HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2023-023 N.C.S. 02/27/2023 DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Resolution No. 2023-023 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT TO ADOPT A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,AND ADOPT A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE SCOTT RANCH PROJECT,
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS,in 2004 Davidon Homes submitted an application to the City of Petaluma for a 93-lot residential
project located on two parcels(APN 019-120-040 and-041)and consisting of 58.66 acres at the corner of D Street
and Windsor Drive and adjacent to the Helen Putnam Regional Park("Prior Project"); and
WHEREAS,on July 27,2004, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared
and circulated to all responsible and affected agencies for consultation on the scope of an Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") to be prepared for the project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California
Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082; and
WHEREAS, on July 27,2004,the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Report was also posted at
the Sonoma County Clerk's Office in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.3; and
WHEREAS,on August 11,2004,and August 25,2004 scoping meetings were held to solicit public comment
regarding the environmental analysis to be undertaken and the City initiated work on the Draft EIR (SCH No
2004072137) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section
15000 et seq; and
WHEREAS, work on the EIR was temporarily halted in 2008 during the recession, due in part to the
environmental consultant going out of business,and during this period several large City-wide planning processes
were underway including preparation of the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 (completed in 2008); and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2013, the City released a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("2013 DEIR")
for a 60 day public comment period through April 15, 2013, during which time staff received approximately 300
comment letters as well as,both oral and written comments during a Planning Commission hearing on March 12,
2013 and a City Council hearing on April 15, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2013, the Planning Commission deferred recommendation on the environmental
document until review of the Final EIR and requested clarification of certain topics analyzed in the 2013 DEIR,
and on April 15,2013,after deliberation and discussion the City Council directed staff to proceed with preparation
of a FEIR and to provide additional information and clarification addressing comments on the 2013 DEIR and
further analysis on the reduced project alternative; and
WHEREAS, in response to comments received on the 2013 DEIR, the applicant elected to submit a revised
project with a reduced development proposal including 66-single family residential lots and including private and
public open space, a public park with multi-use trail, a Class I trail along D Street, trailhead parking lots, and
other infrastructure such as sidewalks, a roundabout, and sewer, water, and storm drainage infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated a revised DEIR ("2017 RDEIR") and on March 2, 2017, released the 2017
RDEIR for a 60 day public comment period through May 1,2017,during which time staff received approximately
Resolution No. 2023-023 N.C.S. Page 1
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
157 comment letters, as well as oral comments during a Planning Commission hearing on April 4, 2017, and a
City Council hearing on June 19, 2017; and
WHEREAS, at the April 4, 2017 hearing, the Planning Commission, by motion, recommended that the City
Council authorize preparation of a Final EIR including an analysis of an alternative that excluded development
south of Kelly Creek, and requested that the Final EIR return to the Planning Commission for consideration and
recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, at the June 19, 2017 hearing,the City Council determined that the 2017 RDEIR was inadequate
and that additional analysis was needed prior to preparation of a Final EIR, and the Council, by motion, directed
staff to revise the 2017 RDEIR to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council
including a more robust evaluation of the 28-lot"Environmentally Preferred" alternative that was included in the
2017 RDEIR; and
WHEREAS, in June 2018, the Kelly Creek Protection Project (KCPP) of Earth Island Institute announced
that it had entered into an agreement with Davidon Homes in response to comments received on the 2017 RDEIR,
and Davidon Homes and KCPP ("Applicants") submitted a revised application to the City of Petaluma for a 28-
lot residential project on approximately 15 acres, along with dedicating approximately 44 acres of the project site
to Sonoma County Regional Parks as an extension to the Helen Putnam Regional Park; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared and distributed copies of the RDEIR on the updated application, in
conformance with CEQA, specifically CEQA Guidelines Section 15086, to those public agencies that have
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the
comments of such persons and agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the RDEIR was published in the Argus Courier on December 31,
2020, mailed to residents and occupants within 1,000 feet of the site, and a Notice of Completion was filed with
the Sonoma County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse (exceeding CEQA's notice requirements) and in
compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085; and
WHEREAS, the RDEIR was circulated for more than the required 45-day public review period, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, from December 31, 2020 to March 8, 2021 and the City continued to accept
public comments through the City Council hearing on March 15, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2021, pursuant to City Resolution No. 2018-107 N.C.S., onsite signage was
posted informing residents of the RDEIR availability and the Planning Commission and City Council hearings
on the RDEIR; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2021 the Applicants held a neighborhood meeting to create dialogue with
community members, provide information and updates on the Project, and address concerns; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 9, 2021 to consider the RDEIR,
the purpose of the hearing being to inform the public about the contents of the RDEIR and to receive oral
comments about the adequacy and accuracy of the RDEIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 15, 2021 to consider the RDEIR, the purpose
of the hearings being to inform the public about the contents of the RDEIR and to receive oral comments about
the adequacy and accuracy of the RDEIR; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these hearings,the Planning Commission recommended and City Council directed
that a Final EIR be prepared addressing comments and concerns raised during public comment on RDEIR; and
Resolution No. 2023-023 N.C.S. Page 2
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
WHEREAS,written and oral comments on the RDEIR have been received and responses to those comments
have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"); and,
WHEREAS, in response to significant environmental conclusions reached in the Draft EIR and in response
to public comments on the Draft EIR, including concerns raised during the public hearings on the RDEIR by City
Planning Commissioners and City Council members, the Applicants submitted a revised concept site plan for
evaluation in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Revised Project proposes a 28-lot single-family residential subdivision and approximately
47 acres of open space/parkland, including multi-use trails north and south of Kelly creek connecting the existing
barn complex on the east of the site to the existing Helen Putnam Regional Park to the west. A roundabout on
City right-of-way at the intersection of D Street and Windsor Drive is proposed as part of the residential project
component. Also, as part of the project, an approximately 800-foot offsite sidewalk gap closure on the east side
of D Street between Windsor Drive and Sunnyslope Avenue would be provided, as well as modifications and
revisions to the original Project(now the"Revised Project")to reduce certain significant impacts that would have
otherwise occurred pursuant to the original project including impacts to California Red Legged Frog habitat; and
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2021, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) considered and
provided feedback on the pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed by the project including sidewalks and
pedestrian crossings, bicycle rack location, access and connectivity to Helen Putnam Regional Park, trail
alignments and features, and the proposed amendment to General Plan Figure 5-2, Bicycle Facilities, and;
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2021, the Recreation Music and Park Commission (RMPC) considered and
provided feedback on the Helen Putnam Regional Park expansion, Barn Center improvements, playground,
amphitheater, picnic areas, multi-use trails, and other amenities proposed as part of the Putnam Park Extension
component of the project, and;
WHEREAS, the Revised Project continues to provide for a planned future offsite trail segment connecting
the Scott Ranch property with the existing trail within Helen Putnam Regional Park; and
WHEREAS, the Revised Project boundaries remain unchanged and refinements to the project are limited to
reducing the building development footprint by further clustering lots, reducing setbacks, and building sizes; and
WHEREAS, the environmental effects of the Revised Project have been analyzed and compared to the
environmental effects presented in the RDEIR, and that analysis has been included in the Final EIR, concluding
that:
a) no new significant environmental impacts not previously identified in the RDEIR would result from
the Revised Project, and
b) no substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact has been
identified as resulting from the Revised Project, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary
to reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance, and
c) there is no feasible alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously
analyzed in the RDEIR that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts of the Revised
Project and that the Project applicant declines to adopt; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2022,pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) 24.100.13, onsite signage
was posted informing residents of the availability of the Final EIR and the Planning Commission and City Council
hearings on the Final EIR and requested entitlements; and
Resolution No. 2023-023 N.C.S. Page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the Final EIR was published in the Argus Courier on June 10,
2022, mailed to residents and occupants within 1,000 feet of the site, filed with the Sonoma County Clerk and
State Clearinghouse (exceeding CEQA's notice requirements), published on the City's website, posted to the
State's CEQA net portal, and made available for public review at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was circulated for more than the required I0-day public review period beginning
on June 10, 2022 and extending through City Council consideration, February 27, 2023; and
WHEREAS,the City distributed copies of the Final EIR in conformance with CEQA to those public agencies
that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought
the comments of such persons and agencies; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on July 12, 2022, at which time it
considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and
WHEREAS, Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code requires the City Council to make one or more
findings with respect to each significant adverse environmental effect of the project and to evaluate alternatives
to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced to a less than
significant level with specified mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Revised Project will require
adoption of Findings on Impacts and Mitigations as set forth in attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Section 21081(a)(3) of the Public Resources Code requires the City Council to make one or
more findings with respect to alternatives studies in the EIR if all significant effects of the Plan are not mitigated
to insignificance; and
WHEREAS, general findings and findings regarding each significant adverse environmental effect of the
Project are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, after all identification and inclusion of all feasible mitigation, certain impacts due to Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) will remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application of feasible mitigation
measures to lessen those impacts, and as of the date of this action cannot be conclusively described as less than
significant because of regulatory and technological uncertainty; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that the City Council find that specific
economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations outweigh any significant environmental effects of
the Project which cannot be fully mitigated; and
WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations consisting of the City's findings and determination
regarding the Project's benefits as comparted to its significant and unavoidable effects is contained in Exhibit A,
Section 7, which is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS,the Revised Project does not have the potential to have a significant adverse impact on wildlife
resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively,though it is not exempt
from Fish and Game filing fees; and
WHEREAS, the Revised Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled
by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced to a less than
significant level with specified mitigation measures, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), a
Resolution No. 2023-023 N.C.S. Page 4
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and set forth in Exhibit B to ensure that all
mitigation measures which serve to reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully implemented; and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2022, the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission of the City of
Petaluma and the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information presented in the Final EIR prior
to making recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2022, Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the City
Council certify the EIR,and adopt resolution for the project entitlements consisting of General Plan Amendments,
rezoning, and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; and
WHEREAS,current entitlement requests submitted by the Applicants include(1)a General Plan Amendment
to modify and clarify General Plan Policy 2-P-68, (2) Amendment of General Plan Figure 5-2, (3) a rezoning
from Residential I (RI) to a Planned Unit District (PUD), (4) adoption of Planned Unit Development Plan and
Guidelines; and(5)a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map(VTSM)to subdivide the project parcels into residential,
open space,public access, and parking lots; and
WHEREAS, subsequent review will enable the development of the Scott Ranch project including Site Plan
and Architectural Review(SPAR) required for development of the single-family homes, associated landscaping,
and lighting in the residential component, and for public improvements proposed as part of the Putnam Park
Extension Project component, as well as an administrative Tentative Parcel Map' to divide Parcel B as shown in
the VTSM for dedication to the Sonoma County Regional Parks, and for designation of a historic landmark to
designate the barn complex as a local historic resource; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2023, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) 24.100.13, onsite
signage was updated informing residents of the availability of the Final EIR and the February 27, 2023 City
Council hearings on the Final EIR and requested entitlements; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Public Hearing to certify the Final EIR and act on project entitlements was
published in the Argus Courier on February 17, 2023, mailed to residents and occupants within 1,000 feet of the
site, emailed to commenters, and published on the City's website; and
WHEREAS,on February 27,2027,the Final EIR and recommendations from the Planning Commission were
presented to the Petaluma City Council and that City Council reviewed and considered the information presented
in the Final EIR and received public comment prior to certifying the EIR and taking action on the Revised Scott
Ranch Project; and
WHEREAS,the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings for
the Project is the City of Petaluma Planning Division,Petaluma City Hall, I I English Street,Petaluma,CA 94952.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Petaluma City Council that the above recitals are true and
correct and incorporated by reference and that the Petaluma City Council hereby:
1. Certifies that the Scott Ranch Final EIR (SCH# 2004072137) contains all the requirements of CEQA
Guidelines Section 15132, inclusive of the RDEIR, references, appendices, and all attachments thereto, have
been completed in compliance with CEQA;
1 As the tentative parcel map proposes to create two parcels,its approval would be conducted administratively,anticipated to occur following
approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.
Resolution No. 2023-023 N.C.S. Page 5
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
2. Adopts, as required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the Findings regarding
potentially significant effects of the Revised Project Exhibit A, and statement of overriding considerations,
Section 7 to Exhibit 1, which are incorporated herein by reference.
3. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in the attached Exhibit B, which is
incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the Findings are fully
implemented. Compliance with the MMRP set forth therein shall be a condition of any subsequent Project
approval.
4. Finds that for each identified mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of another agency,
adoption and implementation of each such mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
the public agency identified,and the measures can and should be adopted and/or implemented by said agency.
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 271 day of February DocuSigned€9rM
2023,by the following vote: 7�Q,
i orney
AYES: Mayor McDonnell,Barnacle,Vice Mayor Cader Thompson,Healy,Nau,Shribbs
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: Pocekay
DocuSigned by: DocuSigned by:
ATTEST: r�yp,
1ty11,lerK429E44g2... Mayor
Resolution No. 2023-023 N.C.S. Page 6
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City
Council hereby makes the following Findings with respect to the potential for significant
environmental impacts of the Scott Ranch Project as Revised(File No. PLPJ-2022-0002, formerly
#03-TSM-0396-CR) ("Project") and means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these
Findings, the term Environmental Impact Report (EIR)means the Draft, Revised Draft, and Final
EIR documents collectively, unless otherwise specified.
These Findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environment impact contained
in the EIR. Instead, the Findings provide a summary description of each impact, identify the
applicable mitigation measures set forth in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state Findings on
the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full
explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions is in the EIR, and these Findings
hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the
EIR's determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project's impacts and mitigation
measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these Findings are found in the
record as a whole for the Project.
For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the public
agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Section 15093 of the
CEQA Guidelines states that:
"If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-
wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
`acceptable. "'
In making these Findings,the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates into these Findings the analysis
and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts and incorporates into these Findings the
determination and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation
measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and
expressly modified by these Findings. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the
following Findings are summarized rather then set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final
EIRs should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations.
Page 1
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
1.2 Organization/Format of Findings
Section 2 of these Findings contains a summary description of the Project, sets forth the objectives
of the Project and provides related background information. Section 3 identifies the Project's
potential environmental effects that were determined to have no impact or be less than significant,
and do not require mitigation. Section 4 identifies the potentially significant effects of the Project
that were determined to be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. All numbered references
identifying specific mitigation measures refer to numbered mitigation measures found in the Final
EIR. Section 5 identifies the significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level even though all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the
Project. Section 6 discusses the feasibility of Project alternatives. Section 7 includes the City's
Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 8 includes a list of General Findings made and
adopted by the City. These Findings summarize and incorporate by reference, the impacts and
mitigation measures from the Draft EIR, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Responses to
Comments. Full descriptions of the impacts and analyses are contained in the EIR.
SECTION 2: SCOTT RANCH PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
The approximately 58.66-acre project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City at the
corner of the intersection of Windsor Drive and D Street. It is accessible by US 101 Highway(US
101), approximately two miles to the east, and Highway 116 to the north. The main arterial street
that provides access to the project site is D Street. Direct access to the site is provided by Windsor
Drive and D Street. The site is currently an undeveloped property with a barn complex(consisting
of three barns and an old dairy equipment cleaning shed), and an unoccupied mobile home, and
remnants of a collapsed farm house that was destroyed by fire.
There are existing single-family homes developed to the north, northwest (Victoria Subdivision),
and east (Pinnacle Heights Subdivision) of the project site. Helen Putnam Regional Park,
maintained by the Sonoma County Regional Parks, is located to the west of the project site.
Agricultural uses or rural residences on large parcels in private ownership are located to the south
and southwest in unincorporated Sonoma County.
2.2 Project Objectives
The City of Petaluma has developed the following primary objectives for the proposed Project to
satisfy CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b).
The City's objectives are to:
• provide development consistent with the City's long-term development goals, especially
as related to the provision of additional housing;
• develop the project site in a manner that preserves the uniqueness and gateway value of the
site;
Page 2
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
• implement General Plan policies related to establishment of an Urban Separator and the
Petaluma ring trail system; and
• provide improved recreational access to the Helen Putnam Regional Park.
The project applicants' key objectives for the proposed Project are to:
• promote and maximize new housing opportunities within the urban growth boundary
thereby discouraging urban sprawl;
• develop a high-quality residential project on the west side of Petaluma, compatible with
existing residential subdivisions in the neighborhood and with rural and park areas to the
south and west of the site;
• permanently preserve sensitive biological and geological areas of the site as protected open
space;
• preserve and enhance Kelly Creek in its natural state;
• preserve the barn complex;
• provide a public pedestrian/bicycle trail connecting to Helen Putnam Regional Park; and
• provide a large extension of the Helen Putnam Regional Park, incorporating new trails, a
restored barn complex, habitat and waterway enhancements, and related features.
2.3 Project Description
The proposed Scott Ranch Project consists of two components: the Davidon(28-Lot) Residential
Project proposed by Davidon Homes and the Putnam Park Extension Project proposed by the Kelly
Creek Protection Project (KCPP) of Earth Island Institute. The residential project component
would develop approximately 11.2 acres of the site with 28 single-family residences, streets, and
ancillary improvements, including approximately 5 acres of private open space. The single-family
residences would be developed along two new proposed streets-one new street would branch north
of Windsor Drive and a second new street would branch south of Windsor Drive.The homes would
be arranged in clusters off each of the two proposed streets. Other infrastructure improvements
(i.e., sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities, including detention basins) needed to serve the
proposed Project would also be constructed. A roundabout on City right-of-way at the intersection
of D Street and Windsor Drive would be developed as part of the residential project component.
A six-foot wide sidewalk would be provided on the south side of Windsor Drive from the new
intersection to D Street,in addition to an off-site sidewalk between Windsor Drive and Sunnyslope
Avenue running along the east side of D Street.
The proposed Putnam Park Extension Project component would extend the existing Helen Putnam
Regional Park eastward to D Street by developing a park area on the balance of the project site,
approximately 47-acres. The proposed Project would develop a barn center that would include the
renovation of the existing barn complex and the cleaning shed, pathways between the structures,
bike parking, information kiosks, vegetable gardens, demonstration and working corrals, antique
Page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
farm equipment with a hand pump, and an amphitheater for outdoor learning activities. Access to
the barn center is currently provided via D Street by a driveway, would be improved and used as
a service vehicle entrance with removable bollards. The barn center would be visible from D Street
and accessible from the main parking lot (or lower parking lot). The proposed Project would
include a multi-use trail of approximately 0.7 mile that would run along the north and south side
of Kelly Creek. A 0.35-mile section of the loop trail along the north side of Kelly Creek (north
trail) would connect Helen Putnam Regional Park on the west end of the project site to the barn
center on the east end of the project site. Access to this trail section would be from the upper
parking lot through a four-foot-wide, 0.02-mile-long, ADA-compliant trail. A 300-foot Urban
Separator would be maintained between the proposed development and the southern boundary of
the project site. See Section 2.0, Project Description, in the FEIR for further information about
the project characteristics.
The project Applicants have requested the following approvals for the proposed Project: (1) a
General Plan Amendment to modify and clarify General Plan Policy 2-P-68; (2) an Amendment
of General Plan Figure 5-2,Bicycle Facilities; (3) a zoning map amendment to rezone the property
from Residential 1 (R1) to a Planned Unit District (PUD); (4) a zoning text amendment to adopt
the Scott Ranch Planned Unit Development Plan and Guidelines; and(5) a Vesting Tentative Map
to subdivide the project parcels into residential, open space, public access and parking lots.
Subsequent entitlements anticipated for the Project include Site Plan and Architectural Review for
both the residential component and the Phase 1 park improvements, Local Landmark Designation
for the red barn complex, Historic Site Plan and Architectural Review for the renovation of the
barn complex, and a Tentative Parcel Map for purpose of transferring Parcel B to Kelly Creek
Protection Project prior to the final map.
Regional Park Trail
The Helen Putnam Regional Park Trail project (RPT) is an approximately 0.5-mile-long trail
segment proposed by Sonoma County Regional Parks (SCRP) in collaboration with the project
Applicants on parkland offsite to the west of the Scott Ranch project site. Although not being
proposed jointly with the Project,the RPT is considered a related project because it would provide
a connection from proposed trails onsite north and south of Kelly Creek to existing offsite trails in
Helen Putnam Regional Park.Construction of the proposed multi-use trail on the project site would
create conditions that could lead to the construction of the RPT on the Helen Putnam Regional
Park property. While there is no guarantee that the RPT would be constructed, with the access
provided by the project site multi-use trail between D Street and the eastern boundary of the
regional park, the probability that the RPT would be constructed would increase. Therefore
conservatively,the RDEIR analyzed the RPT as a related project and presented the environmental
consequences that could result from its construction and operation. The Final EIR may be used by
the SCRP if and when it decides to construct the RPT.
2.4 Alternatives
As noted in the RDEIR Section 1.2, Project History, the proposed project has been revised since
its original application submittal in 2004 and the environmental review has considered prior
iterations of the project including a 93 lot single family residential subdivision(2013 DEIR), a 66
lot single family residential subdivision (2017 RDEIR), and the most recent 2020 RDEIR which
Page 4
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
analyzed a 28 lot single family subdivision on 15 acres and a 44 acre park and open space on the
balance of the site. Each of the prior DEIRs (2013 and 2017) included an analysis of project
alternatives.
Based on the Project objectives and anticipated environmental consequences, and pursuant to
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following Project alternatives were selected for
analysis in the most recent 2020 RDEIR:
• The No Project/No Development alternative assumes the continuation of existing
conditions within the Project site.
• The Davidon (28 Lot) Residential Project alternative would develop 28 single-family
homes in the same lot configuration as the proposed Project. This alternative would not
include the Putnam Park Extension Project component. Under this alternative, the multi-
use trails and pedestrian and livestock bridges would not be developed, the barn complex
would remain in place and would not be restored, and there would be no pasture
improvements or stock pond enhancements.
• The Putnam Park Extension Project would only include the features of the Putnam Park
Extension Project component and no residential homes would be developed.
A more detailed description of these alternatives, and required findings, are set forth in Section 6:
Feasibility of Project Alternatives.
SECTION 3: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT OR TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed below, the
following environmental factors associated with the Project would have No Impact or a Less Than
Significant Impact and no mitigation would be required.
3.1 Aesthetics
• Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources,
including,but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway.
• Implementation of the proposed project would not create new sources of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
• The implementation of the proposed RPT project would not result in a significant impact
on scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character and quality, or light and glare.
• The proposed Scott Ranch project and the RPT project, in conjunction with other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant
cumulative impact with regard to scenic vistas, visual character, or scenic resources.
Page 5
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
• The proposed Scott Ranch project and the regional park trail project, in conjunction with
other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in
significant cumulative impact with regard to light and glare.
3.2 Air Quality
• The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan.
• The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
• The proposed project and the proposed RPT, in conjunction with other past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in significant cumulative air
quality impacts.
3.3 Biological Resources
• The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan,natural community conservation plan,or other approved local,regional,
or state habitat conservation plan.
• Implementation of the proposed RPT project would not interfere with wildlife movement.
3.4 Cultural Resources
• The proposed Scott Ranch project and the regional park trail project, in conjunction with
other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in
significant cumulative cultural resource impacts.
3.5 Energy
• Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in potentially
significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
• The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency.
• Construction and operation of the proposed RPT project would minimally increase the
consumption of energy but would not result in significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy or exceed the capacity of
distribution systems.
3.6 Geology and Soils
• The proposed project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Page 6
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
• The proposed Scott Ranch project and the RPT project, in conjunction with other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in significant
cumulative geology and soils impacts.
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• The proposed project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment.
• Operation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• The proposed RPT project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment, nor would the
proposed RPT conflict with any applicable plans or policies for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
• The proposed project and the RPT project would not result in a significant cumulative
greenhouse gas impact.
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
• The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that it would impede groundwater
management.
• The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.
• The proposed project would not risk the release of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones that would risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
• The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area in a manner that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
• The implementation of the proposed RPT project would not have a significant impact
related to water quality, hydromodification, erosion, flooding, and other hazards.
• The proposed Scott Ranch project and the RPT project, in conjunction with other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant
cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality.
3.9 Land Use and Planning
• The proposed project would not physically divide an established community.
Page 7
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
• The proposed project could not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with a land use plan,policy,or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect.
• The proposed project would not result in development of land uses that are substantially
incompatible with existing adjacent land uses or with planned uses.
• The implementation of the proposed RPT project would not physically divide an
established community, conflict with applicable land use or habitat conservation plans, or
be incompatible with surrounding land uses.
• The proposed Scott Ranch project and the RPT project, in conjunction with other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in significant
cumulative impacts related to land use and planning.
3.10 Noise
• Noise generated by project operation would not result in generation of a substantial
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.
• Construction and operation of the proposed RPT project would not increase noise levels at
existing residential uses in the vicinity nor expose persons to excessive groundborne
vibration. The proposed RPT would not expose persons on-site to excessive noise levels
nor generate traffic which would substantially increase noise levels.
• The proposed Scott Ranch project and the RPT project, in conjunction with other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant
cumulative noise impact.
3.11 Population and Housing
• The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area either
directly or indirectly.
• The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people.
• The proposed RPT project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth or
displace a substantial number of existing housing or people.
• The proposed Scott Ranch project and the proposed RPT project, in conjunction with other
closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not
result in a significant cumulative impact with regards to population and housing.
3.12 Public Services, including Recreation
Page 8
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
• The proposed project would not require the construction of new or physically altered fire
facilities.
• The proposed project would not require the construction of new or physically altered police
facilities.
• The proposed project would not require the construction of new or physically altered school
facilities.
• The proposed project would not require the construction of new or physically altered
library facilities.
• Development of the proposed project would increase the use of existing neighborhood
parks or other recreational facilities but not result in substantial physical deterioration of
the facilities. In addition, the demand created by the proposed project would not require
the construction of new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities.
• The implementation of the proposed RPT would not cause a substantial adverse impact
related to fire protection,police protection, schools,parks, or other governmental services.
• The proposed Scott Ranch project and the RPT project, in conjunction with other closely
related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a
significant cumulative impact on public services.
3.13 Transportation
• Development of the proposed project would not impact access to transit facilities.
• Development of the proposed project would not impact pedestrian and bicycle facilities or
create hazardous conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists that currently do not exist.
• Implementation of the proposed RPT project would not conflict with any applicable plans,
ordinances or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the
traffic circulation system; increase traffic hazards; or result in inadequate emergency
access.
• Development of the proposed project and the RPT project would not result in cumulative
impacts related to the internal circulation system, substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature, nor substantially impact emergency access.
• Cumulative development, including the proposed project and the RPT project, would not
result in cumulative impacts to public transit facilities.
• Cumulative development, including the proposed project and the RPT project, would not
result in cumulative impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Page 9
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
• The proposed project and the RPT project would not cause temporary disruption to the
transportation network due to construction under Cumulative conditions.
3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
• Development of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water supply entitlements and would not require expansion of the water
delivery system.
• Development of the proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of
new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities.
• The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste and would not generate solid waste that would require
the expansion of the permitted capacity of a regional landfill 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.
• Development of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Implementation of the proposed RPT project would not cause substantial adverse impacts
requiring the construction or relocation of new or expanded water supply or expansion of
a water delivery system; result in the construction or relocation of new wastewater
treatment facilities or conveyance systems; or require relocation or construction or
expansion of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed RPT project
would comply with all regulations related to solid waste and there would be sufficient
landfill capacity to serve the proposed RPT project would not 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.
• The proposed project and the RPT project, in conjunction with other past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative
impact on utilities.
3.15 Wildfire
• The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan.
• The proposed project would not substantially exacerbate wildfire risks, or expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire.
• The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as road, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other
Page 10
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
on the environment.
• Implementation of the proposed RPT project would not substantially exacerbate wildfire
risks or result in adverse impact related to an emergency response plan, or expose people
or structures to significant risks.
• The proposed Scott Ranch Project and the RPT project, in conjunction with other closely
related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development would not result in a
significant cumulative impact on wildfire.
SECTION 4: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS-THAN-
SIGNIFICANT LEVELS
The Draft Revised EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from
implementation of the Project. However, based upon substantial evidence in the record the City
finds that for each of the significant or potentially significant impacts identified in this section,that
mitigations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR. Thus, adoption of these mitigation measures
set forth below will reduce these significant or potentially significant effects to less-than-
significant levels. Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures will effectively make the
mitigation measures part of the Project. The following summarizes the rationale to support these
findings, as presented in detail, including the data and analysis, in the Final EIR:
4.1 Aesthetics
Impact AES-1: Development of the project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-la and AES-lb would reduce proposed
project effects on a scenic vista to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
AES-4 a: The following restrictions shall be placed on the design of the proposed project:
Elements such as design, height, contouring, and massing of proposed single-family
development shall comply with Hillside Protection and Tree Protection ordinances.
Homes shall be designed to step with the hillside and avoid solid walls or overhangs
that run against the natural slope of the site.
Construction of Lots 1 through 10 shall be carefully evaluated during the Site Plan and
Architectural Review process. These lots shall only be subdivided or developed with
structures that would incorporate appropriate hillside design elements and would not
substantially block or obscure views.
