Simulation Model used for Alternatives 6 and 7. You indicated that you did not want the inputs to the Synchro Model for Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 without the other inputs. I have not as yet been able to obtain the inputs to the Vissim Traffic Simulation Model for Alternatives 6 and 7, but I am still making inquiries to determine whether the City can provide you witb those inputs. I will advise you if I am able to obtain those inputs. Sincerely, ERIC T. DAVIS Deputy City Attorney 11 Copy: Paul Jensen, Community Development Director Dead Allison, Public Works Director Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney 1400 fifth Avenue (P.O. Boy: 151560) San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE. (415)485-3080 / FAX. (415)485-3L09 / EMAIL: city.attomeyc@cityofsanrafacl,org Attachments, p.61 Leslie Blomquist From: Parkes, Aaron <AParkes@Itk.com> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:39 AM To: Leslie Blomquist Cc: Nader Mansourian Subject: RE: Andersen Xing Report HI Leslie - Thanks for forwarding the final draft; I'll review and get back to you with any suggested revisions. Sincerely, Aaron J Parkes LTK Engineering Services 490 Mendocino Avenue, Su to 109 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Phone - (707) 545-0519 (Ext 103) E-mail - aparkes@LTK.com SMART Project Office 5401 Old Redwood Highway Petalurna,-CA 94954 Phone - (707) 794-3084 E-mail • ;iparkes@sonon)amarintrain.org From: Leslie Blomquist [mai Ito: Lest le. Blomquist@cityofsanrafael.org] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:11 PM To: Parkes, Aaron Cc: Nader Mansourlan Subject: Andersen Xing Report Hi Aaron, Attached is the draft final version of the Andersen Report. Please let me know your thoughts and if you have any comments. Sorry I can't send you the Word doc, it's 34Mbs now O Leslie r } Leslie Blomquist, P.E., F.E. { i nssoclate Civil Engineer City of San Rafael, Department of Public Works Ph: 415.48S.3473 Fax, 415.405.3374 7 Attachments, p.62 Nader Mansourian From: Farhad Mansourian<FMansourian@sonomamarintrain.org> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 8:09 AM To: Nader Mansourian Subject: FW: Andersen Drive - CPUC - Sacramento Meeting Update fyi Best, Farhad Mansourian General Manager Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit District 5401 Old Redwood Hwy., 2nd Floor Petaluma, CA 94954 707-794-3057 (direct) httD://ca.mcafee.com/d/5fHCN ESvOoem4XLfLK6XCSnPhOMUed7a9JBYQslefcLCSnPhOMUed7b9IBNCZGkm isde- faX2BmUOSOaJapgHJdx7ntY w09KQFBGKQS4ttTP-OOCX9K-aekmn- LPXXUWX7nKnih76zDDHLceesJt6OaaJXlsG7DR80JMddECQit- hsd7bOabatTztPoiGlxlnitza4UXa700irGKMFI KcJw2Glxlnitza4UXa700`, r8Vx4SbwaAa81227N FY3h07hAr)YOgS Ph091o9vhE wbCv0oSQtl-4WCvOr .VOwhd4OimsSvCTSiuCGQttQsHx4C --Original Message ----- From: Aaron Parkes Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:10 PM To: Farhad Mansourian Subject: Andersen Drive - CPUC - Sacramento Meet7ng Update Good evening Farhad- This morning, Leslie Blomquist, who is the City of San Rafael's traffic engineer, and I, traveled to Sacramento to meet with Daren Gilbert and Dave Stewart of the CPUC. The purpose of th.e meeting was to present a summary of the measures that the City of San Rafael is proposing to implement in order to address the challenges associated with the establishment of an at -grade SMART commuter rail crossing at Andersen Drive in San Rafael. Overall, I believe that the meeting and presentation went well. Following the presentation, Daren and Dave both agreed that the measures that were presented addressed CPUC staff's concerns with the proposed crossing. Also, they both indicated that they would not protest or otherwise oppose an application filed by the City of San Rafae to obtain authorization from the CPUC to build the at -grade crossing. However, Daren did point out that while CPUC staff will not oppose the crossing, he indicated that he cannot predict what the Commission's ultimate position on the matter will be. As it stands, Daren has set a meeting with his director for next Tuesday, March 11th, during which he will provide the information that Leslie and ' presented this morning. He indicated that he would send you an e-mail to report on the outcome of the discussion, but also stated that his director is due to leave the country on March 12, which may impede Attachments, p.63 their ability to meet. He said that if you do not receive an e-mail from him by next Wednesday, that you should assume that he was unable to meet with his director prior to his departure and that the response on the matter may be delayed. Please let me know if you need any further information regarding this meeting, or if you have any questions at all. Sincerely, Aaron J Parkes LTK Engineering Services SMART Project Office 707-794-3084 5401 Old Redwood Highway Petaluma CA 94954 Attachments, p.64 Nader Mansourian From: Farhad Mansourian<FMansourian@sonomamarintra�n.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12.01 PM To: Gilbert, Daren S.; Nader Mansourian Cc: Stewart, David R.; Garabetian, Antranig G. Subject: RE: Anderson Drive Thank you Best, Farhad Mansourian General Manager Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit District 5401 Old Redwood Hwy., 2nd Floor Petaluma, CA 94954 707-794-3057 (direct) www.sonomamarintrain.org From: Gilbert, Daren S.[maiito:daren.gllbert@cpuc.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:58 AM To: Farhad Mansourian; Nader Mansourian Cc: Stewart, David R.; Garabetian, Antranig G. Subject: RE: Anderson Drive The City should proceed to develop its application. I discussed the proposal with Deputy Director King, and he essentially deferred to me, although our discussion on the matter resulted in a consensus that the proposals need to be well justified, specifically as it relates to justification why a grade sep structure is not practicable there, and why the City chose not to follow through on its commitments made during the hearings and testimony from the original proceeding. The application needs to clearly layout the case as to why an at -grade crossing is safe here. All the potential safety concerns and mitigations should be identified. We also have a new interim Director that I will discuss it with as well. It will be a good idea if you let us review the draft Application so we can identify any concerns or problems in advance of it being