HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 95-243 09/05/1995 Resolution No. ss-24s 1~.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma. California
APPROVING THE LOCALLY PREFERRED PLAN FOR THE PETALUMA RIVER,
PAYRAN REACH FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND
ADOPTING SPECIFIC FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES, MONITORING
PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1 WHEREAS, the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Petaluma River Payran Reach
2 Flood Control Imptovement Project identified potentially significant effects on the
3 environmental which may occur as a result of the project or project alternatives and specified
4 mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects on the environment; and
5
6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in July, 1994 for
7 consideration of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and
8 recommended that the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
9 document be certified as adequate subject to provision of Responses to Comments; and
10
1] WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing in Augmst, 1994 to consider the Draft
12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Tmpact Statement to provide direction and input
13 for preparation of the Responses to Comments and Final Environmental Impact
]4 Report/Environmental Impact Statement and Detailed Project Report; and
1S
16 WHEREAS, Final Environmental Impact documents consisting of the Final
I7 Environmental Impact ReporC including biological mitigation plan and Responses to Comments
18 and Detailed Project Report were prepared and presented to the City Council of the City of
19 Petaluma and a public hearing was held on August 21, 199, and September 5, 1995 at which
20 time ail persons were provided an opportunity to comment on the Final Environmental Impact.
21 Report/Environmental Impact Statement and' Detailed Project Report; and
22
23 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Final Environmental Impact
24 Report/Environmental Impact Statement,. the comments and responses received and incorporated
wry. w,. 9.5.-243........... n.cs. Page 1 of 27 pages
1 within the Final Environmental Impact RepordEnvironmental Impact Statement and certified
2 and adopted the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement as
3 adequate for purposes of decision making and in compliance with California Environmental
4 Quality Act, Resolution 95-141 N.C.S. on September 5, ]995; and
5
6 WHEREAS, the record of proceedings for the decision on the project and the Final
7 Environmental Impact RepordEnvironmental Impact Statement and supporting or reference
8 documents are available for review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, 1l English
9 Street, Petaluma CA 94952;
10
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, in accordance with Section 21081 of the
12 California Environmental Quality Act, Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, and
13 Section 13.0 of the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines, and based upon
14 substantial evidence presented in the record, the City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby
15 adopts the following mitigation measures and monitoring program as conditions of approval;
16 hereby makes the following findings and sets forth the rational regarding significant effects,
17 mitigation measures, alternative designs, and project alternatives; and adopts the Statement of
18 Overriding Considerations for approval of the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) for the Petaluma
19 Kiver Payran Reach Flood Control Improvement Project;
20
21 A. FINDINGS REGARDING GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
22
23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds
24 the Petaluma River Payran Reach Flood Control Project to be consistent with the General Plan
25 based upon the following facts as presented i? the project EIR, staff report and record
26 proceedings:
27 1. Additional channel capacity is needed in order to relieve frequent flooding of existing
28 streets, homes, and businesses in the Payran Reach area.
29
Reso. 95-243 NCS Page 2 of 27 pages
1 2. Additional channel capacity is needed in order to achieve orderly development and
2 growth envisioned by the City's General Plan and meet the land use, economic
3 development, housing and public safety goals, policies, and objectives as stated in the
4 General Plan.
5
6 3. The Ci[y's General Plan Development Constraints Map indicates the Payran Reach
7 area as having a significant flooding potential and a large number of residential
8 dwelling units within the 100 year floodplain.
9
10 4. The City's General Plan states that implementation of the most reasonable, sensitive,
I 1 effective proposal of the Sonoma County Water Agency Master Drainage Plan is
12 needed and desirable to mitigate the 100 year flood within the City of Petaluma.
13
14 5. The hydraulic studies prepared for the project and further substantiated. by an
15 independent review prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation dated May 16, 1995
16 demonstrate that the City's flooding level of service standard, i.e., 100 year flood,
17 could be met in the Payran Reach with full buildout of the General Plan with
18 implementation of the proposed project and in concert with. other structural and non-
19 structural measures identified in the City's Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, and
20 Capital Improvements Program.
21
22 6. In accordance with policies and objectives of the City's General Plan regarding
23 community health and safety, the project would lessen demands on emergency
24 services and enhance the community's emergency response and preparedness by
25 overcoming the barrier to emergency response vehicles and personnel that is
26 currently posed by the Petaluma River during severe flooding events.
