Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 5.D 9/10/2012
Agenda/ay Iterw#5.V t(AA 1858 DATE: September 10, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council-through City Manager FROM: Dan St. John, F:ASCE— Director, Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Resolution.Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving the Denman.Reach.Phase 3 Flood Impact Reduction, Restoration and Enhancement Project, located along Industrial Avenue between Corona Road and Petaluma Boulevard North • RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council'adopt the attached Resolution to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.(MND) for the Denman Reach Phase 3 Project and Approve the Project with the Incorporation of Mitigation Measures. BACKGROUND The proposed project willextend flood terracing upstream along the Petaluma River of the existing Denman Reach Phase 1 and 2 projects located northwest of the Corona Street Bridge, by creating a longer floodway terrace adjacent to the riparian corridor. City Council On October 20, 2008, the City Council adoptedResolution No..2008-198 N.C. S. endorsing the application, in partnership with the Conservation Corps North Bay, for an Urban Streams Restoration Grant for the Denman Reach Phase 3 project and authorized the conditional acceptance.of,the grant and designating contract management and fiscal agent for the project. On April 18, 2012 the City was notified of the award of the $993,375 grant. Planning Commission On July 24, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project. The Commission received public comments from two citizens, both supporting the project and unanimously (5-0, two absent) recommended that the City Council approve the MND and the Project. During their deliberation the Commission had questions and comments, which are reflected in the attached Summary of Comments and Responses; and directed several minor text amendments, which are included in the attached Addendum to-the Revised'Initial Study. Agenda Review: City Attorn Finance Director City Man DISCUSSION The attached Planning Commission:report provides the staff analysis on-the project's.compliance and applicability to the General.Plan 2025, the River Access and"Enhancement Plan, and the City Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Review Comments received from the Initial Study prepared and published in January 2012 were incorporated into the Revised Initial Study dated June 2012 ("Revised Initial Study"). The Revised Initial Study and MND were recirculated for public comment. Public Notice of the document's availability was published in the Argus Courier on July 5, 2012, and distributed to the State Clearinghouse and all appropriate referral agencies the week before the publication date as well as provided to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site and citizens who have indicated interest in or provided comments on this project. Comments received to date are attached in Attachment 4. Although not required by CEQA, written responses to comments are attached in Attachment 5. Recommended amendments and/or additions to the Revised Initial Study are attached as Attachment 6 and will be,incorporated into the document if the Council approves the proposed resolution. None of the amendments or additions identify new avoidable significant impacts or show that proposed mitigation or project revisions are inadequate to mitigate identified impacts. Therefore, recirculation of the Revised MND is not required as the result of the amendments. Mitigation measures for the Project are set forth in Exhibit A of the proposed Resolution, Attachment 1. Project Summary Grading to lower the eastern top-of-bank surface approximately 4 to 6 feet in a zone extending from approximately 75 to as much as 150 feet wide along the river will create the terrace. This will provide flood impact reduction, water quality improvements, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat benefits. Components of the flood terrace excavation will include creation and or restoration of riparian habitat buffer zones,:seasonal wetlands,.and shallow surface water filtering swales (bioswales). In addition to floodplain restoration, the project will include construction of a public access trail along the upland portions of the site, and installation of educational / interpretive displays. The proposed additional length of trail will link to the existing trail to encompass a total length of 4,000 feet of public access to the riverine corridor habitat. Native plant species endemic.to the area will be planted and maintained to improve existing habitat conditions. The project includes the acquisition of as many as three vacant parcels along the east bank of the Petaluma River within the lower Denman Reach. Acquisition is underway with funding from the State Natural Resources Agency with a grant of$850,000 received in 2011. Environmental review for the acquisition phase of the project was completed in February 2012 with the filing of a Notice of Determination. The Grant Agreement for the acquisition grant has been fully executed with the State but awaits the first drawdown to coincide with escrow activity. To date,appraisals have been prepared and are awaiting review and approval by State General Services. Pre-construction monitoring and seed collection will Occur this fall, construction in 2013, completion in 2014. 2 FINANCIAL IMPACTS Project funding is provided by the two State grants, $850,000 and $993,375, and SCWA Zone 2A $362,500 for a.total of$4205,875. Both the acquisition and physical improvement grants provide for reimbursement of administrative costs. The Grant Agreement for the implementation phase of the Project is pending completion of the post-construction Mitigation Monitoring Plan, which will occur following Council's approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ATTACHMENTS • 1. Resolution to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Denman Reach Phase 3 Project and Approve the Project with the Incorporation of Mitigation Measures (including Recommended Mitigations and Conditions of Approval). 2. Planning Commission Resolution recommending to the City Council Approval of the Denman Reach Phase 3 Project and Recommending Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. Planning Commission!Report. 4. Comments including those received at the Commission.hearing of July 24, 2012 5. Responses to Comments received on the.Revised Initial Study, including Commission hearing. 6. Addendum to Revised Initial Study, reflecting minor text amendments received from agencies, public and Planning Commission. ® Items listed below are large in volume and are not attached to this report, but may be viewed in the City Clerk's office. 1. Revised Initial Study dated June 2012 • 3 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) FOR THE DENMAN REACH PHASE 3 PROJECT AND APPROVE THE PROJECT WITH THE INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma applied for and was conditionally awarded a grant from the State Department of Water Resources, Urban Streams Restoration Program, in the amount of $993,375 for the implementation of a flood impact reduction, restoration and enhancement project along the Petaluma River within the lower section of Denman Reach ("the Project"); and, WHEREAS, the Project is located within the study area of the Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted by the City on May 19, 2008; and, WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the Revised Initial Study, including but not limited to effects of biological resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and surface/storm water systems, the City relied in part on the program EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified on April 7, 2008 (General Plan EIR) with the adoption of Resolution No. 2008-058 N.C.S., which is incorporated herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared a Revised Initial Study for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15070 through 15074.1 and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was required in order to analyze the potential for new or additional significant environmental impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR; and, WHEREAS, on or before June 28, 2012, the City's Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the Revised Initial Study, providing for a 30-day public comment period commencing July 5, 2012 and ending August 5, 2012 and a Notice of Public Hearing to be held on July 24, 2012 before the City of Petaluma Planning Commission, was published and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the Project as well as all persons having requested special notice of said proceedings; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the analysis in the Initial Study, the Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate,a plant or'animal.community, substantially reduce°the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to further analysis in.the Revised Initial Study, the Project does not make significant impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor have environmental effects which may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly; and, 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a;public hearing on July 24, 2012, during which the Commission considered the Project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Revised Initial Study, and supporting documentation referenced.in the Initial