HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2022-148 N.C.S. 09/12/2022 DocuSign Envelope ID:E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Resolution No. 2022-148 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING THE OAK HILL MUNICIPAL WELL PROJECT
WHEREAS,the Restructured Agreement for Water Supply between the City of Petaluma and Sonoma Water
establishes a local water production capacity goal for Petaluma; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma has agreed to have sufficient local water supply in order to maintain the
ability to deliver up to 40% of the maximum monthly water demand in case of emergency or drought; and
WHEREAS, in evaluating potential groundwater well locations, the Oak Hill Well Site was selected as the
recommended well site for the City's next groundwater well project; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the
project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended
("CEQA"), and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND was made publicly available from April 28 to May 27, 2022, for the required
30-day public review period under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND at the office of the Sonoma County
Clerk and published the NOI in the Argus-Courier on April 29, 2022; and
WHEREAS,the City posted the IS/MND on its website and made a hardcopy available for public review at
the Public Works &Utilities office at 202 N. McDowell Boulevard, Petaluma, CA; and
WHEREAS, the City caused the IS/MND to be circulated via the State Clearinghouse on April 28, 2022
(State Clearinghouse No. 2022040576) and submitted the Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration(MND)to applicable Responsible and Trustee Agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto,
to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified and proposed in the IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the applicable provision of law, the Petaluma City Council held a public
hearing on June 20, 2022, at which time the City Council heard and received relevant testimony and evidence
presented orally or in writing regarding the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Petaluma City Council expressed a desire for additional public outreach to address public
comments received and voted to continue the public hearing to a date certain of August 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the applicable provision of law, the Petaluma City Council held a public
hearing on August 1, 2022, at which time the City Council voted to continue the public hearing to a date certain
of September 12, 2022; and
WHEREAS, staff held a public meeting on August 11, 2022 at the Oak Hill project site; and
Resolution No. 2022-148 N.C.S. Page 1
DocuSign Envelope ID:E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
WHEREAS, in accordance with the applicable provision of law, the Petaluma City Council held a public
hearing on September 12, 2022, at which time the City Council heard and received all relevant testimony and
evidence presented orally or in writing regarding the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Petaluma City Council has reviewed and considered the IS/MND, public comments, and
related MMRP for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Petaluma as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The IS/MND has been prepared and completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA
guidelines. All noticing and review periods required by CEQA have been satisfied.
3. The IS/MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential effects of the project.
4. Based on the whole record before it,the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project
as proposed with mitigation will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
5. The City Council hereby adopts the MND for the project, and the mitigation measures in the MND are made
a condition of approval of the project and an MMRP, attached, is adopted.
6. The City hereby ratifies its approval of the project.
7. The record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based is on file and available for public inspection
during normal business hours at 202 N. McDowell Boulevard, Petaluma, CA 94954. The custodian of these
documents is the City of Petaluma.
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 meeting on the 12'day of September DocuSigned t¢Yrn:
2022,by the following vote: a-�
5 E F8`5AJV11Fy3%1 Dorn ey
AYES: Barrett,Fischer,Healy,King,McDonnell,Pocekay 1� t�TC
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSED: Barnacle
DocuSigned by: DocuSigned by:
ATTEST:
�� fit Vt Sa �a
ity fgercazseaasz... Mayor
Resolution No. 2022-148 N.C.S. Page 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
EXHIBIT A
L U�
4
j85a
Oak H '111
Well
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Petaluma
25 April 2022
7
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Oak Hill Municipal Well Project
This document has been prepared by:
U ,2
ZS5
City of Petaluma
202 N. McDowell Boulevard
Petaluma, CA 94954
In collaboration with:
1
2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150
Santa Rosa, CA 95407, United States
T -707.523.1010 1 E info-northamerica@ghd.com ghd.com
April 25, 2022
8
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Contents
1. Project Information...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 CEQA Requirements ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Background.......................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Project Location and Existing Setting .............................................................................. 1-2
1.4 Project Description........................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................................ 1-6
1.6 Compliance with Existing Regulations and Standard BMPs............................................ 1-6
1.7 Required Agency Approvals ............................................................................................ 1-7
1.8 Tribal Consultation........................................................................................................... 1-8
2. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................. 2-1
3. Environmental Analysis.............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................... 3-4
3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 3-5
3.4 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-8
3.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-13
3.6 Energy Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-16
3.7 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................... 3-18
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................................... 3-21
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................. 3-24
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality......................................................................................... 3-28
3.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................. 3-37
3.12 Mineral Resources......................................................................................................... 3-39
3.13 Noise.............................................................................................................................. 3-40
3.14 Population and Housing................................................................................................. 3-44
3.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................. 3-45
3.16 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 3-46
3.17 Transportation................................................................................................................ 3-48
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 3-51
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................................... 3-53
3.20 Wildfire........................................................................................................................... 3-56
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................... 3-58
4. References ...................................................................................................................................4-1
5. Report Preparers ......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 City of Petaluma .............................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 GHD................................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.3 Sub-consultants............................................................................................................... 5-1
9
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Figure index
Figure1. Project Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................1-9
Figure 2. Project Location Map.............................................................................................................1-10
10
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
1 . Project Information
Project Title City of Petaluma Oak Hill Municipal Well Project
Lead Agency Name &Address City of Petaluma, 202 N. McDowell Boulevard,
Petaluma, CA 94954
Contact Person & Phone Number Dan Herrera, Senior Civil Engineer
707-778-4589 / DHerrera@cityofpetaluma.org
Project Location 35 Park Avenue, Petaluma, CA 94952
Sonoma County, California
General Plan Land Use Designation Open Space
Zoning Open Space and Parks (OSP)
1 .1 CEQA Requirements
The City of Petaluma, serving as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency, has
prepared this Initial Study to provide the public, responsible agencies, and trustee agencies with information
about the potential environmental effects of the proposed Oak Hill Well Project (hereafter referred to as the
"Project"). The Project as proposed would include the installation and operation of a potable municipal
groundwater well to offset the City's need for purchased water from Sonoma Water.
The purpose of this Initial Study is to provide a basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or a Negative Declaration. This Initial Study has been
prepared to satisfy the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Div 13, Sec 21000-21177) and the
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sec 15000-15387). Section 15063(d) of the
State CEQA Guidelines states the content requirements of an Initial Study as follows:
1. A description of the project including the location of the project;
2. An identification of the environmental setting;
3. An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that
entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to
support the entries;
4. A discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any;
5. An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other
applicable land use controls;
6. The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study.
11
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
1 .2 Project Background
The City of Petaluma has identified a need for new municipal groundwater well sites within its service area
to augment and expand its existing system of municipal groundwater supplies. In 2019 and 2020, the City
completed well siting studies, in which the following attributes of an ideal well site were considered:
— Parcel owned by the City
— Parcel size, aspect ratio, site access, and wellhead access for maintenance
— Proximity to pressure zones and adequately sized utilities, including water mains, sewer mains, storm
drains and electrical power supply
— Proximity to a productive aquifer
— Distances from contaminant releases and plumes, and wells with known water quality impairments
— Other limiting factors, including flood zones, riparian setbacks, protected habitats, cultural resources,
threatened or endangered species, land use or code restrictions, and the presence and value of
existing structures
The City used an initial screening to identify qualifying parcels for further analysis and to eliminate
unqualified parcels. The proposed Oak Hill site was a recommended well site based on the screening
criteria. The City observed that the Oak Hill site has existing infrastructure which allows distribution to
multiple water system pressure zones and is proximate to existing water system infrastructure.
1 .3 Project Location and Existing Setting
The proposed Project site, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 006-221-007, is a 5.58-acre City-owned
property located in the West Planning Subarea of Petaluma, within Petaluma's existing city limits, urban
growth boundary and sphere of influence (see Figure 1, Project Vicinity Map). The Project also would
include off-site utility connections on portions of the City-owned Oak Hill Park property, APN 006-181-010,
and along a portion of Park Avenue. The Project site is located north of Bodega Avenue and west of
Howard Street, and is bordered by Oak Hill Park to the east and by low density residential land uses to the
north, south and west along Laurel Street, Amber Way, Wallace Court, and Park Avenue.
The Petaluma General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Open Space, while the zoning
designation is Open Space and Parks (OSP). Existing facilities at the Project site include an existing
decommissioned 2-million gallon above-ground water storage reservoir and an existing decommissioned
booster station. Access to the Project site is provided from the intersection of Park Avenue and Pleasant
Street, which is accessed from Bodega Avenue. Existing bollards, swing gates, and fencing are in place to
prevent unauthorized vehicle access. Trees within, and adjacent to, the Project site provide nearly
complete vegetative screening of existing improvements on the site.
The Project site is located partially within and adjacent to Oak Hill Park, which is designated in the
Petaluma General Plan as a 5-acre neighborhood park'. Oak Hill Park is owned and maintained by the
City of Petaluma and features a children's playground, shaded picnic areas, a single-hoop basketball court,
a petanque court, a dog park area, a community labyrinth, a public restroom, and wooded and lawned open
space areas and walking trails.
The Project site is located within the Petaluma Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin Number 2-1), which is
prioritized as a medium priority basin by the Department of Water Resources and is required to be
The Petaluma General Plan identifies neighborhood parks as being devoted primarily to serving a small portion of the city,usually within walking
and biking distance from residences.
12
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
managed in accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Project site is
located within the mapped extent of the Wilson Grove Formation aquifer.
The Project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin under the jurisdiction of the
BAAQMD. The San Francisco Bay Air Basin is currently designated as non-attainment for the state
standards for 8-hour and 1-hour ozone, 24-hour and annual PM10, and annual PM2.5, as well as for the
national standards for 8-hour ozone and 24-hour PM2.5.
The Project site is located within the Petaluma River watershed. The Project area is not located within an
active Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone and no other active or potentially active faults have been
mapped within the area. The nearest mapped active fault is the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault, located
approximately 5.8 miles to the northeast (Kleinfelder 2020).
1 .4 Project Description
A description of the proposed production well and associated facilities, Project construction, and Project
operation and maintenance activities is provided below (see Figure 2, Project Location Map).
Production Well
The proposed Project consists of the construction and operation of one new municipal groundwater
production well within the Petaluma Valley Groundwater Basin. The proposed production well would
include an approximately 18-inch diameter production borehole and would be drilled to a depth of
approximately 500 feet. The proposed groundwater production well would include a submersible vertical
turbine pump with a capacity of approximately 200 to 400 gallons per minute. For the purposes of
evaluation, the proposed production well would have an annual average pumping yield of approximately
215 acre-feet per year. The proposed well would be housed in a below-ground vault that would be located
near a custom treatment shed that would house equipment for groundwater disinfection, as well as for pH
adjustment and iron/manganese removal (if needed).
Custom Treatment Shed
The custom shed would be approximately 170 to 250-square feet in size, approximately 8 to 10 feet in
height, and set on a concrete mat foundation with an additional pad for a generator. The exterior building
color would be earth tone to integrate visually with the surrounding landscape. A light would be either
mounted to the shed or pole-mounted adjacent to the shed. The light would meet Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations standards including shielding, manual switch operation with automatic shut-off, and
energy requirements, and would be used only when nighttime access is required. A waste line for
overboard water would be connected to the sanitary sewer. The shed may also potentially include a sink
that would be connected to the sanitary sewer system, if needed. Disinfection chemicals would be stored
within the shed, as needed, for treatment to address the quality of the groundwater. This may include
storage containers providing one week volume of chlorine solution mixture (for disinfection), and possibly
other chemicals such as sodium hydroxide (for pH adjustment), ammonia or sodium fluoride, if needed.
The existing fence around the water reservoir would be extended around the well shed for security
purposes.
Piping
Underground piping would be installed to connect the proposed production well to an existing nearby water
distribution system located within the Project site. The proposed water connection pipeline would be
approximately 125 feet in length and would consist of six-inch ductile iron pipe. Underground piping would
13
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
also connect the production well to the sanitary sewer system within Park Avenue to allow discharge of
overboard well water, chloraminated water, or filter backwash (if iron/manganese removal is needed). The
proposed sanitary sewer connection pipeline would be approximately 450 feet in length and would consist
of four to six-inch ductile iron pipe. Completion of a sanitary sewer line connection within Park Avenue
would be completed within an approximately one-week period.
Electrical Power
Electrical power for the proposed well station would be supplied by and distributed through the Pacific Gas
& Electric Company (PG&E) electrical grid. The proposed well facility would contain a motor control center
with a step-down transformer, and a panel board to serve the well pumps, lighting, and other controls. The
proposed Project would require installation of approximately 550-feet of new underground power cable
extending from the Project site to an existing electrical power pole with a transformer located within a
portion of Oak Hill Park (see Figure 2, Project Location Map). The underground electrical line would be
installed within an existing access road at the Project site and within a portion of the Oak Hill Park parking
lot. Construction of the proposed electrical line across a portion of the paved Oak Hill Park parking lot
would be completed within an approximately one-week period. The proposed well facility would have
provisions for a drive-up portable generator connection, so that in the event of a power failure the well
pumps could continue to run if needed.
Project Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would include installation of the production well and associated
facilities including the following:
Construction Duration and Hours
The City is proposing to construct the Project in 2022. Well facility construction would begin with production
well drilling, which would require approximately four to eight weeks to complete. At completion of drilling,
well facility construction would begin and continue for approximately two months. This would include site
preparation activity, foundation and utility connections, installation of the proposed shed and equipment,
and start-up and testing. Installation of pipelines would overlap with construction of the well facility
including excavation, pipeline installation, backfill of construction trenches, and utility connection.
Petaluma Zoning Code Section 21.040 restricts noise-generating activities at construction sites to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday,
Sunday and State, Federal or Local Holidays. Construction activities are anticipated to take place within
the hours defined in the Petaluma Zoning Code as described above. However, given the nature of
production well drilling, it is possible that problems could arise during construction and require temporary
continuous operation of the drilling equipment to eliminate a risk of the borehole caving. Therefore, it is
possible that during well installation, the operation of the drilling equipment could extend beyond the hours
defined by the Petaluma Zoning Code to eliminate the risk of a borehole collapse. Based on the type and
extent of work to be performed, it is conservatively assumed that construction could potentially require work
beyond the hours defined by the Petaluma Zoning Code for up to two nighttime periods.
Construction Equipment and Sound Attenuation Barriers
Equipment used for well construction would include a truck-mounted drill rig, shaker, support trucks,
portable storage tanks, forklift, and loader/backhoe. The maximum number of workers at the site at any
time is estimated to be 16.
14
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Well Installation
An area approximately 150 to 200 square feet in size immediately surrounding the proposed well site would
be graded (as needed) and covered with gravel base rock to create a level pad for supporting a drill rig and
other equipment. An approximately 18-inch diameter production borehole would be drilled to a depth of
approximately 500 feet. An approximately 10-inch steel or PVC well casing would be installed within the
borehole. A two-inch diameter steel or PVC pipe would also be welded to the well casing to serve as a
sounding tube for measuring water levels within the well. An impervious seal consisting of sand/cement
grout would be placed in the well annular space above the filter pack. The well casing and well screen
would be installed in the borehole. The completed borehole would be logged to confirm the hydrogeologic
conditions and the proposed well design.
Well Development and Pump Tests
Development of the well would begin after the annular seal has set for an adequate amount of time. Initial
development of the well may be performed using airlift pumping and swabbing of the well screen. Final
development of the well may potentially be performed by surging and pumping using a temporary test
pump. Various well pumping tests may potentially be performed after final well development. These tests
may potentially include: (a) pumping for durations of two hours each at different discharge rates ("step-
drawdown test"); and (b) continuous pumping for 12 to 48 hours at the final design capacity of the well
("constant-discharge aquifer test"). Groundwater samples would be collected during the pumping tests to
verify the water quality produced.
Well Disinfection and Finishing
When the pumping tests have been completed and the test pump removed, final activities would include
video and alignment surveys, as well as disinfection of the completed well. After disinfection, a steel cover
plate would be welded on top of the well casing, which would be housed within a vault or alternatively would
extend approximately two feet above the ground surface. The well site would be cleaned, the baserock
used for the drilling pad would be removed, and mulch would be spread over the site to prevent soil
erosion.
Groundwater Discharge
Groundwater generated during the well development and pumping tests would be discharged to the
sanitary sewer. The groundwater discharge would be pumped to portable storage tanks and then released
to the sanitary sewer such that the discharge rate would not exceed the capacity of the individual sanitary
sewer system.
Pipeline and Electrical Installations
The proposed Project would include installation of pipelines to connect the new well to the City's water
distribution system and sanitary sewer system. The Project also would require installation of new electrical
underground power lines. Proposed pipelines would be installed below ground using standard open-trench
construction methods. Trenchless methods, such as directional drilling or jack-and-bore, may potentially be
employed for installation of the PG&E underground electrical power line.
Open-trench construction involves the following steps:
— vegetation removal and/or pavement cutting depending on the location,
— trench excavation and shoring to stabilize the sides of the trench if necessary,
15
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
— pipeline installation,
— trench backfilling and compacting, and
— surface restoration.
The required pipeline trenches would be excavated up to a depth of approximately six feet. During
installation, open trenches within roadways would be covered at the end of each workday with steel plates
or similar materials to accommodate vehicle access during non-work hours. Trenchless construction
methods, if utilized for the underground electrical line, would entail excavating a sending and receiving pit at
either end of the trenchless reach. Soil would be excavated for installation of the well facility and pipelines.
