Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2001-186 N.C.S. 10/16/2001 Ides®luti®n N®. 2001-1~6 N.C.S. ®f the City of Petaluma, California 1 CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT 2 FOR L,AFFERTY RANCH PARK 3 4 s WHEREAS, the Petaluma City Council ("Council") directed the preparation of an 6 Environmental Impact Report to evaluate the proposed use of the Lafferty Ranch ~ property as a public park; and 8 9 WHEREAS, the City circulated an Initial Study and a Notice of Preparation of an EIR to on June 21, 1997; and 11 12 WHEREAS, Public meetings were held on July 10 and December, 16, 1997, to solicit 13 public input on the scope of the EIR; and 14 is WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was completed in May, 1998; and 16 1~ WHEREAS, public comments on the Draft EIR were taken through August 24, 1998; 18 and 1~ 20 WHEREAS, after consideration of the public comments on the. Draft EIR, the City 21 directed staff to prepare a Revised Draft EIR on December 7, 1998; and 22 23 WHEREAS, a Revised Draft EIR was completed in September, 2000; and 24 2s WHEREAS, aforty-five (45) day public review period on the Revised DEIR concluded 26 on November 13, 2000; and 1 Resolution No. 2001-186 N.C.S. 1 2 WHEREAS, a joint City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission/Planning 3 Commission public hearing on the Revised Draft EIR was held on November 13, 2000; 4 and 5 ~ WHEREAS, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissions, the Council ~ directed that a Final EIR be prepared; and s 9 WHEREAS, a Final EIR was completed in February, 2001; and io i i WHEREAS, the Revised Draft EIR and Final EIR contain a description of the proposed r2 project, the significant environmental effects of the proposed project, mitigation measures 13 to minimize the significant effects on the environment, alternatives to the proposed 14 project, and the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project; comments on the 15 Revised EIR and responses thereto; and all other elements required under CEQA, the ib CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines; and 17 is WHEREAS, on February 27, 2001, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on the proposed General Plan amendments and on the Final EIR; and 20 21 WHEREAS, the Commission unanimously recommended certification of the Final EIR; 22 and 23 24 WHEREAS, on March 26, 2001, the City held a noticed public hearing to consider the 2s Final EIR, and directed City Management to prepare the documents needed to certify the 26 EIR, 27 2s NOW THEREk'ORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Public Resources Code 29 sections. 21082.1(c)(3) and 21100(a), title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 30 15090, and sections 13..3.0 and 13.3.1 of the City of Petaluma Environmental Review 31 Guidelines, the Council hereby certifies that the Environmental Impact Report for the 2 Resolution No. 2001-186 N.C.S. 1 Lafferty Ranch Park has been completed in compliance with the California 2 Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"). 3 The Council further certifies that the Final EIR was presented to the Council and that the 4 Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR. The Council 5 further certifies that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of 6 Petaluma; and 7 s BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council makes and incorporates herein by 9 reference the findings attached hereto as Exhibit 1 in support of its certification of the to EIR. 11 12 Exhibits: 13 14 Exhibit 1: Findings In Support of Certification of the Lafferty Ranch Park EIR. I$ H`.pVLaPEertyhesos\FEfR certification 1O1001.doc 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ' 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. 42 REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the 43 Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on, October 16, 2001, Ap roved as to 44 by the following vote: f 45 46 rty Attorney 47 AYES: O'Brien, Healy, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan, Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson 48 NOES: None 49 ABSENT: None 50 51 ATTEST: 52 City Clerl~~ (grk Mayor 3 Resolution No. 2001-186 N.C.S. EXHIBIT `1' 'CITY OF PETALUMA, ,CALIFORNIA FIlV'DINGS IN SUPPORT OF CERTIFICATION OF THE LAFFERTY RANCH PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Pursuant to sections 13.3.0 and 13.3.1 of the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in .support of its certification of the Lafferty Ranch Park Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). The EIR and any findings required by CEQA that are adopted by the Council in connection with the approval of a project alternative are incorporated herein by reference: A. EIR Process. The City circulated an Initial Study and a Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the Lafferty Ranch Park project ("project") on June 21, 1997. Public meetings were held on July 10 and December 16, 1997, to solicit public input on the scope of the EIR and the recommendations of the Lafferty Ranch Park,Draft Management Plan. A Draft EIR was completed in May 1998 and notices of availability were circulated on June 2 and June 25, 1998. Public comments were taken through August 24, 1998. During this period; the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission held public meetings at which public testimony on the Draft 'EIR was taken. Both Commissions recommended preparation of a Final EIR. Following. the close- of the public review period,. the City Council authorized the preparation of a -Final EIR. After consideration of the public comments on the Draft EIR, City management recommended that the Draft EIR. be revised and recirculated for public: review: On December 7, 199.8, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Revised Draft EIR. A Revised Draft EIR was completed on September 29, 2000. A forty-five (45) day public review period. on the .Revised IDEIR concluded on November 13, 2000. A joint. City CounciUParks and Recreation Commssion/Planning Commission public hearing. on the Revised Draft EIR was held on November 13, 2000. In accordance with. the recommendations of the Commissions, the Council directed that a Final EIR beprepared. A Final EIR was completed and circulated to public agency commenter on February 15, 2001, On .February 27, 2001, the Planning. Commission held a noticed public hearing on the proposed General Plan amendments and on the Final EIR. The Commission unanimously recommended certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the proposed General. Plan amendments with minor, non-substantive modifications. On March 2'6, 2001, the City Council held a noticed public hearing to consider the Page 1 of 19 (aesc~• oI- 18to NHS Final EIR and the'. proposed project. The City Council was provided with comment letters received regarding Final Environmental Impact Report, Errata for the Final EIR, -arid other relevant material's. Public comment was taken. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council directed management to prepare the documents needed to certify the EIR and to approve the project. . The process of preparing the Lafferty Ranch EIR has ~ included substantial opportunity for public comment and input. The public review periods provided have met or exceeded the requirements of CEQA. The EIR has been completed in compliance with the procedural requirements of CEQA and local guidelines. B. Potentially Significant Tmpaets of the Project. The EIR found the following impacts of the project would be potentially significant and identified mitigation measures to address those impacts, as described below. The EIR also identified alternatives to the project that. would avoid or substantially lessen certain of the project's significant impacts. Those alternatives are summarized in the next .section. The conclusions of the EIR described below are incorporated by reference into these findings. • Impact. 3.1-A. The construction and use of the trail network will result in soil erosion. The E1R identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: 1. The report included in Appendix B identifies a currently eroding gully system near the northwest side of the site as shown on Figure 7. This gully system wil'1 be stabilized as. described in the report in Appendix B. The final design of the stabilization will be prepared by a :hydrologic engineer or creek stabilization expert. Bioengineering techniques will be used for stream restoration, including bank grading and revegetation, grade stabilization using boulder and log weirs, and boulder cascades set in a step-pool configuration where elevation differentials are significant. Construction of the gully restoration project is a Priority 1 action. - In addition, rio trail or other construction work that could result in sedimentation to Adobe Creek may. occur until construction of the gully restoration project has been initiated. A~11 construction activities .that could result in sedimentation ~to Adobe Creek shall occur during the dry season only. The gully restoration project shall be monitored after the first rainy season following completion, and on an annual basis thereafter for 5 years. Monitoring will include the following: a An as-built channel survey will be conducted, including channel Page 2 of 19 ~e so ~ 1- I $io N GS longitudinal profile. and cross-sections referenced to semi=permanent benchmark points.establshed near the rnifiigation site. v Annual monitoring will include level surveys of the same channel profile and cross-sections established during the initial survey. ® Photographic documentation of vegetation establishment and channel bed/bank condition will also be provided. ® The results of the annual monitoring work will be compiled in a report to the City and' distributed to any interested resource agencies (e.g. RWQCB, CDFG, NMFS). If the monitoring indicates that modifications to the stabilization structure are .necessary to ensure maximum effectiveness, the City will complete hose modifications prior to the commencement of the next rainy season. Any such modifications would be done under the supervision of the project hydrologist. 1 ' 2. .Small bridges. will be placed at seven additional locations as shown on .Figure- 7. The hydrologic engineer has stated that in some cases, the recommended bridge crossings .of small stream channels may not be required, and culverts or at-grade crossings would be acceptable (Vandvere, personal communication,. 9!1/00). All bridges. or other crossings will be located in the field under the guidance of a civil engineer or engineering geologist familiar with stream stabilization. Bridge spans, will be constructed to provide a setback of any abutments from the stream channel. The large-format map on fife with the City Planning Department that shows the recommended bridge locations includes two additional bridges near Point 16 on Figure 4. These bridges were recommended on the basis of the hydrologist assuming the trail in finis location would cross thecreek and then . recross it before traveling north. In fact the trail will stay on the west side of`the stream in thus area, so these two bridges are not required. 3. For trail crossings of first-order stream channels where bridges: are not. constructed, stabilized at-grade crossings will be constructed. Culverts will not be. used unless it is determined by a civil engineer that. they are necessary.. If culverts are used .they shall be oversized to at least 200 percent of the estimated 1.00-year peak flow. Arched culverts will be .used. If culverts are used, a rocked apron will. be constructed: at the outlet; the. apron shall extend at least five feet downslope from ~the~ culvert outlet. 4. As shown on Figure 7, the connector trail between Trail No. 1 and Trail No. 2 shall be realigned. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigations were incorporated into the project, this Page 3 of 19 t~e sd . ~ I - I ~(p G~1CS impact would be reduced to aless than significant level. • Impact 3.1-B Continuous off-trail use (bootleg trails) could result in additional soil erosion. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: ® The same mitigation measures proposed for Impact 3.1-A are recommended for this impact. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigations were incorporated into the project; this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. • Impact 3.1-D Construction of the parking lot and attendant improvements will cause soil.disturbance. The E1R identifies the following mitigation measures .for this impact: 1. The water tank location will be assessed by an engineering geologist prior to final design. The cut and fill operation will be performed in accordance with all :recommendations developed by the engineering geologist. 