Study, and received and considered all written and oral public comments on environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the time°of-the public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on July 24, .2012 the Planning Commission completed its review of the Project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and, by the adoption of Resolution 2012-10; recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Project; and, WHEREAS, on September 10,:2012, at a duly noticed public meeting, the Petaluma City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all supporting documents including but not limited to the Revised Initial Study and proposed amendments and additions, the recommendation of the Planning Commission; staff reports and related materials, and all public comments and evidence presented at or before the meeting ; and, WHEREAS, the Revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration identify mitigation measures applicable to the Project, as incorporated herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, the 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Revised Initial Study, and related project and environmental doeuments, including the General Plan 2025 BIR and all documents incorporated herein by reference, are available for review in the City Community Development Department at Petaluma City Hall, during normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the 'record Of proceedings for the proposed project is the City of Petaluma Community Development Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952,.Attn: Heather Hines, Planning Manager. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council finds Jand determines as follbws: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference as findings. 1. Based on.its review of the entire record herein, including the MND, the Revised Initial. Study, all supporting, referenced and incorporated documents and all comments received and responses and additions thereto, the City Council further finds that there i"s no substantial evidence that the Project as mitigated and 'conditioned will have'a significant effect on the environment, that the Mitigated Negative,Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Revised Initial Study as amended, and 5 supporting documents provide an adequate description of the impacts of the Project and cohiply with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines. 2. The Revised Initial Study and Mitigation Negative Declaration shall incorporate the text additions and amendments contained in the attached Exhibits 5 and 6. 3. The City Council adopts the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit A hereto and incorporated by reference. All mitigation measures contained therein shall be conditions of approval of the Project. 4. The City Council hereby approves the Denman Reach Phase 3 flood impact reduction, restoration and enhancement project. 6 EXHIBIT A ccp...LUn, City of-Petaluma, California Public Works and Utilities Arf k Water Resources Division 785$ Project Name: Denman Reach Phase 3 Address/Location: 1300 block Industrial Ave. (APNs 007-412-031, -033, and -036) REPORTING/MONITORING RECORD—MITIGATION MEASURES This document has been developed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code Section 21.081,6 to ensure proper and adequate monitoring or reporting in conjunction with project approval which relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Review Due Date Staff Dept. Date Completed Initials Section I. Aesthetics A. A detailed landscape Planting Plan will be PD, SPAR GP prepared as part of the project that will, with project implementation, increase the`number'of woody plants in this area. Plantings will be grouped with the goal of improving the overall aesthetics of the site. The visual character of the existing riparian corridor will change initially due to vegetation removal and grading; however, planting will mitigate the temporary loss of groundcover. Tall canopy providing mature trees would be left intact. The project goal of restoration_and enhancement will result in an improved riparian corridor. B. All significant, mature, native trees will be PD, SPAR GP protected and left in place in the overall project. Section IV. Biological Resources (Note: it.'is recognized that vegetation management-and/or removal timeframes differ between agencies. Actual regulatory permits will define activity timeframes.) C. B1O-1 As close to the beginning of PD CoC construction as possible, but not more than 14 days prior to c onstruction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a final pre-activity survey of the construction zone to ensure that steelhead trout, Western Pond Turtle, California red legged frog or other special status-wildlife and/or plant species have not recently occupied the site. 7 Surveys will also be completed for nesting birds. If any special status species are found, exclusion zones should be established and maintained until all construction activities are completed. In some cases it may be preferable to remove and/or relocate the individual plant or animal. .If special status species are found during:the preconstruction survey, the biologist should be present immediately prior to construction activities that have the potential to impact special status species to identify and protect potentially sensitive.resources. D. B1O-2 To avoid impacts to wildlife, PD CA grading would be limited to the dry season, and when low flow conditions are present in the neighboring river, between June 15 and October 15, while vegetation management would be limited to between June 15 and November 15 to avoid potential impacts to anadromous species and nesting birds, unless an earlier start date is approved by a DFG representative. The Biological Monitor will be on site during vegetation management work to ensure that there is.no potential disturbance to nesting bird species.. E. BIO-3 Embedded pieces of large woody PW&U debris or the stumps of existing trees in the stream bed shall be,left in place to encourage pool formation. Prior to any tree removal, trees greater than 4-inch diameter to be removed shall be marked by the project biologist. The CCNB, SSCRCD or the project biologist shall provide an opportunity to inspect and approve the tree marking to a Department of Fish and Game representative. Root systems of trees removed from the bed or banks of the stream shall be left in place to minimize bed or bank disturbance. F. B1O-4 Comply with conditions of the PW&U, CA Streambed Alteration Agreement for CCNB, vegetation management within the low flow DFG, channel, as well as additional measures F&w imposed as permit conditions beyond those proposed and ' outlined in this document. Permitting. will involve consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Army Corps, and State 8 • Regional Water Quality Control Board. It is likely that further measurea will be required as the permit conditions to avoid impacts to listed or special status species, and such conditions will be carried out. Likely 1602 Permit conditions include: 1. Root systems of trees removed from the bed or banks of the stream shall be left in place to minimize bed or bank disturbance. 2. Wood chips from the chipping of removed logs or branches shall be placed in a location from which they will not be able to enter the creek. 3. To avoid impacts to breeding frogs and other wildlife, vegetation removal activities shall be confined to the period July 15 to March 1, unless an earlier start date is approved by the Department of Fish and Game representative. 4. Embedded pieces.of large woody debris or the stumps of existing trees in the"stream bed shall be left in place to encourage pool formation. 5. Only native trees that are below the level of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) may be removed. Root systems from these trees shall be left in place unless removal is specifically authorized by the project aquatic biologist after consultation with Department of Fish and Game representative. 6. Prior to any tree removal longer than 4" dbh, all such trees to be removed shall be marked by the project biologist. The SCCRCD or the project biologist shall, provide an opportunity to inspect and approve the tree marking to Department of Fish and Game representative. 7. Minimize disturbance of trees that are providing shade canopy, except for those growing below the ordinary high water mark. 8. Plant poles and sprigs taken from native red tree willows and cotton wood seedlings along the 3,000=foot reach of stream downstream of Corona Road. Irrigate poles as needed to ensure at least 80% survival at the end of three years. 