Soil excavated during well facility construction and pipeline installation may be used as backfill around the
facilities or may be hauled off-site for recycling or disposal.
Construction of the proposed electrical line across a portion of the paved Oak Hill Park parking lot would be
completed within an approximately one-week period. Similarly, completion of a sanitary sewer line
connection within Park Avenue would be completed within an approximately one-week period.
1 .5 Operation and Maintenance
The proposed groundwater production well would be operated on an as needed basis, and for the purposes
of evaluation in this Initial Study, it is assumed to be operated continuously in the summer months of each
calendar year. The proposed well could be operated continuously or for shorter intervals, depending on the
need for water. For the purposes of evaluation, the proposed well facility would have an annual average
pumping yield of approximately 215 acre-feet per year.
The City would routinely exercise the well, when not in use, to ensure that the facilities are maintained and
remain operational. Well exercising would be anticipated to occur either weekly or monthly. The well would
be exercised for one hour per week or for a single, four-hour period monthly. Operators may fine-tune the
exercise schedule according to the characteristics of the well. Groundwater pumped during exercising
would be discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
The well station may be visited daily by a City Public Works maintenance worker when in operation for
routine equipment checks, lasting approximately 30 minutes. When the well is turned off, regular exercising
would be conducted as described above. At these times, the well would be visited by a City maintenance
worker on a weekly basis or at a frequency determined by on-site conditions. The life of the production well
is estimated to be at least 50 years, although the pump may need to be replaced every 15 to 20 years.
Therefore, longer term maintenance could include removal and repair or replacement of the pump, valves,
and other equipment.
Permanent access to the proposed well site would be needed for servicing the well, associated pumping
and disinfection equipment, and for normal operations. Site access would be provided through an existing
asphalt concrete driveway that is present at the Project site. Parking would be accommodated within
existing asphalt-concrete areas present at the site.
A backup generator would only be used when power is lost. The City would utilize a generator that will be
EPA or CARB certified and achieves emission standards for emergency standby sources, consistent with
BAAQMD requirements.
1 .6 Compliance with Existing Regulations and Standard BMPs
The Project will abide by the following regulations and industry-accepted Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to reduce or avoid potential adverse effects that could result from construction or operation of the
16
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Project. In addition to these BMPs, mitigation measures are presented in the following analysis sections in
Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts below a level of
significance. The Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will include these actions to
ensure implementation.
Implementation of Geotechnical Design Recommendations
As part of the Project design process, the City has engaged a California-registered Geotechnical Engineer
to conduct a design-level geotechnical investigation for the proposed Project (Kleinfelder 2020). Project
design and construction must comply with the site-specific recommendations made in geotechnical reports
for the Project. This will include design in accordance with the seismic and foundation design criteria, as
well as site preparation and grading recommendations included in the report. The geotechnical
recommendations will be incorporated into the final plans and specifications for the Project and will be
implemented during construction.
Implementation of Air Quality Control Measures during Construction
To limit dust, criteria pollutants, and precursor emissions associated with the construction activity, the City
will include the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommended Basic
Construction Measures in construction contract specifications for the Project:
— All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day;
— All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered or shall have at
least two feet of freeboard;
— All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum
street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall be prohibited;
— All vehicle speeds on unpaved areas shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
— All paving shall be completed as soon as possible after trenching work is finished;
— Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title
13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points;
— All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation; and
— A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The
Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
1 .7 Required Agency Approvals
Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be conducted to meet applicable regulations,
including local, State, and federal drinking water standards. As CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Petaluma
would approve the Project. In addition, the following agencies may be Responsible Agencies or Trustee
Agencies under CEQA, and may need to issue approvals for the Project and, thus, may need to rely upon
this Initial Study.
17
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
— California Department of Public Health: Approval of well construction and operation.
— Bay Area Air Quality Management District: Permit for portable generator connection.
— Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department: Approval of well construction
permit in accordance with the California Department of Water Resources standards and Section 25B of
the Sonoma County Municipal Code.
1 .8 Tribal Consultation
On July 20, 2021, the City of Petaluma sent the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria a tribal consultation
invitation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1. A 30-day period allowing for a request for
consultation ended with no request made for consultation.
In addition, the Anthropological Studies Center (ASC) requested a review of the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File for information on Native American cultural resources in the Project
area. The search of the NAHC's Sacred Lands File for Sacred Sites in the Project area did not indicate the
presence of Native American cultural resources in the Project area. NAHC also provided contact
information for tribal communities that may have further information. On July 7, 2021, ASC sent letters to
those on the list, which included: Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Lytton Rancheria, Cloverdale
Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Middletown
Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley, and Pinoleville Pomo Nation. On
August 5th, a representative of Lytton Rancheria responded to the notification and stated that the Tribe
believes the Project site falls within traditional Pomo territory and that there is a potential for finding tribal
cultural resources on the site. For a summary of the investigation and mitigation measures related to
cultural and tribal resources, see Section 3.5 Cultural Resources and 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.
18
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
228
29
1751
101
OHealdsburg
1 •
Windsor
•
1161 Santa Rosa 228
�^ 12\
�ohnert Park
Sonoma
etaluma
•
-aoo 37 �J
0
i
Legend
Site
101
11611
Petaluma
_ J
101
— I
Paper Size ANSI A City of Petaluma Project No. 11225205
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 N Oak Hill Revision No. -
® Municipal Well Project Date Jan 2022
Miles ,
Map Projection:Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum:North American 1983
—(1)—
Grid:NAD 1983 SlatePlane California II RIPS O402 Feet
Project Vicinity Map FIGURE 1
\ghdnaogh"&Santa Data source:transportation:LI The National Map:National Transportation Dataset;U.S.Census Bureau—TIGER/Line;U.S.Forest Service.Data Refreshed January,2022.;Word Topographic Map-
RosaT.ij cts15611112252OnGISWapslDeliwmbles111225205_OakHi11111225205—OakHill.aprx- labellass:Esn,HERE,Gannin,FAO, AA,USGS,Bureau of Land Management,EPA,NPS;World Hillshade:Esn,NASA,NGA,USGS,FEMA;World Topographic Map-labellers:County of Mann,County of
11225205_01_Mcinity Print date:12 Jan 2022-11:45 Napa,Earl,HERE,Garmin,SafeGraph,METIINASA,USGS,Bureau of Land Management,EPA,NIPS,USDA;World Hillshade:Earl,CGIAR,USGS.Created by:ethompson6
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Legend
Proposed Well
Location
0 Working Area
Fs 0 Proposed
Treatment Shed
F-� r Temporary
� -tp
Laydown Area
n yak 0 Parcel Boundary
f as�
Community
• Labyrinth ,
.'
• Oak Hill
Existing Water Park
Storage Reservoir
�I i;' pleasant S't
� t
Paper Size ANSI A City of Petaluma Project No. 11225205
0 0.006 0.012 0.018 0.024 N Oak Hill Revision No. -
® Municipal Well Project Date Jan 2022
Miles ,
Map Projection:Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum:North American 1983
Grid:NAD 1983 StatePlane California III RIPS O403 Feet Project Location Map FIGURE 2
nvn'7 e"ST710SSain Zu Data source:Road Names:Eari Community Maps Contributors,County of Mann,Sonoma County,®Op n-StreeUAap,Microsoft,Eari,HERE,Garman,SafeGraph,
RosaTmjects15611112252051GISNaps0eliwmbles111225205__OakHilK11225205_Oak -i-ill.als INCREMENT P,METIMASA,USGS,Bureau of Land Management,EPA,NIPS,US Census Bureau,USDA
11225205_02_ProjA-Land Print date:12 Jan 2022-12:11 Word Imagery(Clarity):Sourca:Ear,DigitalGlobe,Geti Earthsfar Geographies,CNES/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS,AereGRID,IGN,and the GIS User Community.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
2. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Where checked below, the topic with a "Potentially Significant Impact" would be addressed in an
environmental impact report:
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Public Services
❑ Agricultural & Forestry Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Recreation
❑ Air Quality ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Transportation
❑ Energy ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems
❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Wildfire
❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or"potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: (1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or"potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: (1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
April 25, 2022
City of Petaluma Signature Date
21
City of Petaluma Oak Hill Municipal Well Project 2-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3. Environmental Analysis
3.1 Aesthetics
ImpactPotentially Less-than- L.ess-than- No
Significant Significant Significant
MitigationImpact with ..
Incorporated
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ✓
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ✓
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public view of
the site and its surroundings? (Public Views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible ✓
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views ✓
in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact)
The Project site is not located within a General Plan designated scenic vista, along the Petaluma River, or
along an open ridgeline or hillside within surrounding foothills. The site is mostly developed with an existing
water storage reservoir surrounded by a chain-link fence and a variety of mature trees. The Project site is
not within a General Plan designated overlook area or adjacent to a City-designated scenic roadway. Given
the surrounding topography and landscape, public views of the Project site are limited to those from the
adjacent Oak Hill Park, immediately adjacent single-family residences, and to some extent, adjacent public
roads.
The proposed well treatment shed would be located adjacent to the water storage reservoir and would be
located behind existing fencing that would be extended at the site, and mostly obscured by the fence and
surrounding trees. The fencing to be extended around the well treatment shed would be of the same style
and height as the existing fencing. The proposed well would be housed in a below-ground vault. The
proposed water, sewer, and electrical connections at the Project site and off-site areas including within Oak
Hill Park would be located underground. The improvements would be minimally visible from portions of
Oak Hill Park and from surrounding single-family residences. The Project improvements would not
substantially alter or block public views. As a result, no impact to scenic vistas would result.
22
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact)
The California Scenic Highway Program includes a list of officially designated and eligible state scenic
highways. The Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within or adjacent to a state
scenic highway (Caltrans 2018). No impact would result.
c) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality? (No Impact)
The Project site is located in an urbanized area adjacent to the western corner of Oak Hill Park and in the
vicinity of several single-family residences. The Petaluma General Plan land use designation for the
Project site is Open Space, while the zoning designation is Open Space and Parks (OSP). The proposed
Project is a public utilities facility which is considered an allowed land use under the OSP zoning
designation as a use to serve the community. The proposed water, sewer, and electrical connections
would be located underground. In addition, as noted above, the on-site improvements would be screened,
and only minimally visible from portions of Oak Hill Park and from surrounding single-family residences,
while the off-site improvements would be located below-ground. The Project improvements would be
consistent with the OSP zoning designation and therefore would not conflict with applicable zoning. No
impact would result.
Chapter 17 (Tree Preservation) of the Petaluma Municipal Code provides regulations for the protection,
preservation, and maintenance of groves and stands of mature trees. The City's Heritage Tree Ordinance
includes a Register of Heritage and Landmark Trees, which includes three pine trees located within Oak Hill
Park. The Project would not result in the removal of trees, nor trimming of any of the Heritage or Landmark
trees located within Oak Hill Park. Therefore, no impact related to the scenic qualify of the heritage trees
would result.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Petaluma Zoning Code Section 21.040 restricts noise-generating construction activities to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday,
Sunday and State, Federal or Local Holidays. Project construction is expected to last approximately eight
to ten weeks, and construction activities are intended to take place within the hours defined in the Petaluma
Zoning Code as described above. However, given the nature of well drilling, it is possible that problems
could arise that would require temporary continuous operation of the drilling equipment to eliminate a risk of
the borehole caving. Therefore, it is possible that during well installation, the operation of the drilling
equipment could extend beyond the hours defined by the Petaluma Zoning Code to eliminate the risk of a
borehole collapse. Based on the drilling to be performed, construction could require up to 2 nighttime work
periods. Although such lighting would be temporary, it may create a new source of light and glare on
adjacent residences. The construction-related impact would therefore be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce the potential impact of nighttime lighting to a
less-than-significant level through implementation of measures to avoid glare during any necessary
nighttime construction.
Following construction, the new exterior light on the treatment shed would meet the requirements of Title 24
of the California Code of Regulations and would be placed and shielded to direct light downward. The light
would have a manual switch operation with automatic shut-off. Routine maintenance of the proposed
groundwater well and treatment equipment would be conducted during daytime hours, when outdoor
23
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
lighting would not be necessary. Infrequent nighttime light to accommodate unscheduled as needed
maintenance would not cause substantial new sources of light or glare given the light would be shielded
and the infrequent and short duration of such site visits, if needed. The impact during operation would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce the potential impact of nighttime lighting to a less-than-significant
level through implementation of measures to avoid glare and light trespass onto adjacent land uses.
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Avoid Glare and Light Trespass
To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be limited to 12-hour shifts between 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. Continuous 24-hour operations shall only be allowed during the drilling, construction,
gravel packing, and sealing of the production well, if necessary to ensure the integrity of the well.
The Contractor shall arrange with the City for any 24-hour operations intended and/or required for
the successful completion of the Project. Together, the Contractor and the City shall practice good
neighbor relations at all times. Night-time drilling operations, if required, shall be conducted in a
manner to avoid glare and light trespass that would be a nuisance to adjacent residential and
recreational land uses.
The City and its Contractor shall prepare and implement a Nighttime Construction Lighting Plan for
any nighttime construction work so as to avoid glare and light trespass that would be a nuisance to
adjacent residential and recreational land uses. The lighting plan shall be developed to guide the
use of lighting during project construction in such a way as to effectively light the work area while
limiting light spill onto adjoining properties. This lighting plan shall include the layout of lighting
equipment necessary for any work to be completed at night and descriptions of hardware, including
hoods, louvers, shields or other means to be used to control glare and light trespass onto adjoining
property. Additional elements of the lighting plan would include suggested corrective actions in the
event lighting problems are reported by the public during well drilling operations. The
recommendations contained in the Nighttime Construction Lighting Plan shall be incorporated into
the final plans and specifications for the Project and implemented during construction.
24
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
Potentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
MitigationImpact with ..
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by ✓
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ✓
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in ✓
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a - e) Convert farmland, conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or forest land, or result in
the loss of forest land? (No Impact)
The Project site is designated as "Urban and Built-Up Land" on the current Sonoma County Important
Farmland Map (CDC 2021). Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance, or any other designated farmland type to non-agricultural use. No
impact would result.
The Project site is not designated by the California Department of Conservation as being enrolled in an
existing Williamson Act Contract (CDC 2018) and is not zoned or used for agricultural purposes. Therefore,
the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Act Contract. No
impact would result.
The Project is not located on land zoned or used as forest land, timberland, or timberland production.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing forest-related zoning and would not result in the
conversion of farm or forest lands. No impact would result.
25
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.3 Air Quality
Potentially Less-than- Less-than-
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ✓
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
in any criteria pollutant for which the project region ✓
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ✓
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of ✓
people?
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No Impact)
The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
and within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The BAAQMD's 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017a)
is the applicable air quality plan for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The 2017 Clean Air Plan
contains 85 individual control measures in nine economic sectors: stationary (industrial) sources,
transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and
super-greenhouse gas pollutants. Many of these control measures require action on the part of the
BAAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), or local communities, and are not directly related to
the actions undertaken for an individual development project. The Project would not prevent the BAAQMD
from implementing Clean Air Plan actions and none apply directly to the Project. In addition, the size of the
Project would be well below emission threshold screening levels for ozone precursors (see discussion in
Impact "b" below). As a result, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017
Clean Air Plan. No impact would result.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard? (Less than Significant)
According to California standards, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), particulate matter 10
microns or less in diameter (PM,o), and ozone. Under national standards, the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone. The Air Basin is in attainment
(or unclassified)for all other air pollutants. (BAAQMD 2021)
By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact, in that individual projects are rarely sufficient in
size to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a projects individual emissions
may contribute to cumulative adverse air quality impacts. Based on the current Air Basin designations, the
non-attainment pollutants of concern are ozone, PM1o, and PM2.5.
26
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Construction
The BAAQMD's 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides screening criteria for determining if an
individual project could result in significant construction-phase impact relative to criteria pollutants and
precursor emissions (BAAQMD 2017b). Criteria air pollutants and precursors include reactive organic
gases, nitrogen oxides, PM10, PM2.5, and carbon monoxide. In accordance with the BAAQMD's 2017
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, construction activities would have a less than significant impact to air quality if
the following screening criteria are met:
1. The project size is below the applicable screening level size shown in Table 3-1 of the BAAQMD 2017
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines;
2. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures are included in the project design and implemented during
construction; and
3. Construction-related activities would not include any of the following:
• Demolition activities inconsistent with District Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition,
Renovation and Manufacturing;
• Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases;
• Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type;
• Extensive site preparation; or
• Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a
considerable amount of haul truck activity
Relative to screening criteria, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not include specific screening level size
for public utility facilities and infrastructure improvement projects; however, a general comparison can be
made to other similar land uses. For example, the applicable construction-related screening size for a
general light industrial land use is 259,000 square feet of facilities and/or a project site that is 11 acres or
greater in size. The Project would include less than 1,000 square feet of facilities on an approximately 5-
acre site. The Project size would be considerably less than the BAAQMD's construction-related criteria
pollutant and precursor screening level for other similar land uses. Therefore, based on the use of the
screening criteria found in the BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines, a detailed air quality study for construction
related air emissions is not required for the Project.
Project-related construction activities would not be anticipated to encounter asbestos-containing materials
during construction, would not involve the simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases,
or require construction of more than one land-use type. Construction would not involve extensive site
preparation or material transport. The Project would not have a cumulative effect on ozone because it
would not exceed the BAAQMD's thresholds of significance for ozone precursors during construction. The
Project would result in a short-term increase in fugitive dust emissions from vehicles accessing the site
during construction which would include PM2.5 and PM1o. With implementation of the BAAQMD's
recommended basic construction measures identified in Section 1.6 of this Initial Study, the impact of
construction-related criteria air pollutants and precursor emissions would be less than significant.