2. The access road and. parking lot. will be designed by a civil engineer with input from a soils engineer or engineering geologist. Design will take into account the presence of expansive soils on the site. The design will minimize the need for grading, allowing the final layout to move the northwest corner of the parking lot as much as 75 feet to the east. 3. Construction of the parking. lots and. water tanks will occur after the rainy season has ended. All bared surfaces will be covered by the new pavement or watertanks prior to the onset of the coming rainy season. Any disturbed areas immediately bordering the parking lot or tanks site shall. be reseeded prior to the start of the rainy season. 'The E1R concluded that if -the above mitigations were incorporated i"nto the project, this impact would be.reduced to a less than significant level. • Impact 3.1-E Earthquake groundshaking could have an impact on the park. The EIR_ identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: 1. Following regional earthquake shaking, the park .shall be temporarily closed until park personnel have inspected the trail network, as well as up and downslope peripheral .areas to determine if earthquake shaking-induced instability has Page 4 of 19 ~eso . o I - I S (v ?J GS occurred that would be a, hazard to park use. If such conditions are present, the trails and..overlook locations shall'be repaired and/or relocated as necessary. 2. The water tank and foundation shall be designed and constructed to meet County seismic requirements. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigations were incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. • Impact 3.1-F Primary surface rupture from 'a moderate or large earthquake along ' the Rodgers Creek fault could damage and/or temporarily close Sonoma 1Vlountain Road. The EIR identifies the'followmg mitigation measure for this impact: ~ Following a moderate or large earthquake on the Rodgers Creek fault, the City in conjunction with Sonoma County will inspect Sonoma Mountain Road for surface rupture-related damage. The City will modify park management decisions as ..necessary to accommodate road closures ordered by Sonoma County. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigation is incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. • Impact `3:1-G Prescribed burning on the site could result in soil erosion. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: s To minimize-soil erosion effects during;prescribed burning, burning shall be done per the specifications in the State's Vegetation Management Plan. At the least, the following mitigation measures shall apply. 1. If prescribed burning is conducted; there will be no burning within a buffer zone established along the streams, Per'the recommendations established in the Chaparral Management Program Final EIR (California Department of Forestry, 191, p. 136) and the Draft Program Environmental Impact . Report for Vegetation Management Plan, California: Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., 1998, p. 4- .13 -this ET12 addresses the impacts of prescribed burning throughout much of the State per the State's proposed Vegetation Management Plan), the buffers for the main channel of Adobe Creek will be 1.00 feet except in areas where slopes exceed, 50 percent, where the buffer will be 1 SO feet. For .all tributaries to Adobe Creek, the buffer will be 50 feet for slopes of 0-30 .percent, 75 feet for slopes of 30-50 percent, and 100 feet for slopes exceeding 50 percent. Page 5 of 19 I~eso . d 1 -1 NGS 2. After a prescribed burn; grassland areas will be monitored by a qualified botanist to determine the success of natural reseeding. If the botanist determines that natural reseeding and regrowth is not sufficient to reestablish. a vegetative cover of the grassland area by the next rainy season, the City shall reseed the areas that have not naturally reseeded. Seeding should use native grasses and (orbs as far as feasible. 3. Burning beneath oaks and other trees shall be monitored to assess erosion effects. Erosion is not as likely under wooded areas due to the tree canopy reducing the force: of rainfall. If necessary, areas showing erosion can be _ reseeded or in extreme cases other erosion control techniques could be ' required including the placement of erosion control blankets, or the installation of wattles. The E1R concluded that if the above mitigations were incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. • Impact 3.1-H Future grazing of the site could produce soil erosion. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measure for this impact: ~ The gully system recommended as mitigation for Impact 3.1-A. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigation is incorporated into the project, impacts on soil erosion would be reduced, but would remain significant. • ><mpact 32-B Runoff from impermeable ;surfaces can transport chemicals and. sediment that would damage the water quality of on-site wetlands and' Adobe Creek. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measures:for this impact: 1. The mitigation measures recommended for Impacts 3.1-A, 3.1-G, and 3.1-H are required to mitigate impacts to water quality for soil erosion. 2. Grade. the parking lot to direct flows to the northeast. Provide level spreaders along. the depressed side(s) of the parking lot to ensure that runoff is spread and not concentrated. This mitigation should .eliminate or reduce the amount of pollutants entering the wetland to an. insubstantial level. However, to ensure there is no pollution of the wetland or Adobe Creek, it is recommended that the City install an oil/water separator. In this case, runoff from the parking lot would be collected .and treated at one point prior to .release to the vegetated area. ~ The City wil commit to having this mitigation reviewed:.. by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. If neither agency Page 6 of 19 ~eso• ©I- I~Co NGS believes that the oil/water separator is necessary, then the City will grade the parking lot and provide level spreaders as stated above. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigations. were incorporated into the project, this impact would. be reduced to a less than significant level, • Impact 3.3-C Future use of prescribed burning could adversely affect vegetation. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: 1. The prescription will provide fora 100-foot wide unburned buffer along both sides of the main stern of Adobe Creek and 50 feet wide on all tributaries to the creek. 2. No wetland .areas identified. on Figure 8 ..shall. be burned. The prescription will provide for a buffer around these areas. 3. The area containing the coyote mint plant shall not be burned. 4. Prior to developing the vegetation management plan -for any prescribed burning on the site, the site will be surveyed by a botanist to map the populations of Mount Diablo Cottonweed. The initial prescribed burn will include no more than: 25 percent of the area populated by this species. The City will have a botanist monitor the prescribed burn to determine the success of this species in reestablishing its population in the burned area. For purposes of measuring repopulation, it will be assumed that repopulation occurs if 50 percent. of the estimated number of plants in the population are reestablished by spring/early summer of the year following the burn.. If the species does not reestablish itself in. burned areas, then at least two-thirds of the area populated by this species will be left unburned. The ET1Z concluded that if the above mitigations were incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced to ales than significant level. • Impact 3:4=A Increased use of"the project~site could adversely affect golden eagles: The EIIZ identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: - 1. The City shall .engage a wildlife biologist to oversee collection of baseline data before Trail No. 1 is opened to public use above Point No. 16 on .Figure 4, to determine the period of time- that fledgling juveniles use Lafferty Ranch Park and the :areas they use. The ,baseline data will be collected from the first of June through. the tune that the eagles have grown out of the fledgling stage (probably no later than the end of August). Monitoring will occur every three days. A Page 7 of 19 Rena, a ~ - I a co Ices -report shall be prepared describing periods of .fledgling presence and areas used. A fledgling. period of use will be identified that. will consist of the time fledglings were actually seen using the site plus -two -weeks on either side of that period to provide flexibility to account for variations in weather. If possible (with permission of neighboring landowners), the wildlife biologist should examine . neighboring properties for fledgling use. 2. For the first year after the park. is opened to public use, fledgling use will be. monitored under the supervision of a wildlife biologist. If fledglings continue to use the park, then additional monitoring will occur for the next four years. 3. If monitoring during any of the. years indicates .that fledglings have been displaced from the park, then the .City will consult with CDFG to determine additional mitigation that may be required. It is possible that based on the baseline and monitoring data provided by the City that CTDFG will determine that fledglings have simply been displaced. onto neighboring properties and that there is sufficient habitat for these fledglings so that no additional mitigation is required. However, if CDFG determines that there is not sufficient fledgling habitat elsewhere, the City will commit at least to the following mitigations, which may be modified or arnen'ded by CDFG: a. A sign shall be placed at Points 16 and 19 on Trail No. 1 explaining golden eagle and .other raptor use of the area to the north setting forth the following :restrictions: 1) during the~fledgling period identified from the baseline studies, users. will be required to stay in groups on the trail in the grassy .area north of Points 16 and 19, and 2) visitors will be required not to travel off the trail to approach eagles or other birds. b. Monitoring will continue for at least five years after Mitigation 3a is implemented. c. If further monitoring indicates that Mitigation 3a does not result in fledglings. returning to the site at the end of the .first year of monitoring, then the City will chose the trail at~Points 16 and 1.9 during ,the fledgling period. A sign will. be. placed announcing the closure at Points 16 and 19 to ensure that visitors do not enter the northern grassland area. The trail will be closed for the duration of the identified fledgling period. d. Educational groups led by a docent'. could. be allowed above Points 16 and 19 to potentially observe eagle behavior. s The small number of such groups would not displace eagles from th'e site. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigations were incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Page 8 of 19 • (ZeSO• bl- I~(p NCS • Impact 3.4-C Increased use of the site could adversely affect yellow-legged frog populations in Adobe Creek. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: ® The implementation of erosion miti~gati~on for steelhead (mitigations. for Itripacts 3.1-A, 3.1-H and 3.4-J) are required for this impact. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigation is incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced, but would remain significant. • Impact 3.4-I) Increased use of'the site could adversely affect grasshopper sparrows. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: 1. The Lafferty Ranch Park Draft Management Plan calls for fencing the wetland areas and the sag pond in the southwest corner of the park. If grazing of the .park is permitted, a fence shall be constructed to extend along the base of the steep hill just-north of the parking lot. The fence will start at the western property line and extend east o intersect the northern. end of the. fenced wetland near Point 4 on ,Figure 4. This fenced-off area. (encompassing the fenced wetland and the area to the west to the west property line) would provide the needed wetland. protectian and.provide some uplandrefugia for nesting birds, turtles, and frogs. If a grazing option in the southwestern section of the park is adopted, it will be allowed within this fenced area only after July 15 when young grasshopper sparrows have left the nest. The Draft. Management. Plan calls for grazing to be completed by the end, of June each year. However, the grazing period for the area 'fenced off for grasshopper sparrow mitigation would be from July 15 to -July 30 and allowed until the stubble reaches 5 inches in height. The residual: stubble will provide some nesting cover at the beginning of the next nesting season. Mowing, a 50-foot buffer around. the parking lot to reduce the fire hazard can be: . done withgut impacts to the grasshopper sparrows. If this alternative is implemented, it shall be done in mid-March (before the grasshopper sparrows return to breed) and maintained throughout the fire season to keep grasshopper sparrows: from nesting in the mowed buffer strips. The rest of the grassland between the parking lot area and the wetland ~to the east shall not be mowed or grazed until after July 15, Following the first year of grazing, a wi dlfe biologist shall survey the area during the following nesting season to determine whether grasshopper sparrows continue Page 9 of 19 ©~-I~Co NG.s to use the site. This .survey will be conducted each year for three years. If the survey indicates that grasshopper sparrows continue to use the site each of those three years, then -additional monitoring is :not .required. If grasshopper sparrows do not return to the area, then the area to the east of the fenced wetland (between the fenced wetland and Trail No. 3) will be left ungrazed throughout the year. 2. Visitor use in the grassy areas of the southwestern part of the park shall be limited to the trails thus providing a predictable and confined disturbance. Signs at the trai~lhead~ sha~~ll warn' visitors of the s~enstiv~ity of the grassfwetland habitats i~n the southwestern section of the park .advising them to stay on the defined trails during the spring. and summer months until. they pass through the area. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigations were incorporated into the project,. this impact would be reduced to ales than significant level. • Impact 3.4-E Proposed use of the site could adversely affect. western pond turtles. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measure for this impact: • Fence the upland area (see .grasshopper sparrow mitigation No. 1). Before any mowing (or burning) of the area between the parking lot and the wetland, a biologist will walk through the area to see if there are any indications of the presence of turtles and recommend the appropriate actions to avoid harm. Thee EIIZ concluded that if the above mitigation is incorporated into the project, this impact would. be reduced to a less than significant level. • Impact 3.4->FI Park use could adversely affect Cooper's hawk and sharp-shinned hawk. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measure for this impact: ® In May of each year,. a qualified raptor biologist will hike the trails in the park broadcasting Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawk calls to determine if either species rni'ght be nesting near a given trail. If a nesting pair is found within 100' yards of a trail, the trail will be closed until July 31. The EIR concluded that if the .above mitigation .is incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. • Impact 3.4-J Increased use of the site could adversely affect steelhead trout populations in Adohe Creek. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: Page 10 of 19 Rasp. DI-l~ta NGS 1. The mitigations required .for Impacts 3.1-A, 3.1-D, 3.1:-G, 3.1-H, and 3.2-B are .also applicable to impacts to steelhead from increased sedimentation. 2. To mitigate poaching impacts, the following measures are required: a. Trail No. 4 will be closed to public use from the period of November 1 to March 30. The City may conduct subsequent studies of spawning behavior below the diversion facility. These studies may indicate that the closure period can be shorter than ~ described herein. Prior to decreasing the closure period, the City will have NMFS review the spawning study. The closure period will not. be reduced unless NMFS concurs with the amended closure period. b. Signs will be :installed at the parking lot trailhead and at the start of Trail No. 4 identifying the trail's closure during the appropriate period. A cable gate (i.e., two posts with a cable suspended between there) will be installed at the start of Trail No. 4. The cable will be :closed during the season that the trail is closed to prevent steelhead poaching. A sign warning people not to enter the trail will be posted. The precise wording for this sign will be determined, by NMFS. c. Signs will be placed at the parking lot trailhead and at the trailhead for Trail No. 4 that. explain the. life cycle of the steelhead and their requirements, their threatened status; and ongoing efforts to re-populate and improve the creek. The sign will warn people not to catch or handle fish, especially not spawning steelhead; and will clearly describe the . penalties for so doing. People will be encouraged to call the City or DFG if they observe anyone catching or harassing fish. d. City staff will monitor the area for poachers during the spawning season.. Monitoring will. occur during staff patrols and occur 2-3 times per week., 3. If the City decides to explore wetland restoration in the future, the plan. for that restoration will include a complete hydrologic assessment of the impacts on streamflows in Adobe Creek. if restoration is proposed, it will be conducted only if the project does not adversely affect streamflows in the creek. The restoration plan and hydrologic analysis will be reviewed and approved by NMFS before it will be implemented. 4. If NMFS determines that. prescribed burning would result in unacceptable levels of sediment in Adobe Creek :and that the increased risk of a major wildfire is preferable, then prescribed burning would not be conducted. Page 11 of 19 Re.~. O I - I $ (p NGS The EIR concluded- that if the above mitigations are incorporated into the project, the impacts to sfeelhead identified in the EIR would be reduced to a less than significant level, except.,fgr impacts caused by sedimentation, .which would be reduced but would remain significant. Project alternatives that would.rnitigate this impact are. discussed in the next section. • Impact 3:4-M Prescribed burning on the site could adversely affect wildlife. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measure for this impact: o To ensure that nesting birds are :not adversely affected, burning shall take place outside the normal nesting season. If the burn is scheduled anytime prior to September 15, a wildlife biologist will examine the proposed burn area to ensure. that no nesting or other wildlife activity s present. If any nesting activity is found . prior to this date, then the burning, will be, delayed until the wildlife biologist. has. determined that the nests have been abandoned. If burning, occurs after~September 15 and before February 15, then there would be no effect and no need for a survey. The EIR concluded. that if the above mitigation is incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. • Impact 3.5-A Trail construction could adversely affect cultural resources. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measures forthis impact: 1. Pricer to trail construction, •the proposed trail route through the Frog Site and Lafferty Homestead Site will be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. The trail will be constructed or realigned per the recommendations of the archaeologist. 2. If any cultural resources are. unearthed during trail construction or construction of any other improvement, work will be halted in the area of the discovery until the resources are evaluated by a qualified archeologist. The EI12 concluded that. if the above. mitigations were incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level • Impact 3.6-A Public use of the site will increase the possibility of a large wildfire. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: 1. The C_ty will place a remote, automated weather station CRAWS weather station) on the'site. Information frorn~ this station will provide information to the City and CDF about actual weather conditions on the site as compared to predictions based on other stations. The location for the station will be determined in conjunction Page 12 of 19 ~eso. o i - I ~Zo N C~s with. CDF. 2. Th'e Draft Management Plan calls for the park being closed on all predicted high dispatch response level days (i.e., Red Flag .Days with a Burn Index of 41 or higher). With on-site weather records, a much better understanding of the climatology on the site could be developed; and closure thresholds refined. The actual closure criteria should also include other factors not related to on-site conditions. For example, if local fire protection resources are depleted due to fire activity elsewhere in the State, then closure may be warranted at a lower BI. The City may consider a closure point greater than BI 41, but it is recommended. that. this be done only if CDF concurs based on on-site weather information and other information included in the EIR. 3. A 30-foot wide fuel break shall. be constructed along the west side of the site from the park entrance to Point 21 on Figure 4. This .fuel break can be constructed by hand crews using weedwhips or a mower if access is feasible. Grass will be cut to no higher than 0.5 inch in the fuel break.. In the .areas where trees border the property line, the trees will be limbed to a height of 8 feet and dead understory branches will be removed. Grass cut in the 6-foot band of the fuelbreak nearest the property line shall be raked to the inside of the-fuel break. 4. The fuel break required for the north side of the property shall be 30 feet wide rather than'25 feet wide. 5. A sign shall be placed near the south end of .Sonoma Mountain Road that. will. announce when the park is closed. This will dissuade people accessing the park from driving all the way to the park on those days when the park is closed for fire hazard reasons. ~ 6. Signs in the parking lot :and at the 'trailhead that describe the prohibition on smoking shall include a warning describing the specific penalty for anyone caught- smoking on the park. 7. If mowing. equipment; including weedeaters,. is used 'after the grass has dried, in the target mowing area, then a spotter equipped with a fire extinguisher will be on site in the location of the mowing to extinguish any accidental fire started by the equipment. Weedeating crews will work together in a confined area so that the spotter is within 50 feet of any one weedeater. 8. The City of Petaluma Fire Department shall formalize an automatic response to Lafferty Ranch with CDF. The City of Petaluma ..Fire Department will notify the Valley of the Moon Fire Districf of. any fires. igniting on or crossing Lafferty Ranch as soon as the Petaluma Fire Department becomes aware of -said fire. Page 13 of 19 r~2s0 • ~ 1- Co N G S 9. If .grazing is not implemented prior to park opening; mowing will be conducted prior to `park opening; unless the park is opened after the fire season, in which case grazing or mowing will occur the following spring. Except for the area that cannot `be mowed until after July 15, annual mowing shall be done when the grass is still green but the growth period has ended. If unseasonal rains occur after the mowing has been completed and substantial new growth (at least four inches) has occurred, the City shall remove the grass. 10. Immediately following project approval; the City will request that CDF conduct a prescribed burn on the site. If prescribed burning .has not been completed prior to the first fire season in which the park is open, the City shall mechanically cut ladder fuels within the woodland/grassland transitional zone prior to that time. The prescribed burning program will be conducted as deemed necess""cry by CDF to rid the woodland/grassland transitional zone and isolated oak groves west of Adobe Creek and south of Point 21 on Figure 4 of SODS-caused dead material. If CDF cannot or will not conduct periodic prescribed burns, the City will monitor the transitional zone and isolated groves for such material every five: years If such material is found, it will be treated by limbing up branches to at least 10 feet above grade and cutting any shrub species or young trees. All cut material plus dead .material under three inches in diameter will be piled outside the woodland edge and burned under fire-safe weather conditions. The transitional