filed with the CPUC. Dare*w (� abert Ma*Aa4. ew Rail Transit and Crossings Branch Safety and Enforcement Divlsion California Public Utilities Commission Attachments, p.65 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 115 Sacramento, CA 95834 Office Ph 916-928-6858 From: Farhad Mansourian fmailto:FMansourian@sonomamarintrain.oraI Sent: Tuesday, March 18,_2014 9:19 AM To: Gilbert, Daren S. Subject: FW: Anderson Drive Good morning Appreciate a response back, I have to provide timetable for the Federal Authorities Best, Farhad Mansourian General Manager Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit District 5401 Old Redwood Hwy., 2nd Floor Petaluma, CA 94954 707-794-3057 (direct) www.sonomamarintrain.org ago From: Farhad Mansourian Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:25 PM To: daren.ailbert(&couc.ca.aov Subject: Anderson Drive Greetings When is a good time for us to chat about your meeting with the Director acid the next steps? Thank you for your continued support Best, Farhad Mansourian General Manager Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit District 5401 Old Redwood Hwy., 2nd Floor Petaluma, CA 94954 707-794-3057 (direct) www.sonomamarintrain.org 2 Attachments, p.66 FLTURE BIKE I PEDESIRIAN 1 In AT -GRADE CROSSING I a , i: i I a a 1 I e s • BAUAST DECK 7RESTL@0 90 • E D FU) u I . E w HANNA RANCH Pp ° ^- I U) $ � � U : _ I F- sl ♦ `• z LijU C'MC CEIITER DR HIGHWAY 101 h 3 i ROBLAR GR O 3> NORTH HAlKLTON PKVN "t i EYSiWG °IKEIPEDESTpI.AII AT -GRADE CROSSING I i I I aPevicerKTR�TLE � �_ z i I aI k LU N. EAN PEpRa R I ' w yy Z F- Z I MAIN GATE RD c I: >U Q Z Q -' I I Q � 0 b 0.1 t] y W O � • a> 0¢ j D. D. c E 'Cn DALLAiI DEC:(7RESRE UNDENLN ° I 11iROUGHPLATE GIRDER IRESTLE ( I 1 BALL tRf DELKTRESTIE a_ t PAL ONA ST PACHECO ST III— L-♦ MISSIONAVE 3T/ AVE 4TkI AT el f__ p ' ] RO HT 1N0 Sr�•z Z € OPENDFCNTRESTLE^• - Q FRAI7CLSC0 °LVD. WEST °� , - cn Blwe Or • 0 s RICE 3T a OPEN DECK TRESTLE U 11 ,' l7 11 1 I Z .1 O' . ANDERSEN OR 'Pl O aPEN CECK TRESTLE F HIGEWAY Wl e� g� L OPE71 DECK TRESTLE 1 �w } � z LU w 1 Q - Y 1 !I- TJ :CGlfiWY ]7 _ 1 o E%IS"°ID SINE I PEDESTRLANl AT -GRADE CROSSING I,ATChCrr:E IR• 86.5 - FOR CCNLDRIATION SEE B*G FIC.77 rl0 7 ..__ �° C� S o U LL a U I • _ - (O Q • BAUAST DECK 7RESTL@0 90 • E D FU) u I a � ) n g U HANNA RANCH Pp ° ^- I U) $ � � U a C' W U Y sl (w!i I ♦ i Z BEL MARIN KEYS BLVD _ r�I1'^' moi. ikGjSi ROBLAR GR O !I- TJ :CGlfiWY ]7 _ 1 .. Q a In a r C (jf 7 E%IS"°ID SINE I PEDESTRLANl AT -GRADE CROSSING jam- i s �° C� S o U LL a U • _ - (O Q Oo = ZQ O �- la••L� FU) `•r F' ) n g U CPENDECKTRESTLD Q Iz Q r a C' W U Y I ♦ i Z BEL MARIN KEYS BLVD _ r�I1'^' moi. ikGjSi ROBLAR GR O 3> NORTH HAlKLTON PKVN "t 0 o-- j aPevicerKTR�TLE � �_ z i I aI I MAIN GATE RD c I- W ?� Z ,c�i < 4n G" -' I I Q � 0 � a c E 'Cn DALLAiI DEC:(7RESRE QI LU I , In C- � � w - I 0 z R 0. (1] (B fE E c = OPEN DECK TRESTLE ' % C I C) OC � I � W DPEII DECK TSESiLE I �b ��F I .RtfTll RANCH RD=: IDV TtLST.E AND DTTA'A"InGE , _- n I .I B I a F �■ IAATCNLINE LIP 70.3 - FOR CDNIINLIAWIN SLT. DWG ABOVE Attachments, p. 67 *4 COM Technical Memorandum ATTACHMENT 6 AECOM 415 896 5858 tel Post Montgomery Center 415 882 9261 fax One Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104-4538 www.aecom.com Paul Jensen, AICP Community Development Director To City of San Rafael Page cc Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Project Subject Response to Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. From Michael Kay, Project Manager Date January 27, 2016 In December 2015, the City of San Rafael completed an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to address the potential environmental impacts associated with improvements to the Andersen Drive at -grade rail crossing. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the City of San Rafael circulated the IS/MND for public review from December 16, 2015 to January 25, 2016. This memorandum summarizes the comments received during the public review period. During this review period, comments were received from the following agencies and members of the public: • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) • San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) • Marin Audubon Society • Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) • Richard Bernstein • Ada and Clive Endress • Darrell Justus and Shawn Rossiter • Brian Magner • Dwayne Warren and Gerald Sax • Donna Wayne While CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to consider comments received on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, formal responses to comments are not required. In order to ensure the City of San Rafael reviews the whole of the record for the proposed project, this memorandum summarizes the comments received on the IS/MND and !11578SR-SFDATA1.us.ie.urs\LAECOMData\Projects\2015\60429204_San Rafael Andersen Dr\500_DELIVERABLES\520_Deliverable-2 Response to Comments\Andersen Dr At -Grade Crossing Response to Comments IS-MND.docx A=COM Technical Memorandum January 27, 2016 Page 2 provides responses to those comments. The City Council of the City of San Rafael will use this memorandum, in addition to the IS/MND, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and all project plans, during the decision-making process for the proposed Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Project. Caltrans Caltrans requested coordination with the agency if the project would result in the potential closure of U.S. 101 on -and off -ramps on Francisco Boulevard West and requested information on the data that were used for the traffic analysis. In addition, Caltrans stated that an encroachment permit would be required for any work to be performed within Caltrans right-of-way. These comments do not speak the adequacy of the IS/MND. The City will comply with all Caltrans requests for information and coordination regarding the project. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board requested clarification on the drainage improvements included in the proposed project. Drainage improvements to be constructed in the project area as part of the proposed project are the typical storm water improvements that are included in the infrastructure of roadway construction such as subsurface drains, catch basins, etc. As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Initial Study, all stormwater facilities would be designed in compliance with the most recent version of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Post Construction Manual. The proposed project would be required to comply with City Ordinance No. 1932, which defines construction -phase best management plans (BMPs) and standards for permanent stormwater controls, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Compliance with these and other applicable regulations would minimize project impacts to water quality. Marin Audubon Society The Marin Audubon Society commented that the conclusions in the IS/MND regarding wetland habitat within the study area need to be revised due to the presence of an undisclosed wetland within the project area. The comment states that this wetland drains the Calpark wetland and watershed to the City's drainage channel, which eventually drains to the Bay. The commenter is correct that there is a small portion of wetland (approximately 0.003 acre in size) located within the project area. This freshwater marsh wetland was identified during the 2013 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) wetland delineation report that was completed for the 2014 Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the SMART Downtown San Rafael -Larkspur Extension Project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as the federal lead agency. The wetland is located within an open channel southeast of the intersection of Auburn Street and Woodland Avenue. The SMART right-of-way (ROW) intersects this feature where the wetland enters a culvert beneath the railroad berm and enters the underground storm drain system in the City of San Rafael. Standing water was present at the time of the wetland delineation, and the marsh was dominated by broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). A=COM Technical Memorandum January 27, 2016 Page 3 This wetland feature is located at the edge of the ROW downslope. This area will not be impacted by project activities. No direct project work would occur in this location. In addition, the avoidance measures described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Initial Study, would be implemented during construction, including compliance with the construction and post -construction stormwater management protocol established by the City and through the NPDES permit process as well as the implementation of a SWPPP. Implementation of these measures would avoid adverse effects to this wetland feature. Also, the construction contractor will be required to comply with Section 14.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, which regulates activities near wetland areas to prevent the disruption or degradation of adjacent wetlands. Although this section of the Municipal Code requires a development -free setback of fifty feet (50'), this is less than the existing condition. The proposed project would not substantially change the existing setback from the wetland. In addition, the commenter suggested that the language in Mitigation Measure BR -3a be changed to remove a qualification for the feasibility of the removal of trees and shrubs during the construction of the proposed project. The text in question regarding the trimming and/or removal of trees and shrubs is standard language for this type of mitigation measure. This text is included to ensure that trees and shrubs could be removed for safety purposes, should a tree pose an unexpected hazard during the construction process. Changing the language of Mitigation Measure BR -3a as suggested would not result in more effective reduction of impacts to nesting birds, and as such, the language of Mitigation BR -3a has not been changed. TRANSDEF TRANSDEF included a number of comments on the adequacy of the IS/MND concerning both the safety of the proposed at -grade crossing as well as impacts to the operation of SMART trains related to speed restrictions of the trains as they approach and pass through the intersection. These issues are addressed below. The commenter is correct that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has stated that the "proposed configuration of the intersection is not safe for use by both trains and automobiles." However, the basis for this conclusion was the intersection design included in the City's August 7, 1995 application to construct the extension of Andersen Drive across the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad. The CPUC has also stated that they "will not allow both trains and automobiles to use this intersection as currently configured" (emphasis added). The proposed at - grade crossing configuration evaluated in the IS/MND takes into account a number of factors, including signaling, gates, striping, established sight distances, vehicle queuing and storage controls, and other criteria, all of which have been incorporated into the City's design to allow both automobiles and trains to safely use the intersection. The City of San Rafael has been working with the CPUC to design a crossing that meets the CPUC's safety requirements. Ultimately, the CPUC has the sole authority to determine whether or not the proposed project meets applicable safety requirements. The commenter also asserts that the 15 -mile per hour (mph) speed restriction through the intersection would affect overall travel time in the SMART corridor and have an adverse effect of future ridership. The commenter further asserts that this adverse effect on ridership would interfere with SMART efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SMART has evaluated its operational requirements along this segment of track and has determined that by reducing train speeds to 15 mph through the Andersen Drive crossing, less than one minute would be added to the approximately five-minute train passage between Downtown San Rafael and Larkspur. The addition of less than one AXOM Technical Memorandum January 27, 2016 Page 4 minute to the passage would be unlikely to result in effects to ridership, greenhouse gas emissions, or operational costs. According to the commenter, the potential adverse effects on ridership together with the potential for an unsafe at -grade crossing requires the completion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) rather than an IS/MND. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064: (d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project. (3) An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable. (f) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency. (2) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared. (3) If the lead agency determines there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare a negative declaration. (4) The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (5) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion support by facts. The commenter's assertions that the proposed at -grade crossing is unsafe and that speed restrictions would result in decreased ridership are speculative. The commenter has not presented substantial evidence that the proposed project would result in un-mitigable significant impacts not described in the IS/MND. Therefore, an IS/MND is the appropriate level of documentation required by CEQA. The commenter asserts that there is no commitment in the record to implement the proposed mitigation measures in the IS/MND. The IS/MND includes an MMRP. The MMRP describes each of the mitigation measures, the Implementation Procedure, Monitoring Responsibility, Monitoring/Reporting Action and Schedule, Non -Compliance Sanction/Activity, and Monitoring Compliance Record. This MMRP will be adopted by the City as part of the adoption of the Mitigated AXOM Technical Memorandum January 27, 2016 Page 5 Negative Declaration. The City of San Rafael Public Works Department will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of all mitigation measures. Darrell Justus and Shawn Rossiter The comment expresses concern that the noise levels associated with the operation of the SMART rail at the Andersen Drive at -grade crossing would disturb the residential environment of the homes along Auburn Street and within the surrounding neighborhood. As described in IS/MND Appendix D, Technical Report on Noise for the Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing, the trains would use warning horns that would generate noise levels between 96 dBA and 110 dBA, or 82 dBA at 50 feet (see Appendix D, Table 3). The comment indicates that, as shown Appendix D, Table 2, the City of San Rafael defines noise levels above 75 dBA Ldp as "clearly unacceptable" for residential low-density single-family, duplex, and mobile home uses. As referenced in Appendix D, the City of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 8.13.070 exempts railroad and public transit operations from City noise limits. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2, which requires that wayside horns be mounted on the poles of the crossing, would reduce noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors, including the motor home park and the residences at Woodland Avenue and Auburn Street. Brian Magner The commenter asked for clarification on the train operations. Under the current operating scenario, SMART rail service would operate on weekdays with 15 southbound trains and 15 northbound trains. Weekend service has not yet been determined but potential service may include 4 southbound trains and 4 northbound trains. The commenter requested further clarification on the use of horns at the at -grade crossing. According the federal regulations, train horns must be sounded in a standardized pattern of 2 long, 1 short, and 1 long blast in a repeated or prolonged fashion until the lead locomotive or lead cab car occupies the grade crossing. Once the locomotive or lead cab car enters the crossing, horns are typically no longer used. Trains would occupy the Andersen Drive at -grade crossing for approximately 120 seconds. However, the wayside horns would not sound when a train occupied the crossing; horns would only be generating sound for the maximum of 20 seconds prior to arriving at the at -grade crossing, as required under 49 CFR Part 222.21 (unless a Quiet Zone is established for the Andersen Drive at - grade crossing). The use of wayside horns would require the same horn sounding pattern at both the southern and northern crossing gates. The commenter also asked for clarification on the noise level metrics used in the IS/MND and the Technical Report on Noise (Appendix D to the IS/MND). The ambient noise level reported in the Technical Report on Noise is a 24-hour logarithmically calculated noise level derived from continuously measured hourly noise levels. Penalties are applied to nighttime hours to represent human response to noise during the nighttime hours. The standard for evaluating and analyzing community noise in relation to a transportation source (such as a train) used for the IS/MND is the accepted method for analyzing compliance with the City's, State, and federal noise standards. The commenter also raised concerns related to changes in traffic operations within the vicinity of the Andersen Drive at -grade crossing and suggested that a preferred alternative in terms of impacts to traffic would be a bridge over Andersen Drive. As part of the planning process, the City performed an Technical Memorandum January 27, 2016 Page 6 alternatives analysis to determine the preferred option for the design of the Andersen Drive crossing. The alternatives analysis studied six alternatives to accommodate rail service through Andersen Drive including (among others) a grade -separated crossing (i.e., a bridge). This analysis is summarized in Section 2.3.1 of the IS/MND (pp. 2-4 to 2-5) and is provided in detail in Appendix A of the IS/MND, Andersen Drive — Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service. The analysis evaluated the traffic impacts, cost, feasibility, safety, and schedule associated with the different alternatives and ranked the alternatives relative to these design concerns. The proposed project resulted in the lowest (best) score of all the alternatives analyzed, as it would not result in significant traffic impacts and would have a relatively short construction period. Subsequent to the completion of the alternatives analysis, a seventh alternative was evaluated that included a two-way bypass of the Andersen Drive at -grade crossing via Woodland Avenue and Andersen Connector. This analysis (also included in Appendix A of the IS/MND) determined that this seventh alternative would result in significant vehicle queueing at roadway intersections and adversely impact access to adjacent businesses and residences. As described in Section 3.