The design,height,and massing of retaining walls shall be specifically reviewed during
the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. Retaining walls shall not exceed 5 feet
Page 11
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
in height unless incorporating terracing with landscaping and minimum width of 3 feet.
Retaining walls should conform to the slope. Treatment of retaining walls that are
visible from a public street shall incorporate a veneer of natural stone, stained concrete,
earth toned textured surface, or as otherwise accepted through the Site Plan and
Architectural Review process such that walls blend in with the natural hillside
environment and promote a rural character.
Review during the Site Plan and Architectural Review shall include project landscape.
Vegetation including woodland cover shall be reestablished on graded slopes and
between existing abutting residential structures (See also Mitigation Measure BI0-2a).
Reestablishment of vegetation near the project's residences shall conform to the
requirement of the project's Fuel Management Program.
AES-lb: The architectural elevations and materials used on the exterior of the residences
(including roofing materials, exterior finishing, and trim palette) shall include natural,
terrain-neutral colors and prohibit the use of brightly colored terra cotta or red clay roof
tiles in order to limit potential visual contrast between the proposed development and
the adjacent hillsides, as determined acceptable by the Planning Commission through
the Site Plan and Architectural Review process required by Petaluma Municipal Code
Section 24.010. The developer shall include Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions
(CC&R) that prohibit or limit roofing color changes by future owners, in accordance
with the Planning Commission Site Plan and Architectural Review approval.
Finding for Impact AES-1: Mitigation Measures AES-la and AES-lb would reduce proposed
project effects on a scenic vista to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City
finds that Mitigation Measures AES-la and AES-lb will be incorporated into the Project via
conditions of approval and will reduce Impact AES-1 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires the site plan and architectural and review (SPAR),
which will occur pursuant to Chapter 24 of the IZO prior to the issuance of any building permits
to consider the precise massing and architectural design against required setbacks, height
limitations, site coverage and other development standards. These standards, as reviewed pursuant
to the SPAR process, will ensure that the proposed development is attractive and consistent with
existing development in the vicinity. During SPAR review, specific tree preservation and
replanting requirements shall also be monitored for compliance. Therefore, after applying these
measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Impact AES-3: Development of the project site could substantially degrade the visual character
and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-3a and AES-3b would reduce proposed
Project effects on the visual character and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
AES-3a: All construction staging shall occur within the project boundaries and on authorized
road encroachment. Construction staging areas shall use appropriate screening (i.e.,
Page 12
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
temporary fencing with opaque material) to screen views of construction equipment
and material.
AES-3b: Project landscaping and recreational features shall be designed and located in a manner
to preserve the visual character of the project site and promote the view of the barn
complex. As part of the SPAR, the Applicants shall submit to the City of Petaluma
detailed landscape plans showing the location of the new trees and visual simulations
demonstrating the preservation of the existing scenic view of the barn complex.
Finding for Impact AES-3: Mitigation Measures AES-3a and AES-3b would reduce proposed
project effects on a scenic vista to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City
finds that Mitigation Measures AES-3a and AES-3b will be incorporated into the Project via
conditions of approval and will reduce Impact AES-3 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires that construction staging occur within the project
boundaries and on an authorized road encroachment, and be required to use appropriate screening
(i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material) to screen views of construction equipment and
material.
Mitigation requires project landscaping and recreational features be designed and located in a
manner to preserve the visual character of the project site and promote the view of the barn
complex. As part of the SPAR, the Applicants shall submit to the City of Petaluma detailed
landscape plans showing the location of the new trees and visual simulations demonstrating the
preservation of the existing scenic view of the barn complex. Therefore, after applying these
measures, the impact would be less than significant.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact AIR-2: Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate emissions that
would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any critical pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Impact AIR-3: Construction and operation of the proposed project would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would reduce project construction
impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure AIR-2
The construction contractor(s) shall implement the following measures during construction:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
Page 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
c. All visible mud or dirt track-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 is
prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. All roadways,driveways,and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders
are used.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
g. 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.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency 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.
Finding for Impact AIR-2 and AIR-3:Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would reduce proposed Project
fugitive dust and construction emissions to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
the City finds that Mitigation Measure AIR-2 will be incorporated into the Project via conditions
of approval and will reduce Impact AIR-2 and AIR-3 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce fugitive dust
emissions from grading as recommended by Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD). Exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks for criteria pollutants
would be below BAAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds as described in the RDEIR, and would be
further minimized through implementation of measures during construction activities. Therefore,
after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
RPT Impact AIR-1: The construction of the proposed RPT project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard, expose existing
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, create objectionable odors, or conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, but construction-phase
emissions of fugitive dust could exceed applicable thresholds.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure RPT AIR-1 would reduce RPT project
construction impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Page 14
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Mitigation Measure RPT AIR-1
The construction contractor(s) shall implement the following measures during construction:
a. All exposed surfaces(e.g.,staging areas,soil piles,graded areas,and unpaved access roads)
shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-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 is
prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
f. 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.
g. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at
the Lead Agency 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.
Finding for Impact RPT AIR-1: Mitigation Measure RPT AIR-1 would reduce proposed Project
fugitive dust and construction emissions to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
the City finds that Mitigation Measure RPT AIR-1 will be incorporated into the Project via
conditions of approval and will reduce Impact RPT AIR-I to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure will reduce fugitive dust
emissions from grading as recommended by the BAAQMD. Exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and trucks for criteria pollutants would be below BAAQMD criteria pollutant
thresholds as described in the RDEIR, and would be further minimized through implementation of
measures during construction activities. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact
would be less than significant.
4.3 Biological Resources
Impact BI0-1: The proposed project would not affect special-status plant species but would result
in substantial adverse effects on special-status animal species,including California red-legged frog
(CRLF), nesting birds, and roosting bats.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-la through BIO-ld would reduce
proposed project adverse effects on special-status animal species to less than significant.
Page 15
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Mitigation Measures
BIO-la: Mitigation for impacts on regulated waters shall be provided at a minimum 2:1 ratio
as detailed in Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Mitigation for impacts on habitat for CRLF
shall be provided at a minimum 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts and 1:1 ratio for
temporary impacts,as detailed in Mitigation Measure BIO-lb. In addition,the project
Applicants shall obtain all required permits from the USFWS, CDFW,RWQCB, and
USACE(e.g., 1600 series permits,404 and 401 permits), incidental take permits and
any others. The project Applicants will submit with the permit application a Wetland
Mitigation Program for review and approval by the regulatory agencies. The project
Applicants shall implement mitigation measures, as required by federal and State law
and included in the permits,to avoid,minimize,or offset impacts to any species listed
under either the state or Federal Endangered Species Acts or protected under any
other state or federal law. Evidence that the project Applicants have secured all
required authorization from these agencies shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department of the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of any grading or
building permits for the project.
BIO-lb: A Final California Red-Legged Frog Mitigation Plan (CRLFMP) shall be prepared
by a qualified wildlife biologist to minimize and mitigate potential impacts of the
project on CRLF. The Final CRLFMP shall be prepared in consultation with and be
approved by the USFWS, CDFW, USACE, and City, and shall provide for the
protection, replacement, and management of habitat for CRLF affected by proposed
development and public open space use on the project site. The Final CRLFMP shall
be required as a condition of approval for the project Tentative Map,and shall include
the following components and meet the following standards:
Preconstruction and Construction Avoidance Provisions
a. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a Service-approved biologist
prior to any grading or major vegetation clearance to ensure that no individual
CRLF are lost during construction. These preconstruction surveys shall also
verify the presence or absence of occupied dens of American badger, burrows
of western burrowing owl, and individuals of western pond turtle and foothill
yellow-legged frog in the remote instance individuals were to disperse onto the
site in advance of construction-related disturbance. The Final CRLFMP shall:
1) describe in detail the survey approach and methodology, and 2) specify that
grading or vegetation clearance may not occur in any area where individual
CRLF, American badger, western burrowing owl, western pond turtle, and/or
foothill yellow-legged frog are located until such time as the individual has
either moved out of the disturbance zone or has been physically relocated by a
Service-approved biologist legally authorized to handle the species. Any
relocation effort for CRLF, American badger, western burrowing owl, western
pond turtle, and/or foothill yellow-legged frog shall be formulated in
consultation with and approved by CDFW and USFWS, and shall be
implemented by a qualified biologist.
Page 16
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
b. All project-related -vegetation clearing and grading activities within potential
habitat for CRLF shall be monitored by a Service-approved biologist. The Final
CRLFMP shall specify the duties of the Service-approved biologist.
C. All construction personnel shall be trained in CRLF identification, habitat
description, legal protective status, construction restrictions, and procedures to
avoid unnecessary disturbance to potential habitat or incidental take of these
species. The Final CRLFMP shall describe this training program.
d. Exclusionary fencing shall be installed prior to grading or major vegetation
clearance where appropriate to keep CRLF out of construction areas. The Final
CRLFMP shall identify where such fencing is to be installed and provide
procedures for fence installation, monitoring, and maintenance. The Final
CRLFMP shall require that the exclusionary fencing be installed under the
direct supervision of a Service-approved biologist and shall be maintained
during the course of construction activities on the site.
e. If necessary, identify the locations for use of permanent exclusionary fencing
or other barriers to prevent and minimize dispersal of CRLF into areas with
concentrated human activity,based on input from the USFWS and CDFW. This
may be particularly important at locations along segments of the multi-use trail
to the south of Kelly Creek or parking lot and staging area on the east side of
the D Street tributary, to prevent the movement of individual frogs into areas,
of intensive bike, pedestrian and vehicle activity. If used, the permanent
exclusionary fencing/barriers shall be designed and installed during project
construction under the supervision of a Service-approved biologist.
f. Appropriate signage shall be designed and installed to restrict unauthorized
human access into essential habitat areas for CRLF during construction.
Habitat Avoidance and Mitigation Provisions
g. Avoid development and associated direct and indirect impacts on CRLF in
accordance with project revisions required as part of the consultation review
and approval process with CDFW and USFWS. Compensatory mitigation shall
be provided at a minimum of 3:1 for permanent impacts and 1:1 for temporary
impacts to CRLF habitat. This may be accomplished through permanent
protection and establishment of two conservation easements or other
mechanisms of suitable habitat on-site and off-site,where necessary to achieve
the minimum compensatory mitigation requirements or as otherwise required
by the CDFW and USFWS.
h. Control unauthorized access to the on-site stock pond and open space in the
southwestern portion of the project site to protect these essential habitat features
for CRLF. Install fencing and interpretive displays and restrictive signage along
all trail systems as necessary to control access from the proposed multi-use
trails and other locations where unauthorized access is likely.
Page 17
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
i. Where disturbance and improvements within essential habitat and movement
corridors cannot be completely avoided and on-site mitigation is considered
insufficient by the CDFW and USFWS, the loss shall be mitigated by
permanently preserving similar quality habitat known to support CRLF at off-
site locations preferably in the Petaluma vicinity of Sonoma County, as
negotiated with the regulatory agencies. It is possible that the mitigation
location, whether on-site or possibly off-site as well, could be used to achieve
mitigation for other biological and wetland impacts, depending on its habitat
characteristics, provisions for habitat creation and/or enhancement defined as
part of the Final CRUMP, and negotiations with the CDFW and USFWS.
j. Identify methods to minimize the potential for harassment or take of listed and
non-listed species as a result of increased human activity associated with
development and open space use of the site. This shall include an educational
program for future residents and visitors, fencing and interpretive signage at
access points into natural open space,use of sensitive grade changes, culverted
undercrossings, and bridged overcrossings in uplands where roadways or trails
bisect movement corridors, and possible use of permanent exclusionary
fencing.
Habitat Connectivity and On-Site Management Provisions
k. Define methods to provide connectivity for CRLF between open space areas on
site and to the surrounding undeveloped lands to the west, south, and east.
1. Provide for permanent protection and adaptive management of open space lands
(both on-site and possibly off-site) intended to function as potential habitat for
CRLF.
BIO-lc: Any active nests of raptors or other birds protected under federal and state regulations
in the vicinity of construction shall be avoided until young birds are able to leave the
nest (i.e., fledged) and forage on their own. Avoidance may be accomplished either
by scheduling grading, vegetation removal and demolition activities during the non-
nesting period (September 1 through January 31), or if this is not feasible, by
conducting a pre-construction survey for raptor and other bird nests. Provisions of
the pre-construction survey and nest avoidance, if necessary, shall include the
following:
a. To avoid "take" of barn owls in the large barn, any relocation or restoration
work shall be initiated in the non-nesting period or shall be performed in
conformance with the pre-construction survey procedures detailed below.
b. If grading is scheduled during the active nesting period (February 15 through
August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nest
survey no more than 15 days prior to initiation of grading to provide
confirmation on presence or absence of active nests in the vicinity.
Page 18
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
C. If active nests are encountered, species-specific measures shall be prepared by
a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active
nest. At a minimum, grading and vegetation removal in the vicinity of the nest
shall be deferred until the young birds have fledged or are no longer dependent
on the nest. A nest-setback zone shall be established within which all
construction-related disturbances shall be prohibited. These are typically at
least 300 feet for all raptors and 100 feet for other birds protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State Fish and Game Code, unless site-specific
conditions allow for some variation from these distances as determined by the
qualified wildlife biologist in coordination with CDFW. The perimeter of the
nest-setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with staked
flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel restricted from the
area.
d. If permanent avoidance of the nest is not feasible, impacts shall be minimized
by prohibiting disturbance within the nest-setback zone until a qualified
biologist verifies that the birds have either a) not begun egg-laying and
incubation,or b)that the juveniles from the nest are foraging independently and
capable of independent survival.
e. Demolition of any existing buildings and removal of any trees shall also
consider possible bat use of the site, as defined below in Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 d.
f. A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that the young birds have
fledged shall be submitted to the Community Development Department of the
City of Petaluma prior to initiation of grading and vegetation removal in the
nest-setback zone.
BI0-1d: Measures shall be taken to avoid possible loss of bats during project construction.
Any buildings that are approved for demolition, rehabilitation, or relocation shall be
done using the following provisions:
a. Any buildings approved for removal shall be demolished between March 1 (or
after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees F and/or no more than 1/2" of
rainfall within 24 hours occurs) to April 15 or from August 31 to October 15
(or before evening temperatures fall below 45 degrees F and/or more than 1/2"
of rainfall within 24 hours occurs)to minimize the likelihood of removal during
the winter roosting period when individuals are less active and more difficult to
detect, and the critical pupping period (April 16 to August 30) when young
cannot disperse.
b. Buildings shall be surveyed by a qualified bat biologist possessing a
Memorandum of Understanding with the CDFW no more than 2 weeks before
demolition and/or relocation work is undertaken to avoid"take"of any bats that
may have begun to use the structures for roosting subsequent to the assessments
by Wildlife Research Associates (2004 and 2014). The buildings in which
Page 19
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
roosting would be most likely to occur are the large two-story barn, hay barn,
and garage building.
C. If the pre-demolition survey reveals bats or bat roosting activity, all doors and
windows shall be opened and left open continually until demolition, relocation
and/or rehabilitation work is to begin. Additional recommendations may be
made by the qualified bat specialist following the pre-construction survey,
including monitoring of demolition and/or relocation and other measures to
avoid take of individual bats.
d. A tree roost habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist
possessing a Memorandum of Understanding with the CDFW of any trees that
will be removed as part of the project. The habitat assessment shall be
conducted no more than 2 weeks prior to tree removal and vegetation clearing.
Additional detailed measures may be required based on the results of the habitat
assessment if evidence of bat roosting is observed. This may include
supervision of tree removal by the qualified bat biologist, and systematic
removal of selected trees and major limbs to encourage dispersal and avoid
"take" of individual bats.
Finding for Impact BI0-1: Mitigation Measures BIO-la through BIO-ld would reduce project
impacts on special status animal species to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
the City finds that Mitigation Measures BIO-1 a through BIO-1 d will be incorporated into the
Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact BIO-1 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The residential development is limited to 11.2 acres of the site(including
6.4 acres of lots and street and 4.8 acres of private open space), all of which would be located at
least 100 feet from the centerline of Kelly Creek and outside of the critical habitat boundary for
CRLF. In addition,the project would preserve 47 acres of open space including designated critical
habitat for CRLF that would be protected in perpetuity through the establishment of two
conservation easements. Further, the project includes restoration and enhancement activities that
would improve habitat for CRLF and other species. Pursuant to existing regulations, the applicant
is required to obtain all required authorizations from the USACE, the RWQCB, the CDFW, the
USFWS, and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, for disturbance to waters of the U.S. and
associated aquatic habitat. In addition to all avoidance and minimization measures as required by
these resource agency authorizations, the identified mitigation measures would reduce potential
impacts of the Project on special status species and sensitive habitats. With completion of the
Project's WMP and implementation of the Project's CRLFMP, habitat for the CRLF will be
restored. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would
be less than significant.
Additionally, although no individuals of the American badger,burrows of western burrowing owl,
and individuals of western pond turtle or foothill yellow-legged frog are expected to occur based
on surveys and field investigations,and thus the Project would not result in a potentially significant
impact to these species,Mitigation Measure BIO-lb(a),was modified to specifically include these
species as part of the pre-construction surveys and identifies avoidance or relocation in the event
of discovery. No new impact has been identified and no new mitigation is required to address
Page 20
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
potential future occupancy of the site by American badger, burrows of western burrowing owl,
and individuals of western pond turtle or foothill yellow-legged frog. Nonetheless, to address
concerns that these species may move onto the site, Mitigation Measures BIO-Ib(a)was modified
to include these species in the preconstruction survey. Therefore, potential impacts would be less
than significant.
Further,the required nesting surveys and protection of any identified nests or roosts would prevent
harm to special status bird and bat species, and would prevent harm to common types of birds.
Therefore, after applying these measures, the project's impacts would be less than significant.
Impact BIO-2: The proposed project would affect sensitive natural communities, including
riparian habitat, native grasslands, and regulated seasonal wetlands.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2a through BIO-2e would reduce project
adverse effects on sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat,native grasslands, and
regulated seasonal wetlands to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-2a: A detailed Landscape and Vegetation Management Plan (Plan) shall be prepared by
a qualified landscape architect in consultation with CDFW and a plant ecologist
experienced with native species. The Plan shall: 1) provide for re-establishment of
grassland,riparian, and oak woodland cover on graded slopes in open space areas; 2)
incorporate mitigation requirements to replace and enhance wetland habitat and
provide for replacement of native trees removed as part of the project; 3)provide for
replacement of native grasslands lost as a result of development and trail
improvements; 4) identify unsuitable species which should not be used in
landscaping; 5) prevent the establishment and spread of introduced broom; and 6)
specify long-term management provisions to ensure re-establishment of native and
ornamental landscape improvements. Aspects of the plan shall include, but will not
be limited to, the following:
a. Graded slopes in open space areas shall be reseeded with a mixture of native
perennial and annual grassland species to increase the diversity of the grassland
cover. Suitable species to be used in the seed mix include: California brome
(Bromus carinatus), purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), creeping wildrye
(Elymus tritichoides), California poppy (Escscholtzia californica), among
others. Highly invasive non-native annuals, typically used for erosion control
alone, should not be used.
b. Landscaping and revegetation shall emphasize the use of native plant species
along the fringe of proposed development, and plantings in open space areas
should be restricted to native species. Suitable plant species for use in open
space areas include: valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), toyon (Heteromeles
arbutifolia), California rose (Rosa californica), creeping wildrye, and purple
needlegrass, among other species.
Page 21
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
C. Use of non-native, invasive species which may spread into adjacent
undeveloped open space areas shall be prohibited in landscaping plans.
Unsuitable species include: blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), acacia
(Acacia spp.),pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana),broom(Cytisus spp.), gorse
(Ulex europaeus), bamboo (Bambusa spp.), giant reed (Arundo donax),
periwinkle (Vinca spp.), English ivy (Hedera helix), and German ivy (Senecio
milanioides). This prohibition shall be included in the CC&R for the proposed
residential subdivision, as well as undeveloped areas to be retained as
permanent open space.
d. Graded slopes and areas disturbed as part of the project shall be monitored to
prevent establishment and spread of introduced broom species(Cytisus spp and
Genista monspesullana). This should apply to the lands on the project site that
are placed under a conservation easement as well as common open space areas.
The removal and monitoring program shall include annual late winter removal
of any rooted plants when soils are saturated and cutting back of any remaining
flowering plants in the spring before seed begins to set in late April.
e. Provisions for maintenance of landscaping and revegetation of graded slopes
shall be specified as part of the plan, with replacement plantings and seeding
provided as necessary to ensure re-establishment of cover. Tree replacement
shall be at ratios consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-2d below and meet
with the intent of Petaluma Municipal Code Section 20.32.320. Maintenance
and monitoring of mitigation and habitat enhancement plantings in open space
areas shall be provided for a minimum of five years.
f. Vehicles and motorcycles shall not be allowed to travel off designated roadways
and limits of grading to minimize future disturbance to grassland cover and
other vegetation,and unauthorized access to the surrounding undeveloped lands
and open space.
BIO-2b: The Tree Preservation Plans shall be updated and refined to comply with the
requirements of IZO Chapter 17. The Grading Plan and Landscape Plan shall include
the mapped location of tree trunks, including those which will be preserved or
removed, show the recommended tree protection zones, and identify locations of
construction-restriction fencing.
BI0-2c: A Tree Replacement Program shall be prepared as part of the Landscape and
Vegetation Management Plan to provide for replacement of individual native trees
removed by proposed development.The Tree Replacement Program shall provide for
replacement of impacted individual native trees consistent with Petaluma Municipal
Code Section 20.32.320 and Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 17.065, and
shall be accomplished on-site in designated open space areas. Tree plantings shall be
monitored and maintained for a minimum of 5 years by a qualified biologist or
landscape specialist. All water used for temporary irrigation shall be from wells
and/or municipal supplies and not diverted out of Kelly Creek, the stock pond or
tributary drainages to prevent any potential secondary adverse impacts to existing
Page 22
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
aquatic habitats. Any plantings lost within this monitoring period shall be replaced at
a 1:1 ratio on an annual basis to maintain the replacement values specified in the
Municipal Code and Implementing Ordinance.
BIO-2d: To avoid creation of informal trails through native grasslands on Helen Putnam
Regional Park adjacent to the project site, the existing fence between the project site
and the regional park to the north of Kelly Creek shall be maintained and strengthened
to control unauthorized entry into the regional park from the terminus of the Kelly
Creek multi-use trail. As and when the regional park trail project is constructed, the
fence may be removed.
BIO-2e: A Native Grassland Avoidance and Replacement Program (Program) shall be
developed by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW to address the loss of
native grasslands on the site and provide for adequate replacement.The Program shall
define short-term construction controls and long-term maintenance requirements
necessary to ensure grasslands are successfully reestablished and existing and
restored native grasslands remain viable. The maintenance and management
requirements shall include provisions for annual invasive species removal, and
control on the establishment of both native and non-native trees and shrubs that could
eventually shade out the grassland to be protected. The Final Program shall be subject
to review and approval by the City and CDFW. The Program shall contain the
following provisions and performance standards:
a. The proposed limits of grading and enhancement tree plantings shall be
modified to avoid additional areas of the stands of native grassland on the site
and a compensatory mitigation component prepared and implemented to
provide a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio for grasslands lost as a result of the
project.
b. Areas retained or restored as native grassland shall be permanently protected as
open space and managed as native grassland by deed restriction or conservation
easement.
C. To prevent inadvertent disturbance of native grassland to be preserved, these
areas shall be flagged in the field prior to any vegetation removal or grading for
habitat restoration, and temporary orange construction fencing installed under
supervision of the qualified biologist around all areas to be retained within 50
feet of proposed disturbance.
d. Areas of native grassland within the limits of proposed grading and construction
shall be salvaged and used in revegetation efforts implemented as part of the
Program. Salvage material may include mature seed and intact stem and root
material, which shall be stored and maintained until ready for reinstallation in
the late fall/early winter when conditions are optimal for successful
reestablishment.
Page 23
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
e. Personnel involved in habitat restoration activities shall be trained by the
qualified biologist over the sensitivity of the native grasslands, purpose of the
temporary orange construction fencing, and that all construction-related
disturbance should be restricted outside of the fence.
£ A monitoring program shall be implemented by the qualified biologist to
oversee successful establishment of any native grasslands to be restored, and
shall define both short-term and long-term requirements.Permanent monitoring
transects shall be established as part of the program and vegetation data
collected in the spring and summer months when plant identification is possible.
Photo stations shall be established along each monitoring transect, and
photographs taken every year during the required monitoring period.
Performance standards, success criteria, and contingency measures shall be
defined as part of the Program. Monitoring transects shall be established over
each location to be vegetated as native grassland, and monitored on an annual
basis. Within a five-year period, native grass shall be successfully established
over all treatment areas and shall comprise a minimum 50 percent of the relative
cover. Monitoring shall be extended where the success criteria are not met, and
the minimum 1:1 replacement ratio is not reached. The Program and its
requirements may be modified to require further measures if monitoring shows
that performance standards are not being met.
g. Annual monitoring reports shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and
submitted to the CDFW and Community Development Department of the City
of Petaluma by December 31 of each monitoring year, for a minimum of five
years or until the defined success criteria are met. The annual report shall
summarize the results of the monitoring effort,performance standards, and any
required contingency measures, and shall include photographs of the
monitoring transects and program success. Maps shall be included in the
monitoring report to show the location of monitoring transects and photo
stations.
Finding for Impact BI0-2: Mitigation Measures BIO-2a through BIO-2e would reduce proposed
project impacts on sensitive natural communities,including riparian habitat,native grasslands,and
regulated seasonal wetlands to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds
that Mitigation Measures BIO-2a through BIO-2e will be incorporated into the Project via
conditions of approval and will reduce Impact BIO-2 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The residential development is limited to 11.2 acres of the site(including
6.4 acres of lots and streets and 4.8 acres of private open space), all of which would be located at
least 100 feet from the centerline of Kelly Creek and outside of the critical habitat boundary for
CRLF. In addition,the project would preserve 47 acres of open space including designated critical
habitat for CRLF, riparian habitat, and native grasslands that would be protected in perpetuity
through the establishment of two conservation easements. Further,the project includes restoration
and enhancement activities that would improve habitat for CRLF and other species. Pursuant to
existing regulations, the applicant is required to obtain authorizations from the USACE, the
RWQCB, the CDFW, the USFWS, and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, for the
Page 24
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
disturbance of waters of the U.S. and their associated riparian habitat and seasons wetlands. In
addition to all avoidance and minimization measures as required by these resource agency
authorizations, the identified mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts of the Project
on other sensitive habitats. With completion of the Project's WMP, and implementation of the
Project's Landscape and Vegetation Management Plan, and Native Grassland Avoidance and
Replacement Program, the impacts would be less than significant
Impact BI0-3: The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on state and federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-3 would reduce the project's adverse
effects on state and federally protected wetlands to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
BIO-3 A Final Wetland Replacement and Enhancement Program(WREP) shall be prepared
and implemented to compensate for the loss of jurisdictional waters on the project
site. The Final WREP shall be prepared by a qualified wetland consultant in
consultation with and for review and approval by the City,the RWQCB,the USACE,
and the CDFW. The Final WREP shall clearly identify the total wetlands and other
jurisdictional areas affected by the project, shall identify compensatory mitigation to
replace wetland habitat lost as a result of development, and provide for re-
establishment, enhancement, and/or replacement of wetlands. The Final WREP shall
include the following performance standards:
a. Identify the location(s) of mitigation sites and provide for replacement of
wetland habitat loss at a minimum replacement ratio of 2:1. Create or restore
wetlands with high functions and values in accordance with USACE and
RWQCB standards. Compensatory mitigation can be achieved through on- or
off-site habitat creation or through the use of an approved mitigation bank, or a
combination thereof.
b. Specify performance criteria, maintenance and long-term management
responsibilities, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures. This
shall include expanding the compensatory mitigation to achieve a replacement
ratio of at least 2:1 (or as otherwise required by regulatory agencies).
Monitoring shall be conducted by the project applicant's consulting wetland
specialist for a minimum of five years and continue until the success criteria are
met.
C. Define site grading, preparation and revegetation procedures, an
implementation schedule, and funding sources to ensure long-term
management of the Final WREP.
d. The mitigation (habitat restoration or enhancement) effort shall be considered
successful when the performance standards are met. Performance standards
Page 25
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
would be met when the habitat has sustained itself for a minimum of two years
in the absence of significant maintenance measures.
Subsequent permitting processes with resource agencies could result in additional
mitigation beyond that required by the City in the CEQA process. Any additional
mitigation required by the agencies (the RWQCB, the USACE, and the CDFW)
would be incorporated as conditions of their permit authorization.