zone will be .defined as 20 feet. from the grassland edge. A secondary zone extending 50 yards from the grassland edge will be monitored to identify large gaps (i.e., at least 30 by 30 feet) caused 6y~SODS. In addition, CDF or the fire scientist will determine whether- gaps caused by SODS that are near the secondary zone are sufficiently connected to the grassland that they could ignite by a fire moving from the • grassland. Large gaps in the secondary zone that connect to the grassland will be treated either by extending the prescribed burn into the gaps or by mechanically cutting, piling, and. burning all dead materials under three inches in diameter as well as all shrub species that have invaded the gap. Isolated stands of oaks occurring in the defined area will be similarly treated. Once the first burn or mechanical treatment has been completed, the City will have a fire scientist and/or CDF re-assess the area at the end of every five. year period to determine the need for additional prescribed burning or mechanical treatment,. and the City will 'implement those recommendations within a one year period or as soon as CDF can conduct "the prescribed burn. This. program hall be revised as necessary as part of an adaptive management program to account for new information or developments relating to SODS and its effect on fire hazard. The EIR concluded that if the above, mitigations are incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced, but would remain significant. Project alternatives that would mitigate this impact are discussed in the next section. • • Impact 3.6-B Responding to fires :on ;the. site will. increase the workload of fire Page 14 of 1'9 ;suppression agencies. The EIR identifies: the following mitigation measures for this impact: 1. The City will monitor the City Fire Department responses to Lafferty Ranch Park. At such tune as the responses require more time than would be expended by 0.2 full time employee (that is, more than one-fifth of the work week of a firefighter), the City will budget sufficient money to hire an .additional firefighter. The cost of this additional firefighter for time spent on work unrelated to Lafferty Ranch should be shared, on a fair share basis., by other new development approved by the City that contributes to increased demand for firefighting services. The EIR concluded that if ahe above mitigation is incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 3:7-8 Increased traffic on Sonoma Mountain' Road could result in increased risk of accidents involving. motor vehicles, bicyclists, and/or pedestrians. The E1R identifies following mitigations for this impact: 1. Upgrade. the entire length of Sonoma Mountain -Road to minimum AASHTO standards for travel way; shoulder width, road grade, and sight distance. 2. Implement all additional roadway- improvements recommended in the report prepared by the Crane Transportation Group located in Appendix I of the DEIR. 3. Construct the access road from Sonoma Mountain Road to the-park parking lot to AASHTO standards. The EIR concluded that while implementation of the above measures would mitigate-this impact to a level of insignificance, measures 1 and 2 .above are infeasible for economic other reasons described in he E1R. The EIR also concluded that measures 1 and 2 are outside the City's jurisdiction and within the responsibility of the County of Sonoma. 'The EIR also identified the following mitigation measures~for this impact: 1. Deueloprnent of a phased road i-mprovement plan which implements some or all of the .improvements, described above. To the extent feasible, such plan should implement improvements on a priority basis in accordance with the hazard ranking.~set forth in Appendix I of the Revised DEIR. 2. Implementation of the following interim measures: ® Sign Sonoma Mountain Road as "Hazardous for Bicyclists and Pedestrians." Page 15 of 19 Reso. o ~ - I ~ NCS • Eliminate the proposed bicycle racks from the park to discourage use by cyclists. • Construct speed bumps for the road segments. that present the greatest safety concerns. • Post speed limit signs along the length of Sonoma Mountain Road fo the park entrance. Speed limits would be established at each area of constrained .sight " di tance so that the legal speed would meet-the AASHTO-recommended stopping distances. The E~IR concluded that if the above mitigation measures were implemented, traffic safety impacts would be reduced, but would remain significant: The EIR further concluded that these measures (with the exception of eliminating proposed bicycle racks) are outside the City's jurisdiction and within the jurisdiction of Sonoma County. Project alternatives that would mitigate this impact are discussed `in the next section. • Impact 3.8-A Increased public use of the site will. increase the chance of criminal activity in the area thereby increasing the number of calls. for service to the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department and Petaluma Police Department. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measure for this impact: ® The City will liire~an additional police officer. This officer would be responsible for-responses to Lafferty Ranch Park as well as other parks in the City. The EIR concluded that- -if the above. mitigation is incorporated into the project, this .impact would be reduced.. to a less than significant level. Impact 3.8-C The park will increase the calls for emergency medical response. The EIR identifies the following mitigation measure. for this impact: " • ~ The Gty will monitor Fire Department responses to Lafferty Ranch Park. At such tirrie as the responses require more time than would be expended by 02 full time employee (that is, more than orie-fifth of the work week of a firefigh"ter and/or emergency .medical technician), the City will budget sufficient money to hire an additional firefighter or EMT. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigation is incorporated into the project, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.. • Impact 3.9-B Park users may litter the landscape. Page 16 of 19 12eso • o I - I ~i.o rJC.~S The EIR identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: 1. The City shall monitor the park for litter. 