9. Tree removal shall be scheduled to avoid disturbance of nesting birds. If occupied nests 9 are present, work, that would disturb nesting birds shall be postponed until all birds have left their nests (mid-July). G. B1O-5 Mitigation planting of native plant PW&U, CA species for any habitat disruption shall be CCNB, completed within the Petaluma-River Corridor, SC WA, as defined within the General Plan 2025, as DFG well as a parcel of land belonging to the Sonoma County Water Agency, per the site planting plans. Potential Biologic Impacts from use of herbicides and/or soil erosion sedimentation, and use of construction chemicals will also be minimized by the implementation of water quality mitigations described in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section. This includes adherence to the project BMPs. H. BIO-6 The Project Manager will conduct PW&U, CoC training session for all Contractors:prior to the CCNB start of work. For'the vegetation management portion of the project, this will include a 'h.day training session on vegetation management for the crew. A Project Manager or Project Biologist will be on hand at all tirnes.duririg the performance of work. The on-site project manager or biologist will keep a daily journal of activities, including digital photo log of all work completed. An as-built report will be prepared upon completion of work and provided to the City of Petaluma. Section V. Cultural Resources 1. CULT-1 Should any discovery of artifacts PW&U CA occur during grading activities, the following actions will be undertaken: a. In the event that archaeological :features, such as concentrations of artifacts or/culturally modified soil deposits `including trash pits older than, fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading, scraping or excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find and„a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted-immediately to make an evaluation: If warranted by the discovery of a concentration of artifacts' or soil deposits, further 10 work in the discovery area should be monitored by an archaeologist. b. Although unlikely, if human remains are encountered, 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. Tf 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. Section VI. Geology and Soils J. GEO.-1: Grading within the active low flow PW&U, • CA channel (below OHW) will not be permitted. CCNB, The work limits to be shown on the grading DFG plan shall be clearly marked prior to the start of construction. Sensitive wetlands and areas of sensitive top of bank willows will be protected. K. GEO-2: All provisions of the City of Petaluma PW&U, CA Grading Ordinance, the project plans, and the PD project geotechnical report prepared for Phases 1 and 2 will be followed. Finished grades will not steeper than 2H:1 V. L. GEO-3: Earthwork, including grading and fill PW&U, CoC, placement will only occur between the period PD CA of June 1 and October 15. All disturbed areas will be stabilized upon final grading and protected using •a combination of pennanent vegetative treatment, mulching, geotextiles, as shown in the project Erosion Control Plan (ECP),to be included in the grading plans. In addition, the selected construction Contractor will be required to develop a SWPPP (subject to City approval) and implement the Plan. The City's Project Manager will monitor (and document) to insure that the ECP and SWPPP and other provisions of the approved improvement,plans are being followed. M. GEO-4: Construction shall minimize all PW&U, I CoC potential contributions of sediment to the PD waterway. The excavated-material not used as within the trail pathway area will be removed 1 1 and placed at sites outside the channel, any wetlands, or the floodway. In compliance with General Plan .2025 program 8-P-35 J, the grading permit will identify the 'disposal site and shall require that any dirt hauled from the project site be located outside a regulatory floodplain with the Planning Referral Area (Petaluma Watershed). Although not anticipated, any excavated fill placed within the one hundred year floodplain for project related trail improvements shall be done in a manner to ensure there will be no rise in the base elevation and no flood related off-site impacts. This will be verified by a registered civil engineer. N. GEO-5: Site grubbing and earthmoving PW&U, CoC, activities will be completed prior to October 15 PD, CA of the construction year. Work beyond October DFG 15 (with the exception of revegetation until November 15) shall be specifically authorized in advance by the appropriate regulatory agencies. All erosion control shall meet specifications of the City of Petaluma Erosion Control Ordinance. Erosion control and sediment detention devices shall be incorporated into the project design and implemented at the time of construction. • These devices shall'be in place prior to October 15 and the onset of rains for the purposes of minimizing fine sediment and sediment/water slurry input to flowing water, and of'detaining water to retain sediment on-site. These devices will be placed at all locations where the likelihood of sediment input exists. Sediment collected in these devices shall be disposed of away from the collection site and outside riparian areas and flood hazard,areas. Section VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions O. GHG-1: Standard Best Management-Practices, PW&U CA including BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines (i.e. watering for dust control) shall be incorporated into all construction activities in order to minimize dust and exhaust emissions during grading and construction activities. General Plan 2025 GHG reduction programs. shall be complied with. Section VIII-Hazards and"Hazardous Materials 12 P. Application of Mitigations HYD-1 through PW&U CA HYD-4. Section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality Q. HYD-1: A detailed Storm Water Pollution PW&U CoC, Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared CA and implemented by the Contractor„ subject to review and approval of the City of Petaluma, as a line item in the construction agreement. Construction plans should specify all erosion and sediment control measures that will be used, including (where applicable): 1. Limiting access routes to the creek channel and stabilizing access points; 2. Stabilizing graded areas;as soon as possible with seeding, mulching, erosion control materials or other effective methods; 3. Delineating clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive areas, vegetation and drainage courses by marking them in the field; 4. Stabilizing and preventing erosion from temporary conveyance channels and outlets; 5. If rainfall occurs, using sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water collected on-site duringconstruction R. HYD-2: Implement . established Best PW&U, CoC, Management Practices (BMPs) to control PD, CA short-term construction water quality impacts. RWQCB 1. Construction BMPs would reduce erosion of disturbed soils during construction activities, and are used to minimize wind and water erosion, and transport of sediments during;construction. BMPs shall include. :as a minimum the following measures:. 2. Temporary measures, such as flow diversion, temporary ditches, and silt fencing. 3. Surface disturbance of soil and vegetation would be kept to a minimum. 4. Any stockpiled soil, awaiting removal from the site, would be placed and sloped so that it would not be subject to accelerated erosion. S. HYD-3: Conformance with the State Water RWQCB, RPI, Resources Control Board Construction SCWA, CoC, General Permit, including implementation of a 13 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan PW&U CA (SWPPP) and the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Stream Maintenance Program Guidelines, which include Best Management Practices. The BMPs cover selective vegetation management, including use of herbicides and other chemicals. T. HYD-4: Incorporate potentially hazardous DGF, RPI, materials storage and handling plan into the PW&U CoC, overall Streambed Alteration Agreement. CA Provisions will include, but not be limited to the following: 1. Refueling outside the riparian corridor with measures for containing accidental fuel spills. 2. All construction equipment and machinery shall be checked for leaks prior to entry into the stream channel (note: this BMP would not apply this,project as no rolling equipment is expected•to be placed within the stream channel). 3. Any construction equipment shall not be stored or stockpiled in the creek channel. 4. No herbicide application in or near flowing water, and all herbicides shall be applied under the direction of a licensed Pest Control Applicator, and-in accordance with appropriate regulations. U. HYD-5: Construct flood-proofing with a PW&U, CoC flood panel and rubber gaskets, or approved PD equal, to the entry door at #1 C Street (Bay Bridge Garage). Section XII. Noise V. NOISE-1: Temporary noise impacts will be PW&U, CA limited by restricting construction activities to PD daylight hours 'weekdays from 1:00 am to 7:00 pm,. and Saturdays 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, with no'work'on Sundays. This shall exceed standards of the C ity of Petaluma Noise Ordinance which specifically prohibits construction activity between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am Monday through Friday, and between 10:00 pm and 9:00 am on Saturdays, Sundays, and State, Federal; or local holidays. W. NOISE-2: Require hearing protection for PD CA workers operating, and in close proximity to, heavy machinery, including chainsaws, brush 14 mowers, and weed trimmers in accordance with CGR 29, Part' 1910.95 and OSHA standards. Department/Agency Requested By or Due Date PW&U Public Works&Utilities GP Grading Permit CCNB Conservation Corps North"Bay,(City grant partner) SPAR Site Plan and Architectural Review PD Planning Division, including Building Inspection CoC Commencement of Construction RA Regulatory/Referral Agency CA Construction Activity SCWA:,Sonoma County Water Agency RPI Regulatory or Referral Permit RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board Issuance:(see RA list) DFG: Dept. of Fish& Game F&W: U.S. Fish;&.Wildlife Service PCM Post-Construction Monitoring • 15 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-10 CITY OF"PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDINGcOTHE CITY CQUNCIL,APPROVAL OF THE DENMAN`REACH PHASE 3 PROJECT AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Petaluma by Resolution 2008-198 N.C.S. endoised the filing of an application for a grant from the State of California, Urban Streams Restoration Program and, WHEREAS, pursuant to said Resolution the Council further-authorized the City Manager to accept the grant and designated the contractrnanager and fiscal agent;and, WHEREAS, the City has received notification of conditional award of the requested grant in the amount of $993,375; and. WHEREAS, the project, located in the I300,block of-Industrial Avenue. is within the study area of the Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted`bythe City on May 19,.200£; and, WHEREAS',the project is also within the study area of the River Accessand,Enhancernenl Plan, first adopted in May, 1996'and readopted through the General Plan.2025 in May, 2008. and, WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Miligated-NegativeDeclaration(MND) was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQA): and. WHEREAS, notice of the City's intention to adopt a MND and of the availability of the MNbtora-thlrty:day:publicreview,andcommentperiodwasoriginallygivenon.January 16. 