Finding for Impact BI0-3: Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce proposed project impacts
on state and federally protected wetlands to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
the City finds that Mitigation Measure BIO-3 will be incorporated into the Project via conditions
of approval and will reduce Impact BIO-3 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The project proposes to avoid and retain a majority of the onsite wetlands
and includes restoration of Kelly Creek. Impacts to regulated waters would be limited to an
estimated 0.13 acres. Restoration activities and establishment of conservation easements would be
sufficient to accommodate the required 2:1 replacement ratio onsite. Pursuant to existing
regulations, the applicant is required to obtain all required authorizations from the USACE, the
RWQCB, the CDFW, the USFWS, and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, for the
disturbance of state and federally protected wetlands. With completion of the Project's Final
WREP, the impacts would be less than significant
Impact BI0-4: The proposed project would interfere substantially with the movement of 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.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-4a through BI0-4d would reduce
proposed project adverse effects on the movement of 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 to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
BI0-4a: An interpretive program shall be developed by a qualified biologist in cooperation
with the project landscape architect which serves to educate park visitors and trail
users of the sensitivity of Kelly Creek and D Street tributary as wildlife movement
corridors, and the importance of remaining outside the southern portion of the site
to protect the stock pond and surrounding uplands to CRLF and other wildlife
that are sensitive to human disturbance. The interpretive program shall be
integrated into the final Landscape Plan for the project. Interpretive elements of
the program shall include use of permanent signage at the trail heads, all
pedestrian bridge crossings,and other critical locations.The signage shall explain
the sensitivity of the open space for wildlife and the importance of staying on the
improved trails and out of restricted areas. Dogs, cats, and other pets shall be
leashed at all times in the open space areas on the site, and signage shall be
provided at the trail heads at D Street and Windsor Drive explaining this
restriction and need to prevent harassment of wildlife by unleashed pets.
Page 26
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
BI04b: The existing plywood barrier fence on the east side of the D Street concrete box
culvert undercrossing shall be removed as part of initial construction activities to
improve opportunities for wildlife movement along the Kelly Creek corridor.
Replacement fencing at this undercrossing shall be prohibited to prevent future
obstruction of wildlife movement along Kelly Creek.
BI04c: Fencing, signage, dense native vegetation, and other deterrents shall be used as
part of the interpretive program to adequately contain livestock, equestrians and
other visitors with their pets from sensitive wildlife areas, including Kelly Creek,
the D Street tributary, and stock pond. Exclusionary fencing used to contain
livestock and control access by visitors and their pets shall be wildlife-friendly in
design, such as barbed wire with a smooth bottom wire. Signs shall be posted
along the trails limiting access of equestrian to designated trails at all times.
BI04d: The existing fencing between the western boundary of the project site and Helen
Putnam Regional Park south of Kelly Creek shall be removed where it borders
lands to be dedicated as permanent open space on the project site, and replaced
with wildlife-friendly fencing, such as barbed wire with smooth bottom wire, if
fencing is necessary. This would improve opportunities for wildlife movement
between the existing parklands and the future open space lands on the project site.
Finding for Impact BIO-4: Mitigation Measures BIO-4a through BIO-4d would reduce proposed
project impacts on the movement of 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 to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation
Measures BIO-4a through BIO-4d will be incorporated into the Project via conditions of approval
and will reduce Impact BIO-4 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The project would preclude residential development south of Kelly Creek
and within 100 feet of the Kelly Creek centerline. Restoration activities including enhancements
to the stock pond, bank stabilization, removal of invasive species, introduction of native species,
and planting of approximately 327 trees would ensure that movement of native species is retained.
Approximately 47 acres of open space would be established and preserved in perpetuity through
two conservation easements including Kelly Creek, its tributaries, and the stock pond. Pursuant to
the mitigation measures,installation of interpretive signage,cultivation of dense native vegetation,
and the installation of wildlife-friendly barrier fencing, would reduce human disturbance, and
improve opportunities for wildlife movement, and impacts would be less than significant.
Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would conflict with a local policy for protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2c (above) would reduce project impacts
related to protected trees to less than significant.
Finding for Impact BIO-5: Mitigation Measure BIO-2c (above)would reduce project impacts to
less than significant.Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds Mitigation Measure BIO-2c will
Page 27
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact BIO-5 to a less-
than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The project proposed the removal of 30 protected trees (which represents
an estimated 6% of the 472 total protected trees onsite) and the replanting of approximately 327
trees, which exceeds the City's required replacement ratio. Pursuant to the mitigation measure,
implementation of a Tree Replacement Program as part of the Landscape and Vegetation
Management Plan, would mitigate project impacts to less than less than significant.
RPT Impact BIO-1:Implementation of the proposed RPT project could result in potential impacts
to special-status plant and wildlife species, including California red-legged frog, special-status
plant species, and nesting birds, which would be a significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures RPT BIO-la through RPT BIO-1d would
reduce RPT project adverse effects on special-status plant and wildlife species to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
RPT BIO-la: Sonoma County Regional Parks or its agent shall obtain all required permits
before construction from the USFWS, CDFW,RWQCB, and USACE(e.g., 1600
series permits, 404 and 401 permits), incidental take permits and any others and
implement mitigation measures, as required by federal and State law, to avoid,
minimize, or offset impacts to any species listed under either the state or Federal
Endangered Species Acts or protected under any other state or federal law.
RPT BIO-lb: A Final California Red-Legged Frog Mitigation Plan (CRLFMP) shall be
prepared by a qualified wildlife biologist to minimize and mitigate potential
impacts of the project on CRLF. The Final CRLFMP shall be prepared in
consultation with USFWS, CDFW, and USACE and shall provide for the
protection, replacement, and management of habitat for CRLF affected by the
regional park trail. The Final CRLFMP shall include the following components
and meet the following standards:
a. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a Service-approved biologist
prior to any grading or vegetation clearance to ensure that no individual CRLF
are lost during construction. The Final CRLFMP shall: 1) describe in detail
the survey approach and methodology, and 2) specify that grading or
vegetation clearance may not occur in any area where individual CRLF are
located until such time as the individual has either moved out of the
disturbance zone or has been physically relocated by a Service-approved
biologist legally authorized to handle the species.
b. All vegetation clearing and grading activities within potential habitat for
CRLF shall be monitored by a Service-approved biologist. The Final
CRUMP shall specify the duties of the Service-approved biologist.
Page 28
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
c. All construction personnel shall be trained in CRLF identification, habitat
description, legal protective status, construction restrictions, and procedures
to avoid unnecessary disturbance to potential habitat or incidental take of
these species. The Final CRLFMP shall describe this training program.
d. Exclusionary fencing shall be installed prior to grading or major vegetation
clearance where appropriate to keep CRLF out of construction areas, if
required by the USFWS and/or CDFW. The Final CRLFMP shall identify
where such fencing is to be installed and provide procedures for fence
installation, monitoring, and maintenance, if required. The exclusionary
fencing be installed under the direct supervision of a Service-approved
biologist and shall be maintained during the course of construction activities
on the site.
e. Sonoma County Regional Parks shall prohibit access by unleashed dogs and
require that dogs be leashed, and that access be limited to designated trails at
all times to minimize the potential for inadvertent take of CRLF.
f. Sonoma County Regional Parks shall post signs along the trails limiting
access of equestrian to designated trails at all times.
g. Sonoma County Regional Parks shall implement measures to minimize the
potential for harassment or take of listed and non-listed species as a result of
increased human activity associated with the proposed trail.This shall include
an educational program for future part visitors, signage at access points into
open space and other key locations, and possible use of permanent
exclusionary fencing, if required by the USFWS. Appropriate interpretive
signage shall be provided instructing park users on access rules to prevent
inadvertent take of CRLF.
RPT BIO-lc: Active nests of raptor, loggerhead shrike, or other birds protected under federal
and state regulations in the vicinity of construction shall be avoided until young
birds are able to leave the nest(i.e., fledged) and forage on their own. Avoidance
may be accomplished either by scheduling grading, vegetation removal and
revegetation activities during the non-nesting period (August 30 through
February 14), or if this is not feasible, by conducting a pre-construction survey
for raptor, loggerhead shrike, and other bird nests. Provisions of the pre-
construction survey and nest avoidance, if necessary, shall include the following:
a. If grading is scheduled during the active nesting period(February 15 through
August 31),a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nest
survey no more than 15 days prior to initiation of grading to provide
confirmation on presence or absence of active nests in the vicinity.
b. If active nests are encountered, species-specific measures shall be prepared
by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the
active nest. At a minimum,grading in the vicinity of the nest shall be deferred
Page 29
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
until the young birds have fledged. A nest-setback zone of at least 300 feet
for all raptors and 100 feet for loggerhead shrike and other birds protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be established within which all
construction-related disturbances shall be prohibited. The perimeter of the
nest-setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with staked
flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel restricted from the
area.
c. If permanent avoidance of the nest is not feasible,impacts shall be minimized
by prohibiting disturbance within the nest-setback zone until a qualified
biologist verifies that the birds have either a) not begun egg-laying and
incubation, or b) that the juveniles from the nest are foraging independently
and capable of independent survival at an earlier date.
d. A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that the young have
fledged shall be submitted to the Sonoma County Regional Parks prior to
initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone.
RPT B1O-1d: In advance of any trail construction through the Helen Putnam Regional Park, a
qualified botanist shall conduct detailed preconstruction surveys in spring and
summer to confirm absence of any special-status plant species along the trail
alignment. The survey shall focus on special-status plant species considered to
have a potential for occurrence in grassland,woodland scrub and riparian habitats
from the Petaluma vicinity, and shall be conducted according to the latest CDFW
survey guidelines. The surveys shall be completed and a report of findings shall
be submitted to the Sonoma County Regional Parks before the start of any initial
ground-disturbing activity or construction.
If populations of any special-status plant species are encountered along the trail
alignment, then Sonoma County Regional Parks shall ensure that construction-
related impacts are avoided through changes in trail alignment or adequately
mitigated by retaining a qualified botanist to develop and implement a Special-
Status Plant Species Mitigation and Monitoring Program (Program). A Program
shall only be required if a listed species or those maintained on Lists I or 2 of
the CNPS Inventory are encountered during the preconstruction survey and
cannot be avoided. Potential impacts on any species maintained on Lists 3 and 4
of the CNPS Inventory would not be considered significant and no additional
mitigation would be required for these species if encountered during the
preconstruction survey.
The Program shall be prepared in consultation with the CDFW and shall be
approved by Sonoma County Regional Park prior to any initial ground-disturbing
activity or construction. The Program shall be based on the status and
vulnerability of the species present with avoidance of all or a majority of any
population(s)the preferred method of mitigation. Where complete or even partial
avoidance of any special-status plant population(s) is considered infeasible,
options for mitigation may include salvage and re-establishing the population at
Page 30
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
an alternative, suitable location. Details of any salvage and habitat recreation
effort shall include the following criteria and performance standards:
a. Collection of seeds/roots/vegetative material during the appropriate
developmental stage of the plant.
b. Procedures for sowing/replanting techniques appropriate to the life cycle of
the plant.
c. Development of a maintenance and monitoring plan specific to the
environmental conditions necessary for survival of the new population.
Maintenance and monitoring shall be provided for a minimum of five years
to determine success of re-seeding and habitat creation, and need for
additional preservation.
d. Identification of funding sources by Sonoma County Regional Parks to
provide implementation of the Program in consultation with the qualified
plant ecologist.
e. In addition, preservation of another existing occurrence of the affected
special-status plant species shall be required if monitoring indicates that the
re-establishment efforts have not been successful after five years. The
preservation program shall provide for permanent protection of a different
existing population in Sonoma County, which is equal or larger in size than
that encountered on the site (minimum 1:1 replacement), through land
acquisition, use of a conservation easement, or some other permanent land
protection method. Any off-site mitigation lands shall include establishment
of a management endowment as necessary to provide for long-term
management of the preserved population.
Finding for Impact RPT BI0-1: Mitigation Measures RPT 1310-1a through RPT 1310-1d would
reduce RPT project adverse effects on special-status plant and wildlife species to less than
significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures RPT BIO-la
through RPT BIO-ld will be incorporated into the Project via conditions of approval and will
reduce Impact RPT BIO-1 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Pursuant to existing regulations, Sonoma County Regional Parks is
required to obtain all required authorizations from the USACE, the RWQCB, the CDFW, the
USFWS, and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, for the disturbance of waters of the U.S.
and their associated aquatic habitat. In addition to all avoidance and minimization measures as
required by these resource agency authorizations,the identified mitigation measures would reduce
potential impacts of the RPT project on special status species and sensitive habitats. With the
acquisition of all required permits before construction, and implementation of the Project's
CRLFMP, habitat for the CRLF will be restored. Therefore, after applying these measures and
regulatory requirements, impacts would be less than significant.
Page 31
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
The required nesting surveys and protection of any identified nests or roost would prevent harm to
special status bird and bat species, and would prevent harm to common types of birds. Therefore,
after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
The required preconstruction surveys, and the implementation of a Special-Status Plant Species
Mitigation and Monitoring Program would prevent harm to special status plant species. Therefore,
after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
RPT Impact BIO-2: Implementation of the proposed regional park trail project would result in
potential impacts to a sensitive natural community as a result of trail construction, which would
be a significant impact.
However,implementation of Mitigation Measures RPT BIO-2 would reduce RPT project adverse
effects on a sensitive natural community to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
RPT BIO-2: A Native Grassland Avoidance and Replacement Program (Program) shall be
developed by a qualified biologist to address the loss of native grasslands along
the trail alignment and provide for adequate replacement. The Program shall
contain the following provisions and performance standards:
a) Under the supervision of a qualified biologist, the proposed limits of grading
shall be modified and controlled to avoid areas of native grassland along the
trail alignment to the maximum extent feasible and a compensatory mitigation
component prepared and implemented to provide a minimum 1:1 replacement
ratio for grasslands lost as a result of trail improvements.
b) Areas of native grassland adjacent to the trail alignment shall be flagged in
the field prior to any vegetation removal or grading, and temporary orange
construction fencing installed under supervision of the qualified biologist to
avoid any inadvertent damage.
c) Construction personnel shall be trained by the qualified biologist over the
sensitivity of the native grasslands, purpose of the temporary orange
construction fencing, and that all construction-related disturbance should be
restricted outside of the fence.
d) Areas of native grassland within the limits of proposed grading and
construction shall be salvaged and used in revegetation efforts implemented
as part of the Program. Salvage material shall include seed and both intact
stem and root material, which shall be stored and maintained until ready for
reinstallation in the late fall/early winter when conditions are optimal for
successful reestablishment.
e) A monitoring program shall be implemented by the qualified biologist to
oversee successful establishment of any native grasslands to be restored, and
shall define both short-term and long-term requirements. The Program and its
Page 32
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
requirements may be modified to require further measures if monitoring
shows that performance standards are not being met.
f) Annual monitoring reports shall be prepared by the qualified biologist for a
minimum of five years or until the defined success criteria are met.The annual
report shall summarize the results of the monitoring effort, performance
standards, and any required contingency measures, and shall include
photographs of the monitoring transects and program success. Maps shall be
included in the monitoring report to show the location of monitoring transects
and photo stations
Finding for Impact RPT BI0-2: Mitigation Measures RPT BIO-2 would reduce RPT project
adverse effects on a sensitive natural community to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines,the City finds that Mitigation Measure RPT BIO-2 will be incorporated into the Project
via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact RPT BIO-2 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding:A Native Grassland Avoidance and Replacement Program(Program)shall
be developed by a qualified biologist to address the loss of native grasslands along the trail
alignment and provide for adequate replacement and on-going monitoring. In addition to all
avoidance and minimization measures identified in the mitigation measure would reduce potential
impacts of the RPT project on this sensitive natural community. Therefore, after applying these
measures and regulatory requirements, impacts would be less than significant.
RPT Impact BI0-3: Implementation of the proposed regional park trail project would result in
potential impacts to jurisdictional waters as a result of trail construction, which would be a
significant impact.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures RPT BI0-3 would reduce RPT project adverse
effects on jurisdictional waters to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
RPT BI0-3: As called for in Mitigation Measure RPT BIO-1 a, authorizations shall be secured
by Sonoma County Regional Parks or its agent from the USACE, RWQCB, and
CDFW for proposed trail improvements where they pass through jurisdictional
waters, and all conditions and mitigation measures required under these
authorizations shall be implemented as part of the project. Appropriate measures
shall be developed and implemented to minimize disturbance to jurisdictional
waters,prevent erosion and sedimentation, and revegetate areas disturbed by trail
construction. This shall include: 1) construction during the dry season after all
affected drainages are dry and surface water is absent;2)installation of temporary
orange construction fencing at the limits of proposed construction at the drainage
crossings and vicinity of wetland seeps in advance of grading and other
disturbance; 3) use of BMPs to minimize the potential for erosion and
sedimentation such as installation of straw wattle, jute fabric or other surface
controls on graded slopes within 30 feet of the drainage crossings; and 4)
revegetation of all disturbed slopes outside the actual footprint of the trail through
Page 33
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
broadcast seeding with native grass and forb seed or other technique within 30
feet of the drainage crossings.
Finding for Impact RPT 13I0-3: Mitigation Measures RPT BIO-3 would reduce RPT project
adverse effects on jurisdictional waters to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,the
City finds that Mitigation Measure RPT BIO-3 will be incorporated into the Project via conditions
of approval and will reduce Impact RPT BIO-3 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Pursuant to existing regulations, Sonoma County Regional Parks is
required to obtain all required authorizations from the USACE, the RWQCB, the CDFW, the
USFWS, and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, for the disturbance of waters of the U.S.
and their associated aquatic habitat. In addition to all avoidance and minimization measures as
required by these resource agency authorizations, the identified mitigation measure would reduce
potential impacts of the RPT project on jurisdictional waters. Therefore, after applying these
measures and regulatory requirements, impacts would be less than significant.
RPT Impact BIO-5: Implementation of the proposed regional park trail project could result in a
significant conflict with local plans and policies.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures RPT BIO-la and RPT BIO-3 (above) would
eliminate RPT project conflicts with local plans and policies to less than significant.
Finding for Impact BIO-5: Mitigation Measure RPT BIO-la and RPT BIO-3 (above) would
reduce project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds
Mitigation Measures RPT BIO-la and RPT BIO-3 will be incorporated into Project via conditions
of approval and will reduce Impact RPT BIO-5 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Pursuant to the mitigation measure, consulting with the regulatory
agencies, along with the acquisition of the appropriate permits, would mitigate the potential for
conflicts with local plans and policies to less than less than significant
Cumulative Impact 13I0-1: The proposed Scott Ranch project and the regional park trail project,
in conjunction with other past,present and reasonably foreseeable future development,could result
in significant cumulative impacts on biological resources.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-la, BIO-lb, BIO-3, RPT BIO-la, RPT
BIO-lb, RPT BIO-3 and HYD-la, (above and below) would reduce project cumulative impacts
to biological resources to less than significant.
Finding for Cumulative Impact BIO-1: Mitigation Measures BIO-la, BIO-lb, 13I0-3, RPT
BIO-la, RPT BIO-lb, RPT BIO-3 and HYD-la (above and below) would reduce cumulative
project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds Mitigation
Measures BIO-la, BIO-lb, BIO-3, RPT BIO-la, RPT BIO-lb, RPT BIO-3 and HYD-la will be
incorporated into the Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Cumulative Impact 13I0-
1 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Cumulative development contributes to an incremental reduction in the
amount of existing wildlife habitat, particularly for birds, bats, and larger mammals. Habitat for
Page 34
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
species intolerant of human disturbance would be lost as development encroaches into previously
undeveloped areas, disrupting or eliminating movement corridors and fragmenting the remaining
suitable habitat retained within parks,private open space, or undeveloped properties. As discussed
above, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impact associated with the
disturbance of wildlife habitat with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-la, BIO-lb,
and BIO-3. Additionally, development may also contribute to degradation of the aquatic and
riparian habitat of creeks and tributaries in the area. Grading associated with construction activities
generally increases erosion and sedimentation, and urban pollutants from new development would
reduce water quality. As discussed in RDEIR Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, rolling
dips, switchbacks, and other hydrologic control measures would be incorporated in order to limit
concentration of flow to creeks. In addition, appropriate erosion control and runoff protection
measures would be incorporated at and near streams and crossings to provide additional protection
against hydrologic impacts.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-Ia, BIO-lb, and BIO-3, HYD-Ia, contribution
of the proposed project to the reduction of wildlife habitat would not be cumulatively considerable.
Similarly, the regional park trail would not result in cumulatively considerable impact on wildlife
habitat with implementation of Mitigation Measures RPT-BIO-la,RPT-BIO-Ib, and RPT-13I0-3.
With regard to development of the project site and its relationship to surrounding habitat, the
proposed project would contribute to a cumulative loss of grassland and woodland habitat in the
area, converting approximately 6.4 acres of grassland to suburban residential development.
However, a majority of the grasslands on the balance of the project site, 47 acres, would be
permanently protected and enhanced through establishment of two conservation easements, and
substantial grassland habitat would remain to the south of the project site and to the west in Helen
Putnam Regional Park. Opportunities for foraging and dispersal from Helen Putnam Regional Park
across the site and to locations to the east and southeast would be reduced as a result of proposed
development and the effects of increased activity by humans and their pets. Mitigation measures
would offset the potentially significant impacts of the project on sensitive resources, and would
any project-related contribution to cumulative impacts on biological and wetland resources. Thus,
with recommended mitigation incorporated, the cumulative biological impacts of the proposed
Scott Ranch project and the RPT would be less than significant.
4.4 Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-la and CUL-lb would reduce proposed
project adverse effects on historical resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-la Prior to the relocation of the barn structures, a qualified historic preservation
architect shall be selected by the City of Petaluma to review the relocation plans
and verify that the relocation is not affecting the building structures and character
defining features. To ensure the barn structures would retain their eligibility for
Page 35
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
the local designation, the barn structures shall be relocated within the same
general area and the new location shall be compatible with their original character
and use.
CUL-lb The Applicants shall retain a qualified preservation architect to oversee the
relocation process and ensure that all the relocation activities are implemented in
compliance with the relocation plans reviewed under Mitigation Measure CUL-
1 a.
Finding for Impact CUL-1: Mitigation Measures CUL-la and CUL-lb would reduce proposed
project impacts on historical resources to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the
City finds that Mitigation Measures CUL-la and CUL-lb will be incorporated into the Project via
conditions of approval and will reduce Impact CUL-I to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The proposed project would retain and stabilize the existing barn complex
and the old dairy equipment cleaning shed. As necessary the barns may be relocated farther away
from the creek to ensure structural stability of the barns, provide a sound foundation, and/or
prevent the barns from eventually collapsing into Kelly Creek. Mitigation Measures Cul-la and
CUL-lb, would require review of the relocation plans and oversight of relocation activities by a
qualified historic preservation architect. With implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul-la and
CUL-lb, the proposed project impact to historic resources would be less than significant.
Impact CUL-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through CUL-2c would reduce
proposed project adverse effects on historical resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-2a: Prior to excavation and construction on the proposed project site, the prime
construction contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall be informed by a qualified
archaeologist retained by the project Applicants, on the legal and/or regulatory
implications of knowingly destroying cultural resources or removing historic or
prehistoric artifacts,human remains, and other cultural materials from the project
site as outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-2b below.
CUL-2b: Prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or other ground-disturbing
activities, the project Applicants shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor
construction activity. The City shall approve the selected project archaeologist
prior to issuance of the grading and/or demolition permit. The selected project
archaeologist shall be present at the preconstruction meeting to discuss what
protocols should be followed with respect to the potential discovery of prehistoric
or historic artifacts of possible significance. The selected project archaeologist
shall have the authority to perform full time or spot check monitoring of
subsurface construction and watch for and evaluate artifacts or resources that may
be uncovered.
Page 36
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
The selected project archaeologist shall have the authority to halt excavation and
construction activities in the immediate vicinity(distance to be determined by the
project archaeologist) of a find if significant or potentially significant cultural
resources are exposed and could be adversely affected by construction operations.
Construction activities could continue in other areas of the project site where no
cultural resources have been identified.
CUL-2c: Should archaeological resources be encountered during ground-disturbing
activities (i.e., grading and excavation), the project archaeologist shall initiate
sampling, identification, and evaluation of the resources. If the archaeological
resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist shall take appropriate
actions in conjunction with the City for preservation and/or data recovery,
including recordation with the California Historic Resources Information System
(CHRIS) and professional museum curation as appropriate. Following the
completion of evaluation and data recovery, the archaeologist shall prepare a
professional report detailing the results of the find and submit it to the City of
Petaluma Community Development Department and to CHRIS along with a DPR
form to ensure that resource inventories are accurately updated.
Finding for Impact CUL-2: Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through CUL-2c would reduce
proposed project impacts on archeological resources to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines,the City finds that Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through CUL-2c will be incorporated
into the Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact CUL-2 to a less-than-significant
level.
Rationale for Finding: There is the possibility of encountering unrecorded cultural deposits
during excavation and grading of the project, especially because of the presence of a known pre-
historic site to the north of the project site and the presence of a water source(Kelly Creek)within
the project site. Additional prehistoric cultural sites and objects may exist in the project area, but
may be obscured by vegetation or buried by fill or natural sediments. Without proper care during
the grading and excavation phases of the proposed project, unknown and potentially significant
historic and prehistoric archaeological resources could be damaged or destroyed, if present. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through CUL-2c, the proposed project impacts
to archeological resources would be less than significant.
Impact CUL-3: The proposed project could disturb unknown human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would reduce proposed project adverse
effects on unknown human remains to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
CUL-3 Procedures to be implemented following the discovery of human remains have
been mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98 and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e)
(CEQA). According to the provisions in CEQA,if human remains are discovered
Page 37
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
at the project site during construction, work at the specific construction area at
which the remains have been uncovered shall be suspended, and the City of
Petaluma and County of Sonoma coroner shall be immediately notified. If the
remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American,the Native
American Heritage Commission(NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, who
will, in turn,notify the person the NAHC identifies as the most likely descendent
("MLD") of any human remains. The guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered
to in the treatment and subsequent disposition of the remains.Further actions shall
be determined,in part,by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to make
recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification
from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations
within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity,re-inter the remains in
an area of the property secure from further disturbance.Alternatively,if the owner
does not accept the MLD's recommendations, the owner or the descendent may
request mediation by the NAHC.
Finding for Impact CUL-3: Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would reduce proposed project impacts
on unknown human remains to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,the City finds
that Mitigation Measure CUL-3 will be incorporated into the Project via conditions of approval
and will reduce Impact CUL-3 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding:No known human burials have been identified on the project site or within
recorded resources located in the vicinity. However, it is possible that unknown human remains
could occur on the project site, and if proper care is not taken during the project's grading and
excavating phases, damage to or destruction of these unknown remains could occur, if present.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would ensure that impacts to buried human
remains, if present onsite, would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Impact CUL-4: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through CUL-2c,and CUL-3 (above)
would reduce proposed project adverse effects on tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Finding for Impact CUL-4: Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through CUL-2c, and CUL-3 (above)
would reduce project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds
Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through CUL-2c, and CUL-3 will be incorporated into Project via
conditions of approval and will reduce Impact CUL-4 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Having notified the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria in accordance
with AB 52 (refer to Appendix 4.3 of the RDEIR), having followed up with the request to consult
with Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria including providing requested materials and records,
and having received no further response for consultation, the City has determined that with the
Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through CUL-2c, and CUL-3, outlined above, that require avoiding
inadvertent impacts to prehistoric resources and human remains, should they be encountered
during excavation and grading,the proposed project would not affect any known or unknown tribal
Page 38
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
cultural resources in the area. Therefore, with mitigation the proposed project would result in a is
less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources.
RPT Impact CUL-1: The implementation of the proposed RPT project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource but could significantly affect
unknown archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources.
However,implementation of Mitigation Measures RPT CUL-la and RPT CUL-lb would reduce
RPT project adverse effects on unknown archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal
cultural resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
RPT CUL-la: If archaeological materials, artifacts, culturally modified soil deposits, or other
indicators of a potentially significant cultural resource are encountered anywhere
in the project site, all work should be halted in the vicinity and an archaeologist
consulted immediately.
RPT CUL-lb: If human remains are encountered anywhere on the property, all work must stop
in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and
a qualified archaeologist must be notified immediately so that an evaluation can
be performed.
If the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, the Native
American Heritage Commission must be contacted by the Coroner so that a"Most
Likely Descendant" can be designated
Finding for Impact RPT CUL-1: Mitigation Measures RPT CUL-la and RPT CUL-lb would
reduce project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds
Mitigation Measures RPT CUL-la and RPT CUL-lb will be incorporated into Project via
conditions of approval and will reduce Impact RPT CUL-1 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Although there are no known archaeological resources on the regional
park trail site, there is always a possibility of disturbance to unrecorded cultural deposits,
especially because of the presence of a known pre-historic site to the northeast of the project site
and the presence of a water source(Kelly Creek) adjacent to the regional park trail alignment. It is
also possible that unknown human remains could occur on the project site.Further,having notified
the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria in accordance with AB 52(refer to Appendix 4.3 of the
RDEIR), having followed up with the request to consult with Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria and having received no response,the City has determined that with Mitigation Measures
RPT CUL-la and RPT CUL-lb, outlined above, that require avoiding inadvertent impacts to
prehistoric resources and human remains, should they be encountered during construction of the
trail, the proposed project would not affect any known or unknown tribal cultural resources in the
area. Therefore, with mitigation the RPT project would result in a is less than significant impact
on archeological resources,unknown human remains, and tribal cultural resources.