2. ~ City staff shall collect litter at least. once a week. 3. If litter is an ongoing problem, the City shall install garbage cans and arrange to have the garbage collected. 4. Signs shall be posted in the parking lot stating that no garbage disposal is available and that users should pack out any trash they generate. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigations were incorporated into the project, ,this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. • Impact 3.12-B Project construction will generate dust. The E1R identifies the following mitigation measures for this impact: ® Per the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the following mitigations are required: 1. Water parking lot at least twice daily and the access road at least three times daily until asphalt is laid. 2: Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to .maintain at least. two feet of freeboard (space between the top of the load and top of the truck side). 3. Sweep Sonoma., Mountain Road within 500 feet of the park access daily with a water sweeper if visible soil material is carried onto this street. The EIR concluded that if the above mitigations were incorporated into the project, this ' ~ impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. • Cumulative; impacts: The. project, combined with other past,., present and reasonably :foreseeable future projects, would have significant cumulative impacts on erosion;. yellow-legged frog, steelhead, traffic .safety, .and fire danger. The EIR concluded that if the mitigation measures described above for each of these impact categories were implemented, each of the project's cumulative impacts would be reduced, but would remain significant. C. Project Alternatives Page 17 of 19 ~.~2s o, d I- I~ l~ C S The EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. The extent to which each alternative would mitigate the significant impacts of the project, or would cause additional significant impacts,. is summarized below. • Alternative lA - No Project, Maintain as Nature Preserve. The EIR concluded that this alternative would mitigate all of the significant impacts of the project to a less than significant level if grazing were not, permitted. If grazing were permitted, this alternative would have a significant impact on erosion, steelhead and yellow- legged frogs, but would mitigate traffic safety and fire danger impacts to a less than significant level. • AlternativelB - No Project, Sale to Agricultural Operator. The E]R concluded that this alternative would mitigate traffic safety and fire danger impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts on erosion, steelhead, and yellow-legged frogs, would.reman sg~ni~ficant~ and potentially increase in severity. This alternative could also result in additional significant impacts on wetlands, water quality, ground-nesting birds such as grasshopper sparrow, and. vegetation. • Alternative 1C - No Project, Sale. to Residential Developer. The EIR concluded that this alternative would not mitigate any of theproject's significant impacts to a less thane significant level. Traffic .safety impacts would be slightly .reduced, but would remain significant. Impacts. on fire danger, erosion, yellow-legged frog, and steelhead would remain significant and would likely increase in severi y. • Alter=native 2 -Restricted Use. The EIR concluded thatthis alternative would niiti'gate~the project's significant impacts on fire danger,. erosion, steelhead, and yellow-legged frog to a less than significant level. Traffic safety impacts would be substantially lessened; but would remain significant. .Alternative 3 -Increased Use. The EIR concluded'that this alternative would not mitigate any of the project's significant impacts to a less than significant level, and would likely increase their severity. • Alternative 4 -Park Closure During High Fire >=Lazard Season. The'E1R concluded that this alternative. would mitigate- fire danger impacts to a less than significant level. If' grazing were eliminated, impacts on erosion,. steelhead and yellow-legged frog would be mitigated. to a less than significant level. Traffic safety impacts would be reduced, but would remain significant. Page 18 of 19 ~esU . O I - I l`l CS • Alternative SA -Moon Ranch. The EIR concluded that this alternative would mitigate impacts on fire danger to a less than significant level. Traffic safety impacts would be reduced, .but would remain significant. Impacts on erosion, :yellow-legged frog, and steelhead may be reduced, but are also likely to remain significant. • Alternative 5)6 - Triangle G Ranch/Stage Gulch Road Site. The EIR concluded:.that this alternative would not mitigate any of the project's significant impacts to a less than significant level, with the possible exception of steelhead and yellow- legged frogs. Impacts to those species may be reduced, but are likely to remain significant. Traffic safety impacts would remain significant. Fire danger impacts would remain significant and would increase in severity. • Alternative 5C -Morelli Ranch. " The EIR concluded that this alternative would not.. reduce any of the significant impacts of the project to a less than significant level. Traffic, safety impacts would be reduced but would remain significant. • Alternative 6 -No Grazing Alternative. -The EIR concluded that th's alternat e would mitigate impacts on erosion, steelhead :and yellow-legged frog to a less than, significant level. Impacts on traffic safety and fire danger would remain significant. D. CEQA Compliance The EIR was presented to the City Council and Council has reviewed and. considered the information contained in the E'IR. The EIR contains a description of the proposed project,, the. significant environmental effects of the proposed project, mitigation measures to minimize the significant effects on the environment, alternatives to the proposed project, and the growth-inducing: impacts of the proposed project; comments on the Revised EIR and responses thereto;. and all other elements required under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.. The EIR .has been completed in -compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21.0:00 et seq. ("CEQA"). The EIR reflects the incieperident judgment and analysis of the. City of Petaluma. H:pt/Lafferty/ResolutionsUteviseJ certification findings.doc Page 19 of 19 Qeso. o I- I ~l0 1~1CS