27
28 7. The project design features mitigation measures identified herein and further
29 discussed in the Detailed Project Report, the Final Impact Report, the Biological
30 Mitigation Plan and staff report that have already been incorporated into the project
Reso. 95-24,~ NCS Page 3 of 27 pages
I or, by effect of this resolution, will be incorporated into the project as conditions of
2 approval to minimize adverse effects on the environment to the maximum extent
3 feasible.
4
5 8. Based upon the data and evaluation presented in the Final Environmental Impact
6 Report and by incorporating the mitigation measures identified herein as conditions
7 of approval, implementation of the proposed Locally Preferred Plan for the Petaluma
8 River Payran Reach will not constitute a nuisance nor be detrimental to the health,
9 safety or general welfare of the people of Petaluma.
10
11 9. Based upon the analysis and data presented in the Final Environmental Impact
12 Report, the proposed project would further the community's health and safety, land
13 use, housing, and economic development goals, objectives and policies stated in the
14 General Plan and is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs
15 contained in the General Plan with incorporation into the project of the following
16 conditions and mitigation measures as follows:
17
18 Conditions:
19
20 1. Issuance of a use permit by the City of Petaluma Planning Commission for
21 improvements to the river channel.
22
23 2. Review and approval by the City of Petaluma Site Plan and Architectural
24 Review Committee of floodwalls and vertical channel walls and the aesthetic
25 treatment thereof with referral of SPARC decisions to the City Council for
26 review.
27
28 3. Consultation with all parties involved in ownership and operation of the
29 railroad line, seeking to establish main line route as coterminous with the
30 existing spurline route.
Reso. 95-24$ NCS
Page 4 of 27 pages
1 4. Effort will be made for removal of Payran Street Bridge abutments and
2 construction of floodwalls upstream of the Payran Street Bridge at the earliest
3 possible time considering regulatory issues and construction practicalities.
4
5 B. THE FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND
6 IDENTIFIED MITIGATION MEASURES.
7
8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
9 makes the following findings regarding potentially significant effects and adopts the following
10 mitigation measures and monitoring program as conditions of approval and hereby sets forth the
11 rationale based upon substantial evidence presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report
12 including the Biological Mitigation Plan and Responses to Comments, the Detailed Project
13 Report, and the mitigation monitoring requirements as herein defined, and the staff report.
14
15 I.0 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS
16
17 1. I Impact:
18 The project FEIR identifies the potential for the proposed floodwalls to intercept interior
19 runoff from streets and urban land uses and which normally would flow directly to the
20 river.
21
22 Finding:
23 The following mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval to
24 avoid or substantially reduce the potential for impact to a level of insignificance as
25 identified in the project FEIR:
26
27 Mitigations:
28 A. Modify existing storm drainage pipes where necessary and install new drainage pipes
29 and construct one (I) IOCSF pump station on a city owned property just upstream
30 from the Payran Street Bridge.
Reso. 95-24$ NCS
Pages of 29 pages
1 B. Project design plans shall anticipate and include provisions for construction of above
2 and/or underground systems to gravity flow to the river channel, Washington Creek
3 or to the adjacent street as the situation requires runoff from individual properties
4 where the floodwalls disrupt existing drainage patterns.
5
6 Monitoring:
7 Implementation of these measures shall be the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of
8 Engineers, the City Engineering Department and the Sonoma County Water Agency.
9 The project Plans and Specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City
10 Engineering Department for compliance prior to adoption or advertising for bids.
11
12 1.2 Impact:
13 The project FEIR identifies the downstream hydrologic effect of the project to be an
l4 increase of less than less than one tenth (.l) foot between the Washington Street Bridge
15 and the Turning Basing and less than two tenths (.2) foot increase between East
16 Washington Street Bridge and the downstream end of the proposed project.
17
18 Finding:
19 The Final Environmental Impact Report finds that these effects are insignificant and
20 would have no impact on any structures.
21
22 1.3 Impact:
23 Project channel excavation would result in lower water surface elevation and higher flow
24 velocity upstream of the project. This, in turn, would result in an increased threat to
25 streambed erosion upstream of the project.