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS/MND, the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts to the levels of service of the roadway network in the study area, meaning that there would not be a substantial increase in congestion with implementation of the proposed project. Economic considerations, such as impacts to property values, raised by the commenter are not analyzed under CEQA. General concerns regarding the long-term implications of the project will be considered by City Council. Donna Wayne The commenter expressed general concerns about the "overall impact of the train from San Rafael to Larkspur." No specific comments on the IS/MND were included in the comment. "Quiet Zone" Designation A number of commenters (including Richard Bernstein, Ada and Clive Endress, Darrell Justus and Shawn Rossiter, Brian Magner, and Dwayne Warren) expressed support for obtaining a "Quiet Zone' designation for the Anderson Drive at -grade crossing. These comments do not refer to the adequacy of the IS/MND. The following text is for informational purposed only. The IS -MND and Noise Technical Study (Appendix D) reference the possibility and process for obtaining a "Quiet Zone" designation for the Anderson Dr. crossing, but state: "the specific constraints at the Andersen Drive crossing could preclude the implementation of a Quiet Zone at that crossing." No further information as to how this was determined is included. a. Is the City still pursuing a Quiet Zone designation? b. If so, how is the City pursuing a Quiet Zone designation? b. What specific constraints at Anderson Dr. would preclude the implementation? A=TOM Technical Memorandum January 27, 2016 Page 7 a. In December 2014, the San Rafael City Council directed staff to initiate the public authority designation process to establish a Quiet Zone (QZ)' covering all ten crossings in the City on SMART's initial operating segment (IOS), from Smith Ranch Road in the north to downtown at Fourth Street. Since then, staff has met with SMART and other agencies to determine insurance and indemnification requirements. b. Per the City Council decision in December 2014, the City plans to take the first steps and file a Notice of Intent for the initial operating segment in spring 2016. c. The Andersen Drive at -grade crossing would be part of a future extension to the QZ on SMART's funded Larkspur extension. This crossing's eligibility for inclusion within a future extended QZ has still to be determined, along with the other crossings located beyond the initial operating segment. It is the intent of the City to pursue an extension to the San Rafael Quiet Zone beyond the initial operating segment when satisfactory safety improvements have been determined and reviewed with the relevant regulatory agencies: the design process is still underway. City staff plans to bring forward the extension of the QZ beyond the IOS to the City Council SMART Subcommittee and ultimately to the City Council during 2016. IA Quiet Zone (QZ) is a defined stretch of track where a train operator is not required to blow the train horn, as it approaches vehicular or pedestrian crossings where appropriate safety measures have been installed, unless there is a hazard on the tracks. ROUTING SLIP / APPROVAL FORM INSTRUCTIONS: Use this cover sheet with each submittal of a staff report before approval by the City Council. Save staff report (including this cover sheet) along with all related attachments in the Team Drive (T:) 4 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 4 AGENDA ITEM APPROVAL PROCESS 4 [DEPT - AGENDA TOPIC] Agenda Item # Date of Meeting: 2/1/2016 From: PAUL JENSEN / DEAN ALLISON Department: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / PUBLIC WORKS Date: 1/21/2016 Topic: ANDERSEN DRIVE/SMART AT -GRADE CROSSING Subject: REVIEW AND CONSIDER ACTION TO; A) ADOPT THE ANDERSEN DRIVE/SMART AT -GRADE CROSSING INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; B) APPROVE THE AT -GRADE CROSSING DESIGN (ALTERNATIVE 6); AND C) DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH FILING AN APPLICATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) Type: N Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Professional Services Agreement ❑ Other: APPROVALS ® Finance Director Remarks: Van Bach -Approved. ® City Attorney Remarks: Approved with changes and comments to Staff Report and Resolutions. ETD. 1/25/16 ® Author, review and accept City Attorney / Finance changes Remarks: Revisions completed. PJ 1/26/16 M City Manager Remarks: FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: Council Meeting: Disposition: CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING You are invited to attend the upcoming City Council hearing on the following project: PROJECT: ANDERSEN DRIVE / SONOMA MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT (SMART) CROSSING. SMART is planning the second phase of the commuter rail service, which includes an extension of the service from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Landing. A segment of the SMART rail line along this stretch crosses "at -grade" with Andersen Drive. This road crossing with the SMART rail line requires the authorization of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The City of San Rafael is required to secure this CPUC authorization. Consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this project is subject to environmental review and an Initial Stud)/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared Tlie Initial Study and supportive appendices have been posted on the City of San Rafael website and can be accessed via the following link: httn://i-in i-.c•iti-ofsill rulaCLur >/nnlnrurkS-nrni-Amnrd. Hard copies of the Initial Study are available for review at the City Department of Community Development (address below) or at the San Rafael City Library, 1100 E Street, San Rafael. HEARING DATE: Monday. February 1, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street San Rafael, California WHAT WILL The City Council will review and consider action to: a) adopt the Andersen HAPPEN: Drive/SMART At -Grade Crossing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b) approved the At -Grade Crossing Design (referred to as "Option 6"); and c) direct City staff to proceed with filing an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for crossing approval. You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to adopt the proposed amendments. IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the City Clerk, City of San Rafael, 1400 5,h Avenue, San Rafael, ATTEND: CA 94901. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. FOR MORE For information on the crossing design, permitting and process, contact Kevin McGowan, INFORMATION: Assistant Public Works Director at (415)485-3389 or Icevin.mcs:owan a citvofsanrafacl.or,--. For information on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, contact Paul Jensen, Community Development Director at (415) 485-5064 or vauLiensen C)citvofsanrafael.ors. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL /s/ Esther C. Beirne City Clerk At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2))• Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices rnap be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documtents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple, chemical sensitiviti, to attend the nteetingAtearing, individuals are requested to refrnin front wParinr srpntrd nrodurts. :: Send email to (select ane) All City Councilntcmbers Please enter your questions/comments helom Dear ivlayor Phillips and Members of Council. Aly name is Hayes Shair, the property owner of 33 Albion St which is located in [lie Lomita Park neighborhood (Shown as "California Park" in the 2020 General Plan). While we are generally supportive of the Phase 2 SMART project and c%panding our public transportation networks in general. I did want to raise some concerns that the neiLill horho od and mysell'havc regarding the proposed SMART Andersen Crossing Option 6 that you will be hearing* this Monday. I agree with Stal'I's determination that an on -grade crossing option is the must feasible way to make this connection, however Out- community urcommunity is concerned about the potential fur raih\a) noise. and the additional traffic impacts along Woodside Dr. As such. I urge Council to include as Condition of Approval: 1 ) A Mandate that a Quiet %onC be establish (in accordance a ith ((Mitigation Measure N-2, the City Noise Ordinance , c& FI'A Standards) for ANY applications to CPUC. 2) A Mandate that Mitigation Measures titr Railway Vibration Noise be implemented in all urban areas. as this was never addressed in the EIR. (This type of noise is often as problematic as high IYcqucncy horn blasts and can be addressed easily in the planning stages with Track isolation and / or strategic Sound wall placement.) 3) A full LOS Study along Woodside Drive and Francisco Drive specitically during planned SMART crossing* intervals, and especially during peak commuter hourS. U toUnd to be inSut'ticient. it should he included within the financial scope of this option to widen roads and upgrade intersections, similar as that shown oil Figure 12 of the Final Report. We are concerned that these re- directed queuing operations will conflict with peak commuter traffic. 4) Expand the Noticing Area for all Subsequent Andersen Drive Crossings agenda items to at least a 1/2 mile radius (instuul of the -400' currently in place). Sound travels in the hills and ALL potentially affected residents deserve to be a part of this process. Thank You in advance. Hayes and Shannon Shair 33 Albion St. San Rafael. CA 94901 Dear Mayor Phillips and Members of Council, My name is Hayes Shair, the property owner of 33 Albion St which is located in the Lomita Park neighborhood (shown as "California Park" in the 2020 General Plan). While we are generally supportive of the Phase 2 SMART project and expanding our public transportation networks in general, I did want to raise some concerns that the neighborhood and myself have regarding the proposed SMART Andersen Crossing Option 6 that you will be hearing this Monday. I agree with Staffs determination that an on -grade crossing option is the most feasible way to make this connection, however our community is concerned about the potential for railway noise, and the additional traffic impacts along Woodside Dr. As such, I urge Council to include as Conditions of Approval: 1) A Mandate that a Ouiet Zone be establish (in accordance with Mitigation Measure N-2, the City Noise Ordinance, & FTA Standards), for ANY applications to CPUC. 2) A Mandate that Mitigation Measures for Railwav Vibration Noise be implemented in all urban areas, as this was never addressed in the EIR. (This type of noise is often as problematic as high frequency horn blasts and can be addressed easily in the planning stages with Track isolation and / or strategic sound wall placement.) 3) A full LOS studv alone Woodside Drive and Francisco Drive specifically during planned SMART crossing intervals, and especially during peak commuter hours. If found to be insufficient, it should be included within the financial scope of this option to widen roads and upgrade intersections, similar as that shown on Figure 12 of the Final Report. We are concerned that these re -directed queuing operations will conflict with peak commuter traffic. 4) Expand the Noticing Area for all subsequent Andersen Drive Crossings agenda items to at least a 1/2 mile radius (instead of the 400' currently in place). Sound travels in the hills and ALL potentially affected residents deserve to be a part of this process. Thank you in advance. Hayes (and Shannon) Shair 33 Albion St, San Rafael, CA 94901 :; first Name Fred " Last Name Trupp Address 1 6; Icuell St, Address 2 City San Rafael State Ca Zip Code 9400 Phone Number 4154597897 :.< Email Address ti•eduunnCY'shC *I0h,1I.11Ct Please enter your questions/comments below want to conuncnd the study _roup that prepared the Smart Train extension across Anderson Ur. It was well done, the proposal was well presented with an excellent format. 