Page 39
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
4.5 Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects related to fault rupture but would cause potential substantial adverse effects related
to seismic ground shaking and/or seismic-related ground failure.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-la and GEO-lb would reduce potential
project adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking and/or seismic-related ground failure to
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-la: The project Applicants shall submit for City's approval a preconstruction design-
level geotechnical report for the Davidon(28-Lot)Residential Project component
and the Putnam Park Extension Project component. The report shall include all
applicable geologic report standards, reconnaissance and subsurface exploration
data,laboratory test results,and conclusions and recommendations,including,but
not limited to, those pertaining to: 1) site preparation, excavation, fill placement
and compaction, temporary and permanent cut and fill slope inclinations
(including whether slopes steeper than 3:1 can be used at the site), slope stability,
slope erosion mitigation, and landslide movement mitigation; 2) surface and
subsurface drainage systems, including drainage associated with grading for
landslide movement mitigation and new cut and fill slopes; 3) foundations and
floors for planned residential structures; 4) foundations for planned site
improvements, including, but not limited to restrooms, barn, pedestrian bridges,
and other structures; 5) settlement and swell estimates for planned residential
structures and site improvements, including those bearing of engineered fill; 6)
foundations, back-drains, and lateral earth pressures for site retaining walls; 7)
seismic design parameters for the planned residential structures, site
improvements, and site retaining walls; 8) pavement design for driveways,
parking lots, pathways and trails, where applicable; 9) utility trench backfill,
including check dams and trench drainage, if appropriate; 10)
geologic/geotechnical construction monitoring, testing, and certification
requirements; and 11) loop trail construction and long-term maintenance
requirements, including criteria for inspecting and maintaining pedestrian
bridges, culverts, and pathway surfaces, as appropriate.
The geotechnical report shall include measures, as necessary, to reduce the
potential for static and earthquake-induced slope movements that may adversely
impact the Davidon(28-Lot)Residential Project component and the Putnam Park
Extension Project component including areas currently underlain by mapped
landslides. Engineering analyses shall estimate the factors of safety against slope
movements within the planned development area and estimates of the magnitude
and location of earthquake-induced slope deformation.
GEO-lb: As determined by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official, all
recommendations outlined in the preconstruction design-level geotechnical report
Page 40
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
for the Davidon (28-Lot) Residential Project component and the Putnam Park
Extension Project component, as described under Mitigation Measure GEO-1 a,
are herein incorporated by reference and shall be adhered to in order to ensure
that appropriate measures are incorporated into the design and construction of the
project. Nothing in this mitigation measure shall preclude the City Engineer
and/or Chief Building Official from requiring additional information be provided
to determine compliance with applicable standards. The project geotechnical
engineer shall review the project plans and specifications and submit a letter
certifying to the City that the project plans and specifications have been prepared
in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations for the project. The project
geotechnical engineer or personnel under their direct supervision shall inspect the
construction of geotechnical and/or geologic aspects of the project and shall
submit a letter certifying to the City that prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, the geotechnical and geologic aspects of the project plans and
specifications have been appropriately constructed at the site and are acceptable
to the project geotechnical engineer.
Finding for Impact GEO-1: Mitigation Measures GEO-la and GEO-lb would reduce project
impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds Mitigation Measures
GEO-la and GEO-lb will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce
Impact GEO-1 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Due to the project site's proximity to the Rodgers Creek fault which is
located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the site, the project would likely experience strong
ground shaking during a seismic event, which could affect the proposed residences and structures
onsite and result in seismically-induced landslides and ground movement in areas of moderate to
steep slopes underlain by thick soils, weak or fractured rock, or loose fill. State building codes
require that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and
earthquakes. The proposed project would comply with building requirements set forth by the State,
which have been designed to reduce the likelihood of damage as a result of ground shaking. In
addition, Mitigation Measures GEO-la and GEO-lb, which require the preparation of a project-
specific geotechnical report and the implementation of recommendations identified in the report
in relation to seismic ground shaking and associated ground failure would reduce the potential for
structures on the project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. With implementation
of Mitigation Measures GEO-la and GEO-lb,the potential for seismically induced landslides and
fill slope movements associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
Impact GEO-2: The proposed project would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2a and GEO-2b and HYD-3 (listed
under Hydrology and Water Quality,below)would reduce proposed project adverse effects related
to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-2a: The preconstruction design level geotechnical report, identified in Mitigation
Measure GEO-1, shall include specific recommendations to mitigate surface
Page 41
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
erosion. The project geotechnical engineer or personnel under their direct
supervision shall inspect the construction of geotechnical and/or geologic aspects
of fill placement and compaction and surface drainage systems of cut and fill slopes
to ensure that the geotechnical recommendations associated with mitigating surface
soil erosion are properly implemented during construction. At a minimum, 1) slope
inclinations shall be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical), unless the project
engineering geologist specifically indicates that a steeper slope would perform
satisfactorily over the long term, 2) fill slope requirements shall include a process
of overbuilding the fill on the slope and shaving it back to expose a well compacted
fill surface that is less susceptible to surface erosion, and 3) the project civil
engineer shall check the final grading of the site and the elevations of the surface
drainage systems to confirm that the grading contractor graded the site and
constructed surface improvement in accordance with the approved grading plans.
GEO-2b: The project geotechnical engineer shall review the geotechnical aspects of the
SWPPP and, where applicable, shall provide comments to the Qualified SWPPP
Developer(QSD)to ensure that the geotechnical recommendations associated with
mitigating surface soil erosion through BMPs and a long-term monitoring and
maintenance program of the planned cut and fill slopes are properly incorporated
into the SWPPP and/or a project specific operations and maintenance plan. As a
minimum, the geotechnical aspects of the SWPPP shall include a requirement to
check the condition of the slope at the beginning of the first rainy season after the
completion of grading and periodic inspections until surface vegetation has been
fully established on the exposed slopes.
Finding for Impact GEO-2: Mitigation Measures GEO-2a and GEO-2b along with HYD-3
would reduce project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds
Mitigation Measures GEO-2a and GEO-2b along with HYD-la - HYD-ld, and HYD-3 will be
incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact GEO-2 to a less-than-
significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The residential project component would require grading and earthwork
leaving bare earth that could result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil on the project site. Mitigation
Measures GEO-2a and GEO-2b would address erosion impacts during construction that are related
to geotechnical aspects of the project, and would reduce the impact associated with erosion of
poorly compacted soil by ensuring that geotechnical recommendations associated with mitigating
surface soil erosion are properly implemented during construction.
Stormwater runoff from the proposed trails could result in soil erosion and discharge of sediment
into Kelly Creek. Mitigation Measures GEO-2a GEO-2b would ensure that the geotechnical
recommendations associated with mitigating surface soil erosion through BMPs and a maintenance
program of the planned cut and fill slopes are properly incorporated into the SWPPP and/or a
project specific operations and maintenance plan.
There are existing areas of ongoing erosion along the incised channels of Kelly Creek and along
the central and stock pond drainages. Mitigation Measures HYD-la-HYD-ld, and HYD-3 would
address this impact by guiding the design of stormwater outfalls and by incorporating geomorphic
Page 42
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
erosion mitigation techniques, such as planting native vegetation,repairing overly steep head cuts,
modifying grades, and repairing bank instability to reduce this potential impact to a less-than-
significant level.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2a and GEO-2b, along with HYD-1 a-
HYD-ld, and HYD-3 project impacts associated with erosion during construction and operation
would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Impact GEO-3: The proposed project would expose people and structures to substantial adverse
effects from landslides and unstable slopes.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-3a and GEO-3b reduce proposed project
adverse effects from landslides and unstable slopes to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-3a Landslide Remediation
Where landslide mitigation is required under Mitigation Measure GEO-la, the
project geotechnical engineer or personnel under their direct supervision shall
inspect the excavation and grading associated with the landslide removal and/or
stabilization work to ensure that the geotechnical recommendations associated with
mitigating landslide hazards are properly implemented during construction.
The project geotechnical engineer shall evaluate Landslides B, G, H, L, N. O, and
R,which have a potential to adversely impact the foundations of footbridges and/or
the loop trail pavement. As a minimum, the project geotechnical engineer shall
establish an inspection and maintenance program to ensure that any damage to the
planned footbridge foundations and loop trail improvements due to landslide
movements are identified and repaired.
GEO-3b Cut and Fill Slopes
The project geotechnical engineer, project engineering geologist, or personnel
under their direct supervision shall inspect all cut slopes focusing on evidence of
potential instability. If areas of adverse bedrock structure are encountered, then the
project geotechnical engineer and/or project engineering geologist shall develop
remedial measures for these slopes and the grading contractor shall implement the
remedial activity, under the direction and supervision of project geotechnical
engineer and/or engineering geologist, and acceptable by the City engineer.
Finding for Impact GEO-3: Mitigation Measures GEO-3a and GEO-3b would reduce project
impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds Mitigation Measures
GEO-3a and GEO-3b will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce
Impact GEO-3 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The proposed residential project avoids cut slopes on areas with identified
landslides and minimizes grading onsite by limiting the area of disturbance to 11.2 acres. Due to
Page 43
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
the nature of the underlying bedrock, localized areas of adverse bedrock structure or other zones
of geologic weakness could be exposed during grading of cut slopes, any adverse bedding which
is uncovered during grading would increase the potential for landslides. In addition, cut and fill
slopes, if not properly designed and constructed could also result in slope instability. Mitigation
Measures GEO-la and GEO-lb, identified above, would require the preparation and
implementation of the recommendations of an updated geotechnical report that would address
project impact associated with landslides and cut and fill slopes. In addition, Mitigation Measures
GEO-3a and GEO-3b, would require specific analysis and monitoring of measures to address the
impacts related to the landslides at the project site. With implementation of Mitigation Measures
GEO-3a and GEO-3b, the impacts from landslides and slope instability would be reduced to less
than significant.
Impact GEO-4: The proposed project would be located on a geologic unit that could become
unstable as a result of the project, and on expansive soils creating direct or indirect risk to life or
property.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-4a and GEO-4b would reduce proposed
project adverse effects related to expansive soils to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-4a A preconstruction geotechnical report shall be prepared for the Davidon (28-Lot)
Residential Project component and the Putnam Park Extension Project component,
as previously discussed in Mitigation Measure GEO-la. Specific to site geology,
bedrock shear, settlement, and expansive soil, the project geotechnical engineer
shall confirm that the conclusions and all applicable recommendations previously
presented in the 2015 design-level geotechnical report are still applicable for the
design and construction of the Davidon(28-Lot)Residential Project component and
the Putnam Park Extension Project component.
GEO-4b As a minimum, cut lots that have subgrades exposing bedrock shall be over-
excavated and recompacted to a minimum depth of three feet, and backfilled as
described below,unless the project geotechnical engineer provides project specific
alternative recommendations to mitigate the potential for differential settlement
associated with variable settlement and swell behavior between bedrock and
compacted engineered fill. The exposed surface shall be scarified to a depth of
about 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to not less than three percent over optimum
moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
Excavation deeper than the above recommendations may be required to expose
competent material under conditions where soft or saturated soil is encountered.
The excavation depth will be determined in the field as part of the geotechnical
analysis required under Mitigation Measure GEO-la.
Project site grades shall be designed to slope away from the proposed structures,
and water from roof drains shall be directed to suitable outlets. Fill slopes
comprised of low to moderately expansive soil shall be evaluated for stability(see
Page 44
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Mitigation Measures GEO-la and GEO-3a). Additional mitigations to reduce
the impact of expansive soils on the proposed residences shall include:
a. Moisture conditioning and re-compacting low to moderately expansive soil.
b. Placing non-expansive fill beneath the homes and rigid surface
improvements.
c. Designing foundations to resist or tolerate differential movement of
moderately expansive soil.
Finding for Impact GEO-4: Mitigation Measures GEO-4a and GEO-4b would reduce project
impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds Mitigation Measures
GEO-4a and GEO-4b will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce
Impact GEO-4 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Fill and bedrock materials have different expansion and settlement
potentials. Therefore, structures and foundations constructed across the transition line between cut
and fill could experience significant differential expansion and/or settlement on the project site.
Cracked or damaged foundations could pose a danger to the structures or future occupants on the
project site, resulting in a potentially significant impact. However, implantation Mitigation
Measures GEO-4a and GEO-4b reduce potentially significant impacts associated with bedrock
shear zones and settlement to a less than significant level.
Impact GEO-6: The proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic features.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-6a through GEO-6c would reduce
proposed project adverse effects related to expansive soils to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-6a The project Applicants shall identify a qualified paleontologist prior to any
demolition, excavation, or construction. The City shall approve the selected project
paleontologist prior to issuance of the demolition permit. The paleontologist shall
attend the pre-grading meeting to inform the contractor(s) how to recognize
paleontological resources in the soil during grading activities. The prime
construction contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall be informed on the legal
and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying paleontological resources
or removing paleontological resources from the project site.
GEO-6b If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of site development
activities, work in that area shall be halted and the selected project paleontologist,
as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-6a above, shall be notified of the find to
determine the significance of the find and to recommend appropriate mitigation
measures. Recommendations shall be presented for City approval in a Treatment
and Recovery Plan. The selected project paleontologist shall have the authority to
Page 45
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
temporarily divert or redirect grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed fossil
material.
GEO-6c If the selected project paleontologist determines that the resource is significant,then
any scientifically significant specimens shall be properly collected by the project
paleontologist. During collecting activities, contextual stratigraphic data shall also
be collected. The data will include lithologic descriptions, photographs, measured
stratigraphic sections, and field notes.
Scientifically significant specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification
(not exhibition), stabilized, identified, and offered for curation to a suitable
repository that has a retrievable storage system, such as the University of
California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology.
The selected project paleontologist shall prepare a final report at the end of the
earth-moving activities. The report shall include an itemized inventory of recovered
fossils and appropriate stratigraphic and locality data. The project paleontologist
shall send one copy of the report to the City of Petaluma Community Development
Department; another copy should accompany any fossils, along with field logs and
photographs, to the designated repository.
Finding for Impact GEO-6: Mitigation Measures GEO-6a through GEO-6c would reduce project
impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds Mitigation Measures
GEO-6a through GEO-6c will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will
reduce Impact GEO-6 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: It is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be present
on the project site and without proper care during the grading and excavation phases these
resources could be damaged or destroyed. However, implantation of Mitigation Measures GEO-
6a through GEO-6c would reduce potential impact to paleontological resources to a less than
significant level.
RPT Impact GEO-1: The implementation of the proposed RTP project could directly or indirectly
cause substantial adverse effects related to landslides and cut slopes; however, it would not result
in substantial adverse effects related to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic-related
ground failure, or existing geologic conditions. Regional park trail project implementation would
also not result in substantial soil erosion or have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure RPT GEO-1 would reduce RPT project adverse
effects related to landslides and cut slopes to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
RPT GEO-1 To reduce the potential risks of regional park trail damage as a result of earthquake-
induced landslide movement, the project geotechnical engineer shall develop and
submit to the Sonoma County a long-term maintenance plan, including criteria for
inspecting and maintaining the planned regional park trail improvements.
Page 46
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Finding for Impact RPT GEO-1: Mitigation Measure RPT GEO-1 would reduce project impacts
to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds Mitigation Measure RPT
GEO-1 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact RPT
GEO-1 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Although the proposed regional park trail alignment is in an area with
known landslides, the RTP project would not contain permanent residences or any structures.
Additionally, if the regional park trail becomes damaged and inaccessible to pedestrians, the risk
of injury would persist unless the regional park trail is closed to the public and/or until the regional
park trail is repaired and accessibility is restored. Mitigation Measure RPT-GEO-1 requires
periodic inspection and repair of the regional park trail to reduce impacts associated with landslide
movement. With implementation of Mitigation Measure RPT GEO-1, the potential impacts
associated with regional park trail damage from earthquake-induced landslides would be less than
significant.
RPT Impact GEO-2: The proposed regional park trail could directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure RPT GEO-2 would reduce potential project
adverse effects related to unknown paleontological resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
RPT GEO-2 If paleontological resources are encountered anywhere in the project site, all work
should be halted in the vicinity and a paleontologist consulted immediately.
Finding for Impact RPT GEO-2: Mitigation Measure RPT GEO-2 would reduce project impacts
to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds Mitigation Measure RPT
GEO-2 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact RPT
GEO-2 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Although the potential to encounter paleontological resources during
construction of the RPT is low, Mitigation Measure RPT GEO-2 shall be implemented to ensure
that impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
4.6 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: The proposed project would result in the discharge of stormwater that could
violate water quality standards, degrade surface or ground water quality, and cause
hydromodification.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-la through HYD-Id would reduce
proposed project adverse effects on water quality and hydromodification to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
HYD-la: Prior to issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the City of Petaluma
shall verify that the Applicants have prepared a SWPPP in accordance with the
Page 47
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be
designed to address the following objectives: (1) all pollutants and their sources,
including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site
erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity are controlled;
(2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control
Board permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated,
controlled, or treated; (3) site BMPs are effective and result in the reduction or
elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater
discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs are installed to
reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction is completed. The SWPPP shall be
prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum
BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be
consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California
Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook-
Construction or the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site
BMPs Manual.
HYD-lb: In areas within 50 feet of sensitive habitat areas, construction activities should be
planned to avoid disturbance of riparian vegetation, including trees and their root
systems. The SWPPP shall specifically address special considerations for
controlling sediment and other pollutants within these areas, through additional
erosion control measures (such as berms and temporary retention/settling basins
that divert runoff away from the creek banks, limiting the use of heavy construction
vehicles within the riparian zone, or conserving and replacing topsoil during
grading near the riparian zone to speed up the re-establishment of stabilizing
vegetation),to limit grading near riparian areas to occur only during the dry-season.
Erosion control measures shall also include staged grading to reduce the area of
exposed soil at any one period of time, and/or other measures specifically tailored
to riparian and sensitive areas.
HYD-lc: The project shall implement appropriate post-construction stormwater treatment
measures to reduce water quality and hydromodification impacts to downstream
reaches, as required by the current post construction controls requirements of the
Small MS4 General Permit. Upon completion of the final project design, the
Applicants shall provide documentation to the City of stormwater management
measures that show compliance with the Small MS4 General Permit. The report
shall delineate individual drainage management areas (DMAs) within the project
site and provide analysis to show compliance with the volumetric or flow-based
treatment criteria as described in the Small MS4 General Permit and outlined in the
2019 BASMAA (2019) guidance document. The report shall also include design
calculations that show post-project runoff for the 2-year, 24-hour storm event does
not exceed pre-project flow for each DMA, and that each DMA has appropriate
stormwater quality treatment based on flow- or volumetric-based calculation, as
outlined in the Small MS4 General Permit and in compliance with the 2019
BASMAA guidance document(2019). The final documentation shall be submitted
to the City for approval before the beginning of grading.
Page 48
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
HYD-1d: The proposed multi-use trails shall be designed to direct stormwater runoff away
from Kelly Creek and D-Street tributary and/or to vegetated pervious areas not
susceptible to erosion. The path shall be designed to limit the amount of runoff
concentrated from any one portion of the path in order to prevent gullying. In areas
close to Kelly Creek or otherwise not suitable for distributed discharge of runoff,
stormwater treatment measures such as swales shall be implemented to protect the
creek.
Finding for Impact 11YD-1: Mitigation Measures HYD-la through HYD-ld would reduce
proposed project impacts on water quality and hydromodification to less than significant. Pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures HYD-1 a through HYD-1 d will be
incorporated into the Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact HYD-1 to a less-
than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Construction activities would increase the potential for on-site erosion,
potentially leading to increased turbidity and sedimentation in Kelly Creek on the project site and
in downstream reaches (including the Petaluma River). Because the project would disturb more
than one acre of land, the Applicants are required to prepare a SWPPP, per NPDES general
construction permit requirements through the SWRCB. The SWPPP would address potential
erosion and sedimentation issues through a project-specific erosion control plan, as well as other
BMPs to reduce the potential for spills and other contamination from on-site construction
activities. Proper implementation of the project-specific SWPPP would reduce the potential
construction-related surface-water quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. However,
because a project-specific SWPPP has not been prepared at this time, the potential remains for
project construction runoff to adversely affect surface-water quality and the impact is considered
potentially significant.
In addition, construction of the edges of fill pads for housing,barn stabilization,the multi-use loop
trail, as well as stormwater conveyance,treatment, and detention facilities,may occur in locations
adjacent to Kelly Creek or other areas near sensitive waters or habitat. These areas are more
sensitive to construction activities, and special consideration is needed to limit potential impacts
to water bodies and riparian habitat. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-la and HYD-
lb would reduce project impact during construction on surface water quality,jurisdictional waters,
and riparian areas to a less-than-significant level.
The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the sub-watershed,
including new roadways, driveways,parking areas, sidewalks, and rooftops. Untreated runoff has
the potential to adversely impact surface water quality in Kelly Creek and downstream water
bodies. The proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for
the Discharge of Storm Water from Small MS4s (SWRCB 2013), which prescribes methods for
residential developments to control and treat stormwater runoff. Therefore,potential impacts from
the project would be reduced to less than significant.
Separate from the direct effects on water quality, increased runoff generated on the project site as
a result of the increase in impervious surfaces would have the potential to result in
`hydromodification' in Kelly Creek and drainages downstream of the project site. The Small MS4
General Permit requires projects to control for hydromodification effects of impervious areas. In
Page 49
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
the absence of final design plans which is required to demonstrate that the post-project runoff does
not exceed estimated pre-project flow rates for the 2-year, 24-hour storm, Mitigation Measure
HYD-lc would reduce the post-construction impact of the proposed project on surface water
quality and potential hydromodification to a less than significant level.
The proposed project also includes a multi-use trail network that would be surfaced with ADA-
compliant material, such as park tread, asphalt, or decomposed granite. Stormwater runoff from
the proposed trails could result in erosion and discharge of sediment into the creek. Mitigation
Measure HYD-ld is proposed to address this potentially significant impact, which requires that
trail paths be designed to drain runoff into pervious areas not susceptible to erosion, and would
effectively reduce the proposed project's post-construction impact on surface water quality related
to stormwater runoff to a less-than-significant level.
Impact HYD-3: The proposed project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial alteration of stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation on- or off-
site.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-3 would reduce proposed project adverse
effects related to the alteration of the existing drainage patterns of the project site to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure
HYD-3 Stormwater outfalls to Kelly Creek and the D Street tributary shall be designed to
reduce the potential to cause bank instability. Outfall locations near (or especially
across from)existing or potential bank instabilities shall be avoided so that outflows
do not exacerbate erosion. Appropriate energy dissipation, such as boulder aprons,
biostabilization, or directing outfalls in a downstream rather than cross-channel
direction, shall be incorporated to reduce the potential to cause erosion
Finding for Impact HYD-3: Mitigation Measure HYD-3 would reduce proposed project impacts
on changes to the existing drainage patterns to less than significant.Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
the City finds that Mitigation Measure HYD-3 will be incorporated into the Project via conditions
of approval and will reduce Impact HYD-3 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The proposed project would construct up to three stormwater outfalls
along Kelly Creek. High flows from these stormwater outfalls could cause or exacerbate erosion
of the banks if appropriate energy dissipation is not incorporated. Mitigation Measure HYD-3
guides the design of stormwater outfalls and would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact HYD-4: The proposed project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
that would result in flooding on- or off-site.
Page 50
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-4a through HYD-4c would reduce
proposed project adverse effects related to an increase in surface runoff that could result in flooding
on- or off-site to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
HYD-4a: Prior to final map approval, the Applicants shall submit final detention design that
shows that appropriate controls have been included to ensure that the post-project
10-and 100-year peak flows will not exceed pre-proj ect peaks.Hydrologic analyses
and final detention designs shall be consistent with the standards outlined in
Sonoma Water's Flood Management Design Manual, adopted May 19,2020. Total
detention volume may be less than the volume projected in the preliminary
hydrologic analysis if final analysis shows appropriate compliance through
integrated LID/water quality treatment/detention features. Final hydrologic
analysis and detention sizing shall include potential increases in peak flow due to
all new impervious surfaces associated with the proposed project, including the
parking areas.
HYD-4b: The project Applicants shall prepare and execute, in coordination with the City
Engineer or other privately funded and operated maintenance mechanism which
ensures that maintenance of all detention facilities will be provided as necessary to
continuously provide the required volume storage in a 10-year storm and in a 100-
year storm, throughout the life of the project, and shall include a financing
mechanism acceptable to the City Engineer to ensure that the required maintenance
will be performed.
HYD-4c: The project Applicants shall design, in coordination with the City Engineer, on-site
detention facilities sufficient to detain on-site and release runoff from storm events
such that any runoff temporarily detained on-site is released either before or after
the expected peak flood flow of the Petaluma River and that any release of runoff
temporarily detained on-site does not contribute to an increase in peak flood periods
on the Petaluma River. Prior to final map approval, the project Applicants' final
stormwater detention design calculations shall be subject to review by the City's
stormwater consultant and City Engineer. The project Applicants shall be
responsible for funding all costs and providing the required technical information
to the City.
Finding for Impact HYD-4: Mitigation Measures HYD-4a through HYD-4c would reduce
potential project impacts related to an increase in surface runoff that could result in flooding on-
or off-site to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation
Measures HYD-4a through HYD-4c will be incorporated into the Project via conditions of
approval and will reduce Impact HYD-4 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: Adequate detention capacity can be provided on the project site and
flooding within the Kelly and Thompson Creek system would not occur as a result of the proposed
project. However,the design and configuration of these basins may change during the final design
process, and when integrating stormwater quality treatment measures. Therefore, Mitigation
Page 51
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Measure HYD-4a would guide the design process and ensure that final designs maintain peak
flows at or below existing levels. As such, the proposed project's impact related to altering
drainage patterns and flooding is less than significant.
All treatment and detention facilities would require maintenance for the life of the development
project to remain effective. Mitigation Measure HYD-4b would ensure maintenance of all
detention facilities and reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Detention of stormwater at the project site would tend to delay flows from the site, and potentially
cause peak flows downstream to coincide, resulting in slight increases in peak flow elevations at
the Petaluma River, even though peak flow in Thompson/Kelly Creek would not increase.
Mitigation Measure HYD-4c would guide final detention designs so that peak flows from the
project site do not add to the peaks downstream in the Petaluma River. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact HYD-6: The proposed project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area in a manner that would redirect flood flows.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-6 would reduce proposed project adverse
effects related to the alteration of the existing drainage patterns of the project site in a manner that
would redirect flood flows to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
HYD-6 Pedestrian bridges across Kelly Creek shall be designed to fully span the channel
in order to reduce the potential to impede streamflow. If full-span lengths are not
feasible, bridge supports shall be designed to maximize the natural channel cross-
section area in order reduce the potential obstruction to in-stream flow.
Finding for Impact HYD-6: Mitigation Measure HYD-6 would reduce potential project impacts
on changes to the existing drainage patterns to less than significant.Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
the City finds that Mitigation Measure HYD-6 will be incorporated into the Project via conditions
of approval and will reduce Impact HYD-6 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The Putnam Park Extension Project component proposes three separate
pedestrian bridges across Kelly Creek. Piers, abutments, or supports for these crossings could
impede and or redirect flood flows within the Kelly Creek corridor. Mitigation Measure HYD-6
would reduce this potential impact by requiring the design of the pedestrian footbridges to
maximize the natural channel cross section and avoid potential obstruction of in-stream flow.With
the implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-6 potential impacts associated with redirecting
flood flows would be less than significant.
4.7 Noise
Impact NOISE-1: Noise generated by construction activities on the project site would result in a
substantial temporary 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.
Page 52
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would reduce proposed project
adverse effects to sensitive receptors related to construction noise to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
NOISE-1 The proposed project shall implement the following control measures during
construction.
a. Noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to daytime,
weekday hours (7 AM to 6 PM) and 9 AM to 5 PM on weekends and
holidays. When construction is occurring within 100 feet of existing
residences,then construction shall occur between 9 AM and 5 PM and shall
be prohibited on Sundays and Holidays.
b. High noise-producing activities, such as excavation and grading and
construction finishing, shall be scheduled between the hours of 8 AM and 5
PM to minimize disruption on sensitive uses.
c. All stationary noise generating equipment that generates noise levels in
excess of 65 dBA Leq shall be located as far as possible from sensitive
receptors. If re-locating stationary equipment is not feasible,the equipment
shall be shielded from noise sensitive receptors by using temporary walls,
sound curtains, or other similar devices to reduce noise levels at nearby
sensitive receptors to less than 65 dBA Leq.
d. The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to
minimize equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Feasible
noise controls include improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts,
engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds.
e. Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or
electrically powered impact tools (e.g.,jack hammers)wherever possible to
avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-
powered tools. Where use of pneumatically-powered tools is unavoidable,
an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. A muffler
could lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External
jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could
achieve a reduction of five dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used (such as
drilling rather than impact equipment) wherever feasible.
f. The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise
reduction measures that include shutting off idling equipment after 5
minutes(as feasible)and notifying adjacent residences(at least one time) in
advance of construction work.
g. The construction contractor shall not stage equipment within 200 feet of the
existing residences adjacent to the project site.