Operation
The BAAQMD's 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides operational screening criteria for determining if
an individual project could result in a significant operation-related impact relative to criteria pollutants and
precursor emissions. Public utility facilities are not listed as a land use type in the BAAQMD operational
pollutant screening criteria; however, a general comparison can be made to similar land use types. For
27
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
example, the applicable BAAQMD operational screening size for a light industrial facility is 541,000 square
feet of facility, or a site that is 72 acres in size, or a project that includes 1,249 employees. In comparison,
the Project would include less than 1,000 square feet of facilities on the Project site and would not result in
an increase in employees. The Project size would be considerably less than the BAAQMD's operation-
related criteria pollutant and precursor screening level for other similar land uses. Therefore, based on the
use of the operational screening criteria found in the BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines, the Project would not
result in substantial long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the Project's
operational impact would be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than Significant)
Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially
those with cardio-respiratory diseases. Residential land uses are also considered sensitive to air pollution
because residents, including children and the elderly, tend to be at home for extended periods of time,
resulting in sustained exposure to pollutants, if present. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site
are single family residences located to the north and south of the Project site, as well as intermittent visitors
of Oak Hill Park.
The main pollutant of concern for this impact is diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is emitted from
construction equipment and heavy-duty truck traffic. Because of the limited scope and short construction
period for the Project (eight to ten weeks), no prolonged or intense construction activity would occur. The
Project includes implementation of dust and air quality control measures described in Section 1.6, which
includes minimizing idling times for trucks and equipment, ensuring that construction equipment is
maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications, and other measures. Given the short duration
of construction and the implementation of air quality control measures, the impact of construction-related
emissions on sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Project operation would not include the use of a new stationary source of DPM or a substantial increase in
traffic-related emissions. The proposed well facility would have provisions for a drive-up portable generator
connection so that in the event of a power failure the well pump could continue to be run, if needed. A
backup generator would only be used when power is lost, and the City would utilize a generator that will be
EPA or CARB certified and achieves emission standards for emergency standby sources, consistent with
BAAQMD requirements. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial amounts of operational
criteria pollutants or TACs. The operational impact on sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people? (Less than Significant)
Project-related construction activity may result in short-term odors such as diesel exhaust from construction
equipment. Such odors would be temporary, occurring only during the construction period, and would
disperse rapidly. In addition, the Project includes implementation of air quality control measures described
in Section 1.6, which would reduce odors released from construction equipment. The temporary impact
during construction would be less than significant.
Municipal groundwater wells are not listed by the BAAQMD as a potential odor source and are not a typical
source of odor complaints. Operation and maintenance of the proposed well would not produce direct or
indirect odor emissions. Therefore, no odor impact would result during Project operation.
28
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.4 Biological Resources
ImpactPotentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant
MitigationImpact with ..
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- ✓
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, ✓
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through ✓
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory ✓
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree ✓
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community ✓
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service? (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Special-status species include those plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed
as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These acts afford protection to both listed and
proposed species. Birds and raptors are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR
10.13), and their nest, eggs, and young are also protected under the California Fish and Wildlife Code
(§3503, §3503.5, and §3513). In addition, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of
Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat
trends continue, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW
special-status invertebrates, are all considered special-status species. Although CDFW Species of Special
29
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Concern generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. Plant
species on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants with California
Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1, 2 and 4 are also considered special-status plant species and must be
considered under CEQA. Bat species designated as "High Priority" by the Western Bat Working Group
(WBWG) qualify for legal protection under Section 15380(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. Species designated
"High Priority" are defined as "imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment based on available information on
distribution, status, ecology and known threats."
A Biological Resources Technical Memorandum was prepared for the Project to evaluate the potential for
special-status plant and wildlife species and sensitive habitats (including wetlands) to occur on or in the
vicinity of the Project site (GHD 2021). The assessment included literature and database searches as well
as a site survey to determine what species and habitats have potential to be present on the Project site.
The information and data collected for the assessment have been used as the basis of this biological
resources analysis.
Special-Status Plant Species
The Project site is mostly developed with an existing water storage reservoir and is located adjacent to the
existing Oak Hill Park, which is a public park maintained and operated by the City of Petaluma. Several
mature trees are located within and adjacent to the Project site. The vegetation at the Project site primarily
consists of low grass and weedy species and narrow strips of wooded habitat dominated by oak species
along the property boundaries. Other surrounding land uses are residential, resulting in numerous exotic
and ornamental plant species within and adjacent to the Project site. Based on a site survey, there is little
natural habitat structure within the proposed construction area. Records and habitat requirements for
special-status plants generated from database searches were reviewed. Based on habitat requirements
compared to the existing habitat (highly disturbed area with routine mowing, located at periphery of a public
park), the Project site is unlikely to support special-status plants. Therefore, based on literature review,
habitat disturbance, and on-site survey observations, no impact to special-status plants would result from
implementation of the Project.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Literature and database searches did not identify any occurrences of special-status wildlife species having
been previously recorded on the Project site, none were identified during the site reconnaissance, and no
habitat for special-status wildlife species was documented. The Project site is not located within designated
critical habitat for any special-status species. No suitable stream or wetland habitat is present on or
immediately adjacent to the Project site that would support special-status fish species or amphibian
species.
Several nest structures were observed in trees during the site visit, which may be assumed to have
previously been occupied by passerine songbirds. Several common avian species also were observed on-
site that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Wildlife Code. Although no tree
removal is anticipated to be required for the Project, some tree trimming may potentially be necessary for
equipment access. Vegetation removal, tree trimming, and ground disturbance may result in potentially
adverse effects to nesting birds, if present. The potential impact to nesting birds during construction is
considered significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Prevent Disturbance to Nesting
Birds), the temporary impact to nesting birds would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Trees adjacent to the Project site also could provide suitable roosting habitat for special-status bats,
including cavity/crevice roosters (such as little brown bat [Myotis lucifugus]) as well as foliage roosters
30
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
(such as hoary bats [Lasiurus cinereus]). Therefore, special-status bat species may be adversely affected,
if present. The potential impact to special-status bats during construction is considered significant. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (Prevent Disturbance to Bat Species), the temporary impact to
special-status bats would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Following construction, the operation and maintenance of the proposed well facility would not require tree
removals. Operational noise from the well facility would be negligible as the well pump would be
submersed in water below ground, and associated appurtenances would contribute minimally to overall
noise generation. A backup generator would only be used if power was lost and the City needed to
continue utilizing the well until power was restored, making it limited to an infrequent and temporary source
of noise. Noise from periodic truck trips during maintenance visits would be similar to existing vehicle
noises that access the Project site and Oak Hill Park and would be negligible due to the infrequency and
short duration of the visits. The new exterior light on the treatment shed would meet the requirements of
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and would be placed and shielded to direct light downward.
The light would have a manual switch operation with automatic shut-off. Routine maintenance of the
proposed groundwater well and treatment equipment would be conducted during daytime hours, when
outdoor lighting would not be necessary. Infrequent nighttime light to accommodate unscheduled as
needed maintenance would not cause substantial new sources of light that would affect special-status bats.
The operational impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce the temporary construction-related impacts on
protected birds and bats to a less-than-significant level by locating any potential active nests or roosts
before the start of construction and establishing buffers and avoiding nests if found.
Mitigation Measure 1131O-1: Prevent Disturbance to Nesting Birds
To the extent practical, construction activities should be performed between September 1 and
February 1, which is outside the avian nesting season. If work must be performed during the avian
nesting season (February 1 — September 1), the City shall ensure that a pre-construction nesting
bird survey is performed in areas within 250 feet of project-related activities no more than 7 days
prior to ground disturbance. If active nests are found, an appropriately sized no-disturbance buffer
shall be placed around the nest at the direction of a qualified biologist conducting the survey. Active
nests shall be monitored at least once per week to determine whether birds are being disturbed.
Activities that might, in the opinion of the qualified biologist, disturb nesting activities (e.g., excessive
noise), shall be prohibited within the buffer zone until such a determination is made. If signs of
disturbance or distress are observed, the qualified biologist shall implement adaptive measures to
reduce disturbance. These measures may include, but are not limited to, increasing buffer size,
halting disruptive construction activities in the vicinity of the nest until fledging is confirmed or nesting
activity has ceased, placement of visual screens or sound dampening structures between the nest
and construction activity, reducing the number of noisy construction activities occurring
simultaneously, and/or reorienting and/or relocating construction equipment to minimize noise at
noise-sensitive receptors. Buffers shall remain in place until all young have fledged, or the biologist
has confirmed that the nest has been naturally predated. If ground disturbance work lapses for
seven days or longer during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a supplemental
avian pre-construction survey before Project work is reinitiated.
31
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Mitigation Measure 131O-2: Prevent Disturbance to Bat Species
To the extent possible, tree limbing shall be performed between September 1 and April 30, which is
outside the bat maternity season. If tree limbing must be performed during the bat maternity season
(May 1 — August 30), the City shall ensure that a qualified biologist shall conduct a bat habitat
assessment of trees to be removed or limbed. The assessment shall evaluate the trees for suitable
entry points and roost features and shall provide focused daytime surveys for day-roosting bats. If
present, the roost shall be avoided until after September 1 to ensure no adverse effects to maternity
bat roosts. Tree removal outside the maternity season shall be performed using a two-step tree
removal process which includes allowing any felled trees or tree limbs to be left overnight prior to
removal from the site or on-site chipping to allow any bats to exit the roost.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service, including state or federally
protected wetlands? (No Impact)
During a reconnaissance-level site visit conducted at the Project site, no potentially jurisdictional wetlands
or waters were observed on-site. A search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory for the Project
vicinity also was completed, the results of which show no wetlands mapped within the Project area. No
riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities are located within the Project site.
Therefore, no impact to riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities would result.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less than Significant)
No wildlife movement corridors or regional wildlife linkages have been identified within the Project site. The
Project site is not located within or near a high-integrity forest habitat or"natural landscape block" identified
in the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. The Project site does not contain riparian or aquatic
habitat or intersect riparian corridors. There is no direct hydrologic connectivity between the Project site
and off-site waterbodies, waterways or drainages. No impact on movement of native resident or migratory
fish or essential fish habitat would result, and no new barriers to terrestrial wildlife movement would result.
The Project would not substantially interfere with migratory birds, bats, or other species. The impact would
be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact)
Chapter 17 (Tree Preservation) of the Petaluma Municipal Code provides regulations for the protection,
preservation, and maintenance of groves and stands of mature trees. The Municipal Code notes the City's
objective to establish regulations that will result in no net loss of tree canopy in the community. Chapter 17
of the Municipal Code also intends to promote and perpetuate the urban forest through the replacement of
trees removed as a result of new development. While some tree trimming near the area of the proposed
well site may potentially be necessary for equipment access, no tree removal is anticipated to be required
for the Project. Trees that may require trimming would be limited to lower branches, where needed.
Therefore, there would be no net loss of tree canopy in the community. The City's Heritage Tree Ordinance
includes a Register of Heritage and Landmark Trees, which includes three pine trees located within Oak Hill
32
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Park. The Project would not result in the removal or trimming of the three Heritage or Landmark trees
located within Oak Hill Park. No impact related to trees would result.
Petaluma General Plan policies 4-P-1 through 4-P-5 are intended to protect and enhance biological and
natural resources within the City. Policy 4-P-1 seeks to protect and enhance the Petaluma River and its
tributaries. The Project site is located within the Petaluma River watershed, approximately 0.6 mile west of
the Petaluma River. The Project would not alter the Petaluma River nor one of its tributaries. Drainage
patterns at the Project site would remain essentially the same as they currently exist. The Project would
result in only a minor increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the well treatment shed (250
square feet) and the well vault. Because construction and operation of the Project would not substantially
alter drainage patterns or increase runoff, no indirect effects on the Petaluma River are anticipated. This
Initial Study evaluates potential impacts to biological resources and identifies mitigation measures, where
applicable, consistent with General Plan policies 4-P-2 through 4-P-5. No conflicts with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources have been identified. Therefore, no impact would result.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No
Impact)
Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans are geographic-specific plans to
address effects on sensitive species of plants and animals. There are no such adopted plans covering the
Project area. No impact would result.
33
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.5 Cultural Resources
Less-than- Less-than-
.&V,&TW7;M- Significant Significant
. .
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to ✓
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant ✓
to§15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those ✓
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5? (No Impact)
The CEQA Guidelines define a historical resource as: (1) a resource listed in the California Register of
Historical Resources; (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in the
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k), or identified as significant in a historical
resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (3) any object, building, structure,
site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or
significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political,
military, or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The Project site is located adjacent to the western corner
of City-owned Oak Hill Park and an existing water storage reservoir. Other adjacent land uses include
single-family residences to the north and south. Oak Hill Park and the existing water storage reservoir at
the Project site are not included on the California Department of Parks and Recreation's California
Inventory of Historic Resources, or the State of California Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties
Directory and Built Environment Resource Directory. The Project would not impact a historic resource. No
impact would result.
The potential for historic-period archaeological resources is evaluated in impact "b,c" below.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
An Archaeological Resources Study was prepared for the Project by the Anthropological Studies Center of
Sonoma State University (ASC 2021). The study assessed the potential for surficial and/or buried
archaeological and historical resources in the proposed improvement area through the completion of the
following:
— Records and literature search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical
Resources Information Center (CHRIS);
— Further literature review of publications, files, and maps for ethnographic, historic-era, and prehistoric
resources and background information;
34
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
— Communication with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a review of the
Sacred Lands File and contact information for the appropriate tribal communities;
— Contact with the appropriate local Native American Tribes; and
— Pedestrian archaeological survey of the Project area.
The study determined that the sensitivity of the Project area for prehistoric buried archaeological resources
is low. No previously recorded cultural resources located within the proposed improvement area were
identified. A pedestrian archaeological survey of the Project site also identified no archaeological resources.
The search of the NAHC's Sacred Lands File for Sacred Sites did not indicate the presence of Native
American cultural resources in the Project area. However, as noted in Section 3.18 (Tribal Cultural
Resources), a representative of Lytton Rancheria indicated that the Tribe believes the Project site falls
within traditional Porno territory and therefore a potential for finding tribal cultural resources on the site
exists. If previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during construction, the impact would
be significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (Protect Unknown Archaeological
Resources during Construction Activities), the potential impact to cultural resources during construction
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
For historic-era archaeological resources and potential human remains, the sensitivity for buried resources
is considered high due to a portion of the Project site being located in the vicinity of a former public
cemetery. The public cemetery, known as Oak Hill Cemetery, was utilized from 1868 to 1879. Because it
is unclear whether all remains were removed and interred in other cemeteries before the property was
converted into a park, it is possible that a burial from the former cemetery could be encountered during
construction. Therefore, the possibility of encountering historic-era archaeological resources that contain
human remains cannot be discounted. The impact related to the potential disturbance of historic-era
archaeological resources and human remains during construction is considered significant. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (Protect Human Remains if Encountered during Construction),
the potential impact to human remains during construction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce the potential impact to previously
undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains to a less-than-significant level by outlining
procedures to be taken in the event of inadvertent discovery of unrecorded resources consistent with
appropriate laws and requirements.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Protect Unknown Archaeological Resources during Construction
Activities
The City shall ensure that archaeological monitoring is performed during installation of subsurface
work occurring within the boundary of Oak Hill Park, including the installation of a new PG&E
electrical line within the Oak Hill Park parking lot. Monitoring shall be performed by a qualified
archaeologist and may also include a Native American monitor and will consist of directly watching
the excavation process. Monitoring shall continue until the depth of excavation has been reached
at which resources could not be present, as determined by qualified archaeologist. In the event that
subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened midden soil, are
discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, ground-disturbing activity in the
vicinity of the resource shall be halted, a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to
evaluate the find, and the appropriate tribal representative(s) shall be notified. If the find qualifies as
a historical resource or unique archaeological resource as defined by CEQA, the archaeologist shall
35
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
develop appropriate measures to protect the integrity of the resource and ensure that no additional
resources are affected.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Protect Human Remains if Encountered during Construction
If human remains, associated grave goods, or items of cultural patrimony are encountered during
construction, work shall halt in the vicinity of the find and the County Coroner shall be notified
immediately. The following procedures shall be followed as required by Public Resources Code §
5097.9 and Health and Safety Code § 7050.5. If the human remains are determined to be of Native
American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours
of the determination. The Native American Heritage Commission shall then notify the Most Likely
Descendant (MLD), who has 48 hours to make recommendations to the landowner for the
disposition of the remains. A qualified archaeologist, the City and the MLD shall make all reasonable
efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of any human remains
and associated or unassociated funerary objects. The agreement would take into consideration the
appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, and final disposition of the
human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects.
36
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.6 Energy Resources
Potentially Less-than- Less-than-
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for ✓
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
(Less than Significant)
Project construction activity would require the temporary use of fossil fuels (gas, diesel, and motor oil) for
excavation, grading, and vehicle use. The precise amount of construction-related energy consumption is
uncertain. However, construction of the Project would not require a comparatively large amount of fuel or
energy usage because of the limited extent and nature of the proposed improvements, the minimal number
of construction vehicles and equipment used during construction, and the short construction duration
required for a project of this small scale.