26
27 Finding:
28 The following mitigation measure to be incorporated into the project will reduce the after
29 project water velocity and thus the threat to bank erosion upstream of the project to a
30 level of insignificance as identified in the Final EIR.
Reso. 95-24,~ NCS Page 6 of 27 pages
1 Mitigation:
2 The project plans call for construction of an instream constrictor at the upper end of the
3 project to reduce the water velocities to a level below that which is anticipated to cause
4 potential upstream bank erosion.
5
6 Monitoring:
7 implementation of this measure shall be the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers, the
8 City Engineering Department and the Sonoma County Water Agency. The plans and
9 specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department for
10 conformance prior to adoption and advertisement for bids.
Il
12 1.4 Impact:
13 Levy/floodwall overtopping is possible considering the uncertainty with regard to storm
14 volumes which may be directed into the channel.
15
16 Finding:
17 The following mitigation measure to be incorporated into the project will substantially
18 reduce [he potential impact of levy/floodwall overtopping as identified in the project
19 EIR.
20
21 Mitigation:
22 The project design includes addition of three (3) feet of "freeboard" above the expected
23 100 year design water surface profile. This mitigation produces a 91% probability that
24 the floodwall will not be overtopped during the FEMA 100 year flood discharge at
25 General Plan buildout and a 60% probability that the floodwall will contain a 500 year
26 flood discharge at General Plan buildout.
27
Reso. 95-243 NCS Page 7 of 27 pages
I 2.0 SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION
2
3 2.1 Impact:
4 The project FEIR determined the potential For sediment transportation and deposition.
5 The FEIR estimates that the annual sediment deposit within the project will be 3,000
6 cubic yards which will engender the need for periodic maintenance dredging.
7
8 Finding:
9 The FEIR found that sediment deposition would not be a significant impact.
10
1 1 2.2 Impact
12 The project FEIR evaluated the potential for erosion and estimated that materials scoured
13 from the project reach and deposited in the turning basin would amount to a potential of
14 7,000 cubic yards on an annual basis as the result of a 40 year flood event.
15
16 Finding:
17 The FEIR found that erosion would not be a significant impact. However, the City and
18 Sonoma County Water Agency will be responsible for the ongoing project reach
l9 maintenance, while the City and the Federal government will be responsible for ongoing
20 dredging of the turning basin and downstream area.
21
22 3.0 WATER QUALITY
23
24 3.1 Impact:
25 During the proposed construction, the area would be kept dry by coffer dams.
26
27 Finding:
28 The following mitigation measure to be incorporated into the project will substantially
29 reduce the impact of loss of freshwater flow during the construction period and to a level
30 of insignificance, as identified in the project FEIR.
Reso. 95-243 NCS Page 8 of 27 pages
1
2 Mitigation:
3 Freshwater flow would be bypassed from the upper end of the work area to below the
4 work area and be reintroduced to retain downstream water quality.
5
6 Monitoring:
7 Implementation of this measure would the be responsibility of the project contractor
8 under supervision of the Corps of Engineers and the City Engineering Department. The
9 project plans and specifications will be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
10 Department for conformance prior to adoption or advertising for bids.
11
12 4.0 HTRW (HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, RAD[OACTNE WASTE) INVESTIGATION
13
14 4.1 Impact:
15 Three areas of soil contamination were identified consisting of 750, 2,250 and 1,000
16 cubic yards respectively. Contamination levels were sufficiently low to allow utilization
17 of these soils as backfill material as long as they remain at least five (5) feet from any
18 groundwater source.
19
20 Finding:
21 The following mitigation measures to be incorporated as conditions of approval will
22 avoid or substantially reduce the potential for impact from soil contamination to a level
23 of insignificance as identified in the project FEIR.
24
25 Mitigation:
26 a. Utilization of this material as backfill must remain at least five (5) feet from any
27 groundwater source.
28 b. Management of these soils during construction must meet all Regional Water Quality
29 Control Board conditions in the 401 permit at the time the permit is issued,
Reso. 95-243 NCS Page 9 of 27 pages
1 potentially including additional sampling and characterization of sediments prior to
2 disposal.
3
4 c. Containment analysis for hydrocarbon contamination in the runoff water from the
5 sediments may be required. One alternative for disposal of water contaminated with
6 low levels of hydrocarbons is at the Petaluma Water Treatment Plan.