1 also Concur the the recommendation. Ol' Alternative 6. Thank you Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 February 1, 2016 By Hand Delivery Mayor Gary Phillips and Councilmembers City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA 94915 Re: Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Staff Report Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: Given the large number of topics to be covered and the limited time available during public comment at tonight's hearing, the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, TRANSDEF, offers these comments on the legal issues addressed by the staff report's response to our comment letter of January 25 (p. 49.) [All page references are to the PDF of the staff report.] The staff report (p. 130) failed to controvert the assertions made in TRANSDEF's comment letter. Therefore, it would be arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law for the San Rafael City Council to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Significant Impact The staff report did not respond to TRANSDEF's assertions in its comment letter (pp. 50-51 and 53) that the proposed project would result in the following Conflicts with Adopted Policy, which constitute significant impacts: • CPUC's Conclusion of Law #6: "Absent further order of the Commission, rail service will have priority right to use the intersection." (p. 73) CPUC's Final Order #2: "This authorization to blockade the tracks shall expire upon the scheduling of regular train service over the tracks which intersect Andersen Drive. Upon such expiration of authority, The City shall take all actions necessary to ensure the unimpeded use of the intersection by the rail, absent further order of the Commission." (p. 74) Slowing down trains from 60 to 15 mph in an effort to avoid modification of the existing roadway geometry cannot reasonably be considered giving "rail service ... priority right to use the intersection" or "ensur[ing] the unimpeded use." The City Council is reminded that "ensuring unimpeded use" was the primary project Objective. An MND adopted with these comments in the record will certainly be awkward when The City files its application with the CPUC. TRANSDEF can and will protest on that basis. .EPART1�11ENT...O.F....P.U.BLI.C.. W.OR.ICS Quality, Excellence, Innovation Raul M. Rojas February 1, 2016 DIRECTOR Kevin McGowan Administration Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer PO Box 4186 111 Morphew Street San Rafael, CA 949134186 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 415 473 6528 T 415 473 3799 F Subject: Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Project 415 473 3232 TTY County of Marin Encroachment Permit Requirement CRS Dial 711 www.marincounty.org/pw Dear Kevin, Accounting Thank you for discussing and coordinating this project with us. Although the initial study comment period has closed, we have the following comments for you Airport to consider at tonight's meeting and as the detailed design plans are being Building Maintenance developed: Capital Projects 1. The exhibit shows that the Northern Star Auto Repair building may interfere with the proposed eastbound Class I path. Section 3.10.1 a of Certified Unified Program the environmental impact evaluation (Page 3-55) indicates that "No Agency (COPA) property displacements or relocations would be required as part of the proposed project." The plan diagram clearly shows the multiuse path Communications going through the auto body shop, two existing structures. Maintenance 2. Bicyclists coming off the Cal Park path will be on the current wide sidewalk up to the Francisco intersection, as they do today. If it is the County Garage assumption that cyclists are to then cross Andersen at the West Francisco intersection, there is no signal indication, bicycle -specific or Disability Access otherwise, coming from that direction. Assuming cyclists will use a pedestrian signal may not be reflect cyclists' behavior as is doing two Engineering 8. Survey crosswalk maneuvers to execute a left turn on to westbound Andersen; Flood Control most cyclists will make a direct left turn movement, potentially creating a s Water Resources conflict and delay for vehicles turning from W. Francisco on to Andersen. 3. Moving the Andersen crosswalk to the east side of the intersection Land Development creates a conflict with vehicles turning left off of West Francisco. Did the traffic analysis account for this potential additional vehicular delay? Purchasing 4. Recognizing that the SMART MUP north towards downtown is still under evaluation, this plan does not appear to account for how that potential Real Estate path would interface with the proposed paths since it would introduce users coming from the north, to the proposed westbound Andersen path Reprographic Services which would then place them contraflow in the roadway up to the W. Francisco intersection. Road Maintenance It appears that the project extends into the Woodland Ave right-of-way requiring Stormwater Program an encroachment permit (EP) from the County. The proposed plans show the east -bound proposed Class I pathway, the tracks crossing and appurtenances Transportation & Traffic Operations Waste Management (crossing gate with electronic bell, emergency swing gate, and warning strips) encroach into Woodland Ave right-of-way. Figure 2-3 on page 2-6 does not show property lines. The property lines will be required at the time of the EP application to clearly identify the County's jurisdiction. Signal timing and phasing plans shall be prepared to address the new angled railroad crossing with multi use path. The location of the railroad gates and features taken to clear cars from the area of the railroad crossing should be specified. Signage and guidance shall be provided to direct bicycle users to and from the proposed new class 1 pathway, the bicycle lanes on Anderson Drive and the Cal Park Pathway. Lastly, unincorporated area residents in this area have expressed interest in the crossing being a quiet zone. Again thank you for your continuing communication with us on this project. Feel free to contact me at any time at (415) 473-3770 or bdavidsonOmarincountv.ora. Sin y, ice R. Goralka D. Dawson Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 February 1, 2016 By Hand Delivery Mayor Gary Phillips and Councilmembers City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA 94915 Re: Andersen Drive At -Grade Crossing Staff Report Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: Given the large number of topics to be covered and the limited time available during public comment at tonight's hearing, the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, TRANSDEF, offers these comments on the legal issues addressed by the staff report's response to our comment letter of January 25 (p. 49.) [All page references are to the PDF of the staff report.] The staff report (p. 130) failed to controvert the assertions made in TRANSDEF's comment letter. Therefore, it would be arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law for the San Rafael City Council to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Significant Impact The staff report did not respond to TRANSDEF's assertions in its comment letter (pp. 50-51 and 53) that the proposed project would result in the following Conflicts with Adopted Policy, which constitute significant impacts: • CPUC's Conclusion of Law #6: "Absent further order of the Commission, rail service will have priority right to use the intersection." (p. 73) CPUC's Final Order #2: "This authorization to blockade the tracks shall expire upon the scheduling of regular train service over the tracks which intersect Andersen Drive. Upon such expiration of authority, The City shall take all actions necessary to ensure the unimpeded use of the intersection by the rail, absent further order of the Commission." (p. 74) Slowing down trains from 60 to 15 mph in an effort to avoid modification of the existing roadway geometry cannot reasonably be considered giving "rail service ... priority right to use the intersection" or "ensur[ing] the unimpeded use." The City Council is reminded that "ensuring unimpeded use" was the primary project Objective. An MND adopted with these comments in the record will certainly be awkward when The City files its application with the CPUC. TRANSDEF can and will protest on that basis. TRANSDEF 2/1/16 Page 2 Inadequate Initial Study The staff report did not respond to TRANSDEF's assertions that the Initial Study was inadequate in failing to evaluate the impacts of the following on the environment: The fundamental alteration of rail transit service (pp. 52-53) The 3 disadvantages of Alternative 6 (p. 53) Secondary impacts resulting from mitigations (pp. 53-54) The staff report did respond (p. 132-133) to TRANSDEF's assertion that the Initial Study was inadequate in failing to evaluate the impacts of the following on the environment: • The increase in travel time for rail transit service (pp. 51-52) For the first time in the record, it presented an assessment of the delay to rail transit: "less than one minute would be added to the approximately five-minute train passage between Downtown San Rafael and Larkspur." (p. 132) This is substantial evidence that rail transit service is impeded. The City has an elaborate regulatory scheme for traffic which analyzes intersections for delays, and makes project approvals based on its standards for Level of Service (LOS). The Initial Study (p. 3-74) found that the proposed project would increase the inter- section delay at Andersen Drive and Bellam Blvd. by 1.5 seconds, dropping the LOS from D to E. The City did not give rail passengers the same exquisitely detailed concern it gives auto drivers. Instead of providing an equivalent calculation of the delay, a threshold of significance and an evaluation of the significance of the impact, the staff report only gave the conclusory statement that "The addition of less than one minute to the passage would be unlikely to result in effects to ridership, greenhouse gas emissions, or operational costs." (p. 132-133) The adoption of an MND on the basis of this discriminatory lack of concern for rail transit passengers would constitute an arbitrary and capricious act. Mandatory Findings of Significance The staff report did not respond to TRANSDEF's assertion that Mandatory Findings of Significance could not be made: "The comments above have identified a large number of potential impacts on humans, either directly or indirectly, which the IS does not adequately evaluate." (p. 54) Incomplete Mitigation Package The TRANSDEF comment letter asserted that the proposed project is not eligible for an MND because the complete list of mitigations had not been "agreed to." We asserted that "There is no commitment in the record by SMART to implement the proposed mitigations." (p. 55) The staff report responded that "The IS/MND includes an MMRP." (p. 133) However, The City's commitment in an MMRP is irrelevant to TRANSDEF's contentions. The response failed to demonstrate that SMART has committed to implement the proposed mitigations. TRANSDEF 2/1/16 Page 3 The staff report offered no argument to counter TRANSDEF's assertion that the following IS quote makes the proposed project ineligible for an MND: "The full set of mitigations has "not been finalized, a preliminary list is as follows" (IS, p. 2-8.)" (p. 55) As we stated in our letter, "Because the full set of mitigations has not been incorporated into the project before the proposed MND was released for public review, an MND is not allowed (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d. 296)." (p. 55) Conclusion TRANSDEF asserts that the Initial Study has failed to justify a Mitigated Negative Declaration because the speed restriction conflicts with the CPUC's granting of priority to rail transit to use the crossing. TRANSDEF has presented substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of this significant impact, so that an EIR is required. In this case, we believe an EIR focused on safety and transportation impacts to be the proper level of environmental review. If the City Council selected Alternative 7B instead of the proposed project because of its substantially fewer impacts, TRANSDEF believes an MND would be the appropriate environmental document. In conclusion, the City has not provided a legally adequate response to TRANSDEF's assertion in its comment letter that the proposed project is ineligible for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Finally, we note that the City's method of preparing the staff report degraded the visual quality of our submission. We submitted our comments and attachments as PDF files. The City printed out and scanned almost 80 pages. The resulting low contrast makes the text difficult to read. There is no excuse in 2016 for not inserting our comments electronically into the staff report file. Whether the problem was caused by a poor printer or an improperly adjusted scanner, the 1970's quality is unacceptable. TRANSDEF's comments as submitted were as visually crisp and attractive as the staffs report. The City Council should have been provided with the same quality of presentation. We appreciate this opportunity to supplement our comments on the IS/MND. Sincerely, /s/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN David Schonbrunn, President David@Schonbrunn.org