Following construction, Project energy consumption would be limited to the electricity needed to operate the
well and treatment building. The amount of electricity utilized by the well pump would not be substantial as
the pump size is small, would have a variable frequency drive to conserve energy, and would be required to
meet current energy efficiency standards. The new exterior light on the custom treatment shed would meet
the requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations energy standards and would have a
manual switch operation with automatic shut-off. Fuel consumption would be limited to that utilized by
routine maintenance workers as they traveled to and from the site and operation of a portable emergency
generator, if needed. Operation and maintenance of the proposed municipal groundwater well would
generally require one maintenance visit per day by City staff when the well was operating, and monthly
visits when the well was not in operation. Such trips would be combined with routine maintenance trips to
the water storage reservoir and Oak Hill Park, further minimizing energy related to maintenance of the
Project. Therefore, neither Project construction or operation would result in the use of large amounts of fuel
and energy in a wasteful manner. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (No
Impact)
In 2003, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Power Authority (CPA), and the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)jointly adopted an Energy Action Plan (EAP) that listed goals for
California's energy future and set forth a commitment to achieve these goals through specific actions. In
2005, the CEC and CPUC approved the EAP II, which identified further actions to meet California's future
energy needs, mainly focused on the energy and natural gas sectors. Additionally, the CEC prepared the
State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with the California Air Resources Board and in consultation with
the other state, federal, and local agencies. The alternative fuels plan presents strategies and actions
37
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
California must take to increase the use of alternative non-petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs
to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production.
Project construction and operational activities would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the EAP,
EAP II, the State Alternative Fuels Plan, or local goals. Project construction activity would not require a
large amount of fuel or energy usage because of the limited extent and nature of the proposed
improvements and the minimal number of construction vehicles that would be required for a project of this
small scale. Project operation would not result in a substantial increase in energy use. No conflicts with a
state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency have been identified. Therefore, no impact
would result.
38
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.7 Geology and Soils
ImpactPotentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other ✓
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ✓
iii. Seismic related ground failure, including ✓
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? ✓
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ✓
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on, or off, site ✓
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ✓
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ✓
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ✓
feature?
a.i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42? (No Impact)
The Project site is not located within an active Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no other active or
potentially active faults have been mapped within the area. The nearest mapped active fault is the
Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault, located approximately 5.8 miles northeast of the Project site (Kleinfelder
2020). No impact would result.
39
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
a.ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less than Significant)
All of Sonoma County is subject to strong seismic shaking that would result from earthquakes along the
San Andreas, Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek, and other faults. Moderate to major earthquakes generated on
the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault and other faults in the region can be expected to cause strong ground
shaking at the site.
By applying appropriate engineering practices, potential injury and damage from seismic activity can be
diminished, thereby exposing fewer people and less property to the effects of a major damaging
earthquake. A design-level geotechnical study was performed for the Project site to generate geotechnical
information for the design and construction (Kleinfelder 2020). The geotechnical study includes an
evaluation of seismic hazards related to ground shaking and identifies appropriate foundation supports to
be used for the proposed well treatment building. As summarized in Section 1.6, the Project would be
designed and constructed in conformance with site-specific recommendations contained in the geotechnical
investigation completed for the Project. Because the Project would be constructed in accordance with
Project-specific recommendations contained in the design-level geotechnical investigation, the potential
impact related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
a.iii, c, d) Seismic-related ground failure or unstable soils? (Less than Significant)
Soil conditions at the Project site consist of loose to medium dense silty sand fill from the ground surface to
an approximate depth of 11 feet. An approximately 3-foot-thick layer of medium dense native silty sand
material was encountered below the fill, overlying medium dense to very dense clayey sand. Materials
below the fill are interpreted to represent native soil and weak clayey/silty sandstone bedrock of the Wilson
Grove Formation. (Kleinfelder 2020)
The geotechnical study identifies appropriate foundation supports to be used for the proposed well
treatment building. As summarized in Section 1.6, the Project would be designed and constructed in
conformance with site-specific recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation completed for
the Project. This would include design in accordance with recommendations for grading and foundation
support and the use of select engineered fill to address unstable soils, if encountered. Because the Project
would be constructed in accordance with Project-specific recommendations contained in the design-level
geotechnical investigation, the potential impact related to seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, expansive or unstable soils, would be less than significant. Additionally, the Project does not
include structures intended for permanent human occupancy and would not change the exposure of people
from unstable soils.
a.iv) Landslides? (Less than Significant)
Slope stability analysis was performed to assess the current stability of the existing fill slope at the Project
site and to subsequently recommend a lateral structure setback from the top of the slope. Based on the
slope stability analysis, the foundation for the proposed well treatment building has been sited to be set
back a minimum lateral distance of 10 feet from the edge (top hinge point) of the adjacent fill slope at the
Project site. As such, the risk associated with landslides would be less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less than Significant)
Areas to be disturbed during construction would consist predominantly of soils and hardscapes that have
been altered from their original, natural state. Construction of the Project would not require a comparatively
large area of ground disturbance because of the limited extent and nature of the proposed improvements,
the minimal number of equipment used during construction, and the short construction duration required for
40
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
a project of this small scale. As a result, the Project would result in negligible soil erosion or disturbance to
native soils and the impact would be less than significant. Additionally, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 (see
Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality), requires implementation of erosion control devices during
construction which would further minimize the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Following
construction, the Project would not result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil, as disturbed areas would be
restored to general pre-construction conditions and no additional ground disturbance would occur. The
impact would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
(No Impact)
The Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. No
impact would result.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The City of Petaluma 2025 General Plan Environmental Impact Report did not identify any known
paleontological resources or unique geologic features within the City. Although implementation of the
Project is not anticipated to destroy a known unique paleontological resource or site, the possibility of
encountering paleontological resources cannot be discounted. Therefore, the impact related to the
potential disturbance of paleontological resources during construction could be potentially significant. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Protect Paleontological Resources if Encountered during
Construction), the potential impact to such resources during construction would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources
by requiring evaluation and salvage of any paleontological resources found during construction. The impact
to paleontological resources following mitigation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Protect Paleontological Resources if Encountered during
Construction
If a paleontological resource is discovered during construction, all ground disturbing activities within
50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted but may be diverted to areas beyond 50 feet from the
discovery to continue working. An appointed representative of the City shall notify a qualified
paleontologist, who will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and
assess the nature and significance of the find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the
find, the paleontologist may record the find and allow work to continue, or recommend salvage and
recovery of the material, if the City determines that the find cannot be avoided. The paleontologist
shall make recommendations for any necessary treatment that is consistent with currently accepted
scientific practices.
41
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially Less-than- Less-than-
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on ✓
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions ✓
of greenhouse gases?
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? (Less than Significant)
Construction
The BAAQMD Air Quality CEQA Guidelines do not include screening criteria or significance thresholds for
construction-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and there is no applicable federal, State, or local
threshold pertaining to construction-related GHG emissions. Therefore, this analysis uses a qualitative
approach in accordance with Section 15064.4(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. Construction activities that
would result in Project-related GHG emissions include exhaust emissions from haul trucks, worker
commute vehicles, and construction equipment. However, construction-related emissions would not be a
considerable contribution to the cumulative GHG impact, given the short duration of construction and limited
construction equipment involved in development of the well and associated infrastructure. In addition, the
Project includes the implementation of air quality control measures described in Section 1.6, which include
minimizing idling times for trucks and equipment, ensuring that construction equipment is maintained in
accordance with manufacturer's specifications, and other measures that reduce emissions during
construction. Therefore, Project-related GHG emissions during construction is considered less than
significant.
Operation
The BAAQMD has established screening criteria to provide lead agencies with a conservative indication of
whether a proposed project could result in significant operation-related GHG impacts. If the screening
criteria are not exceeded by a proposed project, then the lead agency does not need to perform a detailed
GHG assessment, and the potential impact is considered less than significant. For operational activities,
several different screening criteria are recommended by the BAAQMD relative to air GHG emissions. For
example, detailed GHG assessments are not required for projects such as general light industrial that are
less than 121,000 square feet in size (BAAQMD 2017b). The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not include
specific screening criteria for utility projects similar to the proposed Project. However, when one compares
the screening criteria established for the types of projects described above (i.e., general light industrial), it is
reasonable to assume that the Project would be substantially less than the screening criteria. For example,
the well treatment building would be only 250 square feet in size. The well pump and treatment building
would be powered by electricity, therefore, no direct on-site GHG emissions would occur during operation.
The amount of electricity utilized by the well pump would not be substantial as the pump size is small,
would have a variable frequency drive to conserve energy, and would be required to meet current energy
42
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
efficiency standards. The proposed well facility would have provisions for a drive-up portable generator
connection so that in the event of a power failure the well pump could continue to run if needed. The
generator would only be used when power is lost, and the City would utilize a generator that is EPA or
CARB certified and achieves emission standards for emergency standby sources, consistent with BAAQMD
requirements. Other operational GHG emissions would be limited to emissions from periodic maintenance
vehicles, which would generally require one maintenance visit per day by City staff when the well was
operating, and monthly visits when the well was not in operation. Such trips would be combined with
routine maintenance trips to the water storage reservoir and Oak Hill Park, further minimizing energy
related to maintenance of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial amounts of
GHG pollutants, and the operational impact on GHG emissions would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less than Significant)
State Regulations
Current California laws, including Senate Bill 32 (SB32), require a 40% reduction in GHG emissions below
1990 levels by 2030. The CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2017) provides strategies for
meeting the mid-term 2030 GHG reduction target set by SB32. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
also identifies how the State can substantially advance toward the 2050 greenhouse gas reduction target of
Executive Order S-3-05, which consists of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The
recommendations cover several key sectors, including energy and industry, transportation, natural and
working lands, waste management, and water. The recommended measures in the 2017 Scoping Plan are
broad policy and regulatory initiatives that will be implemented at the State level and do not relate to the
construction and operation of individual projects. Although Project construction and operation may be
affected by State level regulations and policies that will be implemented, such as the Phase 2 heavy-duty
truck greenhouse gas standards proposed to be implemented within the transportation sector, the Project
would not impede the State from developing or implementing the GHG reduction measures identified in the
Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with SB32 or the 2017 Climate Change Scoping
Plan.
Petaluma Climate Emergency Resolution and Emergency Action Framework
On May 6, 2019, the City of Petaluma passed a Climate Emergency Resolution (Resolution 2019-057) that
calls for achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. On January 11, 2021, the City adopted a Climate
Emergency Action Framework, which recommends the City achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. As
discussed in the City's Climate Emergency Action Framework, the GHG emission inventories conducted in
2010 to 2015 showed that emissions associated with building energy use and water and wastewater
emissions have decreased.
The City's Climate Emergency Action Framework includes goals for reducing sources of GHGs and
increasing carbon sequestration. Goals include eliminating transportation emissions by reducing Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT), eliminating emissions from the building sector, by increasing waste diversion,
enhancing the urban forest, and reducing consumption emissions. The proposed well pump and building
lights would be electric powered. The facility would not utilize natural gas or propane. The amount of
electricity utilized by the well pump would not be substantial as the pump size is small, would have a
variable frequency drive to conserve energy, and the well and treatment building would be required to meet
current energy efficiency standards. The proposed well facility would have provisions for a drive-up portable
generator connection so that in the event of a power failure the well pump could continue to run if needed.
43
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
A backup generator would only be used when power is lost, and the BAAQMD requires generators to be
either EPA or CARB certified and achieve emission standards for emergency standby sources. The
temporary use of a generator during a power outage would not generate substantial amounts of GHG
pollutants. The generator would be EPA or CARB certified and achieve emission standards for emergency
standby sources, consistent with BAAQMD requirements. Other operational GHG emissions would be
limited to emissions from periodic maintenance vehicles, which would be minimal, generally requiring one
maintenance visit per day by City staff when the well was operating, and monthly visits when the well was
not in operation. Such trips would be combined with routine maintenance trips to the water storage
reservoir and Oak Hill Park, further minimizing energy related to maintenance of the Project. Therefore, the
Project would not conflict with or impede the goals identified in the City's Climate Emergency Action
Framework.
Petaluma General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
The Petaluma 2025 General Plan includes several goals, policies, and programs for reducing GHG
emissions, none of which apply to the proposed groundwater well and its associated facilities. As
summarized in Table 4.5-1 of the Petaluma General Plan, projected emissions for 2025 related to
"Municipal Services—Water& Sewer" accounted for only 1% of the total estimated community-wide GHG
emissions, indicating water and sewer facilities represent a small portion of the City's greenhouse gas
emissions footprint.
As part of the City's ongoing General Plan update, the City is preparing a Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan, which will be both a technical document used to guide city decision-making and a visionary document
used by the public to understand the direction of the community. The Plan will include a GHG inventory,
reduction analysis, and a climate equity assessment that will serve as a foundation for the plan alongside
community engagement and visioning. The Plan has not been drafted or adopted at the time of this Initial
Study, and therefore cannot provide an analysis of the Project's potential to conflict with the Plan at this
time. The Project would not conflict with or impede implementation of the 2025 General Plan goals related
to GHG emissions.
44
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ImpactPotentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or ✓
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset ✓
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste ✓
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ✓
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ✓
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or ✓
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ✓
involving wildland fires?
a, b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (Less than Significant)
Construction
Construction of the Project would not include demolition of structures that may contain hazardous building
materials or handling of soil or groundwater within areas of known contamination. Construction activities
would involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, paints and solvents. Routine
transport of hazardous materials to and from the Project site during construction could result in an
incremental increase in the potential for accidents, however, numerous laws and regulations ensure the
safe transportation, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. For example, the California
Department of Transportation and the California Highway Patrol regulate the transportation of hazardous
45
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
materials and wastes, including container types and packaging requirements, as well as licensing and
training for truck operators, chemical handlers, and hazardous waste haulers. Worker safety regulations
cover hazards related to the prevention of exposure to hazardous materials and a release to the
environment from hazardous materials use. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
(Cal-OSHA) also enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain worker safety training
and hazard information requirements, such as procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous
substances, communicating hazard information related to hazardous substances and their handling, and
preparation of health and safety plans to protect workers and employees. Because contractors would be
required to comply with existing and future hazardous materials laws and regulations covering the transport,
use and disposal of hazardous materials, the Project's construction-related impact would be less than
significant.
Operation
The well treatment shed would include a storage container providing one week volume of chlorine solution
mixture or tablets (for disinfection), and possibly other chemicals such as sodium hydroxide (for pH
adjustment), ammonia or sodium fluoride, if needed. The proposed well treatment shed would be located
adjacent to the water storage reservoir and would be located behind existing fencing that would be
extended at the site for security purposes. Only City maintenance staff would have access to the treatment
shed. Transport of water treatment chemicals are regulated by Caltrans and the CHP, by standards for
container types and packaging requirements, as well as licensing and training for truck operators, chemical
handlers, and hazardous waste haulers. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation,
container identification, and shipping documentation are regulated by the CHP, which conducts regular
inspections of licensed transporters to assure regulatory compliance. The California Uniform Fire Code,
Article 80, includes specific requirements for the safe storage and handling of chemicals. These
requirements are intended to reduce the potential for an accidental release and for mixing of incompatible
chemicals. Design of the chlorine injector and storage at the well treatment shed would be required to
comply with the current Uniform Fire Code requirements and other applicable federal, State, and local
regulations. Therefore, because the City would be required to comply with these laws and regulations that
are designed to protect the public against potential hazards associated with the use of chemicals and
accidental chemical releases, the impact would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less than Significant)
The Project site is located approximately 0.25-mile northeast of Valley Vista Elementary School, and 0.25-
mile northwest of St. Vincent Elementary School. Construction activities would include the use of materials
such as fuels, lubricants, paints, and solvents, which are commonly used during construction, are not
acutely hazardous, and would be used in small quantities. Operation would include the storage of
disinfection and pH chemicals, which are not acutely hazardous. Numerous laws and regulations ensure
the safe transportation, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials (see Impact "a" and "b" above).
Although construction or operation activities could result in the inadvertent release of small quantities of
hazardous construction chemicals, a spill or release would not be expected to endanger individuals at either
of the elementary schools given the nature of the materials and the small quantities that would be used (i.e.,
one week volume of chlorine solution mixture or tablets). Because the City and its contractors would be
required to comply with existing and future hazardous materials laws and regulations covering the transport,
use, and disposal of hazardous materials, and because of the nature and quantity of the hazardous
46
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
materials to be potentially used by the Project, the impact related to the use of hazardous materials during
construction within one-quarter mile of a school would be less than significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment? (Less than Significant)
The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the "Cortese List." A
search of the Cortese List was completed to determine if any known hazardous waste sites have been
recorded on or adjacent to the Project site, including review of:
— Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database;
— List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the Water Board GeoTracker database;
— List of solid waste disposal sites identified by the Water Board with waste constituents above
hazardous waste levels;
— List of"active" Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the Water Board;
and
— List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health
and Safety Code.
The Project would not occur on any sites identified in the above-mentioned lists compiled by the California
Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Toxic
Substances Control, or the CalRecycle Waste Management Board Solid Development Waste Information
System. The nearest waste site is a gas station located approximately 0.4 mile to the southeast of the
Project site on Washington Street. Given the distances of the Project site from any active environmental
cases, the potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil or groundwater at the Project site is minimal.