2012 in accordance with CEQA; and, WHEREAS. the City modified the Initial Study and MND in response to comments received during the sPublic,review period and noticed the Cify's intention to adopt d revised MND and of the availability of the revised MND for a thirty:day-public review and-comment period on July 5, 2012 in accordance with CEQA; and, 16 WHEREAS, on July 24„2012, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider and review the project and WIND tor recommendation to the City Council. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby: I. Recommends that the•Petaluma City Council approve the Denman Reach Phase 3 project: and, 2 Recommends adoption at the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. ADOPTED this 24th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: Commissi'o'ner Aye>. NoAbsent Abstain` Abercrombie X Elias X Herries Johnson X Kearney Chair Pierre. X Woipert X C— _6 Jenrnte i- e, Chair ATTEST /:- APPROVED AS TO FORM: H 'ether Hines Corn, ;J'sion Secretary Leslie Thomsen, Assistant City Attorney 17 Attachment 3 CITY OF PETALUMA STAFF REPORT Public Works&Utilities Department,202 McDowell Blvd.North, Petaluma, CA 94954 (707)778-4546 Fax(707)778-4508 E-mai •dwrc @cl petaluma.ca.us DATE: July 24,2012 AGENDA ITEM NO: 7 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dan St. John, Director,Public Works&Utilities REVIEWED BY: • Heather Hines, PlanningManager SUBJECT: DENMAN REACH PHASES Industrial Avenue Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Flood Impact Reduction, Restoration and Enhancement Project .„ .air a a s+ c 6< » . , ao.. -., '�+ u r ,b_ coNrmrE�rnaTroiv � Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Denman Reach Phase 3 Project and approve the project with the incorporation'ofmitigation measures. a ' PROJECT SUMMARY`. ;. : . u � i a ",i Project: Denman Reach Phase 3 1300 block of Industrial Avenue A.P.N.s 007-412-031, -033, and -036 Project Manager: Pamela Tuft Project Applicant: -City of Petaluma, Public Works & Utilities Department Nearest Cross Corona Road and Petaluma Boulevard North Property Size: Approxiniately 13.4 acres Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and lies adjacent, along the east bank, to the:Petaluma Riverupstream of Corona Road. The primary plant community is ruderal herbaceous grassland containing small clumps of landscaped trees and shrubs along the-street frontage. A well developed riparian plant community is sporadically located in a narrow corridor Within portions of the project area interspersed with large 18 ' I masses of invasive, non-native Himalaya blackberry growth. Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Open space, flood terrace; river trail, educational kiosks, benches, riparian habitat. Current Zoning: Planned Community District (PCD), Floodway and/or Floodplain (overlay). Current General Plan Land Use Business Park, Floodway and/or Floodplain S lit `° rIra ;PROD`VA ESCgi,KrI' a;, 1, i ) i&5a ;3r%a, i.._.+ a7n' .e � F.,�......wn..a Q.N....c. -. ..faa .-. _,w "�_ o-' ',7, ,s'¢ BACKGROUND At the direction of the City Council the Department of-Public Works & Utilities (formerly Water Resources & Conservation) has been pursuing implementation of flood reduction projects; in conjunction with riparian corridor enhancement, since the 1996 adoption of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan (River Plan). The City of Petaluma previously received two phases of grant funding from the California Department of Water Resources' Urban Streams Restoration Program for acquisition and restoration of parcels (identified as Denman Phases 1 & 2 on map below), located south of this-project site, just upstream of Corona Road. Phases 1 and,2 were completed in 2005. / \.% i N. ' . 6/59-N, , \ \\\vil \ N,{ort/h End,�of Phase 3 \ N \,,�` /G c` \ :\A■\\\S 7frf / \'. \S °.b \`\ .77 o f `C • \\/-.°5 , ! =+ 1 � '\ r~ ` South Ericl f Prh 3\ 44�`4 '/N,II.,.. / >,,- r /,,.,Den/\an Phases4 &2 -. i ~`‘'• Yid ♦ / , \ \, 's' /l �, O / /( f. off // // /'r"\. / /``.,. ) -/ /`. /-.. ~=.✓/ % / The project includes the acquisition of one to tnree vacant parcels along me east Dam, of the Petaluma River within the lower Denman Reach, shown with above. Acquisition is 19 1 underway with funding from the_State Natural Resources Agency. A second grant has also been secured for the physical improvements" of the project through the State Department of Water Resources. DESCRIPTION The proposed project will extend the,flood terracing project upstream, northwest, by creating a longer floodway terrace adjacent to the riparian corridor. Grading to lower the eastern top-of- bank surface approximately 4 to 6 feet in a'zone extending from approximately 75 to as much as 150 feet wide along the river will create the terrace. This will_provide flood impact reduction, water quality improvements, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat benefits. Components of the flood terrace excavation will include,creation and or restoration of riparian habitat buffer zones, seasonal wetlands, and shallow :surface water filtering Swabs (bioswales). In addition to floodplain restoration, the project will include construction of a public access trail along the upland portions of the site, and installation of educational/interpretive displays. The proposed additional length of trail will link to-the existing trail to encompass a.total length of 4,000 feet of public access to the riverine corridor habitat. `Native plant species endemic to the area will be planted and maintained to improve/existing-habitat conditions. Fill from the riverside terrace,cut will be off=hauled to an appropriate site to avoid impacts in +another area of the watershed. This project is one;of sinall, incremental, low-impact projects throughout the Petaluma River Watershed;seen as integral to a long-term flood reduction and riparian corridor restoration strategy. A full project description can be found in the Revised Initial-Study, pages 1 through 3. & � t _ . ' STAFF ANALYSIS, r AK I: GENERAL PLAN 2025 The properties within the project area are designated as Business Park and/or Floodway by the General Plan .2025 Land Use Map. Numerous references to the City's River Access and Enhancement Plan are contained in the General Plan, including the following within The Natural Environment Element: `Incremental'impleientation of the River Plan has been underway since it was completed and this General Plan enhances its status as an integral part of the General Plan implementation. Since 1996, trail segments have been installed, land has been. purchased as riverfront open space; flood reduction, habitat enhancement, and restoration projects have been completed. Design of new pedestrian improvements continues to be planned and constructed, riverfront properties have been developed, and funding for additional projects continues. The General Plan incorporates the River Plan as a proven effective tool for use by the City and property owners alike in achieving the goals set forth by the community. - The,project is consistent with the following goals, policies, and programs: 2-P-58 Use-the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan as the tool to implement the Petaluma River Corridor by maintaining setbacks; creating natural flood 20 terraces where appropriate; and enhancing floodplain and habitat conservation areas and other open space along the‘nverutilizing:an ecologically-based design approach. 2-P-59 Promote greater accessibility and views to Petaluma River through road extensions, bikeways, and trails.... 4-P-1 A ...Implement the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan including expanded improvements identified through project specific environmental assessment. 4-P-1 B Institute and maintain public access to and along the entire length (on one or both sides), of the rivet while ensuring that natural resources and river dependent industry are protected. 4-P-1 L Continue to implement, where appropriate, flood terrace improvements to reduce localized flooding in concern with habitat enhancement projects. 