Page 53
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
h. The contractor shall minimize use of vehicle backup alarms. A common
approach to minimizing the use of backup alarms is to design the
construction site with a circular flow pattern that minimizes backing up of
trucks and other heavy equipment. Another approach to reducing the
intrusion of backup alarms is to require all equipment on the site to be
equipped with ambient sensitive alarms. With this type of alarm, the alarm
sound is automatically adjusted based on the ambient noise.
i. Construction worker's radios shall be controlled so as to be inaudible
beyond the limits of the project site boundaries.
j. Heavy equipment, such as paving and grading equipment, shall be stored
on-site whenever possible to minimize the need for extra heavy truck trips
on local streets.
k. Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification in
writing must be provided to residents within 300 feet of the project site,
disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of
activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the
construction period.
1. The construction contractor shall designate a city-approved "disturbance
coordinator" who shall be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall
determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad
muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to
correct the problem be implemented. The construction contractor shall
conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at
the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding
the construction schedule.
Finding for Impact NOISE-1: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would reduce potential project
adverse effects to sensitive receptors related to construction noise to less than significant. Pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 will be incorporated into
the Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact NOISE-1 to a less-than-significant
level.
Rationale for Finding: The temporary or periodic increases in noise that would result when
grading or construction activities occur near the northern, eastern and northwestern portions of the
site would be significant. As a result of the stay-at-home guidelines due to the COVID pandemic,
a major portion of the work force has been working from home; therefore,under these conditions,
noise resulting from construction activities would more adversely affect the nearby sensitive
receptors, albeit on a temporary and periodic bases when construction activities are occurring
proximate to existing sensitive receptors. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1
project impacts associated with construction activities would be reduced to a less than significant
level.
Page 54
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Impact NOISE-2: Construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-2a and Noise-2b would reduce
potential project adverse effects related to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels during construction operations to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
NOISE-2a: Heavy construction equipment shall be prohibited from operating within 100 feet
of an existing residence between the hours of 5:00 PM and 9:00 AM and on
holidays.
NOISE-2b: Operation of heavy equipment shall be prohibited within 20 feet of the barn
complex. Temporary reinforcements/stabilization measures shall be installed at the
barn structures, as needed, to minimize vibration damage.
Finding for Impact NOISE-2: Mitigation Measures NOISE-2a and NOISE-2b reduce proposed
project adverse effects related to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels
during construction operations to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City
finds that Mitigation Measures NOISE-2a and NOISE-2b will be incorporated into the Project via
conditions of approval and will reduce Impact NOISE-2 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: In the event that heavy duty equipment were to operate in close proximity
to existing sensitive receptors, groundborne vibration may be perceptible and could result in
disturbance to occupants, particularly during the quieter hours early in the morning and evening.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a would reduce this impact to less than
significant.
Considering the age of the barn complex(late 10 and early 201h century)and the conditions of the
foundation and the overall structure that may require stabilization,the use of vibratory rollers near
the barn complex would have the potential to result in vibrations that could cause some
architectural damage. This would be a significant impact. To minimize vibration impacts on the
barn complex, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-2b. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-2b, the project's impact related to vibration would
be less than significant.
4.8 Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRANS-5: The proposed project would cause temporary disruption to the transportation
network due to construction.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-5 would reduce proposed project
adverse effects related to construction traffic to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Page 55
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
TRANS-5 A construction management plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the
City of Petaluma Public Works Department. The plan shall include at least the
following items:
a) Development of a construction truck route that would appear on all construction
plans to limit truck and auto traffic on nearby streets.
b) Comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck
trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane
closure procedures if required, sidewalk closure procedures if required, cones
for drivers, and designated construction access routes.
c) Evaluation of the need to provide flaggers or temporary traffic control at key
intersections along the truck route(s).
d) Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety
personnel regarding schedules when major deliveries, detours, and lane
closures would occur.
e) Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles if
there is insufficient staging area within the work zone of the proposed project.
f) Identification of truck routes for movement of construction vehicles that would
minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety;
provision for monitoring surface streets used for truck movement so that any
damage and debris attributable to the proposed project's construction trucks can
be identified and corrected by the proposed project applicant.
g) A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction
activity, including identification of an on-site complaint manager.
h) Documentation of road pavement conditions for all routes that would be used
by construction vehicles both before and after proposed project construction.
Roads found to have been damaged by construction vehicles shall be repaired
to the level at which they existed prior to construction of the proposed project.
Finding for Impact TRANS-5: Mitigation Measure TRANS-5 would reduce proposed project
adverse effects related to construction activities to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines,the City finds that Mitigation Measure TRANS-5 will be incorporated into the Project
via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact TRANS-5 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: During construction of the residences and the park extension, additional
heavy vehicle traffic would be added to the street network in the vicinity of the project site, and
the proposed project would have the potential to result in potentially significant temporary impacts
on the transportation network during construction, such as the effect of slow moving trucks and
lane closures on disrupting emergency access or accessibility for people traveling on the
surrounding roadway network, or damage to road pavement from truck movement. Mitigation
Measure TRANS-5 would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Page 56
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
4.9 Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTL-3: Development of the proposed project would require the construction of new or
expanded wastewater conveyance systems. The construction of new or expanded wastewater
conveyance systems would result in significant environmental effects.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures UTL-3a and UTL-3b would reduce proposed
project adverse effects related to the construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance
systems to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
UTL-3a Prior to issuance of building permits, the project shall be required to upsize the D
Street sewer between Grossland Way to the manhole west of loth Street, subject to
the review and approval by the City Public Works and Utilities Department.
UTL-3b Mitigation Measure AIR-2, Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through 2c,
Mitigation Measure CUL-3, and Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 and NOISE-2a
shall be implemented in conjunction with the sewer main upgrade project.
Finding for Impact UTL-3: Mitigation Measures UTL-3a and UTL-3b would reduce proposed
project adverse effects related to the construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance
systems to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation
Measures UTL-3a and UTL-3b will be incorporated into the Project via conditions of approval
and will reduce Impact UTL-3 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The upsizing of the sewer main on D Street between Grossland Way and
the manhole west of I01h Street, could result in air pollutant emissions, noise and vibration, and
inadvertent impacts to previously unknown cultural resources that might be present.
Implementation of mitigation measures during the sewer main upsizing would avoid or reduce
potential air quality impacts, cultural resource impacts, and noise and vibration impacts to less
than significant.
Impact UTL-4:Development of the proposed project would require the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities on site. The construction of new storm water drainage facilities could
result in significant environmental effects.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-lc and HYD-4a through 4c (listed
above) would reduce the potential project's impact related to storm water drainage facilities to a
less-than-significant level.
Finding for Impact UTL-4:Mitigation Measures HYD-1 c and HYD-4a through 4c(listed above)
would reduce the potential project's impact related to storm water drainage facilities to a less-than-
significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures HYD-Ic
and HYD-4a through 4e will be incorporated into the Project via conditions of approval and will
reduce Impact UTL-4 to a less-than-significant level.
Page 57
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Rationale for Finding: The environmental effects from the construction of on-site storm water
drainage facilities are evaluated throughout the RDEIR, and to the extent that there would be
significant impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, air quality and noise from
construction of storm water drainage facilities, those impacts would be reduced to less than
significant levels with the mitigation measures.
4.10 Wildfire
Impact WDF-4: The proposed project would expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslide, as a result of landslide, runoff, post-
fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-la, GEO-3a, GEO-3b,HYD-4a,HYD-
4b, and HYD-6 (listed above) would reduce the potential project's impact related the exposure of
people or structures to significant risks,including downslope or downstream flooding or landslide,
as a result of landslide, runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes to a less-than-
significant level.
Finding for Impact WDF-4: Mitigation Measures GEO-la, GEO-3a, GEO-3b, HYD-4a, HYD-
4b, and HYD-6 (listed above) would reduce the potential project's impact related the exposure of
people or structures to significant risks,including downslope or downstream flooding or landslide,
as a result of landslide, runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes to a less-than-
significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures GEO-la,
GEO-3a, GEO-3b, HYD-4a, HYD-4b, and HYD-6 will be incorporated into the Project via
conditions of approval and will reduce Impact WDF-4 to a less-than-significant level.
Rationale for Finding: The residential project footprint avoids overlap with identified landslides
onsite and limits ground disturbance to 11.2 acres of the site. As discussed in RDEIR Section 4.6,
Geology and Soils, risks associated with potential destabilization of existing landslides would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-la and
GEO-lb, which would require the preparation and implementation of the recommendations of a
preconstruction to address landslides and landslide movement. Mitigation Measures GEO-3a and
GEO-3b, which would require the preparation of project specific design-level recommendations
for geotechnical treatment where foundations of the proposed footbridges and the loop trail overlap
with Landslides. The provisions outlined in Mitigation Measures GEO-la, GEO-lb, GEO-3a, and
GEO-3b would reduce the impact associated with landslide movement as a result of soil instability
post-fire to a less-than-significant level.
As described in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would not alter
drainage patterns. Mitigation Measure HYD-4a and Mitigation Measure HYD-4b were identified
to ensure that final project designs maintain peak flows at or below existing conditions and ensure
continuous maintenance of the proposed water detention facilities.
As described under Impact HYD-6 in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, to reduce the
potential impact of the proposed three pedestrian bridges to impede and or redirect flood flows
within the Kelly Creek corridor, Mitigation Measure HYD-6 would require designing the
Page 58
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
pedestrian footbridges to maximize the natural channel cross section and reduce potential
obstruction of in-stream flow.
Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-la, GEO-lb, GEO-3a, GEO-3b,
HYD-4a,HYD-4b, and HYD-6,the potential risk to expose people or structures to landslide, slope
instability, flooding, or drainage changes would be less than significant.
SECTION 5: SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS-
THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The Final EIR identifies two impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level even
though the City finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and adopted as part
of the Project. The significant and unavoidable impacts (one project-related and one cumulative)
are discussed below.
Impact TRANS-1: Development of the proposed project would generate VMT per capita greater
than the project threshold.
Finding for Impact TRANS-1: As discussed in the FEIR, Section 3 in Master Response 10 —
VMT Mitigation, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which will lessen, but not avoid, the significant effect identified in the RDEIR, including new
sidewalks, and crosswalks to improve pedestrian access along Windsor Drive, a new roundabout,
crosswalks,and new sidewalks,trails,and pathways would enhance access to the park via D Street,
and to the future Petaluma Ring Trail. However, specific economic, social, technological, and
other considerations addressed in FEIR, Section 3 in Master Response 10-VMT, and incorporated
herein as rationale for this finding, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
to reduce Impact TRANS-1 to a less than significant level.
Rationale for Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures identified that would reduce
project-level VMT impacts to less than significant. Other potentially effective on-site VMT
measures, such as increasing the density, affordability, or providing access to e-bikes or bike share
facilities would not result in a quantifiable reduction of project-generated VMT given the project
site's location within the regional context and at the edge of City limits,the project site's land use
designation and zoning provisions, and the supportive (non-quantifiable) nature of e-bike
amenities and bike share facilities. Potentially effective offsite VMT measures were also
investigated, including sidewalk gap closures, expanding transit service elsewhere in the City,
expanding the pilot bikeshare program, subsidizing transit passes and constructing other bike
facilities, and were determined to be infeasible given offsite constraints, insufficient right-of-way,
lack of engineered design, outside agency approval, and administrative demands associated with
managing such a program.
As discussed in the FEIR in Chapter 5 (corrections to RDEIR pages 4.13.50) and as incorporated
herein, based on research documented in California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA)2021,transportation demand management(TDM) strategies would be insufficient for
mitigating the project's VMT due to the project's location on the urban fringe of Petaluma since
traditional TDM strategies are dependent on the land use context and final building occupants who
choose to be located in walkable or transit-supportive locations, lack of design or plans in place to
Page 59
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
implement offsite measures, timing for implementation, lack of citywide administrative plan for
oversight, and uncertainties related to outside agency approval requirements. Further,based on the
updated CAPCOA 2021 guidance on quantifying VMT reductions from TDM strategies, the
effectiveness of TDM mitigation measures would not fully mitigate the project's VMT impacts.
As such,there are no additional feasible mitigation measures identified that would reduce project-
level VMT impacts to less than significant.
The above Findings are made in conjunction with a Statement of Overriding Considerations,which
is simultaneously being adopted for the Project(see Section 7).
Cumulative Impact TRANS-1: Development of the proposed project and the regional park trail
would generate VMT per capita greater than the project threshold under cumulative conditions.
Finding for Impact TRANS-1: As discussed in the FEIR, Section 3 in Master Response 10 —
VMT Mitigation and incorporated herein, changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the project which will lessen, but not avoid, the significant effect identified in
the RDEIR, including new sidewalks, and crosswalks to improve pedestrian access along Windsor
Drive, a new roundabout, crosswalks, and new sidewalks, trails, and pathways would enhance
access to the park via D Street,and to the future Petaluma Ring Trail.However, specific economic,
social, technological, and other considerations addressed in FEIR, Section 3 in Master Response
10-VMT, and incorporated herein as rationale for this finding, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives to reduce the Impact TRANS-1 to below significant.
Rationale for Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures identified that would reduce
cumulative level VMT impacts to less than significant. Other potentially effective on-site VMT
measures, such as increasing the density, affordability, or providing access to e-bikes or bike share
facilities, would not result in a quantifiable reduction of project-generated VMT given the project
site's location within the regional context and at the edge of City limits,the project site's land use
designation and zoning provisions, and the supportive nature of e-bike amenities and bike share
facilities. Potentially effective offsite VMT measures were also investigated, including sidewalk
gap closures, expanding transit service elsewhere in the City, expanding the pilot bikeshare
program, subsidizing transit passes and constructing other bike facilities, and were determined to
be infeasible given offsite constraints,insufficient right-of-way,lack of engineered design, outside
agency approval, and administrative demands associated with managing such a program.
As discussed, in the FEIR in Chapter 5 (corrections to RDEIR pages 4.13-66) and incorporated
herein, based on research documented in CAPCOA 2021, TDM strategies would be insufficient
for mitigating the project's VMT due to the project's location on the urban fringe of Petaluma
since traditional TDM strategies are dependent on the land use context and final building occupants
who choose to be located in walkable or transit-supportive locations, lack of design or plans in
place to implement offsite measures, timing for implementation, lack of citywide administrative
plan for oversight, and uncertainties related to outside agency approval requirements. Further,
based on the updated CAPCOA 2021 guidance on quantifying VMT reductions from TDM
strategies, the effectiveness of TDM mitigation measures would not fully mitigate the project's
cumulative VMT impacts.
Page 60
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
As such, there are no feasible mitigation measures identified that would reduce cumulative VMT
impacts to less than significant.
The above Findings are made in conjunction with a Statement of Overriding Considerations,which
is simultaneously being adopted for the Project(see Section 7).
SECTION 6: FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Project Alternatives
As noted in Section 1.2, Project History, in 2004, the project applicant for Davidon Homes put
forth a Vesting Tentative Map for a residential development project to subdivide the 58.66-acre
project site into 93 single-family residential lots. A Draft EIR was published in February of 2013
that analyzed the then proposed 93 lot subdivision, and presented a range of alternatives including
a reduced density project alternative. In response to the comments received on the 2013 DEIR,the
project applicant for Davidon Homes put forth a reduced development proposal of 66 single-family
homes at the project site, which was analyzed in a new Draft EIR released for public review in
2017 and presented a range of alternatives, including a reduced project alternative.
The Scott Ranch Project, as currently proposed and analyzed in this FEIR is a variation on the
reduced project alternative identified in the prior Draft EIRs. The Scott Ranch Project consists of
a 28 lot residential subdivision on 11.2 acres including 5 acres of private open space as proposed
by Davidon Homes, and a 47 acre extension of Helen Putnam Park balance of the project site, as
proposed by Kelly Creek Protection Project(KCPP) of Earth Island Institute KCPP.
As presented in the RDEIR Section 5.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Evaluated provides a
summary of the various alternatives that were considered by found to be infeasible including an
increased housing density alternatives, a reduced project alternative, and an off-site alternative.
The Final EIR included three alternatives: the No Project/No Development; the Davidon(28-Lot)
Residential Project Alternative; and the Putnam Park Extension Project Alternative. The City
hereby concludes that the Final EIR and prior Draft EIRs sets forth a reasonable range of
alternatives to the Scott Ranch Project so as to foster informed public participation and informed
decision making. The City finds that the three alternatives identified and described in the Final
EIR were considered and finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other
considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21081.
6.1.1 Objectives of the Proposed Project
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental impact report
(EIR) include a statement of the objectives sought by a proposed project(Section 15124(b) of the
State CEQA Guidelines).
Page 61
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
The City of Petaluma has developed the following primary objectives for the proposed project:
• provide development consistent with the City's long-term development goals, especially
as related to the provision of additional housing;
• develop the project site in a manner that preserves the uniqueness and gateway value of the
site;
• implement General Plan policies related to establishment of an Urban Separator and the
Petaluma ring trail system; and
• provide improved recreational access to the Helen Putnam Regional Park.
The project applicants' key objectives for the proposed project are to:
• promote and maximize new housing opportunities within the urban growth boundary
thereby discouraging urban sprawl;
• develop a high-quality residential project on the west side of Petaluma, compatible with
existing residential subdivisions in the neighborhood and with rural and park areas to the
south and west of the site;
• permanently preserve sensitive biological and geological areas of the site as protected open
space;
• preserve and enhance Kelly Creek in its natural state;
• preserve the barn complex;
• provide a public pedestrian/bicycle trail connecting to Helen Putnam Regional Park; and
• provide a large extension of the Helen Putnam Regional Park, incorporating new trails, a
restored barn complex, habitat and waterway enhancements, and related features.
6.1.2 No Project/No Development Alternative
The State CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a No Project Alternative (Section 15125.6(e)).
This analysis must discuss existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to
occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not to be approved, based on current plans, site
zoning, and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The purpose of
describing and analyzing a No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the
impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.
The project site is currently zoned Residential 1 (R1) on the City's Zoning Map and designated
Very Low Density Residential(0.6 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre)in the City's General Plan. Given
the project site zoning and General Plan designation, if the proposed project were not to be
Page 62
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
approved, the site could still be developed with 28-113 single-family homed without requiring a
General Plan amendment or rezoning. Such a No Project Alternative could result in the
development of a subdivision that is comparable to or even larger than the proposed project. Prior
DEIRs prepared for the project included an analysis of a 93 and a 66 unit subdivision, and
therefore, such a No Project Alternative was not evaluated in the RDEIR. Instead, the No Project
Alternative analyzed is the No Development Alternative, under which no alterations would be
made to the project site, the existing barn complex and mobile home would remain in place, and
the site would continue to be used as grazing land.
The No Project/No Development Alternative is rejected for any and all of the following reasons:
• The No Project Alternative would not realize any of the City of Petaluma's Project Objectives
because it would not provide development consistent with the City's long-term development
goals, especially as related to the provision of additional housing or develop the project site in
a manner that preserves the uniqueness and gateway value of the site. In addition, it would not
implement General Plan policies related to the site's land use and zoning provisions,
establishment of an Urban Separator, and the Petaluma ring trail system, or provide improved
recreational access to the Helen Putnam Regional Park.
The No Project Alternative would not realize any of the Project Applicant's Project Objectives
because it would not maximize new housing opportunities within the urban growth boundary,
develop a compatible, high-quality residential project on the west side of Petaluma,
permanently preserve sensitive biological and geological areas of the site as protected open
space, nor would it enhance Kelly Creek or preserve the barn complex. Further, a public
pedestrian/bicycle trail connecting to Helen Putnam Regional Park would not be provided
and Helen Putnam Regional Park would not be extending, incorporating new trails,habitat and
waterway enhancements, and related features.
6.1.3 Davidon (28 Lot)Residential Project Alternative
The Davidon (28-Lot) Residential Project Alternative would develop 28 single-family homes in
the same lot configuration as the proposed project. Development of this alternative would be on
approximately 11.2 acres of the project site,north of Kelly Creek,with 6.4 acres for the residences
and approximately 5 acres of private open space. This alternative would not include the Putnam
Park Extension Project component and would be limited to the 28 lot residential subdivision and
associated improvements. Under this alternative, the multi-use trails and pedestrian and livestock
bridges would not be developed, the barn complex would remain in place and would not be
restored, and there would be no pasture improvements or stock pond enhancements. As with the
proposed project, this alternative would construct the roundabout at D Street and Windsor Drive
and the detention and infiltration facility located south of Windsor Drive. It would also include a
new off-site sidewalk improvement along the east side of D Street between Windsor Drive and
Sunnyslope Avenue, for a distance of approximately 800 feet, to connect with the existing
sidewalk. Storm drains would be installed in the new streets that serve the proposed residences to
1 The net acreage of the site is 45.27 acres(excludes public or private rights-of-way,public open space and
floodways,but does not exclude the Urban Separator per Policy 1-P-19).As such,the number of units allowed to
be developed on the project site ranges between 28 and-113 dwelling units.
Page 63
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
collect the runoff generated by new impervious surfaces. Collected storm water would be detained
and infiltrated onsite before eventual discharge into Kelly Creek via a new outfall.A detention and
infiltration facility would be constructed south of Windsor Drive. Another detention and
infiltration basin would be installed at the southwest corner of Windsor Drive and D Street to
capture existing, untreated runoff from Windsor Drive. The runoff would be intercepted on
Windsor Drive in a newly constructed drop inlet and flow into a vegetated swale leading to the
proposed infiltration basin.
With the exception of similar significant and unavoidable VMT traffic impacts, the Davidon (28-
Lot) Residential Project Alternative would reduce all other impacts of the proposed project,
because it would not develop the Putnam Park Extension Project component. This alternative
would achieve the project objective of promoting development within the established urban growth
boundary, thereby discouraging urban sprawl. It would also achieve the objectives of developing
a high-quality residential project on the west side of Petaluma, preservation of Kelly Creek in its
natural state, and providing new housing opportunities while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
The Davidon (28-Lot) Residential Project Alternative is rejected for any and all of the following
reasons:
• Not all project objectives would be achieved
• VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and other environmental impacts
identified would not be substantially reduced
• Permanently preserving sensitive biological and geological areas of the site as protected
open space would not be realized
• Restoration of the riparian corridor, enhancement to stockpond, gully repair, and public
park uses on more than 3 acres would not occur
• Untreated runoff from Windsor Drive would continue to drain to Kelly Creek
6.1.4 Putnam Park Extension Project Alternative
The Putnam Park Extension Project Alternative would only include the features of the Putnam
Park Extension Project component and no residential subdivision would be developed.The Putnam
Park Extension Project Alternative Site Plan would construct multi-use trails and the upper and
main parking lots.As with the proposed project alternative,the barn complex under this alternative
would be preserved and may be relocated for purposes of stabilization and preservation, and
pathways between the structures (surfaced with ADA-compliant material), bike parking,
information kiosks, vegetable gardens, demonstration and working corrals, antique farm
equipment with a hand pump, and an amphitheater for outdoor learning activities would be
established. Under this alternative, like the proposed project, a playground and picnic areas would
be constructed south of Kelly Creek. This alternative would also include a multi-use loop trail
circling the north and potentially south side of Kelly Creek. A short trail from the loop trail that
connects to the upper parking lot would also be installed. A trail would be constructed parallel to
D Street that travels northerly through the park,along the west side of the main parking lot,through
Page 64
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
a proposed playground area, over a footbridge crossing Kelly Creek, and through the barn center.
As with the proposed project, this alternative would include pasture improvements, stock pond
enhancements, and features to protect and conserve habitat for the California red-legged frog. A
stormwater treatment facility may be required to treat runoff from the proposed main parking lot
(south of Kelly Creek).
The Putnam Park Extension Project Alternative would reduce or avoid all of the proposed project's
impacts, because no residential units would be constructed and disturbance on the project site
would be limited to activities associated with the public open space, recreational amenities, and
restoration and preservation efforts. This alternative would achieve the objective of implementing
General Plan policies related to establishment of an Urban Separator and the Petaluma ring trail
system and would provide improved recreational access to the Helen Putnam Regional Park. The
Putnam Park Extension Project Alternative would also achieve the objectives of permanently
preserving sensitive biological and geological areas of the site as protected open space;preserving
and enhancing Kelly Creek in its natural state; preserving the barn complex; providing a public
pedestrianibicycle trail connecting to Helen Putnam Regional Park; and providing a large
extension of the Helen Putnam Regional Park, with new trails, a restored barn complex, habitat
and waterway enhancements, and related features.
The Putnam ParkExtension Project Alternative is rejected for any and all of the following reasons:
• Not all project objectives would be achieved
• the objective to develop a high-quality residential project on the west side of Petaluma and
provide new housing opportunities while minimizing neighborhood impacts would not be
achieved
• the City's long term development goals, especially related to the provision of additional
housing and the objective to maximize new housing opportunities within the urban growth
boundary thereby discouraging urban sprawl would not be realized
• This alternative would present an inconsistency with the City of Petaluma General Plan
and zoning provisions, which provide for very low residential density (0.2-2.5 dwelling
units per acre) on the project site, and
• No infiltration basin would be installed and untreated runoff from Windsor Drive would
continue to drain to Kelly Creek
SECTION 7: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,
technological,or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when determining whether
to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered
acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering
a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those
reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record.
Page 65
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program(MMRP),when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen virtually all of the significant
effects identified in the Draft and Final EIR. Nonetheless, two significant impacts of the project
are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. The significant
unavoidable impacts are identified and discussed in Section 5 of these Findings. The City further
specifically finds that notwithstanding the disclosure of the significant unavoidable impacts, there
are specific overriding economic, legal, social, and other reasons for approving the Project. Each
of the following reasons provides an independent basis to support the override of the significant
and unavoidable impacts. Those reasons are enumerated below.
Implementation of the Project will:
• provide development consistent with the City's long-term development goals, especially
as related to the provision of additional housing;
• develop the project site in a manner that preserves the uniqueness and gateway value of
the site;
• implement General Plan policies related to establishment of an Urban Separator and the
Petaluma ring trail system;
• provide improved recreational access to the Helen Putnam Regional Park;
• promote and maximize new housing opportunities within the urban growth boundary
thereby discouraging urban sprawl;
• develop a high-quality residential project on the west side of Petaluma, compatible with
existing residential subdivisions in the neighborhood and with rural and park areas to the
south and west of the site;
• permanently preserve sensitive biological and geological areas of the site as protected
open space;
• preserve and enhance Kelly Creek in its natural state;
• preserve the historic barn complex;
• provide a public pedestrian/bicycle trail connecting to Helen Putnam Regional Park; and
• provide a large extension of the Helen Putnam Regional Park, incorporating new trails, a
restored barn complex, habitat and waterway enhancements, and related features.
In addition, the Scott Ranch and RTP projects will provide the following community benefits:
• preserve over 47 acres of public open space that will be managed and maintained by
Sonoma County Regional Parks;
• realize public parklands with trails, paths, and amenities including restrooms,
demonstration corrals, outdoor educational spaces, interpretive signs, picnic area, and
natural playground;
Page 66
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
• enhance parkland accessibility for Petaluma residents;
• record two conservation easements, which will permanently limit uses to open space;
• provide for enhanced habitat preservation, increased plant diversity, and restoration;
• provide for enhanced bank stabilization, repair of eroded gullies, and riparian restoration
of Kelly Creek;
• provide for enhancements to the stock pond to improve habitat for California Red Legged
Frog
• provide for improved carbon sequestration from retention of open space/enhanced
native grassland, tree protection, and new plantings, including approximately 327 new
tree onsite;
• provide for the treatment of runoff from Windsor Drive (which is not currently treated);
• provide for enhanced fire protection from the managed open space at the City boundary;
• develop the project site with the lowest allowable density under the very low density land
use designation, 28 single-family residences including nine (9)junior accessory dwelling
units (ADUs) on the portion of the site closest to existing residential development;
• provide for the preservation of the historic landscape and preserve the Barn complex to
provide recreational and educational opportunities for the community;
• provide a roundabout with pedestrian crosswalks at D Street and Windsor Drive, which
would enhance safety, reduce speeds and congestion, and provide traffic control at a
major gateway to the City;
• provide for enhanced bicycle, pedestrian and multi use (including equestrian) trail access
connecting the regional park with the City(within 1.25 miles of downtown Petaluma);
• provide for enhanced frontage improvements (sidewalks, bike lane striping, sidewalk gap
closure);
• provide for an offsite sidewalk gap closure on the east side of D street north of Windsor
Drive; and
• provide for additional public parking for Helen Putnam Park, including the provision of
electrical vehicle charging stations.
The City Council finds that the Scott Ranch Project and the Regional Trail Project have been
carefully reviewed and that project design features and recommended mitigation measures have
been incorporated into the Scott Ranch and RTP projects to reduce all environmental effects to the
fullest extent possible.Nonetheless,the analysis has identified environmental effects which cannot
be avoided or substantially lessened. The City Council has considered each environmental effect
which has not been mitigated to a less than significant level, all as described above and in the
RDEIR.