The impact is less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (No
Impact)
The Project site is not located within two miles of a public use airport or a private airstrip covered by the
Sonoma County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The nearest airport, Petaluma Municipal Airport, is
located approximately 2.75 miles east of the Project site. No impact would result.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact)
Petaluma provides life safety measures and measures for the rapid resumption of impacted government,
community and business services. The City's response to an emergency incident is coordinated through an
Emergency Operations Center, which utilizes the Incident Command System for unity of command and
control. The County of Sonoma manages a county-wide evacuation map, which includes zones for areas
inside Petaluma. The Project site is located within Evacuation Zone PTL-005B.
Petaluma's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Petaluma 2020) assesses risk posed by natural and human-
caused hazards, identifies ways to reduce those risks, and allows the City to be eligible for mitigation grant
funding. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan addresses minimizing impacts from natural hazards, such as
drought, earthquakes, flooding, sea level rise, severe weather, extreme heat, and wildfires.
47
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, implementation of the Project would not induce
population growth. Because the Project would not add new population or off-site roadway changes, the
Project would not change existing circulation patterns, would not generate substantial new traffic, and would
not effect any emergency response routes. Therefore, the Project would not physically interfere with any
emergency response or evacuation elements associated with Petaluma's Emergency Operations Plan or
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. No impact would result.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires? (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within the boundaries of the City's
designated high fire hazard zone (Petaluma 2007). The Project site and off-site improvements are located
in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), which is an area where a local agency, in this case the City of
Petaluma, has primary responsibility for fire and emergency response. Based on current California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection mapping, the Project site is not within a designated hazard
severity zone. Although the Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within designated
areas at risk of wildland fires, it is possible that accidental fire ignition could occur during construction (e.g.
related to heavy machinery usage). Because the vegetation at the Project site could be dry during
construction, and because of the close proximity of nearby residences, the construction-related impact is
considered significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (Reduce Wildland Fire Hazards
during Construction), the potential impact related to wildland fires during construction would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level.
Following construction, the Project site would not result in new structures within designated areas at risk of
wildland fires. The proposed municipal well would be connected to the City's water distribution system and
fire hydrants and would provide added water pressure to the local system. In addition, the well house
would have bypass piping which could be connected to fire hoses if needed. No operational impact would
result.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require the use of construction techniques that would
reduce the likelihood of wildland fires during construction of the Project. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1, the impact related to wildland fires would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Reduce Wildland Fire Hazards during Construction
Prior to construction, the City and its contractor(s) shall remove and/or clear away dry, combustible
vegetation from the construction site. Grass and other vegetation less than 18 inches in height above
the ground shall be maintained where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. Vehicles
shall not be parked in areas where exhaust systems contact combustible materials. Fire
extinguishers shall be available on the construction site to assist in quickly extinguishing any small
fires, and the contractors shall have on site the phone number for the local fire department.
48
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact--TPotentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially ✓
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge ✓
such that the project may impede sustainable
� groundwater management of the basin?
C_) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or ✓
off-site?
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in ✓
flooding on-or off-site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned ✓
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ✓
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk ✓
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater ✓
management plan?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less than Significant with
Mitigation)
Construction
The Project site is located more than half a mile from the nearest blue line stream and no aquatic drainages
are located on-site. There is no direct hydrologic connectivity between the Project site and off-site
waterbodies, waterways or drainages. Temporary construction activities have the potential to degrade
water quality that could be discharged to the local storm drain system as a result of erosion caused by
earthmoving activities or the accidental release of hazardous construction chemicals. Therefore, if not
properly managed, construction activities could result in erosion, as well the discharge of chemicals and
materials. In such an instance, applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements could
49
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
be violated, and polluted runoff could substantially degrade water quality in the local storm drain system.
The impact is considered significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, provided below,
the impact would be less than significant.
Operation
The City proposes to provide treatment as needed to meet State and federal drinking water standards for
bacteria and micro-organisms, pH, iron, manganese, nitrate, and other similar constituents. The proposed
treatment systems are capable of providing required levels of disinfection, pH adjustment, reduction in iron
and manganese concentrations, and other constituents so that State and federal drinking water standards
would be met. The groundwater to be pumped from the proposed well would, therefore, be required to
meet Title 22 drinking water standards, and would not violate drinking water standards.
A search of databases providing information about the location of known hazardous materials release sites
indicates that there are no open hazardous sites within the construction area boundaries of the Project site
or within 0.25 mile of the Project site (see impact "d" in Section 3.8 of this Initial Study). Based on the
location of the Project site and the lack of reported release sites in the vicinity of the proposed well, it is
highly unlikely that operation of the proposed well would either entrain contaminated groundwater or cause
a negative affect at an existing groundwater remediation site.
Groundwater generated during pump testing and maintenance would be discharged to the local sanitary
sewer. No discharge of groundwater to surface water or the storm drain system would result.
The impact associated with operation of the proposed municipal groundwater well would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would reduce potential construction-phase impacts relative to
water quality standards and waste discharge requirements to a less-than-significant level by requiring
implementation of best management practices and compliance with applicable State and local
requirements.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Implement Storm Water Control Measures During Construction
The City and its contractor shall implement Best Management Practices to prevent the discharge of
construction waste, debris or contaminants during construction activities. Best Management
Practices may include, but would not be limited to, the following:
- Existing vegetation on the construction site shall be maintained to the maximum extent
feasible.
- Areas of disturbed soil shall be reseeded and covered with vegetation as soon as possible after
disturbance.
- Erosion control devices shall be installed in coordination with clearing, grubbing, and grading.
Such devices shall include perimeter sediment controls (perimeter silt fence, fiber rolls),
stabilized construction exits, stockpile management, and wind erosion control.
- BMPs shall be implemented to prevent the release of hazardous construction chemicals during
construction. Such BMPs shall include material handling and waste management, material
stockpile management, management of any washout areas, control of vehicle/equipment
50
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
fueling to contractor's staging area, vehicle and equipment cleaning performed off site, and spill
prevention and control.
- If more than one acre of land would be disturbed, the City and/or contractor shall obtain
coverage under State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, Waste
Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction
and Land Disturbance Activities, as amended by Order No. 2012-0006. The City shall comply
with all provisions of the permit, including development and implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan.
b, e) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less than Significant)
An evaluation of Project consistency relative to the Petaluma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP), the San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control Plan, and the City of Petaluma General Plan is
provided below.
Petaluma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan
In 2014, the State of California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which
requires groundwater basins and subbasins in California designated as high- or medium-priority by the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to be managed sustainably. The Project site is located
within the western most portion of the Petaluma Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin Number 2-1)within the
City limits. The Petaluma Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) is prioritized as a medium priority basin by
DRW and is required to comply with SGMA.
The Petaluma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) was formed in June 2017 to meet SGMA
requirements. The Petaluma Valley GSA formed through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement entered by
the North Bay Water District, Sonoma County, Sonoma Water, Sonoma Resource Conservation District
(RCD), and the City of Petaluma.
On December 8, 2021, the GSA adopted a GSP for the Basin and directed staff to submit the GSP to DWR
for approval (Sonoma Water 2021). DWR will have two years to review the GSP before it is final.
The Petaluma Valley GSP has defined the following Sustainability Goal for the Basin:
"...to adaptively and sustainably manage, protect and enhance groundwater resources while allowing
for reasonable and managed growth through:
— Careful monitoring of groundwater conditions;
— Close coordination and collaboration with other entities and regulatory agencies that have a stake
or role in groundwater management in the Basin; and
— A diverse portfolio of projects and management actions that ensure clean and plentiful
groundwater for future uses and users in an environmentally sound and equitable manner"
Basin Setting
The Basin is located immediately north of San Pablo Bay and is bounded on the east by the Sonoma
Mountains and the west by low-lying hills. The approximately 46,000-acre Basin stretches from the
Baylands northward, incorporating the City of Petaluma and the communities of Penngrove and Lakeville.
51
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
The Petaluma River, which is the principal stream draining the Basin, is located within the larger Petaluma
Valley watershed.
Groundwater resources are variable throughout the Basin. Wells in the Petaluma Formation aquifer unit,
which covers the largest area of the Basin, generally have low yields. Wells in the Wilson Grove Formation
aquifer unit are generally considered to be fair to good groundwater producers. Wells in the Sonoma
Volcanics Formation aquifer unit, in which the proposed well would be located, have large variations in
water-bearing properties.
The aquifer system is recharged primarily through streambed recharge along portions of Petaluma River
and its tributaries, as well as through direct infiltration of precipitation and along the margins of the valley
areas (mountain-front recharge). Groundwater is discharged to the Petaluma River, streams, springs,
seeps, interconnected wetlands, through evapotranspiration, and by groundwater pumping.
Sustainable Management Criteria
As required by SGMA, the GSP includes management criteria for six sustainability indicators. Sustainability
indicators refers to any of the effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the Basin
that, when significant and unreasonable, cause undesirable results, as described in Water Code Section
10721(x). The Petaluma Valley GSP includes sustainability indicators for the following six undesirable
results:
— Chronic lowering of groundwater levels
— Reduction in groundwater storage
— Seawater intrusion
— Degraded groundwater quality
— Land surface subsidence
— Depletion of interconnected surface water
The GSP identifies undesirable results, minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones
for each sustainability indicator. An evaluation of the Project relative to each sustainable criterion is
provided below. Operation of the proposed municipal groundwater well is not anticipated to conflict with the
GSP, as operation of the municipal well would not result in groundwater conditions within the Basin that
would cause unreasonable or undesirable results. The impact would be less than significant.
Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels
The GSP defines the minimum threshold for lowering of groundwater levels as follows: "maintain above
historical low elevations while accounting for drought/climate variability and protect at least 95% of nearby
water supply wells." Applying this criterion, a significant impact would result if chronic lowering of
groundwater levels occurs that significantly exceed historical levels or cause significant and unreasonable
impacts to beneficial users. The metric for this threshold is for the groundwater levels to be shallower (more
protective) of historical low elevations, minus 4-year drought, or above the 95th percentile of nearby water
supply well depths. This criterion will be measured through monthly or monthly-averaged groundwater
levels measured at representative monitoring wells throughout the Basin. The measurable objective within
stable wells is to maintain groundwater levels within historical observed ranges, with the metric being the
historical median spring groundwater elevation.
The proposed groundwater well production zone will be in the Sonoma Volcanic Formation, the bedrock
formation for the basin. A 100-foot sanitary seal would be installed to isolate the overlying Wilson Groove
52
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Formation and draw groundwater from fracture zones in the underlying Sonoma Volcanics. In the area of
the proposed well, the Wilson Groove Formation is a thin veneer overlying the Sonoma Volcanic Formation,
consisting of a relatively thin saturated zone if present. Depth to first water is expected to be between 50
and 80 feet below ground surface. The proposed well would draw water from fractured bedrock that is
marginally hydraulically connected to the primary aquifer of the Petaluma Valley Basin. Based on the
location, projected production volume of the proposed well, and lack of connection to the primary aquifer,
the proposed municipal well should not significantly influence the groundwater levels in the Petaluma Basin.
Groundwater modeling conducted as part of the GSP indicates that the Project would have a small effect on
regional groundwater elevations and would not affect beneficial uses of groundwater in the basin. The
volume of groundwater to be extracted (maximum of 215 acre-feet per year) is a very small portion of the
groundwater extracted in the basin and when combined with historical pumping is less than the volume of
annual groundwater projected to be used by the City of Petaluma in the GSP. Analysis of water elevations
indicates that there is little correlation between the volume of the City's groundwater extraction and a
change in groundwater evaluations. Therefore, groundwater depletion impacts would be less than
significant.
Based on the Project description and analysis of hydrogeologic data, the proposed well is assumed to have
a maximum production of 215 acre-feet in one year (pumping 8-hours/day, 365 days/year at a rate of 400
gpm). It is likely that the proposed well would be pumped seasonally, and that average annual well
production would be less that 215-acre-feet.
To investigate the potential well interference impacts of such pumping on nearby wells (i.e., the localized
drawdown of the groundwater level at nearby wells owned by others), a well interference analysis was
conducted. The nearest groundwater well to the Project site is located approximately 550 feet away from
the proposed well site. It is unlikely that the operation of the City's proposed well would have any influence
on the private well, which draws groundwater from the Wilson Grove Formation. The proposed municipal
well would have a 100-foot seal and would only draw water from the volcanic bedrock, below the Wilson
Grove Formation. The privately owned off-site well is shallow and is assumed to provide a low volume of
water for irrigation use. Most well pumps can be operated across a wide range of pressure demands, and it
is unlikely that seasonal operation of the proposed municipal well would result in change in production
capacity of the existing off-site well. Pumping at nearby wells would not be substantially affected by the
extent of drawdown by the worst-case conditions of the Project, and that the existing land uses could still be
supported. Therefore, well interference impacts would be less than significant.
Reduction in Groundwater Storage
The GSP establishes a minimum threshold for reduction in groundwater storage as the same as the
minimum threshold for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels, to maintain groundwater condition above
historic lows. This criterion is to be measured by calculating the annual groundwater storage and comparing
changes in contoured groundwater elevations. Monitoring for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels will
be used to compare with minimum threshold and measurable objectives.
Applying this criterion, a significant impact would result if a reduction of groundwater storage caused
significant and unreasonable impacts to the long-term sustainable beneficial use of groundwater in the
basin, as caused by either long-term reductions in groundwater storage or pumping exceeding the
sustainable yield.
The proposed municipal well would draw water from the Sonoma Volcanic Formation and not from either
the Petaluma or Wilson Grove formations, which make up the primary water production zones in the
Petaluma Valley Basin. Water production from the proposed well would have little or no impact on overall
53
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
groundwater storage or sustainable yield in the Basin since it is drawing water from a water source that is
marginally hydraulically connected. The Project would have minimal effect on groundwater storage and
would not cause groundwater elevations to drop below the documented historic low levels and will not affect
beneficial uses of groundwater in the basin. Therefore, any reduction in groundwater storage impacts would
be less than significant.
The Project would result in only a minor increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the well
treatment shed (250 square feet) and the well vault, resulting in less than significant impacts to groundwater
recharge.
Seawater Intrusion
The GSP establishes a minimum threshold of a 250 mg/L chloride isocontour located in an area that is
protective of beneficial users of groundwater. This minimum threshold isocontour is initially located between
the currently inferred 250 mg/L isocontour (inferred interface of brackish groundwater) and beneficial users
of groundwater (known water wells supplying beneficial users). Under this criterion, a significant impact
would result if seawater intrusion occurred inland of areas of existing brackish groundwater that may affect
beneficial uses of groundwater is significant and unreasonable.
The Project site is located on the western boundary of the groundwater basin and the nearest portion of the
Petaluma River is located approximately 0.6 mile to the east. Baylands are located over two miles
southeast of the Project site. Because the proposed well site is located up gradient of areas where
groundwater elevations are below sea level, the Project would have, at most, a negligible effect on
seawater intrusion. The proposed well is located several miles from the Bay, would have a relatively low
production, and is marginally hydraulically connected to the primary aquifer, therefore the potential for
influencing saltwater intrusion is very low and impacts would be less than significant.
Degraded Groundwater Quality
The GSP sets the minimum threshold for groundwater quality based on two additional supply wells
exceeding the applicable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for arsenic, nitrate, or salts (measured as
Total Dissolved Solids or TDS). Under this criterion, a significant impact would result if well production
results in an increase in the concentration of these constituents of concern in groundwater that leads to
adverse impacts on beneficial users.
The proposed well would have a 100-foot sanitary seal to prevent any degradation of the groundwater from
surface contaminants such as nitrates. Water produced from the Sonoma Volcanics fracture zone may
have dissolved minerals, but would be treated at the well site if needed to be compliant with MCLs and Title
22 drinking water standards, and conveyed directly to distribution piping. Based on the location of the
proposed well and water quality data from other wells in the area, salinity is not of concern. The minimum
thresholds for water quality would not be exceeded. The impact would be less than significant.
Land Surface Subsidence
The GSP sets the minimum threshold for Land Subsidence as 0.1 foot per year of total subsidence. Under
this criterion, a significant impact would result if any rate of inelastic land subsidence caused by
groundwater pumping is a significant and unreasonable condition.
No subsidence is likely to occur in the area of the proposed well. The subsurface consists of a thin veneer
of the Wilson Grove Formation overlying the Sonoma Volcanics which is targeted for water production.
Depth to first groundwater is likely between 50 and 80-feet below the surface. A planned sanitary well seal
54
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
would extend to 100-feet below ground surface. Water production from hard rock would not yield any land
subsidence and no land subsidence impacts would result.
Depletion of Interconnected Surface Water
Depletion of surface water from interconnected streams occurs when surface water depletion, caused by
groundwater pumping within the Basin, exceeds historical streamflow depletion or adversely impacts the
viability of groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) or other beneficial users of surface water. Shallow
groundwater elevations are used as a proxy for stream flow depletion. The minimum threshold is set at 1
foot below the 2020 dry-season average minimum groundwater levels. The nearest "blue line" stream or
open water body relative to the Project site is the Petaluma River, which is located approximately 0.6 mile
east of the Project site. Because of the vertical and horizontal separation of local groundwater within the
aquifer and the Petaluma River and other surface waters, along with the distance of the Project site to the
Petaluma River and other smaller creeks, it is unlikely that groundwater from the Project vicinity is providing
recharge to the river and surface streams. The proposed well would be drilled to a depth of approximately
500 feet and pumping would occur from deep in the Sonoma Volcanic rock formation that is marginally
hydraulically connected to the primary aquifer. Therefore, Project pumping is not anticipated to have a
noticeable effect on surface water flows or contribute cumulatively to historical depletion of other beneficial
users of surface waters. The impact would be less than significant.