8-P-28 The area upstream of the Corps weir, and below the confluence of Willow Brook Creek with the Petal`urna River, located within the 1989 FEMA floodplain (and any amendments thereto) and adjacent to the Petaluma River, shall include a Petaluma River Corridor (PRC) set aside for the design and construction of a flood terrace system to allow the River to accommodate a 100-year storm event within a modified River channel, to the extent feasible given existing physical and natural constraints. 8-P-31 In accordance with the studies undertaken for the Corps Flood Protection Project, existing areas subject to periodic surface water inundation and containment, within the Corona and Denman Reaches (Lynch Creek confluence with the Petaluma River upstream to the Old Redwood Highway overcrossing of Willow Brook Creek), shall be preserved and enhanced where feasible to reduce localized flooding). • ZONING Zoning;designations include Planned Community District (Rancho Arroyo Business Center) and Floodway on a portion of each of the three parcels. The Floodplain Combining District also extends across at least a portion of all three parcels. Flooding issues associated with the Petaluma River have rendered these parcels difficult to develop; however, development is not precluded by regulations and standards. Any developnient'proposal on these parcels would be required to comply with all City development standards including zero net fill and minimum flood elevations. RIVER ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN The River Plan- addresses the impact of urban growth and, development within the watershed upon the hydrology and health of'the;,Petaluma River. The actions outlined in the River Plan intend to increase channel capacity and reduce the amount of impervious surface within the River's floodway and floodplain through acquisition of significant properties and through the creation and/or restoration of riparian buffer zones; flood terraces, and seasonal wetlands. In 21 addition to restoration and management, the River Plan outlines the need for public access to and along the riverfront. The following cross section for this reach of the Petaluma River is illustrated in the adopted Plan: SECTION C-C DENMAN REACH - Between Old RedwoodHighway and Corona Road b 10- zE .c SCALE 42 FEET • } y�.pXO '�. �.-S' F En 1 g amnx .4 ,`: ...w.a am smmn«.ier m FARMS PRAT"J • ROTENTMN ?J yn { 70 T0 min. 7NC&MAR ON' G(RLEO[O�O MARC!F-ESiO?ai•Cv ZJFNE NRW ) ERORP RFETUVWomCR H A! NEi &W TIOIPMN U U µAGcNw E 1 1 ZONE Z ig' Nf 9N1(%NE IZ6&R :RsMm Access/ IONE— RU NTNI Accent ZONE INgmD.LCEC1q VAIN M'N Vd' (PmM 4cw 4 ;LOSS EXHCC TERRACE :,OF TIO.,1 4 7 1 DEXOPMEI 1-6—uFFoi ZONE FLOOD CONTROL CeAN\Et _ t OE HY6 y RE'S _ WFPrtL ONNZ O DEVELOPMENT ZONE Aeeev e A¢'^al x-°; a�r4m",�.: .,a • ,,,. r 5? ,b, vimr,, � rr v -�,a,aa, l ss' 's ; M:).4: R 37 ,` ° r s , ENVIRONMENTA REU,IEW ' A CEQA initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)'has been prepared consistent with CEQA guidelines and was made available for public congruent, including all applicable regulatory and referral agencies, in January 2012. Comments received from that outreach effort were incorporated into the Revised Initial Study as Attachment HI and the initial study and MND were recirculated for public comment. Public Notice of the document's availability was published in the Argus Courier on July 5,2012, and distributed to the State Clearinghouse and all appropriate referral agencies the week before the publication date as well as provided to all property owners within 'a 500 foot radius of the project site. (Note: Reference to attachments to the Commission report has been removed to avoid confusion With attachments for the Council packet; all Commission information has been included in the expanded Attachments) This Initial Study has not identified any significant and unavoidable impacts as :a result of the proposed project and therefore has not resulted in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (E1R). All project impacts are able-to be mitigated to a level of less than significance. Neither the City Environmental Review Guidelines nor CEQA guidelines require that a MND will have Planning Commission hearings when the associated project is at the discretion of the City Council. However, staff has referred the,MND for the Denman Reach Phase 3 project to the Planning Commission for their input and recommendation to the City Council. Additional analysis of the model results and outreach to the affected property at C and First Streets, since publication of the Revised. Initial Study, was undertaken to further clarify the results contained in the Terracing Hydraulic Evaluation and the identification of very small increases in the surface water elevation as a result of the project. Reducing the scope of the 22 terrace does not eliminate the less than one inch in surface water elevation changes (either positive or negative). Table 1 in Attachment 3 (in the Revised Initial Study) illustrates the changes in surface water elevation along the Various points of the River corridor (identified as "Link ID" and "Node"). The location of the nodes is indicated on the Flood Boundary Comparison map exhibits, in the same Attachment, provided for both the 10-year and 100-year storm events. As indicated in the evaluation, only one property is affected by a minor increase in floodplain area, #1 C Street — Bay Bridge Garage. In discussions with the property owners/business operators, the last time,the building received minor inundation was 1998 when shallow water extended approximately 15 feet into the front entry of the building. Sand bags have been effectively used to minimize stormwater !intrusion. The addition of a mitigation measure is recommended by staff, and at the suggestion received as a public comment on the Initial Study, to address the anticipated increase of 7110'h of an inch in surface water elevation during a 100-year storm event on the affected property at the corner of First and C Streets. The recommended mitigation is acceptable to and supported by the property owners. Mitigation HYD-5 has been added to address the identified surface water increase (Attachment 4 — in the Revised Initial Study). The minor increaseof 6/10th of an, inch in a small area on First Street,just north of D Street,,does:not.affectany private property and remains below the existing top-of-curb elevation. Staff believes this is a less than significant impact and therefore does not require recirculation of the environmental document. n 7e'vat ..pT :3 `, P .e �^»^#Sa,s ,*s3�. K� - -4 zt§�, ,�t�L. e: � ^: '"Aka RECOMMEN®AyJO l 7 M . ° r 3 t aid. ` �'.G §�x�'—�-G� . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Denman Reach Phase 3 Project and approve the project with the incorporation of mitigation measures. 23 Attachment 4 Note: Comments received on the January 2012 Initial Study are included in the Revised Initial Study document(separate cover) and &ere addressed within the body of the Revised Initial Study. Comments below include those received as a result of the distribution of the Revised Initial Study in June 2012 including distribution to the State Clearinghouse and applicable regulatory and referral agencies, cis well as the;,comments received at the Planning Commission hearing on,July 24, 2012 None of the new comments identifies new avoidable significant impacts or shows that proposed mitigation or project revisions are inadequate to mitigate identified impacts. Therefore, recirculation of the Revised'MIND is not required. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE REVISED INITIAL STUDY SUPPORTING THE APPROVAL OF A. MITIGATED.NEGATIVE DECLARATION— DENMANREACH PHASE'3 JULY 2012 State of California, Department of Water Resources - Urban Streams Restoration Program (USRP), submitted by email`7/2/2012: 1. The last paragraph on page 2 of the Project Description states: "Design and construction drawings for improvements will be completed, then again evaluated using the City's Surface Water. Management Model, (XP-SWMM), to ensure that no upstream or downstream adverse effects are created or experienced by the flood terrace and riparian corridor improvements, even one of approximately % of an inch." It's a good idea to include additional model runs in the project description to avoid impacts; but; the discussion lacked an explanation of how impacts would be avoided through the use of additional model rims, or what additional actions might be necessary based on the results of the model runs. That is, what is the minimum threshold reached during modeling that could require additional actions taken by the City to decrease potential impacts of increased flood surface elevations downstream of the project site? Is it any increase in 'water surface elevation, Y2 of an inch, a 1 foot increase, or other measure? 