Agenda packet, regular meeting — Ukiah City Council, July 17, 2024 (part 6 of 10)

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/24/2022
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241887
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241887
Instrument: GC16
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Acetone ND 0.12 0.20 - - -
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Benzene ND 0.00095 0.0050 - - -
Bromobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Bromochloromethane ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.00023 0.0050 - - -
Bromoform ND 0.0038 0.0050 - - -
Bromomethane ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 0.040 0.10 - - -
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.024 0.050 - - -
n-Butyl benzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
sec-Butyl benzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
tert-Butyl benzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 - - -
Carbon Disulfide ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.00017 0.0050 - - -
Chlorobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Chloroethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
Chloroform ND 0.00032 0.0050 - - -
Chloromethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.00040 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.00048 0.00050 - - -
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00013 0.00025 - - -
Dibromomethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.00063 0.0050 - - -
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.000070 0.00010 - - -
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.00011 0.0050 - - -
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.00088 0.0050 - - -
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 945 of 1534 ends

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00098 0.0050 - - -
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00097 0.0050 - - -
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
Freon 113 ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Hexachloroethane ND 0.00064 0.0050 - - -
2-Hexanone ND 0.0027 0.0050 - - -
Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
4-Isopropyl toluene ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
Methylene chloride ND 0.012 0.020 - - -
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
Naphthalene ND 0.0030 0.0050 - - -
n-Propyl benzene ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
Styrene ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.00044 0.0050 - - -
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.00029 0.0050 - - -
Toluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 - - -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Trichloroethene ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.00017 0.00025 - - -
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.00012 0.00025 - - -
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0026 0.0050 - - -
o-Xylene ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 946 of 1534 ends

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.13 0.125 104 70-140
Toluene-d8 0.15 0.125 123 70-140
4-BFB 0.014 0.0125 108 70-140
Benzene-d6 0.11 0.1 115 70-140
Ethylbenzene-d10 0.12 0.1 118 70-140
1,2-DCB-d4 0.091 0.1 91 70-140
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 947 of 1534 ends

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Acetone 0.48 0.49 0.40 119 123 60-140 3.59 20
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 0.015 0.016 0.020 75 79 50-140 4.55 20 Benzene 0.017 0.018 0.020 84 89 60-140 5.89 20
Bromobenzene 0.022 0.022 0.020 110 110 60-140 0.0130 20 Bromochloromethane 0.017 0.018 0.020 87 91 60-140 4.51 20 Bromodichloromethane 0.017 0.018 0.020 85 89 60-140 4.78 20 Bromoform 0.013 0.013 0.020 64 66 40-140 3.97 20
Bromomethane 0.014 0.015 0.020 72 77 30-140 6.58 20
2-Butanone (MEK) 0.045 0.046 0.080 56 57 50-140 2.48 20 t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) 0.071 0.075 0.080 89 94 50-140 4.86 20 n-Butyl benzene 0.028 0.031 0.020 138 153,F2 60-150 10.4 20 sec-Butyl benzene 0.026 0.029 0.020 130 143 60-150 9.81 20 tert-Butyl benzene 0.025 0.027 0.020 126 134 60-140 6.11 20 Carbon Disulfide 0.069 0.022 0.020 343,F2 109 50-140 103,F2 20 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.017 0.018 0.020 85 90 60-140 6.57 20 Chlorobenzene 0.018 0.019 0.020 88 97 60-140 9.90 20
Chloroethane 0.014 0.015 0.020 69 74 50-140 6.85 20
Chloroform 0.018 0.019 0.020 89 95 60-140 5.58 20
Chloromethane 0.0086 0.0095 0.020 43 48 20-140 9.66 20
2-Chlorotoluene 0.023 0.025 0.020 116 125 60-140 7.93 20 4-Chlorotoluene 0.023 0.025 0.020 114 123 60-140 7.11 20 Dibromochloromethane 0.015 0.016 0.020 75 79 50-140 4.84 20 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.0067 0.0076 0.0080 84 95 30-140 12.0 20 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 0.018 0.019 0.020 88 93 40-140 5.71 20 Dibromomethane 0.017 0.017 0.020 84 85 60-140 0.430 20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.018 0.019 0.020 89 95 60-140 7.40 20 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.022 0.023 0.020 108 115 60-140 6.22 20 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.020 0.022 0.020 102 108 60-140 5.31 20 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.0037 0.0044 0.020 19 22 10-140 16.5 20 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.018 0.019 0.020 89 94 60-140 5.41 20 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 0.017 0.018 0.020 83 88 60-140 5.60 20 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.014 0.015 0.020 71 77 60-140 8.45 20 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.016 0.017 0.020 82 87 60-140 5.63 20 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.015 0.017 0.020 77 83 60-140 7.43 20 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.017 0.018 0.020 86 91 60-140 5.71 20 1,3-Dichloropropane 0.018 0.018 0.020 88 91 60-140 2.39 20 2,2-Dichloropropane 0.018 0.018 0.020 88 92 60-140 4.75 20 1,1-Dichloropropene 0.018 0.019 0.020 89 94 60-140 4.61 20 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 948 of 1534 ends