San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control Plan
The Project site is located within the area subject to the San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control
Board's Water Quality Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists action plans and policies to achieve water
quality objectives, protect present and future beneficial water uses, protect public health, and prevent
nuisance (SFBRWQCB 2019). The Basin Plan establishes thresholds for key water resource protection
objectives for both surface waters and groundwater. As described above, the Project site is not located
near a stream or river and would not alter water quality parameters established in the Basin Plan. During
well construction, zone sampling would occur to determine water quality. Groundwater generated during
pump testing and maintenance would be discharged to the local sanitary sewer. No groundwater
containing elevated levels of minerals or other constituents above the treatment capability of the City's
water recycling facility would be discharged to the sanitary sewer. No discharge of groundwater to surface
water or the storm drain system would result. Erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) would
be required to be implemented during construction to prevent erosion and to protect overall water quality
(see Impact "a"). Operation of the proposed municipal groundwater well is not anticipated to conflict with
the Basin Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
City of Petaluma General Plan
Petaluma's 2025 General Plan Water Resources Element includes water conservation BMPs and goals and
policies for water supply and demand, groundwater supply, and water quality. The Water Resources
Element includes the following policies:
— 8-P-19: Ensure adequate water supply during emergency situations by developing potential
groundwater resources and aquifer storage capacity, combined with management of surface water, to
meet overall emergency water supply objectives. The city's groundwater resources shall be preserved
to meet emergency needs and to offset peak demands.
— 8-P-20: Manage groundwater as a valuable and limited shared resource by protecting potential
groundwater recharge areas and stream sides from urban encroachment within the Petaluma
watershed.
55
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
— 8-P-21: Protect groundwater quality from surface contamination by requiring 100-foot sanitary seals on
all new municipal water supply wells.
The proposed Project would be consistent with Policy 8-P-19 in that the Project would respond to a need for
new municipal groundwater resources within the City's service area to enhance the existing municipal
groundwater supplies to ensure adequate water supplies during emergency situations.
As described above, the operation of the proposed municipal groundwater well would be consistent with the
Petaluma Valley GSP, as operation of the municipal well is not likely to result in groundwater conditions
within the Basin that would result in unreasonable or undesirable results. The groundwater to be pumped
from the proposed well would be required to meet MCLs, Title 22 drinking water standards and associated
monitoring requirements, and would therefore not violate drinking water standards. Therefore, the Project
would not conflict with Policy 8-P-20.
As described in the Project Description, the proposed municipal well would be constructed with a 100-foot
sanitary seal in accordance with Policy 8-P-21.
The operation of the proposed municipal groundwater would not conflict with the General Plan, and
therefore no impact would result.
c.i) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less than
Significant)
The Project would not require alteration of a creek or other waterbody. Drainage patterns at the Project site
would remain essentially the same as they currently exist. The Project would result in only a minor increase
in impermeable surfaces associated with the well treatment shed (approximately 250 square feet) and the
well vault. Because construction and operation of the Project would not substantially alter drainage
patterns or increase runoff, substantial erosion or siltation is not anticipated. The impact would be less than
significant.
c.ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site? (Less than Significant)
Drainage patterns at the Project site would remain essentially the same as they currently exist.
Groundwater generated during pump testing and maintenance would be discharged to the local sanitary
sewer. No discharge of groundwater to the storm drain system would result. The Project would result in
only a minor increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the well treatment shed (250 square feet)
and the well vault. Therefore, because the Project would not substantially increase runoff, and flooding is
not anticipated, the impact would be less than significant.
c.iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Less than Significant)
The Project would result in only a minor increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the well
treatment shed (250 square feet) and the well vault. Such an increase would not substantially increase
runoff water from the Project site to surrounding stormwater drains. Groundwater generated during pump
testing and maintenance of the proposed municipal groundwater well would be discharged to the local
sanitary sewer. There are no known sewer capacity issues in the Project area. During well development
56
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
and pump testing, the well would discharge to baker tanks and would be metered into the sewer system to
ensure capacity issues would not occur. No discharge of groundwater to the storm drain system would
result. The Project would not result in runoff water or discharges that would exceed the capacity of the local
storm drain system or result in substantial sources of polluted runoff. The impact would be less than
significant.
c, iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact)
The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or within a floodway or other special
flood hazard zone (FEMA 2015). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not impede or redirect
flood flows. No impact would result.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? (No Impact)
The Project site is located in an area designated by the FEMA as Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood
hazard (FEMA 2015). The Project site is not located within a tsunami inundation zone as mapped by the
California Office of Emergency Services, nor close enough to a waterbody which would be exposed to risks
from seiche. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation.
No impact would result.
57
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ✓
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation ✓
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact)
The Project would include the construction and operation of a new municipal groundwater well, treatment
building, and below ground pipelines adjacent to an existing decommissioned above-ground water storage
reservoir on City-owned property. The Project would not involve construction of a large physical structure
such as a major transportation facility or removal of a primary access route such as a road or bridge. The
Project would not impair mobility within the area or between the Project site and surrounding areas.
Existing bollards, swing gates, and fencing are in place and would be maintained. The Project components
would not physically divide an established community. No impact would result.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No
Impact)
City of Petaluma General Plan 2025
The Petaluma General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Open Space, while the zoning
designation is Open Space and Parks (OSP). The Project would be a public utilities facility located
adjacent to an existing water storage reservoir and would be considered an allowable land use under the
OSP zoning designation as a use to serve the community.
The Project site is currently developed with existing facilities, and the proposed well and treatment building
would be located adjacent to an existing decommissioned above-ground water storage reservoir on a
portion of the Project site. The Project would not involve a change of land use at the Project site. Specific
land use policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects
are evaluated in this Initial Study under the corresponding issue areas; for example, policies related to
biological resources are evaluated in Section 3.4 of this document. No conflicts with land use plans,
policies, or regulations have been identified and no exceptions or reductions to standards would be
necessary to approve the Project. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable requirements
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impact would result.
Petaluma 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) are prepared every five years by California's urban water
suppliers to support long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet
existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides more than 3,000 acre
feet per year or serves more than 3,000 customers is required to assess the reliability of its water sources
58
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
over a 20-year planning horizon considering normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The plans are submitted
to DWR, which then reviews the submitted plans to ensure they have completed the requirements identified
in the UWMP Act.
The City of Petaluma adopted an UWMP in 2016 and most recently updated the UWMP in June 2021
(Petaluma 2021). As summarized in the UWMP, the City produces approximately 5 percent or less of its
potable water supply from groundwater wells, and since 2000, groundwater has only been used for
supplemental or emergency supply purposes. The UWMP acknowledges that the City is currently in the
process of evaluating the groundwater well system for expansion for emergency purposes, peaking usage,
and other short-term scenarios. The proposed Project responds to a need for new municipal groundwater
well sites within the city's service area to augment and expand its existing system of municipal groundwater
supplies to ensure adequate water supplies during emergency situations. No conflict with the UWMP has
been identified. No impact would result.
Sonoma County Well Ordinance
Permit Sonoma is the Sonoma County agency responsible for administering permits for water supply wells
within Sonoma County, including within the City of Petaluma. The Sonoma County Well Ordinance
contains regulations and requirements for constructing wells to prevent groundwater contamination from the
surface and between multiple water bearing zones in (County Ordinance 25B). The well-construction
standard does not regulate flow volumes or rates, nor does it evaluate water availability or local
hydrogeology. As described in the Project Description, the proposed municipal well would be required to
adhere to the construction standards outlined in the Sonoma County Well Ordinance, and a permit would
be required to be obtained prior to construction and operation of the proposed well. As such, operation of
the proposed municipal groundwater well would not be in conflict with the Sonoma County Well Ordinance.
No impact would result.
59
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.12 Mineral Resources
ImpactPotentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant
MitigationImpact with ..
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and ✓
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated ✓
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state, or a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact)
The Sonoma County Aggregate Resources Management Plan (Sonoma County 2010) identifies aggregate
resources of statewide or regional significance (areas classified as MRZ-2 by the State Geologist). The
Project site is not located within a designated mineral resource deposit area (Sonoma County 2010), or
within an area classified as MRZ-2 in the California Geologic Survey Special Report 205 (CGS 2013). In
addition, the Petaluma General Plan does not identify known mineral resources. No impact would result.
60
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.13 Noise
ImpactPotentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Si.gnificant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
. incorporated
Would the project:
a) Result in generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Result in generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
a) Result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than Significant
with Mitigation)
Construction
Petaluma Zoning Code Section 21.040 restricts noise-generating activities at construction sites to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday,
Sunday and State, Federal or Local Holidays. Project construction is expected to last approximately eight
to ten weeks, and construction activities are intended to take place within the hours defined in the Petaluma
Zoning Code as described above. However, given the nature of production well drilling, it is possible that
problems could arise and require temporary continuous operation of the drilling equipment to eliminate a
risk of the borehole caving. Therefore, it is possible that during well installation, the operation of the drilling
equipment could extend beyond the hours defined by the Petaluma Zoning Code to eliminate the risk of a
borehole collapse. Based on the type and extent of work to be performed, it is conservatively assumed that
construction could potentially require work beyond the hours defined by the Petaluma Zoning Code for up to
two nighttime periods. The potential impact of construction noise associated with construction outside of
Petaluma's allowable hours is considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1,
presented below, would reduce the construction-phase noise impact to a less-than-significant level. The
nearest noise sensitive land uses would be residences located between 100 and 150 feet from construction
activities, as well as visitors of Oak Hill Park located between 100 and 500 feet from construction activities.
An existing playground within Oak Hill Park is located approximately 250 feet from proposed areas of
construction activity.
Project construction activities would temporarily increase noise levels at the adjacent residential receivers
and at locations within Oak Hill Park. Construction noise levels would vary on a day-to-day basis and would
be sporadic rather than continuous in nature, as different types of construction equipment would be used
61
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
throughout the construction process. Most construction noise would be within the range of 80 to 90 dBA
Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling
of distance between the noise source and receptor, and therefore would range from 74 to 84 dBA at the
closest residence. Typically, significant noise impacts do not result when standard construction noise
control measures are enforced at a project site and when the duration of the noise generating construction
period is limited to one construction season (typically one year) or less. However, given the adjacent
sensitive land uses, including recreational uses within Oak Hill Park, the impact of temporary daytime
construction noise is considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, presented below,
would reduce the temporary construction-phase noise impact to a less-than-significant level.
Operation
Petaluma Zoning Code Section 21.040 establishes maximum exterior noise exposure limits for stationary
operational noise sources to protect the public from disturbance caused by unnecessary or excessive
noise. The basic noise limit ranges from 65 to a maximum of 75 dBA Leq depending on the applicable time
period identified in Table 21.1 of the Zoning Code. Operational noise from the well facility would be
negligible and well below 65 dBA Leq, as the well pump would be submersed in water below ground, and
associated appurtenances would contribute minimally to overall noise generation. A backup generator
would only be used if power was lost and the City needed to continue utilizing the well until power was
restored. Typical noise levels associated with a backup generator would be approximately 78 dBA Leq at
50 feet from the source. The rate of attenuation (i.e. reduction) is approximately 6 dBA for every doubling
of distance from a point source. At the nearest residences, noise levels from operation of an emergency
generator would be approximately 70 to 72 dBA Leq. In such instances, operation of a backup generator
would be considered a necessity and in the interest of public health and safety, and the City would issue a
permit for exemption of noise requirements given that the period of operations would be temporary and
would not exceed 10 working days in length (per Zoning Code Section 21.040 A.3.b). Noise from periodic
truck trips during maintenance visits would be similar to existing vehicle noises along the neighboring
streets and also would be negligible due to the infrequency and short duration of the visits. The operational
noise impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce potential impacts relative to construction noise
levels to a less-than-significant level by requiring implementation of best management practices and
compliance with applicable local requirements.
Mitigation Measure N0I-1: Reduce Construction Noise Levels
The City and its contractor shall implement appropriate Best Management Practices to reduce
construction noise levels emanating from construction activities and minimize disruption and
annoyance at existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. A detailed construction plan
shall be developed identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities and
procedures for coordination with the owner/occupants of nearby noise sensitive residential and
recreational land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise
disturbance. Best Management Practices may include, but would not be limited to, the following:
- To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be limited to 12-hour shifts between 7:00
a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Continuous 24-hour construction activities shall only be allowed during the
drilling, construction, gravel packing, and sealing of the production well, if necessary to ensure
the integrity of the well. The Contractor shall arrange with the Engineer for any 24-hour
62
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
operations intended and/or required for the successful completion of the Project. Together, the
Contractor and the Engineer shall practice good neighbor relations at all times.
- Night-time drilling operations, if required, shall be conducted in a manner to reduce noise peaks
and avoid rapid changes in noise levels. Drilling personnel shall be advised to avoid noise
generation wherever possible. In particular, the changing of drill pipe and the throttling of the
drill rig shall be done in such a manner that appreciably lessens the noise produced by these
activities as compared to the daytime.
- Construction noise levels measured by the Contractor at the nearest sensitive receptor shall
not exceed 60 dBA without prior written approval of the City. Should noise levels exceed the
above levels, appropriate noise attenuation measures shall be implemented prior to resuming
work, to reduce the offensive noise levels at the sensitive receptors.
- Portable generators shall have enclosures, exhaust silencers, and rated at no more than 75
dBA at 25 feet and 60 dBA at the nearest receptor.
- A "disturbance coordinator" shall be designated who will be responsible for responding to any
complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of
the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be
implemented to correct the problem. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone
number and person to contact at the City regarding noise complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
- Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that
are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
- Idling times shall be minimized by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations).
- Locate stationary noise generating equipment (e.g., compressors) as far as possible from
adjacent residential receivers.
- Acoustically shield stationary equipment located near residential receivers with temporary noise
barriers.
- Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
b) Result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels? (Less than
Significant)
Vibration from the construction equipment can result in effects ranging from annoyance of people to
damage of structures. Vibration amplitudes decrease with increasing distance as the energy dissipates.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec Peak
Particle Velocity (PPV) for groundborne vibration adjacent to new residential and modern
commercial/industrial structures, 0.3 in/sec PPV for older residential structures, and 0.12 in/sec PPV for
historical buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened. For the purposes of this analysis,
groundborne vibration levels exceeding the conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV limit have been selected as the
significance threshold for a vibration impact, as there are no known historical buildings adjacent to the
Project construction area.
63
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
No pile driving, an activity typically associated with high levels of groundborne vibration, would be required
for construction of the Project. At a distance of 25 feet, typical construction equipment, excluding pile-
drivers, would cause vibration levels up to 0.21 in/sec PPV. No structures sensitive to groundborne
vibration are located within 25 feet of the construction area. Therefore, the anticipated vibration levels
would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV limit, as the closest residence is 100 feet from the construction
activities. In addition, given the distance, the levels of vibration at the location of off-site residential and
recreational land uses would be at levels that are considered barely perceptible (less than or equal to 0.01
PPV). Impacts related to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be less than significant.
Following construction, operation of the Project would not result in sources of groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise. The well pump would be submersed below ground and mounted so as to prevent
vibration, and no other components of the well facility would generate vibration. A backup generator would
only be used if power was lost and the City needed to continue utilizing the well until power was restored.
In such instances, a generator would be located and mounted on a pad next to the treatment shed. Such
generators are not identified as a substantial source of groundborne vibration, and operation would be
infrequent and temporary in nature. The operational impact would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? (No Impact)
The Project site is not located within two miles of a public use airport or a private airstrip covered by the
Sonoma County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The nearest airport, Petaluma Municipal Airport, is
located approximately 2.75 miles east of the Project site. No impact would result.
64
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.14 Population and Housing
Potentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for ✓
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of ✓
replacement housing elsewhere?
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? (Less than Significant)
The Project does not include the construction of new homes or businesses in the area or extend new roads
or other infrastructure into undeveloped areas. The Project is intended to offset the City's need for
purchased water from Sonoma Water and would not induce population growth directly or indirectly. Given
the modest level of construction required for the Project, it is reasonable to anticipate that workforce
requirements for construction can be met through the local labor force within the region. Long-term
operation and maintenance of the proposed municipal groundwater well would be performed by existing
Petaluma staff. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
Implementation of the Project would not displace existing housing units or residents. The construction of
replacement housing would not be necessary. No impact would result.
65
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.15 Public Services
ImpactPotentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire Protection? ✓
Police protection? ✓
Schools? ✓
Parks? ✓
Other public facilities? ✓
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for public services? (No Impact)
As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, implementation of the Project would not induce
population growth and, therefore, would not require expanded fire or police protection facilities to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. The Project is intended to
offset the City's need for purchased water from Sonoma Water and would not induce population growth
directly or indirectly. The Project would not result in an increase in student population, and therefore, no
new or expanded schools would be required. The Project would not result in the increased use of Oak Hill
Park or other existing parks or public facilities as it would not induce population growth. The Project would
not require the expansion of recreational facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios in parks and would
not require the expansion of other public facilities. No impact on public services would result.