The City Council has considered the fiscal, economic, social, environmental, and orderly land use
planning benefits of the Scott Ranch and RTP projects. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
Page 67
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has balanced the fiscal, economic,
social, environmental, and land use benefits of the Scott Ranch and RTP projects against its
unavoidable and unmitigated adverse environmental impacts and,based upon substantial evidence
in the record, has determined that the benefits of the Scott Ranch and RTP projects outweigh the
adverse environmental effects, and that the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Scott Ranch and RTP projects are acceptable in light of the project's multiple benefits, any one of
which is sufficient to constitute grounds for this statement of overriding considerations. The
substantial evidence supporting these overriding considerations can be found in these Findings,
and in the documents comprising the Record of Proceedings.
Page 68
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
SECTION 8: GENERAL FINDINGS
1. The City, acting through the Planning Division, is the "Lead Agency" for the Project
evaluated in the EIR. The City finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City finds that it has independently reviewed
and analyzed the EIR for the Project,that the Revised Draft EIR which was circulated
for public review reflected its independent judgment and that the Final EIR reflects
the independent judgment and analysis of the City in accordance with Public
Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3).
2. The RDEIR evaluated the following potential Project and cumulative environmental
impacts: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural
resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions,hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services,
transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Additionally, the EIR
considered, in separate sections, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and
Growth Inducing Impacts. The significant environmental impacts of the Project, as
well as other alternatives were identified in the RDEIR.
3. The City finds that the RDEIR provides objective information to assist the decision
makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental
consequences of the Project. The public review period provided all interested
jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to
submit comments regarding the Revised Draft EIR. The Final EIR was prepared after
the review period and responds to comments made during the public review period.
4. The Planning Division evaluated comments on environmental issues received from
persons who reviewed the Revised Draft EIR.In accordance with CEQA,the Planning
Division prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant
environmental issues raised. The Final EIR provides adequate, good faith and
reasoned responses to the comments. The Planning Division reviewed the comments
received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received
nor the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding
environmental impacts to the Revised Draft EIR. The Lead Agency has based its
actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the
date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified
and analyzed in the FEIR.
5. The Final EIR Section 5.0 documents changes to the RDEIR. Having reviewed the
information contained in the Revised Draft EIR,the Final EIR, and the administrative
record, as well as the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding
recirculation of Draft EIRs, the City finds that there is no new significant impact,
substantial increase in the severity of a previously disclosed impact, significant new
information in the record of proceedings or other criteria under CEQA that would
require additional recirculation of the Draft EIR, or that would require preparation of
a supplemental or subsequent EIR. Specifically, the City finds that:
Page 69
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
a. The Responses to Comments contained in the Final EIR fully considered and
responded to comments claiming that the Project would have significant impacts or
more severe impacts not disclosed in the Revised Draft EIR and include substantial
evidence that none of these comments provided substantial evidence that the Project
would result in changed circumstances, significant new information, considerably
different or feasible mitigation measures,or new or more severe significant impacts
than were discussed in the Revised Draft EIR.
b. The City has thoroughly reviewed the public comments received regarding the
Project and the Final EIR as it relates to the Project to determine whether under the
requirements of CEQA, any of the public comments provide substantial evidence
that would require recirculation of the EIR prior to its adoption and has determined
that recirculation of the EIR is not required.
c. None of the information submitted after publication of the Final EIR, including
testimony at the public hearings on the Project, constitutes significant new
information or otherwise requires preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
The City does not find this information and testimony to be credible evidence of a
significant impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an impact disclosed in
the Final EIR, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative not included in the
Final EIR.
d. The mitigation measures identified for the Project were included in the Revised
Draft EIR and Final EIR. As revised, the final mitigation measures for the Project
are described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP). Each
of the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP is incorporated into the Project.
The City finds that the impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent
feasible by the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP.
6. CEQA requires the Lead Agency approving a project to adopt a MMRP or the changes
to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order
to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.
The mitigation measures included in the EIR as certified by the City and revised in
the MMRP as adopted by the City serve that function. The MMRP includes all of the
mitigation measures and Project Design Features adopted by the City in connection
with the approval of the Project and has been designed to ensure compliance with such
measures during implementation of the Project. In accordance with CEQA, the
MMRP provides the means to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully
enforceable. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code §
21081.6, the City hereby adopts the MMRP.
7. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the City
hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly set forth herein as conditions
of approval for the Project.
Page 70
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
8. The custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City decision is based its decision making is the City of
Petaluma, Planning Division.
9. The City finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every finding made
herein is contained in the EIR, which is incorporated herein by this reference, or is in
the record of proceedings in the matter.
10. The City is certifying an EIR for, and is approving and adopting Findings for, the
entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the EIR as comprising the
Scott Ranch project and the Regional Trail Project.
11. The EIR is a project EIR for purposes of environmental analysis of the Scott Ranch
Project and the Regional Trail Project. A project EIR examines the environmental
effects of a specific project. The EIR serves as the primary environmental compliance
document for entitlement decisions regarding the project by the City and the other
regulatory jurisdictions.
Page 71
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
City of Petaluma, California
Community Development Department
I85$ Planning Division
11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Project Name: Scott Ranch Project
Address/Location: Northwest and southwest corners of the Windsor Drive and D Street intersection,
Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. APN 019-120-041 and 019-120-040.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Section
21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. This
document has been developed to ensure implementation of mitigation measures and proper and adequate
monitoring/reporting of such implementation. CEQA requires that this MMRP be adopted in conjunction with
project approval, which relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The purpose of this MMRP is to: (1) document implementation of required mitigation; (2) identify
monitoring/reporting responsibility, be it the lead agency (City of Petaluma), other agency (responsible or
trustee agency), or a private entity (applicant, contractor, or project manager); (3) establish the frequency and
duration of monitoring/reporting; (4) provide a record of the monitoring/reporting; and (5) ensure compliance.
The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in conjunction with project
approval, the implementation action, timeframe to which the measure applies, the monitoring/reporting
responsibility, reporting requirements, and the status of compliance with the mitigation measure.
Implementation
The responsibilities of implementation include review and approval by City staff including the Engineering,
Planning, and Building divisions. Responsibilities include the following:
1. The applicant shall obtain all required surveys and studies and provide a copy to the City prior to issuance
of grading permits or approvals of improvements plans.
2. The applicant shall obtain all required permits, agreements, and approvals from State and Federal
regulatory agencies, as applicable and provide copies to the City prior to issuance of grading permits or
approvals of improvement plans.
3. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and
conditions into the design and improvement plans and specifications for the project.
4. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, subcontractors, and agents involved in the project
implementation of mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure
compliance with such measures and conditions.
Page 1 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5. The applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation measure that involves
on-going operations on the site or long-range improvements.
6. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and
conditions of approval and provide name, address,and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any
grading permits and be signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
7. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading
permits and be signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
8. All mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of project approval.
9. The applicant shall arrange a pre-construction conference with the construction contractor, City staff, and
responsible agencies to review the mitigation measures and conditions of approval prior to the issuance
of grading and building permits.
Monitoring and Reporting
The responsibilities of monitoring and reporting include the Engineering, Planning, and Building Divisions, as
well as the Fire Department. Responsibilities include the following:
1. The Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions and Fire Department shall review the improvement and
construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes,
conditions, mitigation measures, and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review,
improvement plans, grading plans, or building permits.
2. The Planning Division shall ensure that the applicant has obtained applicable required permits from all
responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform to the permit requirements prior to
the issuance of grading or building permits.
3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all improvements shall be
subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the project description, permit conditions, and
approved development or improvement plans.
4. City inspectors shall ensure that construction activities occur in a manner that is consistent with the
approved plans and conditions of approval.
MMRP Checklist
The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with project
approval,the timeframe to which the measure applies,the person/agency/permit responsible for implementing
the measure, and the status of compliance with the mitigation measure.
Page 2 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATIONPARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
AESTHETICS
AES-1a: The following restrictions shall be placed on the design of the proposed project: Incorporate into • Applicant
• Elements such as design, height, contouring, and massing of proposed single-
project design and • Planning Division
family development shall comply with Hillside Protection and Tree Protection construction • Building Division
ordinances.Lots shall be designed to step with the hillside and homes shall avoid documents
solid walls or overhangs that run against the natural slope of the site.
• The design, height, and massing of retaining walls shall be specifically reviewed
during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. Retaining walls shall not
exceed 5 feet in height unless incorporating terracing with landscaping and
minimum width of 3 feet. Retaining walls should conform to the slope where
feasible. Treatment of retaining walls that are visible from a public street shall
incorporate a veneer of natural stone, stained concrete, earth toned textured
surface,or as otherwise accepted through the Site Plan and Architectural Review
process such that walls blend in with the natural hillside environment and
promote a rural character.
• Review during the Site Plan and Architectural Review shall include project
landscape. Vegetation including woodland cover shall be reestablished on
graded slopes and between existing abutting residential structures (See also
Mitigation Measure 1310-2a). Reestablishment of vegetation near the project's
residences shall conform to the requirement of the project's Fuel Management
Program.
•
Aes-lb: The architectural elevations and materials used on the exterior of the residences Incorporate into • Applicant
(including roofing materials, exterior finishing, and trim palette) shall include project design • Planning Division
natural,terrain-neutral colors and prohibit the use of brightly colored terra cotta • Building Division
or red clay roof tiles in order to limit potential visual contrast between the
proposed development and the adjacent hillsides,as determined acceptable by
the Planning Commission through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process
Page 3 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
required by Petaluma Municipal Code Section 24.010. The developer shall
include Codes, Covenants,and Restrictions(CC&R)that prohibit or limit roofing
color changes by future owners, in accordance with the Planning Commission
Site Plan and Architectural Review approval.
Aes-3a: All construction staging shall occur within the project boundaries and on • Periodic inspections • Applicant
authorized road encroachment.Construction staging areas shall use appropriate during construction to • Planning Division
screening (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material) to screen views of ensure that measures • Building Division
construction equipment and material. are in place.
Aes-3b: Project landscaping and recreational features shall be designed and located in a • Incorporate into • Applicant
mannerto preserve the visual character of the project site and promote the view project design • Planning Division
of the barn complex.As part of the SPAR,the Applicants shall submit to the City • Building Division
of Petaluma detailed landscape plans showing the location of the new trees and
visual simulations demonstrating the preservation of the existing scenic view of
the barn complex.
AIR QUALITY
AIR-2: The construction contractor(s) shall implement the following measures during • Measures shall be • Applicant
construction: included in project • Planning Division
a All exposed surfaces e. parking areas staging areas soil piles,graded areas, design and . Building Division
p ( g•,p g g g p ,
and unpaved access roads)shall be watered two times per day. construction
documents.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be • Periodic inspections
covered. during construction to
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed ensure that measures
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.The use of dry are in place.
power sweeping is prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
Page 4 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
e) All roadways,driveways,and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
f) 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 [CCRI). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
g) 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 working
condition prior to operation.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact
at the Lead Agency 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.
AIR-2: The construction contractor(s) shall implement the following measures during • Measures shall be • Applicant
construction: included in project • Planning Division
a All exposed surfaces e. parkingareas,staging areas,soil piles,graded areas, design and • Building Division
) p ( g�� g g p g construction
and unpaved access roads)shall be watered two times per day.
documents.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be • Periodic inspections
covered. during construction to
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed ensure that measures
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.The use of dry are in place.
power sweeping is prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e) 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
Page 5 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
f) 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 working
condition prior to operation.
g) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person
to contact at the Lead Agency 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.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
13I0-1a: Mitigation for impacts on regulated waters shall be provided at a minimum 2:1 • Conduct construction in • Applicant
ratio as detailed in Mitigation Measure B10-3. Mitigation for impacts on habitat conformance with • Planning Division
for California reg-legged frog(CRLF)shall be provided at a minimum 3:1 ratio for measures herein.
permanent impacts and 1:1 ratio for temporary impacts,as detailed in Mitigation • Notify Planning
Measure 13I0-1b. In addition, the project Applicants shall obtain all required Division,CDFW,and
permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department USFWS in the event of
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Regional Water Quality Control Board discovery.
(RWQCB), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (e.g., 1600 series
permits, 404 and 401 permits), incidental take permits and any others. The
project Applicants will submit with the permit application a Wetland Mitigation
Program for review and approval by the regulatory agencies. The project
Applicants shall implement mitigation measures,as required by federal and State
law and included in the permits, to avoid, minimize, or offset impacts to any
species listed under either the state or Federal Endangered Species Acts or
protected under any other state or federal law. Evidence that the project
Applicants have secured all required authorization from these agencies shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department of the City of Petaluma
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the project.
Page 6 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
BIO-1b: A Final California Red-Legged Frog Mitigation Plan (CRLFMP)shall be prepared • Measures shall be • Applicant
by a qualified wildlife biologist to minimize and mitigate potential impacts of included in project • Planning Division
the project on CRLF.The Final CRLFMP shall be prepared in consultation with design and construction . Qualified
and be approved by the USFWS, CDFW, USACE, and City, and shall provide for documents. Biologist
the protection, replacement,and management of habitat for CRLF affected by . Preparation of a Final
proposed development and public open space use on the project site.The Final California Red-Legged
CRLFMP shall be required as a condition of approval for the project Tentative Frog Mitigation Plan
Map, and shall include the following components and meet the following
standards:
Preconstruction and Construction Avoidance Provisions
a) Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a Service-approved
biologist prior to any grading or major vegetation clearance to ensure
that no individual CRLF are lost during construction. These
preconstruction surveys shall also verify the presence or absence of
occupied dens of American badger, burrows of western burrowing
owl,and individuals of western pond turtle and foothill yellow-legged
frog in the remote instance individuals were to disperse onto the site
in advance of construction-related disturbance. The Final CRLFMP
shall: 1)describe in detail the survey approach and methodology,and
2) specify that grading or vegetation clearance may not occur in any
area where individual CRLF, American badger, western burrowing
owl, western pond turtle, and/or foothill yellow-legged frog are
located until such time as the individual has either moved out of the
disturbance zone or has been physically relocated by a Service-
approved biologist legally authorized to handle the species. Any
relocation effort for CRLF, American badger, western burrowing owl,
western pond turtle and/or foothill yellow-legged frog shall be
formulated in consultation with and approved by CDFW and USFWS
and shall be implemented by a qualified biologist.
b) All project-related vegetation clearing and grading activities within
potential habitat for CRLF shall be monitored by a Service-approved
Page 7 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
biologist. The Final CRLFMP shall specify the duties of the Service-
approved biologist.
c) All construction personnel shall be trained in CRLF identification,
habitat description, legal protective status, construction restrictions,
and procedures to avoid unnecessary disturbance to potential habitat
or incidental take of these species. The Final CRLFMP shall describe
this training program.
d) Exclusionary fencing shall be installed prior to grading or major
vegetation clearance where appropriate to keep CRLF out of
construction areas. The Final CRLFMP shall identify where such
fencing is to be installed and provide procedures for fence installation,
monitoring,and maintenance.The Final CRUMP shall require that the
exclusionary fencing be installed under the direct supervision of a
Service-approved biologist and shall be maintained during the course
of construction activities on the site.
e) If necessary, identify the locations for use of permanent exclusionary
fencing or other barriers to prevent and minimize dispersal of CRLF
into areas with concentrated human activity, based on input from the
USFWS and CDFW. This may be particularly important at locations
along segments of the multi-use trail to the south of Kelly Creek or
parking lot and staging area on the east side of the D Street tributary,
to prevent the movement of individual frogs into areas, of intensive
bike, pedestrian and vehicle activity. If used, the permanent
exclusionary fencing/barriers shall be designed and installed during
project construction under the supervision of a Service-approved
biologist.
f) Appropriate signage shall be designed and installed to restrict
unauthorized human access into essential habitat areas for CRLF
during construction.
Habitat Avoidance and Mitigation Provisions
Page 8 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
g) Avoid development and associated direct and indirect impacts on
CRLF in accordance with project revisions required as part of the
consultation review and approval process with CDFW and USFWS.
Compensatory mitigation shall be provided at a minimum of 3:1 for
permanent impacts and 1:1 for temporary impacts to CRLF habitat.
This may be accomplished through permanent protection and
establishment of two conservation easements or other mechanisms
of suitable habitat on-site and off-site,where necessary to achieve the
minimum compensatory mitigation requirements or as otherwise
required by the CDFW and USFWS.
h) Control unauthorized access to the on-site stock pond and open space
in the southwestern portion of the project site to protect these
essential habitat features for CRLF. Install fencing and interpretive
displays and restrictive signage along all trail systems as necessary to
control access from the proposed multi-use trails and other locations
where unauthorized access is likely.
i) Where disturbance and improvements within essential habitat and
movement corridors cannot be completely avoided and on-site
mitigation is considered insufficient by the CDFW and USFWS,the loss
shall be mitigated by permanently preserving similar quality habitat
known to support CRLF at off-site locations preferably in the Petaluma
vicinity of Sonoma County, as negotiated with the regulatory
agencies.It is possible that the mitigation location,whether on-site or
possibly off-site as well,could be used to achieve mitigation for other
biological and wetland impacts, depending on its habitat
characteristics, provisions for habitat creation and/or enhancement
defined as part of the Final CRLFMP,and negotiations with the CDFW
and USFWS.
j) Identify methods to minimize the potential for harassment or take of
listed and non-listed species as a result of increased human activity
associated with development and open space use of the site.This shal I
include an educational program for future residents and visitors,
Page 9 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
fencing and interpretive signage at access points into natural open
space, use of sensitive grade changes,culverted under-crossings,and
bridged overcrossings in uplands where roadways or trails bisect
movement corridors, and possible use of permanent exclusionary
fencing.
Habitat Connectivity and On-Site Management Provisions
k) Define methods to provide connectivity for CRLF between open space
areas on site and to the surrounding undeveloped lands to the west,
south,and east.
1) Provide for permanent protection and adaptive management of open
space lands (both on-site and possibly off-site) intended to function
as potential habitat for CRLF.
Page 10 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
BIO-1c: Any active nests of raptors or other birds protected under federal and state • Measures shall be • Applicant
regulations in the vicinity of construction shall be avoided until young birds are included in project • Planning Division
able to leave the nest (i.e., fledged) and forage on their own. Avoidance may design and construction . Qualified
be accomplished either by scheduling grading, vegetation removal and documents. biologist
demolition activities during the non-nesting period (September 1 through • Pre-construction survey • CDFW
January 31), or if this is not feasible, by conducting a preconstruction survey
for raptor and other bird nests. Provisions of the pre-construction survey and
nest avoidance, if necessary,shall include the following:
a) To avoid "take" of barn owls in the large barn, any relocation or restoration
work shall be initiated in the non-nesting period or shall be performed in
conformance with the pre-construction survey procedures detailed below.
b) If grading is scheduled during the active nesting period (February 15 through
August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nest
survey no more than 15 days prior to initiation of grading to provide
confirmation on presence or absence of active nests in the vicinity.
c) If active nests are encountered,species-specific measures shall be prepared by
a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active
nest.At a minimum,grading and vegetation removal in the vicinity of the nest
shall be deferred until the young birds have fledged or are no longer dependent
on the nest. A nest setback zone shall be established within which all
construction-related disturbances shall be prohibited. These are typically at
least 300 feet for all raptors and 100 feet for other birds protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State Fish and Game Code, unless site-specific
conditions allow for some variation from these distances as determined by the
qualified wildlife biologist in coordination with CDFW. The perimeter of the
nest-setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with staked
flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel restricted from the
area.
d) If permanent avoidance of the nest is not feasible, impacts shall be minimized
by prohibiting disturbance within the nest-setback zone until a qualified
biologist verifies that the birds have either a) not begun egg-laying and
Page 11 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
incubation, or b) that the juveniles from the nest are foraging independently
and capable of independent survival.
e) Demolition of any existing buildings and removal of any trees shall also
consider possible bat use of the site, as defined below in Mitigation Measure
BIO-1d.
f) A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that the young birds have
fledged shall be submitted to the Community Development Department of the
City of Petaluma prior to initiation of grading and vegetation removal in the
nest-setback zone.
BIO-1d: Measures shall be taken to avoid possible loss of bats during project . Conduct surveys in • Qualified
construction.Any buildings that are approved for demolition, rehabilitation,or accordance with this biologist
relocation shall be done using the following provisions: measure. • Applicant
a) Any buildings approved for removal shall be demolished between March 1 (or • Conduct construction in . Planning Division
after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees F and/or no more than %2„ conformance with • CDFW
of rainfall within 24 hours occurs)to April 15 or from August 31 to October 15 measures herein.
(or before evening temperatures fall below 45 degrees F and/or more than%" • Notify Planning Division
of rainfall within 24 hours occurs)to minimize the likelihood of removal during and CDFW in the event
the winter roosting period when individuals are less active and more difficult of discovery.
to detect, and the critical pupping period (April 16 to August 30) when young
cannot disperse.
b) Buildings shall be surveyed by a qualified bat biologist possessing a
Memorandum of Understanding with the CDFW no more than 2 weeks before
demolition and/or relocation work is undertaken to avoid "take" of any bats
that may have begun to use the structures for roosting subsequent to the
assessments by Wildlife Research Associates(2004 and 2014).The buildings in
which roosting would be most likely to occur are the large two-story barn, hay
barn,and garage building.
c) If the pre-demolition survey reveals bats or bat roosting activity, all doors and
windows shall be opened and left open continually until demolition,relocation
and/or rehabilitation work is to begin. Additional recommendations may be
Page 12 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
made by the qualified bat specialist following the pre-construction survey,
including monitoring of demolition and/or relocation and other measures to
avoid take of individual bats.
d) A tree roost habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist
possessing a Memorandum of Understanding with the CDFW of any trees that
will be removed as part of the project. The habitat assessment shall be
conducted no more than 2 weeks prior to tree removal and vegetation clearing.
Additional detailed measures may be required based on the results of the
habitat assessment if evidence of bat roosting is observed. This may include
supervision of tree removal by the qualified bat biologist, and systematic
removal of selected trees and major limbs to encourage dispersal and avoid
"take"of individual bats.
13I0-2a: A detailed Landscape and Vegetation Management Plan (Plan) shall be • Measures shall be • Applicant
prepared by a qualified landscape architect in consultation with CDFW and a included in project • Planning Division
plant ecologist experienced with native species. The Plan shall: 1) provide for design and construction
re-establishment of grassland, riparian, and oak woodland cover on graded documents.
slopes in open space areas; 2) incorporate mitigation requirements to replace
and enhance wetland habitat and provide for replacement of native trees
removed as part of the project;3)provide for replacement of native grasslands
lost as a result of development and trail improvements;4) identify unsuitable
species which should not be used in landscaping;5)prevent the establishment
and spread of introduced broom; and 6) specify long-term management
provisions to ensure re-establishment of native and ornamental landscape
improvements.Aspects of the plan shall include, but will not be limited to,the
following:
a) Graded slopes in open space areas shall be reseeded with a mixture of native
perennial and annual grassland species to increase the diversity of the
grassland cover.Suitable species to be used in the seed mix include: California
brome(Bromus carinatus),purple needlegrass(Stipa pulchra),creeping wildrye
(Elymus tritichoides),California poppy(Escscholtzia californica),among others.
Page 13 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
Highly invasive non-native annuals, typically used for erosion control alone,
should not be used.
b) Landscaping and revegetation shall emphasize the use of native plant species
along the fringe of proposed development, and plantings in open space areas
should be restricted to native species. Suitable plant species for use in open
space areas include: valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), toyon (Heteromeles
arbutifolia), California rose (Rosa californica), creeping wildrye, and purple
needlegrass, among other species.
c) Use of non-native, invasive species which may spread into adjacent
undeveloped open space areas shall be prohibited in landscaping plans.
Unsuitable species include: blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), acacia
(Acacia spp.), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), broom (Cytisus spp.), gorse
(Ulex europaeus), bamboo (Bambusa spp.), giant reed (Arundo donax),
periwinkle (Vinca spp.), English ivy (Hedera helix), and German ivy (Senecio
milanioides). This prohibition shall be included in the CC&R for the proposed
residential subdivision, as well as undeveloped areas to be retained as
permanent open space.
d) Graded slopes and areas disturbed as part of the project shall be monitored to
prevent establishment and spread of introduced broom species (Cytisus spp
and Genista monspesullana).This should apply to the lands on the project site
that are placed under a conservation easement as well as common open space
areas. The removal and monitoring program shall include annual late winter
removal of any rooted plants when soils are saturated and cutting back of any
remaining flowering plants in the spring before seed begins to set in late April.
e) Provisions for maintenance of landscaping and revegetation of graded slopes
shall be specified as part of the plan, with replacement plantings and seeding
provided as necessary to ensure re-establishment of cover.Tree replacement
shall be at ratios consistent with Mitigation Measure 1310-2d below and meet
with the intent of Petaluma Municipal Code Section 20.32.320. Maintenance
Page 14 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
and monitoring of mitigation and habitat enhancement plantings in open space
areas shall be provided for a minimum of five years.
f) Vehicles and motorcycles shall not be allowed to travel off designated
roadways and limits of grading to minimize future disturbance to grassland
cover and other vegetation, and unauthorized access to the surrounding
undeveloped lands and open space.
13I0-2b: The Tree Preservation Plans shall be updated and refined to comply with the • Measures shall be • Applicant
requirements of IZO Chapter 17. The Grading Plan and Landscape Plan shall included in project • Planning Division
include the mapped location of tree trunks, including those which will be design and construction
preserved or removed, show the recommended tree protection zones, and documents.
identify locations of construction-restriction fencing.
BIO-2c: A Tree Replacement Program shall be prepared as part of the Landscape and • Measures shall be • Applicant
Vegetation Management Plan to provide for replacement of individual native included in project • Planning Division
trees removed by proposed development. The Tree Replacement Program design and construction
shall provide for replacement of impacted individual native trees consistent documents.
with Petaluma Municipal Code Section 20.32.320 and Implementing Zoning
Ordinance Section 17.065, and shall be accomplished on-site in designated
open space areas. Tree plantings shall be monitored and maintained for a
minimum of 5 years by a qualified biologist or landscape specialist. All water
used for temporary irrigation shall be from wells and/or municipal supplies and
not diverted out of Kelly Creek, the stock pond or tributary drainages to
prevent any potential secondary adverse impacts to existing aquatic habitats.
Any plantings lost within this monitoring period shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio
on an annual basis to maintain the replacement values specified in the
Municipal Code and Implementing Ordinance.
13I0-2d: To avoid creation of informal trails through native grasslands on Helen Putnam • Measures shall be • Applicant
Regional Park adjacent to the project site, the existing fence between the included in project • Planning Division
project site and the regional park to the north of Kelly Creek shall be design and construction
maintained and strengthened to control unauthorized entry into the regional documents.
Page 15 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
park from the terminus of the Kelly Creek multi-use trail. As and when the
regional park trail project is constructed,the fence may be removed.
13I0-2e: A Native Grassland Avoidance and Replacement Program (Program) shall be • Measures shall be • Applicant
developed by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW to address the included in project . Planning Division
loss of native grasslands on the site and provide for adequate replacement.The design and construction . Qualified
Program shall define short-term construction controls and long-term documents. biologist
maintenance requirements necessary to ensure grasslands are successfully . Native Grassland
reestablished and existing and restored native grasslands remain viable. The Avoidance and
maintenance and management requirements shall include provisions for Replacement Program
annual invasive species removal, and control on the establishment of both
native and non-native trees and shrubs that could eventually shade out the
grassland to be protected. The Final Program shall be subject to review and
approval by the City and CDFW. The Program shall contain the following
provisions and performance standards:
a) The proposed limits of grading and enhancement tree plantings shall be
modified to avoid additional areas of the stands of native grassland on the site
and a compensatory mitigation component prepared and implemented to
provide a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio for grasslands lost as a result of the
project.
b) Areas retained or restored as native grassland shall be permanently protected
as open space and managed as native grassland by deed restriction or
conservation easement.
c) To prevent inadvertent disturbance of native grassland to be preserved,these
areas shall be flagged in the field prior to any vegetation removal or grading for
habitat restoration,and temporary orange construction fencing installed under
supervision of the qualified biologist around all areas to be retained within 50
feet of proposed disturbance.
d) Areas of native grassland within the limits of proposed grading and
construction shall be salvaged and used in revegetation efforts implemented
as part of the Program. Salvage material may include mature seed and intact
Page 16 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
stem and root material, which shall be stored and maintained until ready for
reinstallation in the late fall/early winter when conditions are optimal for
successful reestablishment.
e) Personnel involved in habitat restoration activities shall be trained by the
qualified biologist over the sensitivity of the native grasslands, purpose of the
temporary orange construction fencing, and that all construction-related
disturbance should be restricted outside of the fence.
f) A monitoring program shall be implemented by the qualified biologist to
oversee successful establishment of any native grasslands to be restored, and
shall define both short-term and long-term requirements. Permanent
monitoring transects shall be established as part ofthe program and vegetation
data collected in the spring and summer months when plant identification is
possible. Photo stations shall be established along each monitoring transect,
and photographs taken every year during the required monitoring period.