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.017 0.018 0.020 87 92 60-140 6.59 20 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.016 0.017 0.020 81 87 60-140 6.60 20 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) 0.017 0.018 0.020 83 88 60-140 6.18 20 Ethylbenzene 0.018 0.020 0.020 91 99 60-140 8.78 20
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) 0.016 0.017 0.020 79 85 60-140 6.88 20 Freon 113 0.014 0.016 0.020 72 79 50-140 9.26 20
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.030 0.033 0.020 149,F2 166,F2 60-140 10.8 20 Hexachloroethane 0.022 0.024 0.020 110 121 60-140 9.71 20 2-Hexanone 0.018 0.016 0.020 88 80 40-140 9.52 20
Isopropylbenzene 0.025 0.027 0.020 124 137 60-140 10.3 20 4-Isopropyl toluene 0.025 0.028 0.020 124 138 60-150 10.9 20 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.015 0.015 0.020 74 77 50-140 5.01 20 Methylene chloride 0.019 0.020 0.020 94 100 60-140 5.17 20 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 0.013 0.017 0.020 66 87 50-140 27.4,F2 20 Naphthalene 0.011 0.011 0.020 53 57 30-140 5.89 20
n-Propyl benzene 0.025 0.029 0.020 126 147,F2 60-140 15.5 20 Styrene 0.016 0.017 0.020 81 83 60-140 2.37 20
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.018 0.019 0.020 89 96 60-140 7.11 20 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.018 0.020 0.020 91 98 40-140 7.36 20 Tetrachloroethene 0.019 0.021 0.020 96 104 60-140 7.90 20 Toluene 0.017 0.018 0.020 84 91 60-140 7.47 20
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.015 0.016 0.020 74 81 40-140 9.80 20 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.019 0.019 0.020 97 95 50-140 2.32 20 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.017 0.018 0.020 86 92 60-140 7.27 20 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.017 0.018 0.020 84 88 60-140 4.51 20 Trichloroethene 0.019 0.020 0.020 94 101 60-140 6.92 20 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.014 0.015 0.020 71 77 50-140 8.19 20 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.021 0.022 0.020 104 112 60-130 7.23 20 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.022 0.025 0.020 111 125 30-140 11.8 20 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.024 0.025 0.020 118 127 60-140 6.71 20 Vinyl Chloride 0.011 0.012 0.020 54 58 30-140 7.88 20
m,p-Xylene 0.036 0.039 0.040 90 97 60-140 7.95 20
o-Xylene 0.018 0.019 0.020 89 95 60-140 5.80 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 949 of 1534 ends