66
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.16 Recreation
Potentially Less-than- Less-than-
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such ✓
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, ✓
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Less than Significant)
The Project site is located adjacent to Oak Hill Park, with access provided through the park and off-site
utility improvements temporarily disturbing areas within Oak Hill Park. Oak Hill Park includes a children's
playground, picnic areas, basketball court, petanque court, a community labyrinth, dog park area, public
restroom, and wooded and lawned open space areas and walking trails. The community labyrinth located
in the vicinity of the proposed municipal groundwater well would be avoided by construction activities to
prevent damage to the resource.
As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, implementation of the Project would not induce
population growth, and therefore would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities, including the
adjacent Oak Hill Park. The Project would include the operation of a municipal groundwater well to offset
the City's need for purchased water from Sonoma Water and would not generate new residential or
employee population. Because the Project would not increase the existing population or housing supply in
the City, no increased use of parks and other recreational resources would occur that would result in
physical deterioration or accelerated deterioration of existing recreational resources.
While additional use, and associated deterioration, would not occur as a result of the Project, potential
deterioration to the Park during construction is evaluated. An existing access and maintenance road to the
City's water storage reservoir at the Project site would be used for construction traffic during construction,
and installation of underground pipelines and electrical utility connections would be installed within the
access road and within a portion of the Oak Hill Park parking lot. Construction of the proposed electrical
line across a portion of the paved Oak Hill Park parking lot would be completed within an approximately
one-week period. Following construction, the new electrical line within Oak Hill Park would be located
below ground, and existing conditions along the temporarily impacted parking lot would be restored to pre-
existing conditions. Similarly, areas disturbed throughout the Project site during construction would be
restored to pre-construction conditions. The community labyrinth located in the vicinity of the proposed
municipal groundwater well would be avoided with protective fencing to be installed during construction
activities to prevent damage to the resource. The proposed well treatment shed would be located within a
small area adjacent to the City's existing water storage reservoir. The small footprint and location of the
67
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
proposed well and treatment shed would not substantially alter recreational use. The impact to Oak Hill
Park would be less than significant.
b) Include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact)
The Project does not propose recreational facilities and would not require construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impact would
result.
68
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.17 Transportation
MitigationPotentially Less-than- Less-than-
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, ✓
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines ✓
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ✓
intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less than Significant)
Project construction activities would result in a short-term increase in construction-related vehicle trips on
local roadways, including Bodega Avenue, Park Avenue and within the Oak Hill Park parking lot. It is
anticipated that the peak number of daily truck trips during construction would be 12 round trips (6 haul
truck trips and 6 construction crew trips). Construction activity would last approximately 8 to 10 weeks.
Due to the infrequency of truck traffic and the relatively short duration of construction, Project construction
is not anticipated to conflict with plans, policies or programs related to the effectiveness of the City's
circulation system. Please see impact "c" below for an evaluation of construction-related impacts as it
relates to a potential hazard.
Operation and maintenance of the proposed well facility would generally require one maintenance visit per
day by City staff when the well is operating, and monthly visits when the well is not in operation. Truck trips
during operation and maintenance would be limited to a single trip in and out of the well facility site via an
existing access road connecting to Park Avenue. Such trips would be combined with routine maintenance
trips to the water storage reservoir and Oak Hill Park, further minimizing energy related to maintenance of
the Project. Due to the infrequency of maintenance trips, Project operation is not anticipated to conflict with
plans, policies or programs related to the effectiveness of the City's circulation system. No transit, roadway,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be affected. Therefore, the operational impact would be less than
significant.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less
than Significant)
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts) specifies that
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) is the primary metric or measure of effectiveness for determining the
significance of transportation impacts across California. VMT refers to the amount and distance of
automobile travel attributable to a project. The City of Petaluma's Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled
Implementation Guidelines (Petaluma 2021d) contains thresholds for VMT evaluation, which is used to
evaluate impacts in this Initial Study. Construction traffic is not considered a feature of a project and is
69
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
temporary, therefore construction traffic is not required to be considered in the analysis. Operation and
maintenance of the proposed municipal groundwater well would generally require one maintenance visit per
day by City staff when the well was operating, and monthly visits when the well was not in operation. Such
trips would be combined with routine maintenance trips to the water storage reservoir and Oak Hill Park,
further minimizing energy related to maintenance of the Project.
Petaluma's VMT Implementation Guidelines does not include specific screening criteria for utility projects
similar to the proposed Project. However, both Petaluma's VMT Implementation Guidelines and the Office
of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018)
include an assumption that projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day may be assumed
to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. When one considers the screening criteria
established for Land Use Projects, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the trips associated with operation
and maintenance of the Project (1 trip per day) would be substantially less than the screening criteria for a
Land Use Project (110 trips per day). The Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with an
applicable threshold of significance adopted per CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The
impact would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less than Significant
with Mitigation)
Project construction activities would not require a roadway closure and would not prevent public access to
Oak Hill Park. An existing access and maintenance road at the Project site would be used during
construction, and underground sewer and electrical connections would be installed within the access road
and within a portion of the Oak Hill Park parking lot and Park Avenue.
Construction of the proposed electrical line across a portion of the paved Oak Hill Park parking lot would be
completed within an approximately one-week period. Similarly, completion of a sanitary sewer line
connection within Park Avenue would be completed within an approximately one-week period. During
installation of the electrical line and the sanitary sewer connection, the presence of construction equipment
would temporarily alter the functionality and safety of the roadway and parking lot for park users,
pedestrians, and bicyclists in the immediate area. The temporary construction-phase impact would be
significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1 (Minimize Traffic and Parking Disruption)would
reduce the impact relative to construction traffic within and access to Oak Hill Park to a less-than-significant
level.
Following construction, the Project would not include components that would affect the City's circulation
system. The Project would not alter the existing alignment of Park Avenue, the existing access road to the
well site, or the parking lot within Oak Hill Park. Operation and maintenance of the well facility would
generally require one maintenance visit per day by City staff when the well was operating, and monthly
visits when the well was not in operation. Truck trips during operation and maintenance would be limited to
a single trip in and out of the well facility site via an existing access road connecting to Park Avenue. Due
to the infrequency of maintenance trips, Project operation is not anticipated to result in incompatible uses.
The operational impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1 would reduce potential impacts relative to construction traffic
and access within Oak Hill Park and Park Avenue to a less-than-significant level by requiring
implementation of access and traffic controls.
70
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Mitigation Measure N0I-1: Minimize Traffic and Parking Disruption
The City and its contractor shall implement traffic controls to reduce traffic conflicts within Oak Hill
Park and Park Avenue during construction to minimize disruption. A traffic control plan shall be
prepared for City review and approval prior to construction. During construction, at least one lane
in each direction of the Oak Hill Park parking lot and Park Avenue shall be kept open at all times.
Through traffic shall be maintained at all times (e.g. through temporary signals, flaggers or other
means). Bicycle and pedestrian access shall be maintained at all times, using short signed detours
around the construction zone if necessary. Advance notification of construction work to the
community and stakeholders shall be conducted to provide notice of work within Oak Hill Park and
Park Avenue. All road and parking configurations shall be restored to pre-project conditions.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact)
The Project would not include components that would affect emergency access. The Project would not
alter Park Avenue, the existing access road to the proposed well site, or the parking lot within Oak Hill Park.
No operational impact would result.
Refer to Impact "c" above, with regard to temporary construction-phase impacts related to potential
increase in hazards or incompatible use.
71
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
MitigationImpact with ..
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or
eligible for listing in the California Register of ✓
Historic Resources, or in a local register of historic
resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource that is a
resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of the Public Resources Code ✓
section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of the Public Resources Code
section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American Tribe.
a, b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource? (Less
than Significant with Mitigation)
CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a project would have a significant effect on tribal cultural
resources. The CEQA Guidelines define tribal cultural resources as: (1) a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that is listed or
eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or (2) a resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical
register criteria in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
Efforts to identify tribal cultural resources that could be affected by the Project included notification to
appropriate local Native American Tribes, and a sacred lands search through the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The search of the NAHC's Sacred Lands File did not indicate the presence of Native
American cultural resources in the Project area.
On July 20, 2021, the City of Petaluma sent the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria a tribal consultation
invitation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1. A 30-day period allowing for a request for
consultation ended with no request made for consultation. California Native American tribes also were
notified of the Project on July 7, 2021 during completion of the Archaeological Resources Study for the
Project. Letters were sent to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Lytton Rancheria, Cloverdale
Rancheria of Porno Indians, Dry Creek Rancheria of Porno Indians, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Middletown
Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley, and Pinoleville Porno Nation. On
August 5th, a representative of Lytton Rancheria responded to the notification and stated that the Tribe
72
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
believes the Project site falls within traditional Pomo territory and therefore a potential for finding tribal
cultural resources exists on the site. No other response was received.
Based on the response from Lytton Rancheria, the possibility of encountering tribal cultural resources
cannot be discounted. Therefore, if tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction, a
potentially significant impact could occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1, CUL-1, and CUL-
2 would reduce the potential impact on tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
Following construction, Project operation would not include ground disturbing activities. Therefore, the
operational impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1, CUL-1, and CUL-2 would reduce the potential impact to
tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level through archaeological monitoring and by outlining
procedures to be taken in the event of inadvertent discovery of such resources consistent with appropriate
laws and requirements. Please refer to Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, for a description of Mitigation
Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Protect Tribal Cultural Resources during Construction Activities
In the event that any subsurface features or deposits are discovered during construction, ground-
disturbing activity in the vicinity of the resource shall be halted. The appropriate tribal
representative(s) from Lytton Rancheria and Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria shall be
notified, and a Native American monitor and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained
to evaluate the find. If the find qualifies as a tribal cultural resource as defined by CEQA, the City
shall ensure that appropriate actions to protect the resource are taken and that no additional
resources are affected.
73
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
ImpactPotentially Less-than- Less-than- No
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas, ✓
or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future ✓
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ✓
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local ✓
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to ✓
solid waste?
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (Less than Significant)
The Project itself is construction and operation of a groundwater production well and associated facilities at
the Project site, including installation of pipelines to connect the new well to the City's water distribution
system and sanitary sewer system. The Project would require installation of a new underground electrical
power line. The potential environmental impacts associated with construction of the proposed utilities are
evaluated as part of this Initial Study. No significant impacts have been identified in relation to the new
electrical power connection. No additional utility relocations or construction of additional off-site utilities
beyond those identified as part of the Project would be required.
During well construction, zone sampling would occur to determine water quality. Groundwater generated
during development, pump testing, and maintenance of the proposed municipal groundwater well would be
discharged to the local sanitary sewer. There are no known sewer capacity issues in the Project area. As
described in Section 1.4, Project Description, such groundwater would be pumped to portable storage tanks
and then released to the sanitary sewer at a discharge rate that would not exceed the capacity of the local
sanitary sewer system. No groundwater containing elevated levels of minerals or other constituents above
the treatment capability of the City's water recycling facility would be discharged to the sanitary sewer. The
74
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
discharge of groundwater to the sanitary sewer system and the local wastewater treatment plant would be
periodic and would not alter existing wastewater characteristics or result in the need for new treatment
methods. Therefore, there would be no need to expand wastewater facilities.
Drainage patterns at the Project site would remain essentially the same as they currently exist. No
discharge of groundwater to surface waters or the storm drain system would result. The Project would
result in a very small increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the well treatment shed
(approximately 250 square feet). Because the Project would not substantially increase storm water runoff
or impervious surfaces, the Project would not require expanded storm water drainage.
The Project would not require new or expanded natural gas or telecommunications facilities.
The impact would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (No Impact)
The Project would provide water supplies, it would not create a demand for water. The Project is intended
to increase the reliability and diversity of Petaluma's water supplies, helping offset the City's need for
purchased water from Sonoma Water. No impact would result.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments? (Less than Significant)
Groundwater generated during development, pump testing, and maintenance of the proposed well would be
discharged to the local sanitary sewer. The discharge of groundwater to the sanitary sewer system and
subsequent conveyance to the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility would be periodic and would not alter
existing wastewater characteristics or result in the need for new treatment methods. No groundwater
containing elevated levels of minerals or other constituents above the treatment capability of the City's
water recycling facility would be discharged to the sanitary sewer. Therefore, there would be no need to
alter or expand wastewater facilities. The impact would be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less
than Significant)
Soil excavated during construction of the proposed groundwater well and associated utilities would be used
for backfill or would be hauled off-site for re-use or disposal as required by City regulations. Materials that
could not be reused or composted would be disposed of at regional landfills, such as the Central Landfill in
Petaluma (anticipated to have remaining capacity until 2034) or the Redwood Landfill in Novato (anticipated
to have capacity through 2024). Sufficient capacity also exists at multiple additional regional landfills. Due
to the minimal solid waste disposal needs and the availability of landfills with capacity to accept such
wastes, the temporary construction-phase impact would be less than significant.
Following construction, operation of the Project would not require routine disposal of solid waste. No
operational impact would result.
75
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? (No Impact)
The Sonoma County Waste Management Agency implements regional waste diversion programs as
required by Assembly Bill AB 939. The proposed diversion of recyclable and compostable waste during
Project construction would be consistent with regional waste diversion goals. Following construction,
operation of the Project would not require routine disposal of solid waste. No conflict with statutes and
regulations related to solid waste have been identified. Therefore, no impact would result.
76
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.20 Wildfire
Potentially Less-than- Less-than-
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency ✓
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose ✓
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities)that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or ✓
landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
a - d) If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan, exacerbate wildfire risk, or expose people or structures to significant risks?
(No Impact)
The Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located in or contiguous to State Responsibility
Area (SRA) lands. The Project site is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the nearest SRA located near
Bantam Way. The Project site is located more than 12 miles west of the nearest lands classified as a very
high fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2007). Therefore, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist
section for wildfire is not applicable to the Project. No impact would result.
For informational purposes, the following additional wildfire evaluation is provided.
The Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within the established boundaries of a high
fire hazard zone, as illustrated in the City's High Fire Hazard Severity Zone map (Petaluma 2007). The
Project site and off-site improvement areas are located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), which is an
area where a local agency, in this case the City of Petaluma, has primary responsibility for fire and
emergency response. Per law, only lands zoned as Very High Fire Hazard Severity are identified within
LRAs. The Project site is not located within such an area.
No roadway closures would occur during construction or operation of the Project. The Project would not
result in on-street worker parking or substantial equipment staging or otherwise affect emergency services
or response times in the area. The Project would not change the existing off-site street network, circulation
patterns or effect emergency response routes. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (see Impact 'T' in
Section 3.9 of this Initial Study).
77
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
As described in impact "a.iv" in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, the risk associated with landslides in the
Project area would be less than significant. The Project would tie into existing Petaluma and PG&E utilities.
Electrical and telecommunication infrastructure would be located underground and would tie-in to existing
infrastructure. The proposed Project consists of typical water-system infrastructure, and any increase in fire
risk as a result of maintenance would be minimal.
The proposed municipal well would be connected to the City's water distribution system and fire hydrants
and would provide added water pressure to the local system. In addition, the well house would have
bypass piping which could be connected to fire hoses if needed.
For an analysis of the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires resulting from construction see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
78
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially Less-than- Less-than-
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ✓
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in ✓
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Have environmental effects which would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either ✓
directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Potential Project impacts to biological and cultural resources are addressed in Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, respectively.
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, the potential
for Project-related activities to degrade the quality of the environment, including wildlife species or their
habitat, plant or animal communities, or important examples of California history or prehistory would be
reduced to less-than-significant levels.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less than Significant)
Cumulative impacts are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" (CEQA Guidelines Section
15355). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking
place over a period of time.
79
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
This cumulative impact analysis uses the list approach. Efforts to identify cumulative projects included
review of proposed major developments within the City of Petaluma, including commercial, mixed use,
residential projects, and review of the Petaluma Capital Improvement Program. Projects identified and
considered for cumulative impacts include:
— Potential future improvements to the existing water storage reservoir near the Project site;
— Planned multi-family residential project consisting of three units at 136 Court Street, 0.4 mile east of the
Project site;
— Planned mixed-use development including 1,500 sf commercial and 10 residential units at 131 Liberty
Street, 0.4 miles east of the Project site;
— Planned upgrades to water and sewer main infrastructure near McNear Park, located approximately
one mile southeast of the Project site;
— Ongoing roadway and utility improvements along Petaluma Boulevard South, including replacement of
water mains, within 0.6 mile east of the Project site; and
— Planned pavement rehabilitation along Oak Street, Keokuk Street, and Washington Street, between 0.1
and 0.4 miles east and southeast of the Project site.
As summarized in this Initial Study, the Project would not result in impacts on agriculture and forestry
resources, mineral resources, land use and planning, public services, or wildfire. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not contribute to any related cumulative impact on those resources.
Based on current schedules, the construction of the water storage reservoir cumulative Project would not
overlap with the Project construction. Therefore, the Project impacts summarized in this Initial Study would
not add appreciably to any existing or foreseeable future significant cumulative impact.
The distance between the Project site and the identified cumulative projects along Court Street, Liberty
Street, Petaluma Boulevard South, Oak Street, Keokuk Street, and Washington Street would prevent the
potential for cumulative impacts in the related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, noise, traffic and other environmental topics. None of the cumulative projects are located
adjacent to the Project site or the affected Project roadways. Given the distance and dissimilarity between
the Project site and the identified cumulative projects, the Project impacts summarized in this Initial Study
would not add appreciably to any existing or foreseeable future significant cumulative impact. The impacts
of the proposed Project would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Incremental impacts, if any,
would be very small, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, the potential
for Project-related activities to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings would be reduced to
less-than-significant levels.