7
8 d. Because of the potential health risk associated with the excavation of "BTXE"
9 impacted materials, ambient air in "area 5" may require monitoring during
10 excavation.
Il
12 Monitoring:
13 Implementation of these measures shall be the responsibility of the project contractor
14 under supervision of the City Engineering Department and the Regional Water Quality
15 Control Board. Project plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the
16 Engineering Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for conformance
17 prior to adoption or advertising for bids.
l8
l9 4.2 Impact:
20 The project FEIR identities potential exceedance of the Regional Water Quality Control
2] Board's groundwater limit for detectable TPHd in the three identified areas.
22
23 Finding:
24 The following mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project will substantially
25 reduce the potential health and environmental hazards to a level of insignificance as
26 identified in the project FEIR.
27
28 Mitigations:
29 a. Groundwater and runoff water from the three contaminated areas will not be allowed
30 to be discharge directly into the river.
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 10 of 27 pages
1
2 b. Site water in these areas will require containment, analysis, and proper disposal.
3
4 c. One potential disposal option for contaminated water with low level TPHd
5 contamination is at the Petaluma Wastewater Treatment Plant.
6
7 Monitoring:
8 Implementation of these measures shall be the responsibility of the project contractor
9 under supervision of the City Engineering Department and Regional Water Quality
10 Control Board. The project plans and specitications shall be reviewed and approved by
11 the Engineering Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for
12 conformance prior to adoption or advertising for bids.
13
14 5.0 AIR QUALITY
15
16 5.1 Impact:
17 The project FEIR identifies a potential for temporary, minor construction air quality
18 impacts from vehicle and equipment emissions and dust generated by construction.
19
20 Finding:
21 The following mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project will substantially
22 reduce the potential air quality impacts to a level of insignificance as identified in the
23 FEIR.
24
25 Mitigations:
26 a. Contractor will be required to comply with all applicable air quality regulations and
27 obtain all necessary permits.
28
29 b. Dust will be controlled with application of water as necessary.
30
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 11 of 27 pages
I Monitoring.
2 Implementation of these measures shall be the responsibility of the project contractor.
3 The project plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department
4 for conformance prior to adoption or advertising for bids.
5
6 52 The project FEIR identifies in the Air Quality Conformity Determination Analysis that
7 construction of the recommended plan will not exceed any air quality threshold levels
8 and will be in compliance with the Clean Air Act, thus no conformity determination is
9 required and no mitigations are necessary.
10
11 6.0 NOISE
12
13 6.1 Impact:
14 The project EIR identifies the potential for increased noise due to construction activity
15 during the construction process.
16
17 Findings.
18 The following mitigation measures incorporated into the project will reduce noise to a
19 level of insignificance.
20
21 Mitigation:
22 a. Construction activities within 1,600 feet of residences shall be limited to between the
23 hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 PSI on weekdays and 9:00 am to 6:00 PM weekends.
24 Work may occur outside of the designated hours only by special permit from the City
25 stating the compelling reasons.
26
27 b. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained with mufflers and noise
28 reduction devices to minimize noise.
29
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 12 of 27 pages
1 c. Appropriate construction staging, parking and loading areas shall be identified on the
2 project plans to be located away from residential and environmentally sensitive areas
3 as identified in the FEIR.
4
5 d. Contractor shall designate a responsible person of authority to implement the above
6 mitigation measures and provide the City with name, address and phone number of
7 said person.
8
9 7.0 VIBRATION:
]0
11 7.1 Impact:
12 Project FEIR identifies the potential for minor ground vibration during placement of
13 sheet piles. The sheet piles are in anon-residential area and, thus, there is little potential
14 for significant impact.
15
16 Finding:
17 The following mitigation measure incorporated into the project will reduce vibration to a
18 level of insignificance.
19
20 Mitigation:
21 a. Construction activities within 1,600 feet of residences shall be limited to between the
22 hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 am to 6:00 PM weekends.
23 Work may occur outside of the designated hours only by special permit from the City
24 stating the compelling reasons.
25
26 b. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained with mufflers and noise
27 reduction devices to minimize noise.
28
Reso. 95-24,~ NCS Page 13 of 27 pages
1 8.0 AQUATIC HABITAT
2
3 8.1 Impact:
4 The project FEIR identifies the temporary loss of .17 acres of shaded aquatic habitat with
5 an average annual habitat unit (AAI{U) value of .12 as a potentially significant impact.