2. The last sentence of the Discussion section on page 15 states, "The increase of 7/10 of one inch within a small area of the parking lot is deemed to be insignificant as it,does not encroach.into:any structure nor inhibit access to the business (Bay Bridge Towing)." a. This impact determination should have been included in the impact discussion for part IX d) on page 16 of the IS. b. There needs to be a brief discussion of the threshold of significance for increases in flood surface elevations downstream of the project site and what increases could be considered potentially "significant. Also, if the City's Floodplain Management Regulations (or other adopted regulations) allow for slight increases in flood surface.elevations if no planned or existing structures could be harmed, then please discuss those in this section of the TS 24 3. The impact discussion for part IX d) on page f6 of the IS states that the potential imp act is "Less than significant-withmitigation incorporation." However, there is no mitigation,proposed to,alleviate,this potentially significant impact. The impact discussion needs to include a brief explanation of the proposed mitigation measure, and the Mitigation Measures/Monitoring section of the IS, on pages 16 and 17, needs to include the specific mitigation,measure. State of California, Department of Transportation: "Caltrans does not have significant concerns on how this project will affect State facilities: US- 101 at Old Redwood Highway. However, we noticed inconsistencies in the MND between the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental checklist for the Hydrology and Water Quality section, and the discussion of these items." 1. Project Description, and Background (MND page 1): The final row of the summary matrix ("Other public agencies whose approval is required") includes the following: "...and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, potential (Section 401) Nationwide Permit."Please revise this permit to Section 404,,rather than 401. 2. Item "d" was selected as "Less than Significant. with Mitigation." If, however, the purpose of the project is to provide flood relief, please reevaluate whether this should be considered a "Less Than Significant Impact". 3. The discussion of item "a" states "Less than significant with mitigation incorporation", however, "No Impact"was selected on the checklist. Please clarify. 4. The discussion of items "e" and "P states that these have "No impact," yet "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation"were selected on the checklist. Please clarify. 5. For consistency, please consider including-item "j" as part of the Discussion section. State of California, Department of.Fish and Game "The Department of Fish and Fame (DFG) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Denman Reach Phase 3 Project (Project), which was received in our office on July 6, 2012. DFG is identified as a Trustee Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15386 and is responsible for-Abe conservation, protection, and management of the State's biological resources. DFG is submitting comments on the MND as a means to inform the Lead Agency of our concerns regarding sensitive resources which could potentially be affected by the Project. The Project proposes to extend the flood plain terracing project upstream, northwest of the previous two terracing projects, by creating a longer floodway terrace adjacent to the riparian corridor. The Project purpose is to lower the eastern top-of-bank surface approximately 4 to 6 feet by grading an approximately 75 to 150-foot-wide zone along an approximately 2,600-foot- long section of the river. This will provide flood impact reduction, water quality improvements, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat benefits. Components of the flood terrace excavation will include creation and/or restoration of riparian habitat buffers,seasonal wetlands, and shallow-,surface swater filtering (bioswales). In addition to 25 the flood plain restoration, the Project will include a public access trail along the upland portions of the site, with educational/interpretive displays. The proposed additional length of trail will link to the existing trail creating an approximately 4,000-foot-long public access trail along the riverine corridor habitat. Native plant species endemic to the area will be planted and maintained to improve existing habitat conditions. Vegetation Management DFG concurs with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's advice that the Sonoma County Water Agency's(SCWA) Stream Maintenance Program (SMP) Vegetation Management Plan be used as guidance for establishing vegetation management protocols. The SMP is the result of significant coordination between SCWA, DFG and other state and federal agencies. DFG is supportive of the maintenance principles and goals of the SMP and would be supportive of these approaches being implemented by the City of Petaluma. Vegetation Removal and Nesting Bird Surveys DFG recommends that vegetation removal be limited to August 15 to March 1 to present conflict with the nesting period of bird species in. Sonoma County. If vegetation removal and construction will occur`between March 1 and August 15, the work area should be surveyed by the Project's designated,biologist to determine if active nests are present,, If the construction site is left unattended for more than two weeks during the breeding season, another survey should be completed to determine ifthe birds (sic) have moved back into the area and are occupying active nests. If active nests or behavior indicatiVe of nesting are encountered, those areas plus a 50-foot buffer for small songbirds:and 300 feet for larger "species(e.g. raptors, owls, etc.) designated by the biologist should be avoided until the nests have been vacated. Special-Status Species Surveys— Western Pond Turtle In addition to the pre-construction surveys for California red-legged frog, nesting birds and steelhead trout already identified in the MND, DFG requests that a pre-construction survey for western pond turtles by the Project's designated biologist occur prior to beginning work. This survey should include a focused survey for adult,turtles and nest site searches. Any adults found within the work area should be relocated to suitable off-site habitat. Net sites discovered during the pre-construction survey, or anytime during construction, should be avoided until vacated, as determined by the designated biologist in consultation with a DFG representative. Ongoing monitoring during construction should occur to ensure,turtles have not moved back into the area and that they are not being impacted by activities. Lake and Streanibed Alteration Agreement For any activity that;will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources)of a.river or stream, or use materials from a streambed, DFG may=require:a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA), pursuant to Section 1600 eq seq. of the Fish and Game Code, with the applicant. Issuance of an LSAA is subject to CEQA. DFG, as a responsible agency under CEQA, will consider the CEQA document for the project. The CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for completion of the agreement. To obtain information about the LSAA notification process, please access our website at l ittp://www:dfa.ca.gov/habcon11600/ or to request a notification package, contact the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at.(707) 944- 5520. 26 • DFG appreciates,the opportunity to comment on the Denman Reach Phase 3 Project. DFG staff is available to.meet with.you„to further clarify our comments and provide technical assistance on any changes,necessary to,protect resources. If you have anyquestions, please contact Mr. Adam McKannay, Environmental Scientist, at (707) 944-5534 or anickannavtcadfg.ca.gov or Ms. Karen Weiss, Senior Environmental Scientist,.at(707) 944-5525.” State.of California, Governor's Office-,of Planning and Research — State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit "The State Clearinghouse submitted;the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on August 3, 2012, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed." "Please note that Section 21104-© of the California.Public Resources Code states that: "A.responsible or other public agency"shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document.. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments; we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act...." Planning Commission and Public Comments—July 24,2012 Public Hearing 1. Project has'very high significance to the Region — should restore the river corridor where possible. 2. Long flooding history — relationship of flood terracing to Corps project and retaining protection from the 1%o storm event. 3. City has failed to produce flood reduction improvements. 4. Attended Zone 2A meetings;since 2009 —support moving this project forward. 5. How does use of"AquaMaster" affect the river habitat? 6. Noise,impact shown as no impact in checklist but-less than significant with mitigation in discussion, update for consistency. 7. Cultural Resource: provide additional text as to why no'impact was determined or further study required. 8. Greenhouse Gas: should be less' than significant rather than no impact, include some discussion for construction activity. 9. All no impact findings should include at least a brief discussion of how came to that determination. 10. Add list of document preparers (this is required for Initial Studies, Section 15063(d)(6)). 11. include a cumulative'effect discussion outlining-how the project fits with the City's flood control goals, what pieces have been done,and how this phase builds upon other phases. 12. How much dirt is to be off hauled? Shouldn't/go on cultural resource site, provide more clarity in performance standards for where dirt will go. 13. FEMA comment—qualify intent. 27 14. City should consider changing policies.to consider:200-year flood analysis if possible. 15. Process seems backwards • Why not more cotmunity involvement up front so that project is more defined forenvironmental analysis? 