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.14 0.14 0.12 109 109 70-140 0.265 20 Toluene-d8 0.15 0.15 0.12 116 118 70-140 1.43 20
4-BFB 0.013 0.014 0.012 104 109 70-140 5.56 20
Benzene-d6 0.11 0.12 0.10 111 118 70-140 6.18 20
Ethylbenzene-d10 0.11 0.12 0.10 107 115 70-140 7.34 20
1,2-DCB-d4 0.089 0.095 0.10 89 95 70-140 6.63 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 950 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/25/2022
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 242025
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-242025
Instrument: GC17, GC53
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3550B
QC Summary Report for SW8270C
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Acenaphthene ND 0.00035 0.0013 - - -
Acenaphthylene ND 0.00028 0.0013 - - -
Acetochlor ND 0.044 0.25 - - -
Anthracene ND 0.00057 0.0013 - - -
Benzidine ND 0.36 1.2 - - -
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.0036 0.013 - - -
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.00070 0.0025 - - -
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.0013 0.0025 - - -
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.00089 0.0025 - - -
Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.0010 0.0025 - - -
Benzyl Alcohol ND 0.55 1.2 - - -
1,1-Biphenyl ND 0.0029 0.013 - - -
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) Methane ND 0.030 0.25 - - -
Bis (2-chloroethyl) Ether ND 0.00036 0.0013 - - -
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) Ether ND 0.0012 0.0025 - - -
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Adipate ND 0.085 0.25 - - -
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate ND 0.0047 0.013 - - -
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether ND 0.040 0.25 - - -
Butylbenzyl Phthalate ND 0.0036 0.013 - - -
4-Chloroaniline ND 0.00092 0.0013 - - -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND 0.062 0.25 - - -
2-Chloronaphthalene ND 0.041 0.25 - - -
2-Chlorophenol ND 0.0024 0.013 - - -
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether ND 0.066 0.25 - - -
Chrysene ND 0.00067 0.0025 - - -
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.0011 0.0025 - - -
Dibenzofuran ND 0.000093 0.0013 - - -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.053 0.25 - - -
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.042 0.25 - - -
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.049 0.25 - - -
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine ND 0.0026 0.013 - - -
2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 0.0012 0.0025 - - -
Diethyl Phthalate ND 0.0040 0.013 - - -
Dimethyl Phthalate ND 0.0019 0.0025 - - -
2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 0.044 0.25 - - -
Di-n-butyl Phthalate ND 0.0044 0.013 - - -
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ND 0.41 1.2 - - -
2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 0.11 0.25 - - -
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 951 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/25/2022
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 242025
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-242025
Instrument: GC17, GC53
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3550B
QC Summary Report for SW8270C
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 0.0036 0.013 - - -
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 0.062 0.12 - - -
Di-n-octyl Phthalate ND 0.20 0.50 - - -
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ND 0.038 0.25 - - -
Fluoranthene ND 0.00079 0.0025 - - -
Fluorene ND 0.0010 0.0025 - - -
Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0025 - - -
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.00019 0.0013 - - -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.52 1.2 - - -
Hexachloroethane ND 0.0026 0.013 - - -
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.0035 0.013 - - -
Isophorone ND 0.069 0.25 - - -
1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.00033 0.0013 - - -
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.00048 0.0013 - - -
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) ND 0.060 0.25 - - -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m,p-Cresol) ND 0.046 0.25 - - -
Naphthalene ND 0.0031 0.0062 - - -
2-Nitroaniline ND 0.31 1.2 - - -
3-Nitroaniline 0.47,J 0.24 1.2 - - -
4-Nitroaniline 0.36,J 0.28 1.2 - - -
Nitrobenzene ND 0.055 0.25 - - -
2-Nitrophenol ND 0.31 1.2 - - -
4-Nitrophenol ND 0.35 1.2 - - -
N-Nitrosodimethylamine ND 0.22 1.2 - - -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine ND 0.079 0.25 - - -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND 0.029 0.25 - - -
Pentachlorophenol ND 0.029 0.062 - - -
Phenanthrene ND 0.00068 0.0013 - - -
Phenol ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
Pyrene ND 0.00063 0.0025 - - -
Pyridine ND 0.046 0.25 - - -
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ND 0.079 0.25 - - -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.046 0.25 - - -
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND 0.00059 0.0025 - - -
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 0.00057 0.0025 - - -
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 952 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/25/2022
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 242025
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-242025
Instrument: GC17, GC53
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3550B
QC Summary Report for SW8270C
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorophenol 1.1 1.25 89 70-130
Phenol-d5 1.0 1.25 81 70-130
Nitrobenzene-d5 1.1 1.25 86 60-130
2-Fluorobiphenyl 1.2 1.25 92 60-130
2,4,6-Tribromophenol 0.70 1.25 56 30-130
4-Terphenyl-d14 1.1 1.25 88 40-130
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 953 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/25/2022
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 242025
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-242025
Instrument: GC17, GC53
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3550B
QC Summary Report for SW8270C
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Acenaphthene 0.051 0.059 0.062 82 95 60-130 15.2 30
Acenaphthylene 0.052 0.063 0.062 83 101 60-130 19.9 30
Acetochlor 0.84 1.0 1.25 67 82 60-130 19.9 30
Anthracene 0.052 0.062 0.062 84 100 60-130 17.7 30
Benzidine 2.5 2.9 6.25 40 46 20-130 15.2 30
Benzo (a) anthracene 0.053 0.064 0.062 85 102 70-130 18.0 30 Benzo (a) pyrene 0.055 0.064 0.062 88 103 70-130 16.2 30 Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0.050 0.059 0.062 79 95 60-130 17.4 30 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 0.061 0.072 0.062 98 116 70-130 17.0 30 Benzo (k) fluoranthene 0.050 0.058 0.062 81 93 70-130 14.6 30 Benzyl Alcohol 4.5 5.0 6.25 73 81 70-130 10.4 30
1,1-Biphenyl 0.053 0.064 0.062 85 103 60-130 19.1 30
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) Methane 1.0 1.2 1.25 83 96 70-130 14.4 30 Bis (2-chloroethyl) Ether 0.044 0.052 0.062 71 83 60-130 16.0 30 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) Ether 0.040 0.040 0.062 65 64 60-130 1.75 30 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Adipate 0.97 1.2 1.25 78 93 60-130 17.9 30 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 0.050 0.058 0.062 80 93 60-130 15.0 30 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether 1.0 1.2 1.25 84 98 60-130 16.0 30 Butylbenzyl Phthalate 0.053 0.059 0.062 86 95 60-130 10.5 30 4-Chloroaniline 0.043 0.049 0.062 69 79 40-130 13.2 30
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 0.88 0.97 1.25 71 77 70-130 9.27 30 2-Chloronaphthalene 0.89 1.1 1.25 71 87 60-130 20.0 30
2-Chlorophenol 0.054 0.064 0.062 86 102 60-130 17.0 30
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether 0.92 1.1 1.25 73 86 70-130 15.4 30 Chrysene 0.053 0.063 0.062 84 101 70-130 18.8 30
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene 0.064 0.075 0.062 102 120 70-130 16.9 30 Dibenzofuran 0.051 0.060 0.062 81 96 60-130 16.1 30
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.89 1.1 1.25 71 85 60-130 17.4 30
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.86 1.0 1.25 68 80 60-130 15.1 30
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.87 1.0 1.25 70 81 60-130 14.5 30