6
7 Finding:
8 The loss of habitat shall be compensated for and the impacts will be reduced to a level of
9 insignificance by incorporation of the following mitigation measure into the project.
10
Il Mitigation:
12 Creation of .21 acres of shaded aquatic habitat on a 10 foot wide channel bench.
13
14 Monitoring:
15 A detailed 6 year monitoring program, followed by monitoring each five years for 15
16 years, is included in the Biological Mitigation Plan within the FEIR and adopted as a
17 condition of approval. The Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes requirements for
18 a preconstruction site evaluation, ongoing maintenance program, manual inspection,
19 reporting requirements and interim final success criteria in accordance with the
20 guidelines of the Federal resources agencies. The best management practices shall be
21 incorporated into project plans with specifications for the project subject to review and
22 approval by the Corps of Engineers for conformance with the mitigation measures prior
23 to advertising for bids.
24
25 8.2 Impact:
26 The project FEIR identifies the temporary loss of .18 acres of emergent marsh habitat
27 with an AAHU value of .03 as a potentially significant impact.
28
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 14 of 27 pages
1 Finding:
2 The loss of the habitat shall be compensated for and the impact reduced to a level of
3 insignificance by incorporation of the following mitigation measure into the project.
4
5 Mitigation:
6 Creation of .l 1 acres of brackish emergent marsh habitat on a 5 foot wide inchannel
7 bench.
8
9 Monitoring:
] 0 See monitoring under Section 8.1.
11
12 8.3 Impact:
13 The project FEIR identifies the loss, of 2.13 acres of intertidal mudflat habitat including
l4 pools, ripples, low flow channels, etc., which will be replaced by open water habitat.
15
16 Finding:
17 The loss of habitat has been determined to be permanent and unavoidable. Mitigation of
18 this impact to a level of insignificance is infeasible. An effort, however, will be made to
19 reestablish some areas of intertidal mudflat along thetoe of the low flow channel riprap.
20
21 8.4 Impact:
22 The project FEIR identifies a beneficial increase in open water habitat of 4.04 acres after
23 the temporary construction period loss. No mitigation is necessary.
24
25 9.0 UPLAND HABITAT
26
27 9.1 Impact:
28 The project FEIR identifies the temporary loss of 1.42 acres of riparian scrub/shrub with
29 an AAHU value of .48 as a potentially significant impact.
30
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 15 of 27 pages
1 Findings:
2 The loss of habitat will be compensated and the impacts reduced to a level of
3 insignificance by incorporation of the following mitigation measure into the project.
4
5 Mitigations:
6 a. Creation of _80 acres on 8 small pockets within the project area.
7 b. Creation of .46 acres at Twin Creeks mitigation site.
8 c. Creation of .47 acres on an inchannel 10 foot wide bench.
9 d. Creation of 1.5 acres in the project area abutting the Holmberg property and within
10 the Holmberg mitigation site.
11
12 Monitoring:
] 3 See Monitoring Section 8.1.
14
15 9.2 Impact:
16 The project FEIR identifies the temporary loss of 6.8 acres of grassland/ruderial habitat
l7 with an AAHU value of .66 as a potentially significant impact.
18
19 Finding:
20 The loss of habitat shall be compensated for and the impact reduced to a level of
21 insignificance by incorporation of the followingmitigation measure into the project.
22
23 Mitigation:
24 a. Creation of 5.1 acres of grassland/ruderial habitat along the slopes of the channel.
25
26 Monitoring:
27 See Monitoring Section 8.1.
28
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 16 of 27 pages
1 9.3 Impact:
2 The project FEIR identifies the temporary loss of 1.47 acres of exotic vegetation as an
3 impact which is potentially significant. The loss of habitat shall be compensated for and
4 the impact reduced to a level of insignificance by the Following mitigation measures.
5
6 Mitigation:
7 a. Creation of higher value habitats, e. g., open water and riparian scrub/shrub will, in
8 part, compensate for loss of the exotic habitat.
9
I-0 b. Additional areas of exotic vegetation will be maintained or reestablished on remnants
1 1 of parcels of land acquired for the project development.