16. Support for the project,;should'ba moved forward to implementation. • 28 Attachment 5 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE REVISED INITIAL STUDY, INCLUDING TEXT ADDITIONS HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO THE REVISED INITIAL STUDY DOCUMENT, SUPPORTING THE APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION— DENMAN REACH PHASE 3 JULY 2012 TheDepartment-of Water Resources - Urban:Streams Restoration Program.(USRP): The Revised Initial Study, Section IX d, is amended to incorporate the text belowabeve and include'themitigation as defined in Attachment 1, Exhibit A, herein. 1. The design of the preliminary improvements planned for Denman Reach Phase 3 was recognized as being a reiterative process. Preliminary cross-sections were prepared and analyzed using the XP-SWMM tool; the result of which amended the cross-sections utilized for the Initial Study. Minimum federal standards limit downstream increases to 1.0 feet relating to development activity. The intent of the project is to reduce localized flooding without causing significant adverse changes to upstream or downstream flows; therefore; all attempts were made to minimize any impacts to less than significant. Although the.City development standards do not identify a threshold of acceptance, the General Plan 2025 does include a policy: 8-P-36 requires development,on sites greater than 'A acre in size to demonstrate no net increase in peak day stormwater runoff, to the extent deemed practical and. feasible. As stated_ in the Revised Initial Study, the proposed project is a small, incremental project designed to reduce localized flooding. It is recommended that a finding of less than significant be found in the 1/2 to 7/10t of an inch increase in those identified areas with the inclusion of the mitigation measure to flood-proof the one structure affected (#1 C Street). The final design and construction drawings will be rechecked through.the use of XP- SWMM to ensure that the benefits and downstream changes as included in the Revised Initial Study remain at the insignificant level or are reduced even further: The Denman Terracing flood boundary maps were 'prepared to pinpoint where the increase is happening and.mitigation measures are being completed in that area to mitigate existing conditions and'to avoid any potential future damage due to Denman Terracing. This is effectively a zero threshold result. It is recommended that the increase in the water surface elevation 'downstream of approximately 1/2 of an inch is worth the benefits ,achieved in the Denman Reach, given the ability to include a mitigation to reduce existing impacts and avoid potential future damage to the structure/business at #1 C Street. 2. The Revised Initial Study will incorporate-the following to clarify the impacts to the structure/business at #1 C Street, as well as the recommendation mitigation to address both existing`conditions and potential future storm flows. a. Commentnoted. The response to #1 is hereby incorporated into Section IX d) as well.as the mitigation IX.R. HYD-5 set forth in-Attachment 4 herein. 29 b. Minimum federal standards limit downstream .increases to 1.0 feet relating to development activity. The intent of the project is to reduce localized flooding without causing significant adverse changes to upstream or downstream flows; therefore, all'attempts were made to minimize any impacts to less than significant. Although the City development standards do not identify a threshold of acceptance, the General Plan 2025 does include a policy: 8-P-36 requires development on sites greater than '[4 acre in size to demonstrate no net increase in peak day stomiwater runoff, to the extent deemed practical and feasible. As stated in the Revised Initial Study, the proposed.project is a small, incremental project designed'to reduce localized-flooding. It is recommended that a finding of less than significant be found in the 1/2 to 7/10`h 6f an inch increase in those identified areas'with the iinclusion of the mitigation,.measure to flood-proof the onestructure affected (#1 C Street). 3. Comment.noted'. New mitigation measure HYD-5 is hereby added to the Revised Initial Study and applicable Mitigation Monitoring Plan to address the connection between impact:identiftcationand proposed mitigation. Department of Transportation: I. Typo noted. 2. Hydrology item "d" includes off-site dmprovements to address the 7/10`h of an inch increase in surface water elevation; therefore the report should remain as noted "Less than Significant Mitigation". 3. .Hydrology and Water Quality (IX.a) . The Revised Initial Study checklist is amended to so reflect "Less Than Significant with Mitigation". Although no impact to water quality is planned or anticipated, mitigations were included to ensure all safety precautions are incorporated into construction activities 4. Hydrology: The discussion also refers the reader to more discussion in item `d' where the discussion of .downstream impact and identification of mitigations (item `e') are provided; item `f' is also discussed and referenced in item 'a', which does include mitigation measures. No amendment to checklist is included. 5. Hydrology: Seetion,IX, item `j' refers to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Revised Initial Study is amended to include the following discussion: No impact was checked on the checklist and no accompanying discussion was provided. The other items referenced :above relate, in some manner, to another item, therefore discussion was provided'; Discussion for this item can be added as follows: j) No impact. The project is not subject to tidal influence and no impact is anticipated by seiche or tsunami. Elevations are relatively flat in the project area, no mudflow or earth movement is anticipated. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research — State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Compliance with CEQA noted, no specific;response.necessary. Planning Commission and Public Comments:—July'24,.2012"Public Hearing 30 • 1. Comment acknowledged and agreed = the General Plan and River Access and Enhancement Plan both call for terracing and enhancement of the River corridor. 2. Comment acknowledged and agreed — the concept,of terracing as defined in this project is proposed as an incremental reduction of base flood elevations during'a 1% storm; it is not a regional or even localized solution but a small piece of a regional flood reduction work effort. 3. Comment acknowledged. 4. Comment acknowledged. 5. Hydrology and Water Quality 4.4: The Revised Initial Study is amended to include the following discussion: AquaMaster is a non-selective aquatic herbicide and is recognized as being highly effective on more than 190 species of emerged weeds, including a wide range of annual and perennial grasses, broadleaf weeds and sedges. It works in most aquatic settings better than other weed control options, because it offers application flexibility. Glyphosate im the form of its isopropylamine salt, the active ingredient in AquaMaster herbicide, has favorable environmental characteristics, such as degradation over time in soil, sediment, and natural waters, and tight binding to most soils and sediment, which reduces.bioavailability soon;after application. It is not mutagenic and is "practically non-toxic" to animal, insect and fish species (i.e. mice, rabbits, bluegill, trout, earthworms, water fleas, quail, and honeybees). Application, if utilized, although not required by Code will be applied under the direction of a licensed Pest Control Applicator. 6. Noise (XII.d) impacts are limited to short-termaconstniction activity, and are indicated on the checklist as such. Mitigation is included for restricting construction hours and requiring protective gear for construction workers. 7. Cultural Resources Section V. The Revised Initial Study is amended to include the following discussion: The:project site is not listed or recognized as having any cultural or archaeological resources: A cultural resources evaluation of the channel maintenance project was prepared in 2005 and utilized for Denman Reach Phases 1 and 2. It found "No prehistoric'or historic cultural resources, artifacts, or features were observed during the surface evaluation. Therefore no monitoring during the proposed project is warranted at this time The proposed project does not appear to pose a negative effect to local cultural resources." Should any discovery of artifacts occur during grading activities, the following actions will be undertaken: o In_'the.event that archaeological features, such as concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits older than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading, scraping or excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately to make an evaluation. If warranted by the discovery of a concentration of artifacts or soil deposits, further work in the discovery-area should be monitored by an archaeologist. o Although unlikely, if human remains are encountered, 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 31 Native,American Heritage ComnnssibnTinust be contacted.by Coroner so that a "Most Likely Descendant"'ban be.designated. 