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 0.047 0.056 0.062 76 89 40-130 16.9 30 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0.046 0.053 0.062 74 85 60-130 15.0 30 Diethyl Phthalate 0.048 0.058 0.062 76 93 70-130 19.7 30 Dimethyl Phthalate 0.050 0.060 0.062 80 97 70-130 19.1 30 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.97 1.0 1.25 78 82 70-130 4.87 30
Di-n-butyl Phthalate 0.048 0.057 0.062 77 91 60-130 17.0 30 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4.2 5.1 6.25 67 81 20-130 18.3 30 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.53 0.61 1.25 42 49 15-130 14.0 30
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 954 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/25/2022
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 242025
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-242025
Instrument: GC17, GC53
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3550B
QC Summary Report for SW8270C
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.073 0.083 0.062 117 133,F5 70-130 12.4 30 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.072 0.085 0.062 115 136,F5 60-130 16.6 30 Di-n-octyl Phthalate 0.99 1.1 1.25 79 91 60-130 14.0 30 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 0.75 0.88 1.25 60 71 60-130 16.9 30 Fluoranthene 0.054 0.063 0.062 87 100 70-130 14.5 30
Fluorene 0.059 0.072 0.062 94 115 60-130 20.4 30
Hexachlorobenzene 0.064 0.075 0.062 102 120 70-130 16.1 30 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.064 0.074 0.062 103 119 70-130 14.2 30 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 4.6 5.6 6.25 74 90 60-130 19.0 30 Hexachloroethane 0.047 0.055 0.062 76 88 70-130 15.7 30 Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 0.066 0.070 0.062 105 112 70-130 6.63 30 Isophorone 1.3 1.5 1.25 100 118 60-130 16.0 30
1-Methylnaphthalene 0.055 0.064 0.062 88 102 70-130 14.8 30 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.055 0.064 0.062 89 103 70-130 14.8 30 2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) 0.86 0.99 1.25 69 79 60-130 14.2 30 3 & 4-Methylphenol (m,p-Cresol) 0.82 0.97 1.25 65 78 60-130 17.4 30 Naphthalene 0.049 0.057 0.062 78 91 70-130 15.4 30
2-Nitroaniline 4.4 4.8 6.25 70 77 70-130 9.31 30
3-Nitroaniline 4.5 5.3 6.25 72 84 50-130 16.1 30
4-Nitroaniline 4.3 4.9 6.25 69 78 60-130 12.2 30
Nitrobenzene 1.0 1.2 1.25 82 95 60-130 14.6 30
2-Nitrophenol 5.8 6.7 6.25 92 107 70-130 15.0 30
4-Nitrophenol 4.2 4.8 6.25 67 77 60-130 14.3 30
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 3.8 4.4 6.25 61,F5 71 70-130 14.4 30 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0.84 0.81 1.25 68 65 60-130 4.06 30 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1.1 1.3 1.25 86 104 70-130 19.3 30 Pentachlorophenol 0.28 0.32 0.31 91 103 50-130 12.2 30
Phenanthrene 0.050 0.058 0.062 80 93 60-130 14.7 30
Phenol 0.20 0.23 0.25 79 93 60-130 16.4 30
Pyrene 0.054 0.063 0.062 86 101 70-130 15.9 30
Pyridine 0.90 0.96 1.25 72 77 60-130 6.79 30
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 0.94 1.1 1.25 75 91 60-130 19.2 30 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.99 1.2 1.25 79 95 60-130 18.0 30 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 0.055 0.067 0.062 88 107 60-130 19.7 30 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.058 0.070 0.062 92 112 60-130 19.8 30 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 955 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/25/2022
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 242025
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-242025
Instrument: GC17, GC53
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3550B
QC Summary Report for SW8270C
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorophenol 1.1 1.1 1.25 85 91 70-130 6.99 30
Phenol-d5 0.93 1.0 1.25 75 81 70-130 8.72 30
Nitrobenzene-d5 1.1 1.2 1.25 86 93 60-130 7.60 30
2-Fluorobiphenyl 1.1 1.2 1.25 87 98 60-130 12.1 30
2,4,6-Tribromophenol 0.88 1.0 1.25 71 83 30-130 16.7 30 4-Terphenyl-d14 1.2 1.3 1.25 93 102 40-130 9.90 30
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 956 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/24/2022
Date Prepared: 03/24/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241869
Analytical Method: SW6020
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241869
Instrument: ICP-MS4
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3050B
QC Summary Report for Metals
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Antimony ND 0.16 0.50 - - -
Arsenic ND 0.14 0.50 - - -
Barium ND 0.68 5.0 - - -
Beryllium ND 0.083 0.50 - - -
Cadmium ND 0.094 0.50 - - -
Chromium ND 0.13 0.50 - - -
Cobalt ND 0.069 0.50 - - -
Copper ND 0.23 0.50 - - -
Lead ND 0.069 0.50 - - -
Mercury ND 0.038 0.050 - - -
Molybdenum ND 0.14 0.50 - - -
Nickel ND 0.081 0.50 - - -
Selenium ND 0.32 0.50 - - -
Silver ND 0.11 0.50 - - -
Thallium ND 0.072 0.50 - - -
Vanadium ND 0.15 0.50 - - -
Zinc ND 3.2 5.0 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
Terbium 510 500 101 70-130
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 957 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/24/2022
Date Prepared: 03/24/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241869
Analytical Method: SW6020
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241869
Instrument: ICP-MS4
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3050B
QC Summary Report for Metals
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Antimony 48 46 50 96 93 75-125 3.84 20
Arsenic 51 49 50 102 99 75-125 2.82 20
Barium 490 470 500 97 94 75-125 3.36 20
Beryllium 45 44 50 89 89 75-125 0.967 20
Cadmium 48 46 50 95 93 75-125 2.36 20
Chromium 49 47 50 97 95 75-125 2.48 20
Cobalt 48 47 50 97 95 75-125 1.87 20
Copper 50 49 50 100 97 75-125 2.82 20
Lead 47 45 50 94 91 75-125 3.72 20
Mercury 1.2 1.2 1.25 97 92 75-125 4.73 20
Molybdenum 49 48 50 98 96 75-125 2.72 20
Nickel 51 49 50 102 98 75-125 3.73 20
Selenium 51 48 50 102 97 75-125 4.82 20
Silver 47 47 50 94 94 75-125 0.221 20
Thallium 49 47 50 98 95 75-125 3.27 20
Vanadium 49 48 50 98 96 75-125 2.35 20
Zinc 500 480 500 100 97 75-125 3.27 20
Surrogate Recovery
Terbium 540 510 500 107 102 70-130 4.47 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 958 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/23/2022 - 03/25/2022
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241885
Analytical Method: SW8021B/8015Bm
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241885
Instrument: GC19, GC3, GC7
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5035
QC Summary Report for SW8021B/8015Bm
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
TPH(g) (C6-C12) ND 0.55 1.0 - - -
MTBE 0.0029,J 0.0026 0.050 - - -
Benzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
Toluene ND 0.0022 0.0050 - - -
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0026 0.010 - - -
o-Xylene ND 0.00098 0.0050 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorotoluene 0.088 0.1 88 75-134
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
TPH(btex) 0.63 0.57 0.60 105 95 82-118 10.2 20
MTBE 0.090 0.091 0.10 90 91 61-119 1.54 20
Benzene 0.10 0.098 0.10 105 98 77-128 6.46 20
Toluene 0.11 0.099 0.10 106 99 74-132 6.60 20
Ethylbenzene 0.11 0.10 0.10 108 103 84-127 5.46 20
m,p-Xylene 0.22 0.21 0.20 108 103 80-120 5.25 20
o-Xylene 0.11 0.10 0.10 107 101 80-120 5.77 20
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorotoluene 0.10 0.095 0.10 101 95 75-134 5.34 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 959 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/24/2022 - 03/28/2022
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241886
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241886
2203E13-001AMS/MSD
Instrument: GC9a
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3550B
QC Report for SW8015B w/out SG Clean-Up
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) ND 0.78 2.0 - - -
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 4.6 10 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
C9 21 25 85 70-130
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) 35 36 40 89 90 70-130 1.17 20
Surrogate Recovery
C9 21 21 25 85 84 70-130 0.539 20
Analyte MS
Result
MSD
Result
SPK
Val
SPKRef
Val
MS
%REC
MSD
%REC
MS/MSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
MS
DF
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) 1 31 31 40 2.117 71 73 70-130 1.90 20 Surrogate Recovery
C9 1 21 21 25 86 86 70-130 0.183 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 960 of 1534 ends

McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
1534 Willow Pass Rd
Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
(925) 252-9262
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page
Lab ID Matrix Collection Date Hold
Requested Tests (See legend below)
Report to:

Michael Burns
2600 Capitol Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
(650) 391-4880 FAX:

PO:
03/23/2022
Client ID
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
WorkOrder: 2203E13
1 of 1
Date Logged:

Date Received: 03/23/2022
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Environmental Science Associates
Bill to:

Jeff Trow
Environmental Science Associates
2600 Capitol Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
Requested TAT: 5 days;
ClientCode: ESAS
Email: [email protected]
EDF EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdParty
[email protected]
Excel
CLIP J-flag
cc/3rd Party:

WaterTrax
Detection Summary
Dry-Weight
2203E13-001 S-1 Soil 3/23/2022 09:00 A A A A A A A
2203E13-002 S-2 Soil 3/23/2022 09:34 A A A A A A A
2203E13-003 S-3 Soil 3/23/2022 09:13 A A A A A A A
2203E13-004 S-4 Soil 3/23/2022 09:24 A A A A A A A
Prepared by: Tina Perez
NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after receipt unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days).

Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense.

Comments:
8081PCB_S 8260B_S 8270_SCSM_S CAM17MS_TTLC_S
G-MBTEX_S PRDisposal Fee TPH(DMO)_S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
Test Legend:
11 12
The following SampIDs: 001A, 002A, 003A, 004A contain testgroup Multi Range_S.

Page 961 of 1534 ends

LabID ClientSampID Collection Date
& Time
Date Logged:

Matrix Test Name Containers TAT
/Composites

WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Work Order: 2203E13
Comments
Client Name: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park QC Level: LEVEL 2
Dry- Hold
Weight
Sub
Out
Bottle &
Preservative
3/23/2022
Sediment
Content
WriteOn EDF Excel EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdParty J-flag Client Contact: Michael Burns
Contact's Email: [email protected]
WaterTrax
Head Test Due Date
Space
U**
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" 001A S-1 Soil Multi-Range TPH 1 Stainless Steel tube 3/23/2022 9:00 5 days 2"x6"
3/30/2022
SW6020 (CAM 17) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8270C (SVOCs) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8260B (VOCs) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8081A/8082 (OC Pesticides+PCBs) 5 days 3/30/2022
002A S-2 Soil Multi-Range TPH 1 Stainless Steel tube 3/23/2022 9:34 5 days 2"x6"
3/30/2022
SW6020 (CAM 17) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8270C (SVOCs) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8260B (VOCs) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8081A/8082 (OC Pesticides+PCBs) 5 days 3/30/2022
003A S-3 Soil Multi-Range TPH 1 Stainless Steel tube 3/23/2022 9:13 5 days 2"x6"
3/30/2022
SW6020 (CAM 17) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8270C (SVOCs) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8260B (VOCs) 5 days 3/30/2022

Page 1 of 2 ends

* STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission).

NOTES:
- MAI assumes that all material present in the provided sampling container is considered part of the sample - MAI does not exclude any material from the sample prior to sample preparation unless requested in writing by the client.

U** = An unpreserved container was received for a method that suggests a preservation in order to extend hold time for analysis.

Page 962 of 1534 ends

LabID ClientSampID Collection Date
& Time
Date Logged:

Matrix Test Name Containers TAT
/Composites

WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Work Order: 2203E13
Comments
Client Name: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park QC Level: LEVEL 2
Dry- Hold
Weight
Sub
Out
Bottle &
Preservative
3/23/2022
Sediment
Content
WriteOn EDF Excel EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdParty J-flag Client Contact: Michael Burns
Contact's Email: [email protected]
WaterTrax
Head Test Due Date
Space
U**
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" 003A S-3 Soil SW8081A/8082 (OC Pesticides+PCBs) 1 Stainless Steel tube 3/23/2022 9:13 5 days 2"x6"
3/30/2022
004A S-4 Soil Multi-Range TPH 1 Stainless Steel tube 3/23/2022 9:24 5 days 2"x6"
3/30/2022
SW6020 (CAM 17) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8270C (SVOCs) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8260B (VOCs) 5 days 3/30/2022
SW8081A/8082 (OC Pesticides+PCBs) 5 days 3/30/2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

* STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission).

U** = An unpreserved container was received for a method that suggests a preservation in order to extend hold time for analysis.

Page 963 of 1534 ends

Page 964 of 1534 ends

Sample Receipt Checklist
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client Name: Environmental Science Associates
WorkOrder №: 2203E13
Date Logged: 3/23/2022
Matrix: Soil Logged by: Tina Perez
Carrier: FedEx
Shipping container/cooler in good condition? Yes No
Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler? Yes No NA Samples Received on Ice? Yes No
Chain of custody present? Yes No
Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received? Yes No Chain of custody agrees with sample labels? Yes No
Samples in proper containers/bottles? Yes No
Sample containers intact? Yes No
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test? Yes No
All samples received within holding time? Yes No NA
Sample/Temp Blank temperature NA
ZHS conditional analyses: VOA meets zero headspace Yes No NA requirement (VOCs, TPHg/BTEX, RSK)?
pH acceptable upon receipt (Metal: <2; Nitrate 353.2/4500NO3:
<2; 522: <4; 218.7: >8)?
Yes No NA
Temp: 2.1°C
Chain of Custody (COC) Information
Sample IDs noted by Client on COC? Yes No
Date and Time of collection noted by Client on COC? Yes No Sampler's name noted on COC? Yes No
Sample Receipt Information
Sample Preservation and Hold Time (HT) Information
Sample labels checked for correct preservation? Yes No
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
(Ice Type: WET ICE )
Comments:
pH tested and acceptable upon receipt (200.7: ≤2; 533: 6 - 8; 537.1: 6 - 8)?
Yes No NA
UCMR Samples:

Free Chlorine tested and acceptable upon receipt (<0.1mg/L) [not applicable to 200.7]?
Yes No NA
Date and Time Received: 3/23/2022 12:14
Received by: Tina Perez
COC agrees with Quote? Yes No NA
Custody seals intact on sample bottles? Yes No NA

Page 965 of 1534 ends

Draft

UKIAH RIVERSIDE PARK REGENERATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for January 2023
City of Ukiah
Appendix 5

Page 966 of 1534 ends

Page 967 of 1534 ends

Draft

UKIAH RIVERSIDE PARK REGENERATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for January 2023
City of Ukiah

550 Kearny Street
Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.896.5900
esassoc.com
Atlanta
Bend
Camarillo
Irvine
Los Angeles
Mobile
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Beach County
Pasadena
Pensacola
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
201801242

Page 968 of 1534 ends

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

Page 969 of 1534 ends

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project i ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page
Chapter 1, Project Description..........................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Project Location and Setting ..................................................................................1-1

1.3 Existing Site Conditions..........................................................................................1-4

1.4 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................1-4

1.5 Project Elements ....................................................................................................1-5

1.6 Construction Activities ............................................................................................1-7

1.7 Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................1-10

1.8 Anticipated Permits and Approvals.......................................................................1-10

1.9 References...........................................................................................................1-11 Chapter 2, Environmental Checklist.................................................................................2-1

2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected............................................................2-3

2.1.1 Summary of Findings................................................................................2-3

2.2 Environmental Checklist.........................................................................................2-5

2.2.1 Aesthetics.................................................................................................2-5

2.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .........................................................2-7

2.2.3 Air Quality...............................................................................................2-10

2.2.4 Biological Resources ..............................................................................2-17

2.2.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................2-32

2.2.6 Energy ....................................................................................................2-36

2.2.7 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................2-38

2.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................2-45

2.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .........................................................2-51

2.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................2-59

2.2.11 Land Use and Planning ..........................................................................2-65

2.2.12 Mineral Resources..................................................................................2-68

2.2.13 Noise ......................................................................................................2-69

2.2.14 Population and Housing .........................................................................2-75

2.2.15 Public Services.......................................................................................2-76

2.2.16 Recreation ..............................................................................................2-78

2.2.17 Transportation ........................................................................................2-80

2.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................2-86

2.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................2-88

2.2.20 Wildfire ...................................................................................................2-92

2.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance........................................................2-95

Page 970 of 1534 ends

Table of Contents
Page
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project ii ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Chapter 3, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.....3-1

3.1 Air Quality...............................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Biological Resources..............................................................................................3-3

3.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................................3-6

3.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .........................................................................3-8

3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ...............................................................................3-10

3.6 Transportation ......................................................................................................3-11

3.7 Wildfire .................................................................................................................3-12

3.8 References...........................................................................................................3-13 Appendices
A. Air Quality Emissions Technical Appendix.....................................................................A-1 B. Biological Resources Habitat Assessment.....................................................................B-1 List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Location .........................................................................................1-2 Figure 1.2 Project Site....................................................................................................1-3 Figure 1-3 Site Plan........................................................................................................1-6 Figure 2-1 Occurrences of Special Status Species within 5 Miles of the Project Study Area ...............................................................................................2-21 Figure 2-2 Habitat Types..............................................................................................2-23 List of Tables
Table AQ-1 MCAQMD Thresholds of Significance.........................................................2-11 Table AQ-2 Project Average Daily Construction Emissions1 .........................................2-12 Table GHG-1 Project Construction GHG Emissions1 .......................................................2-48 Table GHG-2 Consistency with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Actions in 2017 Scoping Plan Update ......................................................................2-49 Table NOI-1 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment....................................2-71

Page 971 of 1534 ends

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-1 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 CHAPTER 1
Project Description

1.1 Introduction
The City of Ukiah proposes to implement the Riverside Park Regeneration Project (Project). The Project proposes to restore an 8.6-acre portion of Russian River floodplain within Riverside Park, a city-owned public park located in the City of Ukiah, California. The Project is intended to restore habitat, improve flood control and drainage, enhance groundwater recharge and water quality, and provide a safe and ecologically interpretive park experience for visitors. In 2012, the City facilitated the development of Riverside Park Phase 1, which restored 5 acres of combined riverbank and top of bank, removed non-native, invasive plant species, improved river access, and constructed trails and picnic areas. Building on the prior effort accomplished under Phase 1, the Project is considered Phase 2 of restoring the central portion of Riverside Park. The Project is funded in part through the California Urban Rivers Grant Program, funded by Proposition 1: the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014.

1.2 Project Location and Setting
The Project site consists of an area of approximately 8.6 acres within Riverside Park in the floodplain of the Russian River, in Mendocino County (Figure 1-1, Regional Location).

Riverside Park consists of a 42-acre parcel located at 1281 East Gobbi Street on the west bank of the Russian River in Ukiah, California upon lands zoned for public facilities and recreation. The Project site is on an un-sectioned portion of the Ukiah, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute survey quadrangle corresponding to Township 15 north, Range 12 west, of the Rancho Yokaya Land Grant (Mount Diablo Base and Meridian). Site topography is relatively flat, with the exception of debris piles associated with the site’s former use as a wastewater treatment plant. Elevation ranges from 570-587 feet above mean sea level. The Project site is depicted on Figure 1-2.