12
13 10.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
14
15 10:1 Impact:
] 6 The project FEIR identifies the potential for an impact on the Sacramento splittail. A
l7 fish species listed as "proposed threatened" under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
18 However, river areas upstream and downstream of the project area will be available
19 during project construction.
20
21 Findings:
22 Following mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project will substantially
23 reducethe impact to the Sacramento splittail to a level of insignificance as specified in
24 the FEIR.
25
26 Mitigation:
27 a. Per Federal regulations, the Corps of Engineers will confer with the Federal Fish and
28 Wildlife Service with regard to the proposed project impact on the splittail.
29
Reso. 95-24$ NC3 Page 17 of 27 pages
1 b. Benches within the channel planted with Willows in the upper bench and emergent
2 marsh in the lower bench will reintroduce the habitat for the Sacramento splittail.
3
4 c. Construction will occur in summer months after the spawning period.
5
6 Monitoring:
7
8 Implementation of these measures shall be the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers
9 and the City Engineering Department. The Plans and Specifications shall be reviewed
10 and approved by the Corps and the City in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
11 Service prior to adoption and advertisement for bids.
12
13 11.0 LAND USE
14
IS The project FEIR does not identify any significant impacts with respect to land use,.
16 however, it does acknowledge the need to acquire 3 properties in their entirety plus
17 portions of many others. No mitigation is necessary, however, the City must conductall
18 land acquisition according to procedures outlined in local, state and Federal codes and
19 procedures.
20
21 12.0 FLOOD DAMAGE
22
23 Impact:
24 Project FEIR identifies the potential for a substantial reduction in flood damage as a
25 result of the project. No mitigation is necessary.
26
27 13.0 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
28
29 The project FEIR identifies substantial lessening of the threat to public health and safety
30 caused by flooding. No mitigation is necessary.
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 18 of 27 pages
1
2 14.0 RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS
3
4 Impact:
5 The project FEIR identifies a potential for a positive impact with respect to recreation
6 and public access. In the event that through the adoption of the Petaluma River Access
7 Enhancement Plan the City of Petaluma makes the determination that public access is
8 appropriate for the Payran Reach, the planned service roads for the project would provide
9 .adequate opportunity for bicycle and pedestrian movement.
10
Il 15.0 AESTHETICS
12
13 15.1 Impact:
14 The project FEIR identifies the temporary loss of aesthetic value due to loss of vegetation
I S and construction activities.
l6
17 Findings:
18 The following mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project will substantially
19 reduce the potential for temporary aesthetic impacts to a level of insignificance as
20 identified in the FEIR mitigation.
21 a. Revegetation as outlined in the Biological Mitigation Plan.
22 b. Consultation with neighborhood residents regarding the specific design of the
23 floodwall in proximity to residential land uses.
24 c. Consultation with SPARC regarding design of floodwalls and vertical channel walls.
25
26 Monitoring:
27 Implementation of these mitigation measures shall be the responsibility of the City
28 Engineering Department and the City Planning Department. Project Plans and
29 Specifications will be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department prior to
30 approval and advertising for bids.
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 19 of 27 pages
1
2 15.2 Impact
3 The project FEIR identifies the 1600 foot U shaped channel segment as having a
4 negative impact on the aesthetic quality of the river environment.
5
6 Finding:
7 The FEIR mitigation measure to be incorporated into the project will reduce"the aesthetic
8 impact of the U shaped channel but not to a level of insignificance.
9
10 Mitigation:
11 Design of the U shaped vertical channel will be reviewed by the City Site Plan
12 Architectural Review Committee to reduce negative aesthetic impacts.
13
14 Monitoring:
15 Implementation of this mitigation measure shall be the responsibility of the City Planning
16 Department. Project Plans and Specifications will be reviewed by the City Planning
17 Department prior to approval and advertising for bids.
18
19 16.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
20
21 The project FEIR concludes that there would be no potential for significant impact with
22 regard to cultural resources as a result of construction of the project. No mitigation is
23 necessary.
24
25 17.0 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
26
27 17. I Impact:
28 The FEIR determines that the cumulative enviromnental effect of the project is not a
29 potentially significant impact. No mitigation is therefore necessary.
30
Reso. 95-24'~ NCS Page 20 of 27 pages
1 18.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
2
3 18.1 Impact:
4 The FEIR determines that the project is not growth inducing in that it does not permit
5 any growth over and above that which is anticipated by the City of Petaluma General
6 Plan and, therefore, presents no potential significant impact. No mitigation is therefore
7 necessary.