Performance standards, success criteria, and contingency measures shall be
defined as part of the Program. Monitoring transects shall be established over
each location to be vegetated as native grassland,and monitored on an annual
basis. Within a five-year period, native grass shall be successfully established
over all treatment areas and shall comprise a minimum 50 percent of the
relative cover. Monitoring shall be extended where the success criteria are not
met,and the minimum 1:1 replacement ratio is not reached.The Program and
its requirements may be modified to require further measures if monitoring
shows that performance standards are not being met.
g) Annual monitoring reports shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and
submitted to the CDFW and the Community Development Department of the
City of Petaluma by December 31 of each monitoring year, for a minimum of
five years or until the defined success criteria are met.The annual report shall
summarize the results of the monitoring effort, performance standards, and
any required contingency measures, and shall include photographs of the
monitoring transects and program success. Maps shall be included in the
Page 17 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
monitoring report to show the location of monitoring transects and photo
stations.
13I0-3: A Final Wetland Replacement and Enhancement Program (WREP) shall be • Final Wetland • Applicant
prepared and implemented to compensate for the loss of jurisdictional waters Replacement and . Planning Division
on the project site. The Final WREP shall be prepared by a qualified wetland Enhancement Program . Qualified wetland
consultant in consultation with and for review and approval by the City, the consultant
RWQCB, the USACE, and the CDFW. The Final WREP shall clearly identify the • RWQCB
total wetlands and other jurisdictional areas affected by the project, shall . USACE
identify compensatory mitigation to replace wetland habitat lost as a result of . CDFW
development, and provide for re-establishment, enhancement, and/or
replacement of wetlands. The Final WREP shall include the following
performance standards:
a) Identify the location(s) of mitigation sites and provide for replacement of
wetland habitat loss at a minimum replacement ratio of 2:1. Create or restore
wetlands with high functions and values in accordance with USACE and RWQCB
standards. Compensatory mitigation can be achieved through on- or off-site
habitat creation or through the use of an approved mitigation bank, or a
combination thereof.
b) Specify performance criteria, maintenance and long-term management
responsibilities, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures. This
shall include expanding the compensatory mitigation to achieve a replacement
ratio of at least 2:1 (or as otherwise required by regulatory agencies).
Monitoring shall be conducted by the project applicant's consulting wetland
specialist for a minimum of five years and continue until the success criteria
are met.
c) Define site grading, preparation and revegetation procedures, an
implementation schedule, and funding sources to ensure long-term
management of the Final WREP.
d) The mitigation (habitat restoration or enhancement)effort shall be considered
successful when the performance standards are met. Performance standards
Page 18 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
would be met when the habitat has sustained itself for a minimum of two years
in the absence of significant maintenance measures.
e) Subsequent permitting processes with resource agencies could result in
additional mitigation beyond that required by the City in the CECIA process.Any
additional mitigation required by the agencies (the RWQCB, the USACE, and
the CDFW)would be incorporated as conditions of their permit authorization.
BIO-4a: An interpretive program shall be developed by a qualified biologist in • Development of • Applicant
cooperation with the project landscape architect which serves to educate park interpretive program • Planning Division
visitors and trail users of the sensitivity of Kelly Creek and D Street tributary as within final Landscape • Qualified
wildlife movement corridors, and the importance of remaining outside the Plan biologist
southern portion of the site to protect the stock pond and surrounding uplands
to CRLF and other wildlife that are sensitive to human disturbance. The
interpretive program shall be integrated into the final Landscape Plan for the
project. Interpretive elements of the program shall include use of permanent
signage at the trail heads, all pedestrian bridge crossings, and other critical
locations.The signage shall explain the sensitivity of the open space for wildlife
and the importance of staying on the improved trails and out of restricted
areas. Dogs,cats,and other pets shall be leashed at all times in the open space
areas on the site, and signage shall be provided at the trail heads at D Street
and Windsor Drive explaining this restriction and need to prevent harassment
of wildlife by unleashed pets.
13I0-4b: The existing plywood barrier fence on the east side of the D Street concrete • Measures shall be • Applicant
box culvert undercrossing shall be removed as part of initial construction included in project • Planning Division
activities to improve opportunities for wildlife movement along the Kelly Creek design and construction
corridor. Replacement fencing at this undercrossing shall be prohibited to documents.
prevent future obstruction of wildlife movement along Kelly Creek.
13I0-4c: Fencing, signage, dense native vegetation, and other deterrents shall be used • Measures shall be • Applicant
as part of the interpretive program to adequately contain livestock, included in project • Planning Division
equestrians and other visitors with their pets from sensitive wildlife areas, design and construction
including Kelly Creek, the D Street tributary, and stock pond. Exclusionary documents.
Page 19 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
fencing used to contain livestock and control access by visitors and their pets
shall be wildlife-friendly in design, such as barbed wire with a smooth bottom
wire. Signs shall be posted along the trails limiting access of equestrian to
designated trails at all times.
13I0-4d: The existing fencing between the western boundary of the project site and • Measures shall be • Applicant
Helen Putnam Regional Park south of Kelly Creek shall be removed where it included in project • Planning Division
borders lands to be dedicated as permanent open space on the project site, design and construction
and replaced with wildlife-friendly fencing, such as barbed wire with smooth documents.
bottom wire, if fencing is necessary. This would improve opportunities for
wildlife movement between the existing parklands and the future open space
lands on the project site.
RPT 1310-1a: Sonoma County Regional Parks or its agent shall obtain all required • Measures shall be • Applicant
permits before construction from the USFWS,CDFW, RWQCB,and USACE(e.g., included in project • Planning Division
1600 series permits, 404 and 401 permits), incidental take permits and any design and construction
others and implement mitigation measures, as required by federal and state documents.
law,to avoid, minimize,or offset impacts to any species listed under either the
state or federal Endangered Species Acts or protected under any other state or
federal law.
RPT 1310-1b: A Final California Red-Legged Frog Mitigation Plan (CRLFMP) shall be • Measures shall be • Applicant
prepared by a qualified wildlife biologist to minimize and mitigate potential included in project • Planning Division
impacts of the project on CRLF. The Final CRLFMP shall be prepared in design and construction • Sonoma County
consultation with USFWS, CDFW, and USACE and shall provide for the documents. Regional Parks
protection, replacement,and management of habitat for CRLF affected by the
regional park trail. The Final CRLFMP shall include the following components
and meet the following standards:
a) Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a Service-approved biologist
prior to any grading or vegetation clearance to ensure that no individual CRLF
are lost during construction.The Final CRLFMP shall: 1) describe in detail the
survey approach and methodology, and 2) specify that grading or vegetation
clearance may not occur in any area where individual CRLF are located until
Page 20 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
such time as the individual has either moved out of the disturbance zone or has
been physically relocated by a Service-approved biologist legally authorized to
handle the species.
b) All vegetation clearing and grading activities within potential habitat for CRLF
shall be monitored by a Service-approved biologist. The Final CRLFMP shall
specify the duties of the Service-approved biologist.
c) All construction personnel shall be trained in CRLF identification, habitat
description, legal protective status, construction restrictions, and procedures
to avoid unnecessary disturbance to potential habitat or incidental take of
these species.The Final CRLFMP shall describe this training program.
d) Exclusionary fencing shall be installed prior to grading or major vegetation
clearance where appropriate to keep CRLF out of construction areas, if
required by the USFWS and/or CDFW. The Final CRLFMP shall identify where
such fencing is to be installed and provide procedures for fence installation,
monitoring,and maintenance,if required.The exclusionary fencing be installed
under the direct supervision of a Service-approved biologist and shall be
maintained during the course of construction activities on the site.
e) Sonoma County Regional Parks shall prohibit access by unleashed dogs and
require that dogs be leashed,and that access be limited to designated trails at
all times to minimize the potential for inadvertent take of CRLF.
f) Sonoma County Regional Parks shall post signs along the trails limiting access
of equestrian to designated trails at all times.
g) Sonoma County Regional Parks shall implement measures to minimize the
potential for harassment or take of listed and non-listed species as a result of
increased human activity associated with the proposed trail.This shall include
an educational program for future park visitors, signage at access points into
open space and other key locations, and possible use of permanent
exclusionary fencing, if required by the USFWS. Appropriate interpretive
signage shall be provided instructing park users on access rules to prevent
inadvertent take of CRLF.
Page 21 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
RPT BIO-1c: Active nests of raptor, loggerhead shrike, or other birds protected Measures shall be • Applicant
under federal and state regulations in the vicinity of construction shall be included in project • Planning Division
avoided until young birds are able to leave the nest (i.e., fledged) and forage design and construction
on their own. Avoidance may be accomplished either by scheduling grading, documents.
vegetation removal and revegetation activities during the non-nesting period
(August 30 through February 14),or if this is not feasible, by conducting a pre-
construction survey for raptor, loggerhead shrike, and other bird nests.
Provisions of the pre-construction survey and nest avoidance, if necessary,
shall include the following:
a) If grading is scheduled during the active nesting period (February 15 through
August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nest
survey no more than 15 days prior to initiation of grading to provide
confirmation on presence or absence of active nests in the vicinity.
b) If active nests are encountered,species-specific measures shall be prepared by
a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active
nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of the nest shall be deferred until
the young birds have fledged. A nest-setback zone of at least 300 feet for all
raptors and 100 feet for loggerhead shrike and other birds protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be established within which all construction-
related disturbances shall be prohibited. The perimeter of the nest-setback
zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with staked flagging at 20-foot
intervals,and construction personnel restricted from the area.
c) If permanent avoidance of the nest is not feasible, impacts shall be minimized
by prohibiting disturbance within the nest-setback zone until a qualified
biologist verifies that the birds have either a) not begun egg-laying and
incubation, or b) that the juveniles from the nest are foraging independently
and capable of independent survival at an earlier date.
d) A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that the young have fledged
shall be submitted to the Sonoma County Regional Parks prior to initiation of
grading in the nest-setback zone.
Page 22 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
RPT BIO-1d: In advance of any trail construction through the Helen Putnam Measures shall be • Applicant
Regional Park, a qualified botanist shall conduct detailed preconstruction included in project • Planning Division
surveys in spring and summer to confirm absence of any special-status plant design and construction
species along the trail alignment.The survey shall focus on special-status plant documents.
species considered to have a potential for occurrence in grassland, woodland
scrub and riparian habitats from the Petaluma vicinity,and shall be conducted
according to the latest CDFW survey guidelines.The surveys shall be completed
and a report of findings shall be submitted to the Sonoma County Regional
Parks before the start of any initial ground-disturbing activity or construction.
If populations of any special-status plant species are encountered along the
trail alignment, then Sonoma County Regional Parks shall ensure that
construction-related impacts are avoided through changes in trail alignment or
adequately mitigated by retaining a qualified botanist to develop and
implement a Special-Status Plant Species Mitigation and Monitoring Program
(Program). A Program shall only be required if a listed species or those
maintained on Lists 1B or 2 of the CNPS Inventory are encountered during the
preconstruction survey and cannot be avoided. Potential impacts on any
species maintained on Lists 3 and 4 of the CNPS Inventory would not be
considered significant and no additional mitigation would be required for these
species if encountered during the preconstruction survey.
The Program shall be prepared in consultation with the CDFW and shall be
approved by Sonoma County Regional Park prior to any initial ground-
disturbing activity or construction. The Program shall be based on the status
and vulnerability of the species present with avoidance of all or a majority of
any population(s)the preferred method of mitigation.Where complete or even
partial avoidance of any special-status plant population(s) is considered
infeasible, options for mitigation may include salvage and reestablishing the
population at an alternative, suitable location. Details of any salvage and
habitat recreation effort shall include the following criteria and performance
standards:
Page 23 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
a) Collection of seeds/roots/vegetative material during the appropriate
developmental stage of the plant.
b) Procedures for sowing/replanting techniques appropriate to the life cycle of
the plant.
c) Development of a maintenance and monitoring plan specific to the
environmental conditions necessary for survival of the new population.
Maintenance and monitoring shall be provided for a minimum of five years to
determine success of re-seeding and habitat creation and need for additional
preservation.
d) Identification of funding sources by Sonoma County Regional Parks to provide
implementation of the Program in consultation with the qualified plant
ecologist.
e) In addition,preservation of another existing occurrence of the affected special-
status plant species shall be required if monitoring indicates that the re-
establishment efforts have not been successful after five years. The
preservation program shall provide for permanent protection of a different
existing population in Sonoma County,which is equal or larger in size than that
encountered on the site(minimum 1:1 replacement),through land acquisition,
use of a conservation easement, or some other permanent land protection
method. Any off-site mitigation lands shall include establishment of a
management endowment as necessary to provide for long-term management
of the preserved population.
Page 24 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
RPT BIO-2: A Native Grassland Avoidance and Replacement Program (Program) • Measures shall be • Applicant
shall be developed by a qualified biologist to address the loss of native included in project • Planning Division
grasslands along the trail alignment and provide for adequate replacement. design and construction
The Program shall contain the following provisions and performance documents.
standards:
a) Under the supervision of a qualified biologist, the proposed limits of grading
shall be modified and controlled to avoid areas of native grassland along the
trail alignment to the maximum extent feasible and a compensatory mitigation
component prepared and implemented to provide a minimum 1:1 replacement
ratio for grasslands lost as a result of trail improvements.
b) Areas of native grassland adjacent to the trail alignment shall be flagged in the
field prior to any vegetation removal or grading, and temporary orange
construction fencing installed under supervision of the qualified biologist to
avoid any inadvertent damage.
c) Construction personnel shall be trained by the qualified biologist over the
sensitivity of the native grasslands, purpose of the temporary orange
construction fencing, and that all construction-related disturbance should be
restricted outside of the fence.
d) Areas of native grassland within the limits of proposed grading and
construction shall be salvaged and used in revegetation efforts implemented
as part of the Program.Salvage material shall include seed and both intact stem
and root material, which shall be stored and maintained until ready for
reinstallation in the late fall/early winter when conditions are optimal for
successful reestablishment.
e) A monitoring program shall be implemented by the qualified biologist to
oversee successful establishment of any native grasslands to be restored, and
shall define both short-term and long-term requirements.The Program and its
requirements may be modified to require further measures if monitoring
shows that performance standards are not being met.
Page 25 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
f) Annual monitoring reports shall be prepared by the qualified biologist for a
minimum of five years or until the defined success criteria are met.The annual
report shall summarize the results of the monitoring effort, performance
standards, and any required contingency measures, and shall include
photographs of the monitoring transects and program success. Maps shall be
included in the monitoring report to show the location of monitoring transects
and photo stations.
RPT BIO-3: As called for in Mitigation Measure RPT 1310-1a, authorizations shall • Measures shall be • Applicant
be secured by Sonoma County Regional Parks or its agent from the USACE, included in project • Planning Division
RWQCB,and CDFW for proposed trail improvements where they pass through design and construction
jurisdictional waters, and all conditions and mitigation measures required documents.
under these authorizations shall be implemented as part of the project.
Appropriate measures shall be developed and implemented to minimize
disturbance to jurisdictional waters, prevent erosion and sedimentation, and
revegetate areas disturbed by trail construction. This shall include: 1)
construction during the dry season after all affected drainages are dry and
surface water is absent; 2) installation of temporary orange construction
fencing at the limits of proposed construction at the drainage crossings and
vicinity of wetland seeps in advance of grading and other disturbance; 3) use
of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for erosion
and sedimentation such as installation of straw wattle, jute fabric or other
surface controls on graded slopes within 30 feet of the drainage crossings;and
4) revegetation of all disturbed slopes outside the actual footprint of the trail
through broadcast seeding with native grass and forb seed or other technique
within 30 feet of the drainage crossings.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 26 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
CUL-1a: Prior to the relocation of the barn structures, a qualified historic preservation Measures shall be • Applicant
architect shall be selected by the City of Petaluma to review the relocation plans included in project • Planning Division
and verify that the relocation is not affecting the building structures and design and • Qualified Historic
character defining features. To ensure the barn structures would retain their construction preservation
eligibility for the local designation,the barn structures shall be relocated within documents. architect
the same general area and the new location shall be compatible with their
original character and use.
CUL-1b: The Applicants shall retain a qualified preservation architect to oversee the • Measures shall be • Applicant
relocation process and ensure that all the relocation activities are included in project • Planning Division
implemented in compliance with the relocation plans reviewed under design and • Qualified Historic
Mitigation Measure CUL-1a. construction preservation
documents. architect
CUL-2a: Prior to excavation and construction on the proposed project site, the prime • Notify Professional • Applicant
construction contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall be informed by a Archaeologist and • Professional
qualified archaeologist retained by the project Applicants, on the legal and/or Planning Division in the Archaeologist
regulatory implications of knowingly destroying cultural resources or removing event of potentially • Planning Division
historic or prehistoric artifacts, human remains, and other cultural materials significant
from the project site as outlined in Mitigation Measure CULT2b below. archaeological resource
discovery.
• Include measure on
project construction
and improvement
plans.
CUL-2b: Prior to commencing any demolition, excavation, or other ground-disturbing • Notify Professional • Applicant
activities, the project Applicants shall retain a qualified archaeologist to Archaeologist and • Professional
monitor construction activity. The City shall approve the selected project Planning Division in the Archaeologist
archaeologist prior to issuance of the grading and/or demolition permit. The event of potentially • Planning Division
selected project archaeologist shall be present at the preconstruction meeting significant
to discuss what protocols should be followed with respect to the potential
Page 27 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
discovery of prehistoric or historic artifacts of possible significance. The archaeological resource
selected project archaeologist shall have the authority to perform full time or discovery.
spot check monitoring of subsurface construction and watch for and evaluate • Include measure on
artifacts or resources that may be uncovered. project construction
The selected project archaeologist shall have the authority to halt excavation and improvement
and construction activities in the immediate vicinity (distance to be plans.
determined by the project archaeologist) of a find if significant or potentially
significant cultural resources are exposed and could be adversely affected by
construction operations. Construction activities could continue in other areas
of the project site where no cultural resources have been identified.
CUL-2c: Should archaeological resources be encountered during ground-disturbing • Measures shall be • Applicant
activities (i.e., grading and excavation), the project archaeologist shall initiate included in project • Professional
sampling, identification, and evaluation of the resources. If the archaeological design and Archaeologist
resources are found to be significant,the archaeologist shall take appropriate construction • Planning Division
actions in conjunction with the City for preservation and/or data recovery, documents.
including recordation with the California Historic Resources Information
System (CHRIS) and professional museum curation as appropriate. Following
the completion of evaluation and data recovery, the archaeologist shall
prepare a professional report detailing the results of the find and submit it to
the City of Petaluma Community Development Department and to CHRIS along
with a DPR form to ensure that resource inventories are accurately updated.
CUL-3: Procedures to be implemented following the discovery of human remains have • Measures shall be • Applicant
been mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources included in project • Professional
Code Section 5097.98 and the California Code of Regulations Section design and Archaeologist
15064.5(e) (CEQA).According to the provisions in CEQA, if human remains are construction • Planning Division
discovered at the project site during construction, work at the specific documents.
construction area at which the remains have been uncovered shall be
suspended, and the City of Petaluma and County of Sonoma coroner shall be
immediately notified. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to
be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall
be notified within 24 hours, who will, in turn, notify the person the NAHC
Page 28 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
identifies as the most likely descendent ("MLD") of any human remains. The
guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and subsequent
disposition of the remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the
desires of the MILD. The MILD has 48 hours to make recommendations
regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the NAHC
of the discovery. If the MILD does not make recommendations within 48 hours,
the owner shall,with appropriate dignity,re-inter the remains in an area of the
property secure from further disturbance.Alternatively, if the owner does not
accept the MLD's recommendations, the owner or the descendent may
request mediation by the NAHC.
RPT CUL-1a: If archaeological materials,artifacts,culturally modified soil deposits, • Measures shall be • Applicant
or other indicators of a potentially significant cultural resource are included in project • Planning Division
encountered anywhere in the project site, all work should be halted in the design and
vicinity and an archaeologist consulted immediately. construction
documents.
RPT CUL-1b: If human remains are encountered anywhere on the property, all • Measures shall be • Applicant
work must stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the included in project • Planning Division
County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist must be notified immediately so design and
that an evaluation can be performed. construction
If the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, the Native documents.
American Heritage Commission must be contacted by the Coroner so that a
"Most Likely Descendant"can be designated
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1a: The project Applicants shall submit for City's approval a • Incorporate • Applicant/
preconstruction design-level geotechnical report for the Davidon (28-Lot) geotechnical Contractor/
Residential Project component and the Putnam Park Extension Project recommendations into Geotechnical
component. The report shall include all applicable geologic report standards, project construction Engineer
reconnaissance and subsurface exploration data, laboratory test results, and and improvement • Public Works and
conclusions and recommendations, including, but not limited to, those plans. Utilities
pertaining to: 1) site preparation, excavation, fill placement and compaction, • Building Division
Page 29 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
temporary and permanent cut and fill slope inclinations (including whether The project
slopes steeper than 3:1 can be used at the site), slope stability, slope erosion geotechnical engineer
mitigation, and landslide movement mitigation; 2) surface and subsurface shall inspect the
drainage systems, including drainage associated with grading for landslide construction work and
movement mitigation and new cut and fill slopes;3)foundations and floors for shall certify to the City,
planned residential structures;4)foundations for planned site improvements, prior to issuance of a
including, but not limited to restrooms, barn, pedestrian bridges, and other certificate of occupancy
structures;5)settlement and swell estimates for planned residential structures that the improvements
and site improvements, including those bearing of engineered fill; 6) have been constructed
foundations,back-drains,and lateral earth pressures for site retaining walls;7) in accordance with the
seismic design parameters for the planned residential structures, site geotechnical
improvements, and site retaining walls; 8) pavement design for driveways, specifications.
parking lots, pathways and trails, where applicable; 9) utility trench backfill,
including check dams and trench drainage, if appropriate; 10)
geologic/geotechnical construction monitoring, testing, and certification
requirements; and 11) loop trail construction and long-term maintenance
requirements, including criteria for inspecting and maintaining pedestrian
bridges,culverts,and pathway surfaces,as appropriate.
The geotechnical report shall include measures, as necessary, to reduce the
potential for static and earthquake-induced slope movements that may
adversely impact the Davidon (28-Lot) Residential Project component and the
Putnam Park Extension Project component including areas currently underlain
by mapped landslides.Engineering analyses shall estimate the factors of safety
against slope movements within the planned development area and estimates
of the magnitude and location of earthquake-induced slope deformation.
GEO-1b:As determined by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official, all • Incorporate • Applicant/
recommendations outlined in the preconstruction design-level geotechnical geotechnical Contractor/
report for the Davidon(28-Lot)Residential Project component and the Putnam recommendations into Geotechnical
Park Extension Project component, as described under Mitigation Measure project construction Engineer
GEO-1a,are herein incorporated by reference and shall be adhered to in order and improvement • Public Works and
to ensure that appropriate measures are incorporated into the design and plans. Utilities
construction of the project. Nothing in this mitigation measure shall preclude • Building Division
Page 30 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official from requiring additional The project
information be provided to determine compliance with applicable standards. geotechnical engineer
The project geotechnical engineer shall review the project plans and shall inspect the
specifications and submit a letter certifying to the City that the project plans construction work and
and specifications have been prepared in accordance with the geotechnical shall certify to the City,
recommendations for the project. The project geotechnical engineer or prior to issuance of a
personnel under their direct supervision shall inspect the construction of certificate of occupancy
geotechnical and/or geologic aspects of the project and shall submit a letter that the improvements
certifying to the City that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the have been constructed
geotechnical and geologic aspects of the project plans and specifications have in accordance with the
been appropriately constructed at the site and are acceptable to the project geotechnical
geotechnical engineer. specifications.
GEO-2a: The preconstruction design level geotechnical report, identified in Mitigation • Compliance with • Applicant/
Measure GEO--1, shall include specific recommendations to mitigate surface approved erosion Contractor/
erosion. The project geotechnical engineer or personnel under their direct control plan. Geotechnical
supervision shall inspect the construction of geotechnical and/or geologic Engineer
aspects of fill placement and compaction and surface drainage systems of cut • Public Works and
and fill slopes to ensure that the geotechnical recommendations associated Utilities
with mitigating surface soil erosion are properly implemented during • Building Division
construction.At a minimum, 1)slope inclinations shall be no steeper than 3:1
(horizontal to vertical), unless the project engineering geologist specifically
indicates that a steeper slope would perform satisfactorily over the long term,
2)fill slope requirements shall include a process of overbuilding the fill on the
slope and shaving it back to expose a well compacted fill surface that is less
susceptible to surface erosion,and 3)the project civil engineer shall check the
final grading of the site and the elevations of the surface drainage systems to
confirm that the grading contractor graded the site and constructed surface
improvement in accordance with the approved grading plans. If the project
engineering geologist elects to use a slope design that is steeper than 3:1, a
slope stability analysis shall be prepared to show that a suitable factor of
safety will be achieved with the proposed design.The acceptance of the slope
Page 31 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
stability analysis shall be subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer and/or Chief Building Officials.
GEO-2b: The project geotechnical engineer shall review the geotechnical aspects of the . Incorporate • Applicant/
SWPPP and,where applicable,shall provide comments to the Qualified SWPPP geotechnical Contractor/
and fill slopes are properly incorporated into the SWPPP and/or a project recommendations into Geotechnical
specific operations and maintenance plan. As a minimum, the geotechnical project construction Engineer
aspects of the SWPPP shall include a requirement to check the condition of and improvement • Public Works and
the slope at the beginning of the first rainy season after the completion of plans. Utilities
grading and periodic inspections until surface vegetation has been fully • Building Division
established on the exposed slopes.
Page 32 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
GEO-3a: Where landslide mitigation is required under Mitigation Measure GEC--1a,the • Incorporate • Applicant/
project geotechnical engineer or personnel under their direct supervision shall geotechnical Contractor/
inspect the excavation and grading associated with the landslide removal recommendations into Geotechnical
and/or stabilization work to ensure that the geotechnical recommendations project construction Engineer
associated with mitigating landslide hazards are properly implemented during and improvement • Public Works and
construction. plans. Utilities
The project geotechnical engineer shall evaluate Landslides B, G, H, L, N. 0, • Building Division
and R, which have a potential to adversely impact the foundations of
footbridges and/or the loop trail pavement. As a minimum, the project
geotechnical engineer shall establish an inspection and maintenance program
to ensure that any damage to the planned footbridge foundations and loop
trail improvements due to landslide movements are identified and repaired.
GEO-3b: The project geotechnical engineer,project engineering geologist,or personnel • Incorporate • Applicant/
under their direct supervision shall inspect all cut slopes focusing on evidence geotechnical Contractor/
of potential instability. If areas of adverse bedrock structure are encountered, recommendations into Geotechnical
then the project geotechnical engineer and/or project engineering geologist project construction Engineer
shall develop remedial measures for these slopes and the grading contractor and improvement • Public Works and
shall implement the remedial activity, under the direction and supervision of plans. Utilities
project geotechnical engineer and/or engineering geologist, and acceptable • Building Division
by the City engineer.
GEO-4a: A preconstruction geotechnical report shall be prepared for the Davidon (28- • Incorporate • Applicant/
Lot) Residential Project component and the Putnam Park Extension Project geotechnical Contractor/
component,as previously discussed in Mitigation Measure GEO-1a.Specific to recommendations into Geotechnical
site geology, bedrock shear, settlement, and expansive soil, the project project construction Engineer
geotechnical engineer shall confirm that the conclusions and all applicable and improvement • Public Works and
recommendations previously presented in the 2015 design-level geotechnical plans. Utilities
report are still applicable for the design and construction of the Davidon (28- • Building Division
Lot) Residential Project component and the Putnam Park Extension Project
component
Page 33 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
GEO-4b: As a minimum, cut lots that have subgrades exposing bedrock shall be over- • Incorporate • Applicant/
excavated and recompacted to a minimum depth of three feet,and backfilled geotechnical Contractor/
as described below, unless the project geotechnical engineer provides project recommendations into Geotechnical
specific alternative recommendations to mitigate the potential for differential project construction Engineer
settlement associated with variable settlement and swell behavior between and improvement • Public Works and
bedrock and compacted engineered fill.The exposed surface shall be scarified plans. Utilities
to a depth of about 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to not less than three • Building Division
percent over optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction.
Excavation deeper than the above recommendations may be required to
expose competent material under conditions where soft or saturated soil is
encountered. The excavation depth will be determined in the field as part of
the geotechnical analysis required under Mitigation Measure GEC-1a.
Project site grades shall be designed to slope away from the proposed
structures,and water from roof drains shall be directed to suitable outlets. Fill
slopes comprised of low to moderately expansive soil shall be evaluated for
stability(see Mitigation Measures GE01a and GEC-3a).Additional mitigations
to reduce the impact of expansive soils on the proposed residences shall
include:
a) Moisture conditioning and re-compacting low to moderately expansive soil.
b) Placing non-expansive fill beneath the homes and rigid surface improvements.
c) Designing foundations to resist or tolerate differential movement of
moderately expansive soil.
GEO-6a: The project Applicants shall identify a qualified paleontologist prior to any • Approval of project • Applicant
demolition, excavation, or construction. The City shall approve the selected paleontologist • Planning Division
project paleontologist prior to issuance of the demolition permit. The • Qualified
paleontologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting to inform the paleontologist
contractor(s) how to recognize paleontological resources in the soil during
grading activities.The prime construction contractor and any subcontractor(s)
Page 34 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
shall be informed on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly
destroying paleontological resources or removing paleontological resources
from the project site.