Surrounding land uses consist of agricultural, rural residential, and limited recreational uses and open space associated with the Russian River. The nearest residence is located just over 500 feet north of the Project site. An elementary school (Oak Manor School) is approximately 0.5 miles west of Riverside Park. The Project site is adjacent to community baseball fields and a BMX track to the north; the Russian River riparian corridor to the east; vineyards to the west; and undeveloped non-native annual grasslands and agricultural fields to the south.

Page 972 of 1534 ends

Path: U:\gis\GIS\Projects\18xxxx\D181242_UkiahRiversidePark\Fig1_1_RegionalLocation_topo.aprx, ballen 10/7/2019 SOURCE: USGS, 1978; ESA, 2019. Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Figure 1-1
Regional Location
N
0 3,000
Feet
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Study Area
Riverside Park
Study Area

Page 973 of 1534 ends

Gobbi Street
dao Rnoit aer ce R
Russian
River
Path: U:\gis\GIS\Projects\18xxxx\D181242_UkiahRiversidePark\Fig1_2_WD_StudyArea.aprx, ballen 10/7/2019 SOURCE: DigitalGlobe,Oct. 2017; ESA, 2019. Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Figure 1-2
Project Site
N
0 400
Feet Project Site

Page 974 of 1534 ends

1. Project Description
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-4 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

1.3 Existing Site Conditions
Riverside Park is a mixed use recreational facility with community baseball fields and a BMX track on the north side of the park near the entrance gate. There are existing informal trails throughout the park, some of which connect to the Russian River. Past land uses have degraded the site. Historical uses of the site vicinity include wastewater treatment and gravel mining. Piles of asphalt and concrete debris currently obstruct the floodway and block sightlines, making the park feel unsafe for visitors. Under existing conditions, severely compacted, degraded soils on approximately 6 acres of upper floodplain terrace currently inhibit the establishment of vegetation. Earthen berms and a large pit excavated for gravel mining at the site are evident as relics of the site’s former uses.

Existing wetlands in the study area have been delineated as part of an aquatic resources report prepared for the Project (ESA, 2019). As documented in the report, approximately 0.178 acres of seasonal wetlands are present in the Project’s 8.6-acre study area.

Access and Circulation
Access to the site would occur through East Gobbi Street and along River Road through the gated entrance to Riverside Park in Ukiah. Gobbi Street is accessible from Highway 101 north, Gobbi Street exit (exit 548b). Riverside Park is at the gate at the east end of East Gobbi Street.

1.4 Project Objectives
The purpose of the Project is to restore flood plain habitat, improve flood control and drainage, enhance groundwater recharge and water quality, and provide a safe and ecologically interpretive park experience for visitors. The Project is funded in part through the California Urban Rivers Grant Program, funded by Proposition 1: the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, which seeks to fund: 1) more reliable water supplies, 2) the restoration of important species and habitat, and 3) a more resilient and sustainable managed water infrastructure.

The City has identified the following goals for the regeneration of Riverside Park:
• Restore a diverse multi-benefit floodplain on the Project site including floodplain wetlands; • Remove remnant debris from the site;
• Improve sightlines and public access on the site;
• Create and improve opportunities for passive recreation and nature education; • Expand riparian habitat and restore grasslands;
• Reduce flood risk to Ukiah and other communities on the Russian River; • Improve stormwater capture, treatment, water quality, and groundwater recharge; • Restore degraded site soils to support native plant communities; and • Reduce invasive plant populations on the site.

Page 975 of 1534 ends

1. Project Description
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-5 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

1.5 Project Elements
The Project comprises preparation of the site, removal of existing concrete debris, grading/site recontouring, berm construction to enhance wetlands, and installation of a boardwalk, new wood deck observation platforms, new gravel pedestrian paths, ecologically appropriate landscaping, and signage and parking improvements. The Project would begin with site preparation and clearing and removal of debris and invasive vegetation. Following this, earthwork on the site would consist of re-contouring, followed by fine grading and soil compaction to enhance seasonal wetlands. Finally, visitor amenities, including access and parking improvements, and upland landscape elements would be installed and the site would be finalized for use. The final proposed wetland and upland contouring and plantings as well as visitor amenities and access and parking improvements are described in this section, and site preparation, clearing, and construction methods are described in Section 1.6, Construction Activities.

Wetland Creation and Upland Vegetation Management
The Project includes site recontouring and revegetation with native plants to create six acres of varied-elevation seasonal floodplain wetlands for storm water and floodwater retention, bio-infiltration, groundwater recharge, and native habitat. An earthen berm would be constructed to enhance wetlands, and new native wetland plantings would be installed. In addition, transitional planting and upland area planting with native trees, shrubs, grasses and annual plants would enhance upland areas. The Project’s upland area plantings are designed to incorporate ecologically-appropriate riparian plants, native to the local region of the Russian River, complying with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).

The Project would implement soil restoration to improve soil moisture retention and microbial balance and provide the essential foundation for restoring the site’s plant communities. Clay soil would be imported for this purpose, as described in Section 1.6. This portion of the Project would also focus on expanding the edge of the riparian forest and restoring site grasslands. The proposed site plan for this restoration is depicted in Figure 1-3, Site Plan.

Visitor Amenities and Site Access and Parking
Improvements
To enhance park visitors’ use and enjoyment of the site, new hardscape elements would be installed, including an 1,872-square-foot wooden observation deck, six new wooden benches, a wooden boardwalk, a prefabricated steel beam bridge, a concrete walkway, and new gravel pedestrian paths. Trash receptacles and interpretive signage are also proposed to be placed on site. Interpretive signage and observation points on the boardwalk would showcase plantings, facilitate ecological awareness, and enable educational opportunities for the community at Riverside Park.