8
9 C. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECTS AND PROJECT
]0 ALTERNATIVES
11
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the following alternatives and
13 alternatives to the project were considered and rejected as either not meeting the project
14 objectives or unfeasible for social, economic, environmental or other factors as presented in the
15 project FEIR and its supporting and referenced documents based upon the following findings
16 and rationale:
i7
l8 l.0 FLOODPROOFING.
19
20 The FE[R considered raising the first floor elevation of the structures within the 100 year
21 floodplain to one foot above the anticipated 100 year flood elevation. This would
22 involve approximately 600 structures. This alternative was not considered viable and
23 thus was dropped from further consideration based on the following findings and facts:
24
25 a. The project would be inconsistent with the desired 100 year flood level of service
26 capacity as identified in the General Plan.
27
28 b. The project would not meet public health and safety goals and objectives particularly
29 with regard to emergency service demands and the impediment created by river
30 flooding to movement of public safety vehicles and resources.
Reso. 95-243 NCS Page 21 of 27 pages
1
2 c. The alternative would be substantially more costly than other viable alternatives and
3 would not meet cost benefit tests necessary to involve Federal participation.
4
5 d. The alternative would involve disniption to the homelife of 600 households and
6 temporarily disrupt the fabric of a large neighborhood area with construction
7 activities.
8
9 2.0 FLOODPLAIN EVACUATION.
10
11 Evacuation of al] structures within the 100 year floodplain was evaluated. It was
12 determined not to be a viable alternative and thus was dropped from further consideration
13 based on the following findings and facts:
14
15 a. The project would be inconsistent with the desired 100 year flood level of service
16 capacity as identified in the General Plan.
17
l8 b. The project would not meet public health and safety goals and objectives particularly
19 with regard to emergency service demands and impediment created by river flooding
20 to movement of public safety vehicles and resources.
21
22 c. The alternative would be substantially more costly than other viable alternatives and
23 would not meet cost benefit tests necessary to involve Federal participation.
24
25 d. The alternative would involve displacement of 600 households and' permanently
26 disrupting the fabric of a large neighborhood.
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 22 of 27 pages
1 3.0 FLOOD WARNING AND EMERGENCY EVACUATION/FLOOD INSURANCE.
2
3 Consideration was given to the effectiveness of these measures in achieving project
4 objectives. In that these measures have already been implemented in the City of
5 Petaluma, they were determined to be part of the "no action or no project" alternative.
6
7 4.0 NO ACTION/NO PROJECT
8
9 Consideration was given to the "no action/no project" alternative which would assume
10 continuation of existing efforts, e.g., flood insurance, flood warning, emergency
l l evacuation, floodplain zoning, etc. It was. determined that the "no action/no project"
12 alternative was not viable based upon the following findings:
13
14 a. It i"s inconsistent with the public health and safety objectives and policies of the
15 General Plan.
16
17 b. It is inconsistent with the desired 100 year flood level of service capacity identified in
] 8 the General Plan.
19
20 a It is inconsistent with economic development, housing and land use goals, objectives
2l and policies as stated in the Genera] Plan.
22
23 d. It does not address the immediate needs for flood protection For the 600 properties
24 subject to inundation in the 100 year floodplain in the Payran Reach area.
25
26 5.0 CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS"10 YEAR PROTECTION:"
27
28 A channel improvement alternative of approximately 3,200 feet in length creating a
29 trapezoidal shaped channel was considered. This alternative involved the removal of two
30 existing single family homes, development of approximately 280 feet of floodwall up to
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 23 of 27 pages
1 two (2) feet in height, approximately 1,000 feet of two-foot earthen berm, plus
2 replacement of two railroad and two street bridges and development of a channel
3 constriction and service road. This alternative was considered in detail and proved to be
4 the recommended National Economic Development Plan, i.e., the plan with the highest
5 cost/benefit ratio. This plan was not selected as the preferred project based on the
6 following findings and facts:
7
8 a. It is inconsistent with the public health and safety objectives and policies of the
9 General Plan.
10
I 1 b. It is inconsistent with the desired 100 year flood level of service capacity identified in
12 the General Plan.
13
14 c. It is inconsistent with economic development, housing and land use goals, objectives
15 and policies as stated in the General Plan.