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (VII.a): The Revised Initial Study is amended to include the following amendment and discussion: Aniend the finding froth `no impact" to "less than significant: with, mitigation and refer to the mitigation measure HYD-2 for Best Management Practice. Add the following discussion: o There will be a short-term, localized impact to air quality as a result of emissions from excavation and construction equipment associated with grading and construction activities,, as well as through possible exhaust emissions through operation of power equipment for cutting and chipping vegetation. Problems of dust production during excavation are thought to be minimal as the soils within the excavation area along the River will be naturallydamp. A watering truck will be on hand to control dust production during excavation and grading. There is no expectation of.long-term air quality impact due to the passive recreation nature of the proposed project and no additional staging or parking area proposed on the project. o Mitigation Measure/Monitoring: GHG-1: Standard Best Management Practices, including BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines (i.e. watering for,dust control) shall be incorporated into all construction activities in order to.minimize dust and exhaust emissions during grading and construction activities. 9. No impact findings should include brief discussions;the Revised Initial Study is amended to include the following discussions:: o Section II. Agriculture and Forest Resources: The site is not used for agricultural • purposes not does it contact any timber resources. Enhancement of the riparian corridor will not lead to any conversion of farmland or forest land. o Section III Air Quality: The short term impacts have been discussed under Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The passive use of this project site will have no adverse impacts to air quality: o Section VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: There are no anticipated hazards/hazardous materials associated with the proposed project. Fluids and fuels associated with the use of construction equipment are potentially hazardous should they be accidentally spilled or leaked. The use of herbicides, such as AquaMaster for control of unwanted willows and non-native invasive plants are addressed in the Hydrology (HYDRO 1-4, and Water Quality sections of the Revised Initial Study and include mitigations. o Section Xl..Mineral Resources:! No known mineral resources of value have ever been identified at the site, and the site not zoned for development of mineral resources. o Section XIII. Population and Housing: As a restoration project with long-range goals of floodplain management and passive recreational use, the proposed project will have no adverse effect on population or housing. o Section XIV. Public Services: As a passive open space area increased need for public services will not be adversely impacted. Increased "monitoring by police may be'needed, as well as periodic maintenance by City park staff, but like other passive park facilities, will not represent a significant impact. Fire hydrants exist within the'projeciarea's frontage on Industrial.Avenue should a grass fire occur in the open areas of the flood terrace. 32 10. The Revised Initial:Study is amended to include the following,information: Document preparers: • Pamela Tuft, Special Projects Manager, City of Petaluma • Geoff Smick, WRA Environmental Consultants • Dave Smith,P.E., WEST Consultants, Inc. 11. The Revised Initial Study is amended' to include the following discussion: Cumulative Effect Discussion: The proposed project consists of flood reduction and habitat restoration activities, and the development of passive recreational facilities consistent with the intent of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan and the Petaluma General Plan 2025. The project does not present any un-mitigated adverse environmental impacts, and consistent with the project's goals, an overall improvement of environmental quality can bee expected. Only construction-activities represent short-term potential environmental impacts, none of which are considered significant given proper application of Best Management Practices and adherence to City of Petaluma Performance Standards, the Stream Zone Management Guidelines and Stream Maintenance and Management,BMPs of the Sonoma County Water Agency and Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District. 12. The Revised Initial Study is amended to include the following discussion: Section VI. Geology and Soils. Off-haul of dirt: Final design of the flood terrace will define the exact cubic yards of excavation. However, preliminary design to allow submission of grant applications and completion of environmental review identify a maximum off-haul of approximately 25,000 cubic yards. 'In compliance with,General Plan program 8-P-35 J, the grading permit will identify the disposal site and shall require that any dirt hauled from the project site be located outside a regulatory floodplain within the Planning Referral Area (Petaluma Watershed). Planning Commission comments included a recommendation that the disposal site also be restricted from being a cultural resource site (the exception being use of the dirt as a regulatory required cap on an identified cultural resource site or-midden). 13. Referral to FEMA letter (Attachment 3.A) — intent of project and relationship to current City remapping work effort. The implementation of improvements in compliance with the^General Plan 2025 ]and the River Access and Enhancement Plan are consistent with the current remapping. work effort. The remapping application illustrates existing conditions and does not reflect any future river corridor improvements. Future map amendments can be undertaken to indicate the benefits of reducing the base flood elevation in the Denman Reach area. 14.Policy recommendation to look at 200-year flood analysis as part of the development review process can be referred to City Council — does not relate to this specific flood reduction and enhancement project. 15. Preliminary design was required for submission of grant applications. The grant application submittal required commencement and completion of environmental review process. Early outreach was undertaken to obtain input from regulatory agencies. Numerous citizens were active and participated in both the General Plan 2025 and River Access and.Enhancement Plan preparation and adoption. Both documents call for the development of all improvements defined in This project, to the point of including a typical"cross section iinthe immediate vicinity the proposed project. Specific review of 33 the planting plan and site amenities will be undertaken when plans are prepared, utilizing grant funds. 16. Comment acknowledged. 34 ATTACHMENT 6 • AMENDMENTS/ADDITIONS HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO THE REVISED INITIAL STUDY SUPPORTING THE APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — DENMAN REACH PHASE 3 SEPTEMBER 2012 The Revised Initial Study is amended to include the following discussions: 1. All text modifications/additions to the Revised Initial Study as noted in Attachment 5 are referenced and incorporated in this summary of amendments/additions. a. 2. BIO-I: Add Western'Pond Turtle to the species to the pre-activity survey requirement. 3. BIO-2 and BIO-4: It is recognized that the vegetation management and/or removal timeframes are different between the two impact discussions. The actual, versus likely, Department of Fish and Ganie Streambed Alteration Permit will define the actual window for revegetation removal prior to issuance of the permit. 4. Geology and Soils: The Revised Initial Study discussion (page 11) states that cut materials will be off-hauled to an appropriate site not subject to flood inundation. This statement reflects the General Plan Program 8-P-35 j, which states "The Development Code shall require the identification of-any disposal site for excavated soil and require that any disposal be located outside the regulatory floodplain within the Planning Referral Area". Compliance with General Plan Program 8-P-35.j is added t6 Mitigation Measure GEO-2. 5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Revised Initial Study defined the applicable General Plan programs and stated project compliance will be required. These can be repeated in the Mitigation Plan either in HYD-2 or in a GHG-1. Section Vll.a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions is amended to reflect Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The requirement to comply with the GHG reduction programs of the General Plan will be added as Mitigations GHG-1. 6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Revised Initial Study addressed potential spills of any materials in Hydrology and Water Quality(see HYD-1 —4). HYD-1 - 4 are added . and referenced in VIII. a) Hazards and Hazardous'Materials. This impact is amended to reflect Less Than Significant with Mitigation, and to incorporate the same mitigations as defined in Hydrology. 7. Hydrologyand Water Quality: The Revised Initial Study discussion, second paragraph, references Attachment 2, WEST Consultants' report, "Denman Reach Terracing Hydraulic Evaluation" ("Report"). A reference is added to this discussion to clarify that the Results section of the Report is contained on pages 2-3 of the Report to provide clearer access:to the Report's factual summary of analysis. 35 r 8. Hydrology and.'Waterr,Quality: The Revised Initial Study identified"No Impact" for subsection `j"pertaining to Inundation`by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Add the following text to the discussion at page 16: project site is not located within an identified area subject to inundation from a seiche or tsunami. Mudflow from higher elevations would be blocked by upstream bridges,and other barriers before reaching the project site." 36