GEO-6b: If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of site • Recommendation by • Applicant
development activities, work in that area shall be halted and the selected qualified paleontologist • Planning Division
project paleontologist,as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-6a above,shall of appropriate • Qualified
be notified of the find to determine the significance of the find and to mitigation measures paleontologist
recommend appropriate mitigation measures. Recommendations shall be • Approval of Treatment
presented for City approval in a Treatment and Recovery Plan. The selected and Recovery Plan
project paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily divert or
redirect grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed fossil material.
GEO-6c: If the selected project paleontologist determines that the resource is • Recommendation by • Applicant
significant, then any scientifically significant specimens shall be properly qualified paleontologist • Planning Division
collected by the project paleontologist. During collecting activities,contextual of appropriate . Qualified
stratigraphic data shall also be collected. The data will include lithologic mitigation measures paleontologist
descriptions, photographs, measured stratigraphic sections,and field notes.
Scientifically significant specimens shall be prepared to the point of
identification (not exhibition), stabilized, identified, and offered for curation
to a suitable repository that has a retrievable storage system, such as the
University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology.
The selected project paleontologist shall prepare a final report at the end of
the earthmoving activities. The report shall include an itemized inventory of
recovered fossils and appropriate stratigraphic and locality data. The project
paleontologist shall send one copy of the report to the City of Petaluma
Community Development Department; another copy should accompany any
fossils,along with field logs and photographs,to the designated repository.
RPT GEO-1: To reduce the potential risks of regional park trail damage as a result • Development of a long- • Applicant
of earthquake induced landslide movement,the project geotechnical engineer term maintenance plan • Planning Division
shall develop and submit to the Sonoma County a long-term maintenance • Sonoma County
Page 35 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATIONPARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
plan, including criteria for inspecting and maintaining the planned regional
park trail improvements.
RPT GEO-2: If paleontological resources are encountered anywhere in the project • Recommendation by • Applicant
site, all work should be halted in the vicinity and a paleontologist consulted qualified paleontologist • Planning Division
immediately. of appropriate • qualified
mitigation measures Paleontologist
Page 36 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYD-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the City of • Prepare SWPPP • Applicant
Petaluma shall verify that the Applicants have prepared a SWPPP in accordance . Incorporate measures • Planning Division
with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit.The SWPPP into project
shall be designed to address the following objectives:(1)all pollutants and their construction document
sources, including sources of sediment associated with construction,
construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction
activity are controlled; (2)where not otherwise required to be under a Regional
Water Quality Control Board permit, all non-stormwater discharges are
identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site BMPs are
effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater
discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction
activity;and(4)stabilization BMPs are installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants
after construction is completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified
SWPPP developer.The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the
identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP
requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality
Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook—Construction or the
Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual.
HYD-1b: In areas within 50 feet of sensitive habitat areas, construction activities should • Implementation of • Applicant
be planned to avoid, to the extent feasible, disturbance of riparian vegetation, SWPPP • Planning Division
including trees and their root systems. The SWPPP shall specifically address . Incorporate measures
special considerations for controlling sediment and other pollutants within these into project
areas, through additional erosion control measures (such as berms and construction document
temporary retention/settling basins that divert runoff away from the creek
banks, limiting the use of heavy construction vehicles within the riparian zone,
or conserving and replacing topsoil during grading near the riparian zone to
speed up the re-establishment of stabilizing vegetation), to limit grading near
riparian areas to occur only during the dry-season. Erosion control measures
shall also include staged grading to reduce the area of exposed soil at any one
Page 37 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
period of time, and/or other measures specifically tailored to riparian and
sensitive areas.
HYD-1c: The project shall implement appropriate post-construction stormwater • Incorporate measures • Applicant
treatment measures to reduce water quality and hydromodification impacts to into project • Planning Division
downstream reaches, as required by the current post construction controls construction document
requirements of the Small MS4 General Permit. Upon completion of the final
project design, the Applicants shall provide documentation to the City of
stormwater management measures that show compliance with the Small MS4
General Permit. The report shall delineate individual drainage management
areas (DMAs) within the project site and provide analysis to show compliance
with the volumetric or flow-based treatment criteria as described in the Small
MS4 General Permit and outlined in the 2019 BASMAA (2019) guidance
document. The report shall also include design calculations that show post-
project runoff for the 2-year, 24-hour storm event does not exceed pre-project
flow for each DMA, and that each DMA has appropriate stormwater quality
treatment based on flow- or volumetric-based calculation, as outlined in the
Small MS4 General Permit and in compliance with the 2019 BASMAA guidance
document (2019). The final documentation shall be submitted to the City for
approval before the beginning of grading.
HYD-1d:The proposed multi-use trails shall be designed to direct stormwater runoff away • Incorporate measures • Applicant
from Kelly Creek and D-Street tributary and/or to vegetated pervious areas not into project • Planning Division
susceptible to erosion.The path shall be designed to limit the amount of runoff construction document
concentrated from any one portion of the path in order to prevent gullying. In
areas close to Kelly Creek or otherwise not suitable for distributed discharge of
runoff,stormwater treatment measures such as swales shall be implemented to
protect the creek.
HYD-3: Stormwater outfalls to Kelly Creek and the D Street tributary shall be designed • Incorporate measures • Applicant
to reduce the potential to cause bank instability. Outfall locations near (or into project • Planning Division
especially across from)existing or potential bank instabilities shall be avoided so construction document
that outflows do not exacerbate erosion.Appropriate energy dissipation,such as
Page 38 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
boulder aprons, biostabilization, or directing outfalls in a downstream rather
than cross-channel direction, shall be incorporated to reduce the potential to
cause erosion.
HYD-4a: Prior to final map approval, the Applicants shall submit final detention design • Incorporate measures • Applicant
that shows that appropriate controls have been included to ensure that the post- into project • Planning Division
project 10- and 100-year peak flows will not exceed pre-project peaks. construction document
Hydrologic analyses and final detention designs shall be consistent with the
standards outlined in the Sonoma Water's Flood Management Design Manual,
adopted May 19, 2020. Total detention volume may be less than the volume
projected in the preliminary hydrologic analysis if final analysis shows
appropriate compliance through integrated LID/water quality
treatment/detention features. Final hydrologic analysis and detention sizing
shall include potential increases in peak flow due to all new impervious surfaces
associated with the proposed project,including the parking areas.
HYD-4b:The project Applicants shall prepare and execute, in coordination with the City • Incorporate measures • Applicant
Engineer or other privately funded and operated maintenance mechanism which into project • Planning Division
ensures that maintenance of all detention facilities will be provided as necessary construction document
to continuously provide the required volume storage in a 10-year storm and in a
100-year storm,throughout the life of the project, and shall include a financing
mechanism acceptable to the City Engineer to ensure that the required
maintenance will be performed.
HYD-4c: The project Applicants shall design,in coordination with the City Engineer,onsite • Incorporate measures • Applicant
detention facilities sufficient to detain on-site and release runoff from storm into project • Planning Division
events such that any runoff temporarily detained on-site is released either construction document
before or after the expected peak flood flow of the Petaluma River and that any
release of runoff temporarily detained on-site does not contribute to an increase
in peak flood periods on the Petaluma River. Prior to final map approval, the
project Applicants' final stormwater detention design calculations shall be
subject to review by the City's stormwater consultant and City Engineer. The
Page 39 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
project Applicants shall be responsible for funding all costs and providing the
required technical information to the City.
HYD-6: Pedestrian bridges across Kelly Creek shall be designed to fully span the channel • Incorporate measures • Applicant
in order to reduce the potential to impede streamflow. If full-span lengths are into project • Planning Division
not feasible, bridge supports shall be designed to maximize the natural channel construction document
cross section area in order reduce the potential obstruction to in-stream flow.
NOISE
NOI-1: The proposed project shall implement the following control measures during • Conduct construction • Applicant
construction. in conformance with • Planning Division
a) Noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to daytime, weekday measures herein. • Building Division
hours (7 AM to 6 PM) and 9 AM to 5 PM on weekends and holidays. When • Incorporate into
construction is occurring within 100 feet of existing residences, then project design and
construction shall occur between 9 AM and 5 PM and shall be prohibited on construction
Sundays and Holidays. documents.
b) High noise-producing activities,such as excavation and grading and construction ' Applicant shall provide
finishing, shall be scheduled between the hours of 8 AM and 5 PM to minimize for periodic inspection
disruption on sensitive uses. during construction to
c) All stationary noise generating equipment that generates noise levels in excess ensure that measures
of 65 dBA Leq shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors. If re- are in place.
locating stationary equipment is not feasible, the equipment shall be shielded
from noise sensitive receptors by using temporary walls,sound curtains,or other
similar devices to reduce noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors to less than
65 dBA Leq.
d) The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize
equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Feasible noise controls
include improved mufflers,use of intake silencers,ducts,engine enclosures,and
acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds.
e) Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically
powered impact tools (e.g., jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise
Page 40 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools.
Where use of pneumatically-powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler
on the compressed air exhaust shall be used.A muffler could lower noise levels
from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA.External jackets on the tools themselves
shall be used where feasible;this could achieve a reduction of five dBA. Quieter
procedures shall be used (such as drilling rather than impact equipment)
wherever feasible.
f) The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise
reduction measures that include shutting off idling equipment after 5 minutes
(as feasible) and notifying adjacent residences (at least one time) in advance of
construction work.
g) The construction contractor shall not stage equipment within 200 feet of the
existing residences adjacent to the project site.
h) The contractor shall minimize use of vehicle backup alarms.A common approach
to minimizing the use of backup alarms is to design the construction site with a
circular flow pattern that minimizes backing up of trucks and other heavy
equipment. Another approach to reducing the intrusion of backup alarms is to
require all equipment on the site to be equipped with ambient sensitive alarms.
With this type of alarm,the alarm sound is automatically adjusted based on the
ambient noise.
i) Construction worker's radios shall be controlled so as to be inaudible beyond the
limits of the project site boundaries.
j) Heavy equipment,such as paving and grading equipment,shall be stored on-site
whenever possible to minimize the need for extra heavy truck trips on local
streets.
k) Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification in writing
must be provided to residents within 300 feet of the project site, disclosing the
construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be
occurring throughout the duration of the construction period.
1) The construction contractor shall designate a city-approved "disturbance
Page 41 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
coordinator" who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints
about construction noise.The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause
of the noise complaint(e.g.,starting too early,bad muffler,etc.)and shall require
that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented.
The construction contractor shall conspicuously post a telephone number for the
disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent
to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
NOI-2a: Heavy construction equipment shall be prohibited from operating within 100 • Conduct construction • Applicant
feet of an existing residence between the hours of 5:00 PM and 9:00 AM and on in conformance with • Planning Division
holidays. measures herein. • Building Division
• Incorporate into
project design and
construction
documents.
• Applicant shall provide
for periodic inspection
during construction to
ensure that measures
are in place.
NOI-2b: Operation of heavy equipment shall be prohibited within 20 feet of the barn • Conduct construction • Applicant
complex.Temporary reinforcements/stabilization measures shall be installed at in conformance with • Planning Division
the barn structures,as needed,to minimize vibration damage. measures herein. • Building Division
• Incorporate into
project design and
construction
documents.
• Applicant shall provide
for periodic inspection
during construction to
ensure that measures
are in place.
Page 42 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TRANS-5: A construction management plan shall be prepared for review and approval • Incorporate into • Applicant
by the City of Petaluma Public Works Department. The plan shall include at project design and • Planning Division
least the following items: construction
a) Development of a construction truck route that would appear on all documents
construction plans to limit truck and auto traffic on nearby streets.
b) Comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck
trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane
closure procedures if required, sidewalk closure procedures if required, cones
for drivers,and designated construction access routes.
c) Evaluation of the need to provide flaggers or temporary traffic control at key
intersections along the truck route(s).
d) Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety
personnel regarding schedules when major deliveries, detours, and lane
closures would occur.
e) Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles
if there is insufficient staging area within the work zone of the proposed
project.
f) Identification of truck routes for movement of construction vehicles that would
minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety;
provision for monitoring surface streets used for truck movement so that any
damage and debris attributable to the proposed project's construction trucks
can be identified and corrected by the proposed project applicant.
g) A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction
activity, including identification of an on-site complaint manager.
h) Documentation of road pavement conditions for all routes that would be used
by construction vehicles both before and after proposed project construction.
Page 43 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project-City of Petaluma Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCOTT RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COMPLETION OF
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION
PARTY DATE
ACTIVITY COMPLETED
Roads found to have been damaged by construction vehicles shall be repaired
to the level at which they existed prior to construction of the proposed project.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
UTL-3a: Prior to issuance of building permits,the project shall be required to upsize the • Incorporate into project • Applicant
D Street sewer between Grossland Way to the manhole west of 10th Street, design and construction • Planning Division
subject to the review and approval by the City Public Works and Utilities documents
Department.
UTL-3b: Mitigation Measure AIR-2, Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through 2c, Mitigation • Incorporate into project • Applicant
Measure CUL-3, and Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 and NOISE-2a shall be design and construction • Planning Division
implemented in conjunction with the sewer main upgrade project. documents
WILDFIRE
See Mitigation Measures GEO-1a, GEC-1b, GEO-3a, GEC-3b, HYD-4a, HYD-4b,
and HYD 6.
Page 44 July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Scott Ranch Project
Errata to Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2004072137
On June 10, 2022, the City of Petaluma released the Final EIR for the Scott Ranch Project. This
Errata document provides corrections and clarifications to the information presented in the FEIR.
Deleted text is marked in and new text is marked in double underline:
Page 2.0-12,Replace Figure 3.0-6, Project Site Slope
(Replace figure presented in FEIR, with updated Figure 3.0-6, Attached hereto, reflecting the
revised site plan.)
Page 2.0-18,3.5.1, first sentence
ppr-, iif. The Davidon (28-Lot) Residential Project component would comprise
Uproximately 19 2-5 percent of the project site (11.7 4-5 acres),of which 6.4 acres would be woul
by developed with 28 single family residences and streets, aa4 approximately4.78 acres would be
private eemme open space, and approximately 0.5 acres would be infiltration basin south of
Windsor Drive.
Page 2.0-20, Replace Figure 3.0-9, Proposed Amendments to General Plan Figure 5-2,
Bicycle Facilities
(Replace figure presented in FEIR, with updated Figure 3.0-9, Attached hereto, reflecting the
Proposed Amendments to General Plan Figure 5-2, Bicycle Facilities.)
Page 2.0-25, Replace Figure 3.0-11 Title as follows:
Representative Floor Plan Configuration for''�2.489 sf Single-Story Home
Page 2.0-26, Replace Figure 3.0-12 Title as follows:
Representative Floor Plan Configuration for''�2.863 sf Single-Story Home
Page 2.0-27, Replace Figure 3.0-13 Title as follows:
1 Errata to Scott Ranch Project Final EIR
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Representative Floor Plan Configuration for 4=,64;3,380 sf Two-Story Home
Page 2.0-41
Of these 16 4-9 trees,nine are in good health and seven are in fair or marginal health. The resident
eempenent remove 16 trees Pr-eteeted Trees. In addition, Tthere may be up to three trees
that would require trimming or removal for the D Street off-site sidewalk improvement.
As such, the residential component would result in the removal of approximately 16 to 19 trees.
Page 2.0-44,Replace Figure 3.0-16 Title as follows:
Fuel Management Zones
Page 2.0-45, 3rd bullet
• Fuel-Modification Zone 1 piw
Page 2.0-45,3r1 paragraph
Fuel Modification Zone 1 (pink is within the fenced cattle grazing area portion of the
proposed Helen Putnam Park Extension. . .
Page 2.0-64, final sentence
Should funding allow, the proposed park extension component would be.
Page 3.0-1, 3.1 INTRODUCTION
This Chapter of the Response to Comments document contains master responses to comments on
the Draft EIR to those issues that were frequently raised in comment letters and by Commissioners,
Council Members, and the public at oral comments at public hearings. These frequently raised
issues include:
Page 3.0-8, final sentence of first full paragraph
Although not needed to reduce any significant environmental impact, Mitigation Measure 1310-
1b on page 4.3-42 of the RDEIR has been revised as follows to require that preconstruction surveys
address the remote potential impact on American badger dens,burrows of western burrowing owl,
and individual western pond turtle and foothill yellow-legged frog if individuals from these species
were to occupy the site in the future in advance of construction.
2 Errata to Scott Ranch Project Final EIR
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Page 3.0-10
No additional protocol surveys to confirm presence or absence of special-status animal species on
the project site were considered necessary based on the results of the 2021 updated surveys,beyond
the preconstruction clearance surveys identified to implement avoidance measures or incidental
take of CRLF (Mitigation Measure BIO-lb), nesting raptors and other native birds (Mitigation
Measure BIO-lc),and roosting bats(Mitigation Measure BIO-ld).As noted above,Mitigation
Measure BIO-lb has been revised to clarify that preconstruction surveys specifically include
American badger, western burrowing owl, western pond turtle, and foothill yellow-legged frog.
Page 3.0-36, second sentence
As described in Chapter 2.0, Revised Project Description, in this document, these revisions
would reduce the acreage occupied by residential lots and associated streets from approximately
11.7 to approximately 7.09 acres, would provide approximately 4.84 acres of private open space,
and would increase the acreage of the Putnam Park Extension Project component from
approximately 44 to 47 acres.
Page 3.0-36, final sentence
U Figure 3-1 shows the anticipated limits of permanent and temporary impacts associated
with the revised Proiect , as determined in the
UBA and verified through peer review by the City's independent biologist.
Page 3.0-48, first full paragraph
While the extension to Helen Putnam Park would result in a slight increase in lee-al vehicle trips
to the park as described in Master Response 7—Trip Generation,this finer-ease would result f em
redistribution of existing ',.ea ro tiona *rips and would Mere not result in a substantial
increase in regional VMT nor conflict with the State's ability to meet the greenhouse gas reduction
targets. Further, elements of the project would reduce the VMT generated by the park, such as the
provision of parking lots closer to existing Petaluma residences that would reduce the distance for
people driving to the park and the introduction of multi-use paths, sidewalk gap closures,
crosswalk improvements, and other frontage improvements that would make it easier for nearby
residents to walk and bike to the park.
Page 3.0-49, third paragraph
Given this information, the conclusions presented in the RDEIR would remain unchanged and
does not require recirculation.
3 Errata to Scott Ranch Project Final EIR
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Page 3.0-54, third paragraph
The proposed on-site improvements would reduce vehicle travel by 105 VMT under existing
conditions. This would be greater than the VMT offset required to reduce impact associated with
seven of the proposed 28 residential units to a less-than-significant level.19 Pr-ioF to eeeUp^ffey ^the eighth r-esidefAial �mit, the City weWd assess whieh speeifie sidewalk gaps, or- othef NINCT
reduction measufes sueh as these deseribed below, would be feasible to Feduee the VMT impaet
to loss than s nifl ant levels.
Page 3.0-57,3.14 second paragraph
The project site provides turning radii and backup space adequate to
accommodate emergency fire equipment with vehicles parked on surrounding streets.
Page 4.0-743,Response O-PLAN-1-2
However, reinforcement of leash controls through the interpretive program called for in
Mitigation Measures BI04a and BIO-lb(il would address this concern.
Page 4.0-990,Response I-Risedorph-1-1
Predation and disturbance to wildlife by domesticated pets of future residents and visitors to the
site is a risk. However,reinforcement of leash controls through the interpretive program called for
in Mitigation Measures BI04a and BIO-lb(i)would address this concern.
Page 4.0-1132,Response I-Smallwood-27
However, reinforcement of leash controls through the interpretive program called for in
Mitigation Measures BI04a and BIO-lb(il would address this concern.
Page 5.0-5, Page 2.0-15, Mitigation Measure BIO-lb(a):
a. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a Service-approved biologist prior to any
grading or major vegetation clearance to ensure that no individual CRLF are lost during
construction. These preconstruction surveys shall also verify the presence or absence of
occupied dens of American badger,burrows of western burrowing owl, and individuals of
western pond turtle and foothill yellow-leggedg in the remote instance individuals were
to disperse onto the site in advance of construction-related disturbance. The Final
CRUMP shall: 1) describe in detail the survey approach and methodology, and 2) specify
that grading or vegetation clearance may not occur in any area where individual CRLF,
American badger, western burrowing owl, western pond turtle, and/or foothill elm
legged frog are located until such time as the individual has either moved out of the
disturbance zone or has been physically relocated by a Service-approved biologist legally
4 Errata to Scott Ranch Project Final EIR
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
authorized to handle the species. Any relocation effort for CRLF, American badger,
western burrowing owl, western pond turtle, and/or foothill yellow-legged,ms frog shall be
formulated in consultation with and approved by CDFW and USFWS, and shall be
implemented by a qualified biologist.
Page 5.0-10, Section 4.1 Aesthetics
Page 4.1-8, Section 4.1.4.3, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, second paragraph
under Impact AES-1:
As described in Section 1.2, Project History, of this document, public comments expressed
concerns with the previously proposed residential development and its impact on the aesthetic
resources of the project site. The proposed Scott Ranch project includes a substantially smaller
residential component than the previously proposed development that would be clustered on a 11.2
-13-acre portion of the 58-acre project site adjacent to existing housing subdivisions.
Approximately 5 3 acres of the 11.2 -13-acre portion would be landscaped as rim
open space, within the residential development.
Page 5.0-44, Page 4.3-47, second paragraph:
Based on the tree assessment prepared for the project (Arborwell 2018 and Prunuske Chatham,
Inc. 2019a), approximately 27 38 trees would be removed on-site, most of which qualify as
Protected Trees under the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance given their location along the Kelley
Creek corridor or along the Windsor Drive and D Street rights-of-ways. In addition,up to three(3)
trees would potentially be removed for the D Street off-site sidewalk improvement. On-site trees
to be removed consist of 12 native coast live oak, six non-native London plane (Platanus
acerifolia), two non-native scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) five nonnative eucalyptus, and two
Monterey cypress.
Page 5.0-44, Page 4.3-49,Native Grassland, first paragraph:
Proposed grading and development would eliminate an estimated 0.76 0.9=5 � acres of native
grasslands on the site with approximately 0.64 0:85 acres to accommodate grading and
development for the Davidon(28-lot)Residential Project component and the remaining 0.12 0-46
acres associated with improvements under the Putnam Park Extension Project component.
Page 5.0-57, Policy 1-P-36:
As such, the number of units allowed to be developed on the project site ranges between 28 2=76-
113 44,0 dwelling units. The proposed project falls within this range.
5 Errata to Scott Ranch Project Final EIR
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Page 5.0-58, Policy 2-P-8:
General!!, Consistent: The new street north of Windsor Drive (proposed "A" street) would be
single loaded and the proposed design maximizes preservation and access to Kelly Creek and open
space preservation by clustering the minimum required density to one edge of the site and
maintaining approximately 47 44 acres for open space with public access. The new street proposed
between Windsor Drive and Kelly Creek (proposed `B" street) would be dam- single loaded.
No residential development or improvements would occur south of`B" Street,which provides for
maximum public accessibility, visibility, and stewardship.
Proposed "BB
along both sides G-r-e-olk is Proposed Qlad 4:'AllIti 41QP JAA:M tr-Qil 4AXA411.A
—sibility along
Page 5.0-59, Policy 2-P-61:
Consistent: Approximately 9_2 444 22 acres of the approximately 58.66-acre site would be
permanently disturbed, and the remainder would be permanently protected. The
project would preserve about 94 percent of the existing trees on the site and maintain the existing
barn complex.
Page 5.0-69, Page 4.13-22,Vehicular Traffic:
These VMT per capita values are based on the SCTA travel demand model, as noted in Section
4.13.2.2 Roadway Network Analysis. Changes to the VMT numbers are minor and result from use
of the latest available regional model, as opposed to a change in the project. Therefore,there is no
change in the significance finding and recirculation is not warranted.
Page 5.0-80, Page 4.13-62, final paragraph
Additionally, project conditions of approval would allow imp@sed a4 d the CiIy
Engineer to re uire; a warning to northbound
drivers on D street about the approaching roundabout to slow vehicles from entering Petaluma
from rural Sonoma County.
Page 5.0-82, first paragraph
As shown in Appendix RTC-B of this document, the proposed pedestrian network improvements
would result in a communjty-level VMT reduction of approximately 144 VMT under cumulative
conditions and there is limited evidence in CAPCOA 2021 that would support additional on-site
and near-site VMT reductions for projects in single-use low density locations with limited transit
6 Errata to Scott Ranch Project Final EIR
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
service such as the Scott Ranch project. The remaining VMT over the threshold would be
approximately 321 VMT under cumulative plus project conditions. Although an exhausted review
of potentially feasible VMT reduction measures were explored, as presented in Appendix RTC-B,
none are currently feasible for quantifiable VMT mitigation purposes given the uncertainties
related to outside agency approval requirements, the timing that it will take to implement these
measures, the lack of design or plans in place to implement, and the lack of a Citywide
administration plan to oversee the collection of VMT fees and the implementation and monitoring
of VMT reductions. Therefore, since there is no feasible this mitigation measure,the project would
have a significant impact on VMT under the cumulative condition.
Page 5.0-90, Page 4.15-24, first paragraph:
The assessment found that under both scenarios, all roadway segments would operate at volume
to capacity (V/C) ratios of under 1.0, which indicates that the roadways can successfully operate
at evacuation capacity. A V/C ratio of greater than 1.0 would result in a vehicle slowdown and
longer travel times. The highest V/C ratio expected is 0.93 446, for Western Avenue between
English Street and Petaluma Boulevard.
Page 5.0-90, Page 4.15-26, last paragraph:
4. Fuel-Modification Zone 1 (RiA )
Page 5.0-95, Page 5.0-10, footnote number 4:
The net acreage of the site is 45.27 45.13 acres (excludes proposed public or private rights-of-
way, required public open space [the three-acre park required by the General Plan], and the
200-foot-wide Kelly Creek corridor, floodways,but does not exclude the Urban Separator per
Policy 1-P-19). Because the General Plan's residential density formula excludes "proposed"
vehicular rights-of-way from the net acreage calculation, the project's reductions in proposed
street rights-of-way have resulted in an increase in the net acreage calculation. As such, the
number of units allowed to be developed on the project site ranges between 28 and 4=1=0 113
dwelling units.
FEIR Appendix RTC-D Wildfire, Page 18, third paragraph
The Fuel Modification Zones 1 and 2 encompass the remainder of the open space portion of the
project site(show in in yellow and pink ,respectively)and ensure the fuels do not exacerbate
fire hazards to adjacent landowners and structures. Fuel Modification Zone 1 (yellow) is within
the portion of the proposed Helen Putnam Park Extension where cattle grazing is most likely and
is designed to limit fire intensity and spread by means of the pruning of trees, reduction of
understory plants, and use of prescribed herbivory(grazing). Fuel Modification one 2(pink )
7 Errata to Scott Ranch Project Final EIR
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
is also within the proposed Helen Putnam Extension, but is outside the most likely cattle grazing
area;
FEIR Appendix RTC-D Wildfire,Page 24,final sentence of first paragraph under Standards
for Fuel Modification
Fuel Modification Zone 2,which is not likely to be regularly grazed(but where grazing is allowed
if feasible), is shown in pink per, as areas 11-15 in the same Figure 6.
8 Errata to Scott Ranch Project Final EIR
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
-PARCEL D MAT AC) i (0.30 AC) � * w
I. '/ I.AE�L OF<AtE
• A STWWT
PARC$A W .� I
1
_
1 N aOR .DRIP
�— j
(47.43 AC1
` 41 ~a
2- �I
or
/r EXISTING SLOPE LEGEND.-
__�- -- ="` ♦ i1 <�-lox
goo
< I 1
�5-30x
♦307G
Source: BKF Engineers, 2022 F i3_i-E 3.0-6
Project Site Slopes
DocuSign Envelope ID:039194B4-AA25-4B6F-A8F7-75E043FBBE7C
Figure 5-2
PROPOSED AND EXISTING
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Petaluma General Plan 2025
....... Bike Facilities
+ Existing Bike Rack Location
...............
0 Proposed Bike Rack Location
—Class I-Off Street-Existing
.......Class
s�,-Off Street-Proposed
—I ass 11-On Street,Non-striped-Existing
Proposed —Class 11-On Street,Striped-Existing
.......Class 11-On Street,Striped-Proposed
+
+ Class III-On Street,Signed-Existing
% .......Class III-On Street,Signed-Proposed
+
+ Recreational Trail,Existing
+ Recreational Trail-Proposed
+
+ + +
Destinations
Schools
+ • Retail/Employment
+ + Open Space
.... ..........
Park
+
+ + ..........
+
Boundaries
•
City Limit
O+ + Urban Growth Boundary(UGB)
+
%
r———
N
City of Petaluma
11 E,gI!sCStraet'
2
Petalumaens ,
L SOURCE:Impact Sciences,2020
FIGURE3.0-9
Proposed Amendments to General Plan Figure 5-2, Bicycle Facilities
1222.001-12/20