16
17 d. It does not address the immediate needs for flood protection for the 600 properties
18 subject to inundation in the 100 year floodplain in the Payran Reach area.
19
20 6.0 CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS "25 YEAR PROTECTION"
21
22 This alternative is similar to the 10 year protection plan, however, it extends the channel
23 improvements approximately 600 feet further downstream. Bridges are raised to a
24 slightly higher level. Additional floodwall construction is anticipated with floodwall
25 heights ranging up to 4 to 5 feet, Iloodwal! of up to 2 feet is added along the south bank
26 of Washington Creek. The last 600 feet of channel would be of U shape construction
27 with vertical sheet pile walls ar.d a natural channel bottom of about 85 feet in width.
28 Existing storm drainage structures would have to be modified and a l0 CFS pump station
29 constnicted to move existing storm nmoff into the river channel. This project would
Reso. 95-243 NCS Page 24 of 27 pages
1 have somewhat greater need for land acquisition. This plan was not recommended based
2 on the following facts:
3
4 a. It is inconsistent with the public health and safety objectives and policies of the
5 General Plan.
6
7 b. It is inconsistent with the desired 100 year flood level of service capacity ident~ed in
8 the General Plan.
9
10 c. It is inconsistent with economic development, housing and land use goals, objectives
11 and policies as staled in the General Plan.
12
13 d. It does not address the immediate needs for flood protection For the 600 properties
14 subject to inundation in the ! 00 year floodplain in the Payran Reach area.
15
16 D. FINDINGS REGARDING UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
17
l8 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that. pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines, the
19 following findings are made by the City Council with response to the significant adverse impacts
20 as identified in the FEIR:
21
22 1. Aesthetic Impacts:
23 Construction of the Locally Preferred Project will change the visual character of-the area
24 and the vertical wall portion of the channel will remain a significant unavoidable and
25 irreversible impact that cannot be fidly mitigated. Careful consideration during the
26 construction plan development process and consideration of aesthetic issues by the City
27 of Petaluma Site Plan Architectural Review Committee will, to a degree, provide
28 mitigation for the design of the vertical wall of the channel and the floodwalls.
29
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 25 of 27 pages
1 2. Biological Habitat -Loss of Intertidal Mudflat
2
3 Construction of the project will change the character of the existing intertidal mudflat
4 area on a temporary basis during construction and thereafter by the periodic deposition or
5 erosion of material in the intertidal mudflat areas as a result of the water flow and by
6 periodic maintenance dredging. Some opportunity exists, however, for replacement of a
7 portion of the intertidal mudflat habitat at the toe of the narrow riprap buttresses which
8 define the low flow channel.
9
10 E. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
11
12 NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in accordance with Section 15093 (b) of the CEQA
13 Guidelines, the adverse impacts identified above are hereby found acceptable based on the
14 following overriding considerations:
15
16 The project would provide substantial public health and safety benefits, and achieve the 100 year
17 flood flow Level of Service Standard identified by the Petaluma General Plan. The project is
18 needed to provide an increased level of flood protection for existing and expected population and
19 to meet community economic development, housing land use goals, objectives and policies
20 defined in the General Plan. The proposed project improves the City's emergency preparedness
21 and emergency response capabilities and reduces the need to engage our emergency response
22 resources. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and would further the City's
23 General Plan health and safety, economic development and land use goals, objectives and
24 programs.
25
Reso. 95-24~ NCS Page 26 of 27 pages
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the
2 Locally Preferred Project, i.e., FEMA 100 year level of protection at General Plan buildout,
3 described in the project FEIR, adopting the above referenced mitigation measures and
4 monitoring program as conditions of approval.
5 csoluUR/21/95
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) QAdDO~Sdd]C~HEISg01) meetin~~- form
on the ....5th-- ' day of ......_September Is.95., by the
following vote:
i y tto ney
AYES: HAMILTON, STOMPE, MAGUIRE, READ, BARLAS, VICE MAYOR SHEA, MAYOR HILLIGOSS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE _
0
ATTEST: ...L2Q~
. - -r..~~~,...
Cit_ Clerk /~O~ ~D~aYor ~ /
Cowcil Fil
c~ ios.; H, rv~ recs. Reso. 95-24'3 NCS
Page 27 of 27 pages