80
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
4. References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. Final 20107 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air-
Cool the Climate. April 19.
BAAQMD. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines. May.
BAAQMD. 2021. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Website Accessed November 1, 2021 at:
http://www.baagmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November.
California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2021. Sonoma County Important Farmland 2018.
Published September 2021.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. List of eligible and officially designated State
Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible-aug20l9_a11 y.xlsx
Caltrans. 2021. State Scenic Highway List. Available online: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/design/documents/2017-03desigandeligible-a11 y.xlsx
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Sonoma County Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in LRA. November 6.
CAL FIRE. 2008. Sonoma County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. November 10.
California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2013. Special Report 205, Update of Mineral Land Classification.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. 2019. San Francisco Bay
Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). November 5.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood
Insurance Rate Map. Panel 982 of 1150. Map Number 06097C982G. October 2.
GHD. 2021. Biological Reconnaissance Site Visit Memo. October 15.
Kleinfelder. 2020. Geotechnical Investigation, Oak Hill Park Proposed Well Support Structures. July 8
Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation impacts in
CEQA. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. December.
Petaluma, City of. 2006. Petaluma General Plan 2025 Draft Environmental Impact Report. State
Clearinghouse No. 2004082065. September.
Petaluma, City of. 2007. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map. June 25.
Petaluma, City of. 2008. City of Petaluma: General Plan 2025. Revision Date: May 12, 2021.
Petaluma. City of. 2020. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Final Plan Update. November.
Petaluma. City of. 2021(a). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June.
81
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Petaluma, City of. 2021(b). City of Petaluma - Planning Division. Pending Projects Summary. May 8.
Petaluma, City of. 2021 (c). Climate Emergency Framework. January 11.
Petaluma, City of. 2021 (d). Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Implementation Guidelines Final. July.
Sonoma County. 2018. Sonoma County Williamson Act Map. December 28.
Sonoma County. Sonoma County Airport Land Use Plan. Exhibit C3, Airport Safety Zones, Petaluma
Municipal Airport.
Sonoma County. Sonoma County Aggregate Resources Management (ARM) Plan, Chapter 7 Adopted
Management Plan.
Sonoma Water. 2021. Groundwater Sustainability Plan Petaluma Valley Groundwater Basin. December.
Sonoma State University Anthropological Studies Center (ASC). 2021. Archaeological Resources Study.
September.
82
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
5. Report Preparers
5.1 City of Petaluma
Dan Herrera, Senior Civil Engineer
5.2 G H D
Brian Bacciarini, Senior Environmental Scientist
Kristine Gaspar, Senior Environmental Planner
Elizabeth Meisman, Wildlife Biologist
5.3 Sub-consultants
Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University
Samantha Dollinger, M.A., RP
83
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
EXHIBIT B
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
City of Petaluma Oak Hill Municipal Well Project
SCH No. 2022040576
ResponsibilityBest Management Practices(BMP)and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring
Schedule ..
BMP 1 —Implementation of Geotechnical Design Recommendations City of Petaluma Verify geotechnical study design
As part of the Project design process,the City has engaged a California-registered recommendations are incorporated into
Geotechnical Engineer to conduct a design-level geotechnical investigation for the final plans and/or specifications
proposed Project(Kleinfelder 2020). Project design and construction must comply with
the site-specific recommendations made in geotechnical reports for the Project. This will Check jobsite compliance as necessary
include design in accordance with the seismic and foundation design criteria, as well as
site preparation and grading recommendations included in the report. The geotechnical
recommendations will be incorporated into the final plans and specifications for the
Project and will be implemented during construction.
BMP 2—Implementation of Air Quality Control Measures during Construction City of Petaluma Verify basic construction air quality
To limit dust, criteria pollutants, and precursor emissions associated with the construction control measures are in final plans and
activity,the City will include the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District specifications
(BAAQMD)recommended Basic Construction Measures in construction contract
specifications for the Project: Check jobsite compliance as necessary
— All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas,staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and
unpaved access roads)shall be watered two times per day;
— All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered
or shall have at least two feet of freeboard;
— All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping shall be prohibited;
— All vehicle speeds on unpaved areas shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
— All paving shall be completed as soon as possible after trenching work is finished;
— Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes(as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points;
84
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
ReportingBest Management Practices(BMP)and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/
Schedule D.
— All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications.All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation; and
— A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to
contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours.The Air District's phone number shall also be visible
to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Aesthetics
MM AES-1: Avoid Glare and Light Trespass City of Petaluma Verify protection and avoidance
To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be limited to 12-hour shifts between measures are in final plans or
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Continuous 24-hour operations shall only be allowed during the specifications
drilling, construction, gravel packing,and sealing of the production well, if necessary to
ensure the integrity of the well. The Contractor shall arrange with the City for any 24-hour Verify Nighttime Construction Lighting
operations intended and/or required for the successful completion of the Project. Plan is submitted for approval prior to
Together,the Contractor and the City shall practice good neighbor relations at all times. construction
Night-time drilling operations, if required, shall be conducted in a manner to avoid glare
and light trespass that would be a nuisance to adjacent residential and recreational land
uses. Check jobsite compliance during 24-hour
The City and its Contractor shall prepare and implement a Nighttime Construction operations, if required
Lighting Plan for any nighttime construction work so as to avoid glare and light trespass
that would be a nuisance to adjacent residential and recreational land uses. The lighting
plan shall be developed to guide the use of lighting during project construction in such a
way as to effectively light the work area while limiting light spill onto adjoining properties.
This lighting plan shall include the layout of lighting equipment necessary for any work to
be completed at night and descriptions of hardware, including hoods, louvers, shields or
other means to be used to control glare and light trespass onto adjoining property.
Additional elements of the lighting plan would include suggested corrective actions in the
event lighting problems are reported by the public during well drilling operations. The
recommendations contained in the Nighttime Construction Lighting Plan shall be
incorporated into the final plans and specifications for the Project and implemented during
construction.
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1: Prevent Disturbance to Nesting Birds City of Petaluma Verify protection and avoidance
To the extent practical, construction activities should be performed between September 1 measures are in final plans or
and February 1,which is outside the avian nesting season. If work must be performed specifications
85
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
ReportingBest Management Practices(BMP)and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/
Schedule (initials/Date)
during the avian nesting season (February 1 —September 1),the City shall ensure that a
pre-construction nesting bird survey is performed in areas within 250 feet of project- Verify pre-construction nesting bird
related activities no more than 7 days prior to ground disturbance. If active nests are survey is conducted prior to grading or
found, an appropriately sized no-disturbance buffer shall be placed around the nest at the ground disturbing activities occurring
direction of a qualified biologist conducting the survey. Active nests shall be monitored at during nesting season
least once per week to determine whether birds are being disturbed.Activities that might,
in the opinion of the qualified biologist, disturb nesting activities(e.g., excessive noise),
shall be prohibited within the buffer zone until such a determination is made. If signs of Verify disturbance buffers are
disturbance or distress are observed,the qualified biologist shall implement adaptive implemented during construction, if
measures to reduce disturbance. These measures may include, but are not limited to, required
increasing buffer size, halting disruptive construction activities in the vicinity of the nest
until fledging is confirmed or nesting activity has ceased, placement of visual screens or
sound dampening structures between the nest and construction activity, reducing the
number of noisy construction activities occurring simultaneously,and/or reorienting and/or
relocating construction equipment to minimize noise at noise-sensitive receptors. Buffers
shall remain in place until all young have fledged, or the biologist has confirmed that the
nest has been naturally predated. If ground disturbance work lapses for seven days or
longer during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a supplemental avian
pre-construction survey before Project work is reinitiated.
MM BIO-2: Prevent Disturbance to Bat Species City of Petaluma Verify protection and avoidance
To the extent possible,tree limbing shall be performed between September 1 and April measures are in final specifications
30,which is outside the bat maternity season. If tree Iimbing must be performed during
the bat maternity season (May 1 —August 30),the City shall ensure that a qualified Verify completion of bat habitat
biologist shall conduct a bat habitat assessment of trees to be removed or limbed.The assessment if tree Iimbing occurs during
assessment shall evaluate the trees for suitable entry points and roost features and shall bat maternity season
provide focused daytime surveys for day-roosting bats. If present,the roost shall be
avoided until after September 1 to ensure no adverse effects to maternity bat roosts.
Tree removal outside the maternity season shall be performed using a two-step tree Verify disturbance buffers and two-step
removal process which includes allowing any felled trees or tree limbs to be left overnight removal process are implemented during
prior to removal from the site or on-site chipping to allow any bats to exit the roost. construction, if needed
Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1: Protect Unknown Archaeological Resources during Construction City of Petaluma Verify archaeological monitoring
Activities requirements and protection measures
The City shall ensure that archaeological monitoring is performed during installation of are in final plans or specifications
subsurface work occurring within the boundary of Oak Hill Park, including the installation
of a new PG&E electrical line within the Oak Hill Park parking lot. Monitoring shall be
performed by a qualified archaeologist and may also include a Native American monitor
86
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Best Management Practices(BMP)and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Action & Verification
Schedule (initials/Date)
and will consist of directly watching the excavation process. Monitoring shall continue Verify completion of archaeological
until the depth of excavation has been reached at which resources could not be present, monitoring for subsurface work that
as determined by qualified archaeologist. In the event that subsurface archaeological occurs within Oak Hill Park
features or deposits, including locally darkened midden soil,are discovered during
construction-related earth-moving activities, ground-disturbing activity in the vicinity of the
resource shall be halted, a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to Verify completion of protection measures
evaluate the find, and the appropriate tribal representative(s)shall be notified. If the find and notifications, if needed
qualifies as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource as defined by CEQA,
the archaeologist shall develop appropriate measures to protect the integrity of the
resource and ensure that no additional resources are affected.
MM CUL-2: Protect Human Remains if Encountered during Construction City of Petaluma Verify inclusion of protection and
If human remains, associated grave goods,or items of cultural patrimony are response language in final plans or
encountered during construction,work shall halt in the vicinity of the find and the County specifications
Coroner shall be notified immediately.The following procedures shall be followed as
required by Public Resources Code§5097.9 and Health and Safety Code§7050.5. If the Verify completion of protection measures
human remains are determined to be of Native American origin,the Coroner shall notify and notifications, if needed
the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of the determination. The
Native American Heritage Commission shall then notify the Most Likely Descendant
(MILD),who has 48 hours to make recommendations to the landowner for the disposition
of the remains.A qualified archaeologist,the City and the MILD shall make all reasonable
efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment,with appropriate dignity, of any human
remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects.The agreement would take into
consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship,
and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary
objects.
Geology and Soils
MM GEO-1: Protect Paleontological Resources if Encountered during City of Petaluma Verify inclusion of language in final plans
Construction or specifications
If a paleontological resource is discovered during construction, all ground disturbing
activities within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted but may be diverted to areas Verify completion of protection measures
beyond 50 feet from the discovery to continue working. An appointed representative of and notifications, if needed
the City shall notify a qualified paleontologist,who will document the discovery as
needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the nature and significance of the
find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find,the paleontologist may
record the find and allow work to continue,or recommend salvage and recovery of the
material, if the City determines that the find cannot be avoided. The paleontologist shall
87
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
ReportingBest Management Practices(BMP)and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/
ScheduleD.
make recommendations for any necessary treatment that is consistent with currently
accepted scientific practices.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-1: Reduce Wildland Fire Hazards During Construction City of Petaluma Verify protection and avoidance
Prior to construction, the City and its contractor(s)shall remove and/or clear away dry, measures are listed in final plans or
combustible vegetation from the construction site. Grass and other vegetation less than specifications
18 inches in height above the ground shall be maintained where necessary to stabilize
the soil and prevent erosion.Vehicles shall not be parked in areas where exhaust Check jobsite compliance as necessary
systems contact combustible materials. Fire extinguishers shall be available on the
construction site to assist in quickly extinguishing any small fires, and the contractors
shall have on site the phone number for the local fire department.
Hydrology and Water Quality
MM HYD-1: Implement Storm Water Control Measures During Construction City of Petaluma Verify best management practices are in
The City and its contractor shall implement Best Management Practices to prevent the final plans or specifications
discharge of construction waste, debris or contaminants during construction activities.
Best Management Practices may include, but would not be limited to,the following: Verify that a General Construction Permit
— Existing vegetation on the construction site shall be maintained to the maximum is obtained and a Storm Water Pollution
extent feasible. Prevention Plan is implemented if the
— Areas of disturbed soil shall be reseeded and covered with vegetation as soon as project disturbs greater than one acre of
possible after disturbance. land
— Erosion control devices shall be installed in coordination with clearing, grubbing, and
grading. Such devices shall include perimeter sediment controls (perimeter silt fence, Check jobsite compliance as necessary
fiber rolls), stabilized construction exits, stockpile management, and wind erosion
control.
— BMPs shall be implemented to prevent the release of hazardous construction
chemicals during construction. Such BMPs shall include material handling and waste
management, material stockpile management, management of any washout areas,
control of vehicle/equipment fueling to contractor's staging area,vehicle and
equipment cleaning performed off site,and spill prevention and control.
— If more than one acre of land would be disturbed,the City and/or contractor shall
obtain coverage under State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-
DWQ,Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, as amended by Order
88
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
ReportingBest Management Practices(BMP)and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/
ScheduleD.
No. 2012-0006. The City shall comply with all provisions of the permit, including
development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Noise
MM NOI-1: Reduce Construction Noise Levels City of Petaluma Verify requirement of noise construction
The City and its contractor shall implement appropriate Best Management Practices to plan is in final plans or specifications
reduce construction noise levels emanating from construction activities and minimize prior to bid and is submitted for approval
disruption and annoyance at existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. A prior to construction
detailed construction plan shall be developed identifying the schedule for major noise-
generating construction activities and procedures for coordination with the Check jobsite compliance of noise
owner/occupants of nearby noise sensitive residential and recreational land uses so that reducing best management practices as
construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. Best Management necessary
Practices may include, but would not be limited to, the following:
— To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be limited to 12-hour shifts between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Continuous 24-hour construction activities shall only be
allowed during the drilling, construction, gravel packing,and sealing of the production
well, if necessary to ensure the integrity of the well. The Contractor shall arrange with
the Engineer for any 24-hour operations intended and/or required for the successful
completion of the Project. Together,the Contractor and the Engineer shall practice
good neighbor relations at all times.
— Night-time drilling operations, if required, shall be conducted in a manner to reduce
noise peaks and avoid rapid changes in noise levels. Drilling personnel shall be
advised to avoid noise generation wherever possible. In particular,the changing of
drill pipe and the throttling of the drill rig shall be done in such a manner that
appreciably lessens the noise produced by these activities as compared to the
daytime.
— Construction noise levels measured by the Contractor at the nearest sensitive
receptor shall not exceed 60 dBA without prior written approval of the City. Should
noise levels exceed the above levels, appropriate noise attenuation measures shall
be implemented prior to resuming work, to reduce the offensive noise levels at the
sensitive receptors.
— Portable generators shall have enclosures, exhaust silencers, and rated at no more
than 75 dBA at 25 feet and 60 dBA at the nearest receptor.
— A"disturbance coordinator"shall be designated who will be responsible for
responding to any complaints about construction noise.The disturbance coordinator
will determine the cause of the noise complaint(e.g., bad muffler, etc.)and will
require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A publicly
89
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
ResponsibilityBest Management Practices(BMP)and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring
Schedule (initials/Date)
visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the
City regarding noise complaints.This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours.
— Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust
mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
— Idling times shall be minimized by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics
control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations).
— Locate stationary noise generating equipment(e.g., compressors)as far as possible
from adjacent residential receivers.
— Acoustically shield stationary equipment located near residential receivers with
temporary noise barriers.
— Utilize"quiet"air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology
exists.
Transportation
MM TR-1: Minimize Traffic and Parking Disruption City of Petaluma Verify requirement of traffic control plan
The City and its contractor shall implement traffic controls to reduce traffic conflicts within is in final plans or specifications prior to
Oak Hill Park and Park Avenue during construction to minimize disruption. A traffic bid and is submitted for approval prior to
control plan shall be prepared for City review and approval prior to construction. During construction
construction, at least one lane in each direction of the Oak Hill Park parking lot and Park
Avenue shall be kept open at all times. Through traffic shall be maintained at all times Check jobsite compliance as necessary
(e.g.through temporary signals,flaggers or other means). Bicycle and pedestrian access
shall be maintained at all times, using short signed detours around the construction zone
if necessary. Advance notification of construction work to the community and
stakeholders shall be conducted to provide notice of work within Oak Hill Park and Park
Avenue. All road and parking configurations shall be restored to pre-project conditions.
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM TCR-1: Protect Tribal Cultural Resources during Construction Activities City of Petaluma Verify inclusion of language in final plans
In the event that any subsurface features or deposits are discovered during construction, or specifications
ground-disturbing activity in the vicinity of the resource shall be halted. The appropriate
tribal representative(s)from Lytton Rancheria and Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria Verify completion of protection measures
shall be notified, and a Native American monitor and a qualified professional and notifications, if needed
archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the find. If the find qualifies as a tribal cultural
90
DocuSign Envelope ID: E5259EB4-04A9-406C-9B49-86701290EB04
Best Management Practices(BMP)and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility • • Reporting
Schedule D.
resource as defined by CEQA,the City shall ensure that appropriate actions to protect the
resource are taken and that no additional resources are affected.
91