Page 976 of 1534 ends

SITE PLAN Figure 1-
3 Site Plan
SOURCE: MDG, 2021 Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2018/D181242.00 - Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project_MDG/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling/Illustrator

Page 977 of 1534 ends

1. Project Description
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-7 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Access improvements are proposed for the existing parking area at Riverside Park. Parking improvements would consist of redistribution of soils and limited grading at an area to the west of the main parking lot to the south of the BMX track. The area would remain unpaved and may be used in the event that overflow parking is needed at the park. No lighting, electrical, or other utility infrastructure is proposed as part of the Project.

1.6 Construction Activities
Site preparation
Initial site preparation would consist of mobilization, installation of erosion control measures, preparation of access routes, flagging and fencing jurisdictional wetland avoidance areas, and tree protection. Temporary construction staging would occur within the 8.6-acre Project site.

Avoidance areas would be established to protect aquatic and biological resources and to allow for the re-establishment of vegetation on the site. Avoidance measures would include the use of highly-visible flagging and the temporary installations of silt fencing in Riverside Park.

Following initial site preparation, clearing and grubbing would occur on the site. The total area of disturbance associated with the Project is approximately 6 acres. Construction of the Project would require water for dust control purposes, which would be supplied by municipal sources onsite or trucked in by the contractor selected to construct the Project. As the site would disturb more than 1 acre of soil, as part of the construction general permit required by the regional water quality control board, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) would be prepared for the Project. The SWPPP would include Project-specific best management practices to prevent the soil disturbing activities from resulting in conditions of runoff and erosion.

Debris and Invasive Plant Removal
The Project would include removal of approximately 2,260 CY of existing waste piles consisting of concrete, relic asphalt, and other debris. Heavy equipment including bulldozers and dump trucks would be required to load and haul the debris from the site to a local facility capable of receiving such waste. It is anticipated that the Project would comply with all local, regional and state (Ukiah, Mendocino County, and Cal Green Code) requirements regarding construction and demolition waste diversion.

In addition to this debris, approximately 1,002 CY of selected non-native invasive plant species such as Himalayan blackberry and other exotic species would be removed using hand tools and light equipment such as a weed whacker. Limited use of herbicides, if needed, would be applied in a manner consistent with regulatory water quality standards for safe and effective use at an appropriate buffer distance from waterways. No tree removal is anticipated to be required as part of the Project. Should removal of any onsite trees take place as part of the Project, a Tree Protection and Replacement Plan, consistent with City of Ukiah General Plan Growth Management Program and the City of Ukiah Community Forest Management Plan, would be required reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to Project construction. The Project’s proposed

Page 978 of 1534 ends

1. Project Description
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-8 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 vegetation removal shall occur in a manner consistent with City of Ukiah’s Tree Management Guidelines and Policies for the Operation and Maintenance of City Property (City of Ukiah, 2014).

It is anticipated that the net total of 3,262 CY of inert debris and vegetation to be removed from the site would require 466 one-way (or 233 round-trip) truck trips during the peak of construction (assuming a 14 CY off-haul capacity meeting freeboard requirements). In addition to the inert solid waste, the Project would also require off haul of approximately 228 CY of contaminated soil materials. This solid waste (not capable of meeting acceptable standards for reuse on site or for deposition into local landfills) would require approximately 34 one-way truck trips. The contaminated solid waste would most likely be delivered to the Clover Flat Landfill in Napa County, which is a facility capable of receiving such wastes. See Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for more information.

Grading, Site Recontouring, and Replanting
Following most of the debris and vegetation removal, rough grading would be implemented within approximately 3.39 acres of the site, including site recontouring to remove relic berms and realign site drainage. Some of the debris removal described in Section 1.6.2 would need to occur following rough grading necessary to facilitate the removal. Approximately 0.42 acres of fine grading would occur in the upper terrace to redirect drainage away from the adjacent vineyard. As depicted in Figure 1-2, Site Plan, a series of berms and basins would be reconstructed on the site, designed to allow for seasonal off-channel habitat. To facilitate the re-establishment of seasonal wetlands on site, the Project proposes to place and compact a 2-inch base layer in re-contoured basins (in and below the 587 elevation contour). As the existing soils are degraded and do not support wetland vegetation, approximately 1,140 CY of clay soil would be imported for this purpose. The site would be planted with ecologically appropriate wetland vegetation, with temporary irrigation to establish plantings.

Inert soil removed during grading would be redistributed on-site at a location southeast of the park’s main parking lot (and south of the BMX track), which currently is used as overflow parking.

Disturbed soils throughout the site would be stabilized and reseeded with ecologically appropriate grasses.

Hardscape Installation
Proposed hardscape elements consist of a graveled parking lot and driveway, a wooden boardwalk, and wood deck overlook. A 15-foot-long, 12-foot-wide prefabricated bridge is also proposed for installation over an ephemeral waterway, as shown on Figure 1-3, Site Plan. The concrete walkway would have 8-inch diameter concrete footings installed to a depth of 5 feet.

Pathways would consist of 4 inches of decomposed granite 4 inches thick. The main trail would be 8 feet wide and the minor trail would be 3 feet wide. Approximately 90 CY of decomposed granite would be imported and installed for this purpose.

Page 979 of 1534 ends

1. Project Description
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-9 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Schedule and Phasing
Construction is projected to take place in six overlapping phases over a period of 130 work days within a 9-month timeframe likely to begin in 2023 and conclude in 2024. Hours for construction are anticipated to be between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. five days per week (Monday through Friday). Construction would conform to City requirements for construction near residences, which restrict hours of construction to 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Monday through Friday). A description of the construction phases, schedule, and workdays is provided in Table 1-1 below.

TABLE 1-1

PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PHASES AND WORKDAYS
Phase Activity Work Days*
1 Mobilization, site clearing, and grubbing: Mobilize equipment to the site. Establish temporary construction fencing and access points. Install erosion control measures. Clear and grub within project limits.
7 2 Debris removal: Remove existing invasive plant species, removal (off haul) of rubble piles.

Mass grading of seasonal wetlands.
21 3 Fine grading and soil compaction. 21
4 Construct pedestrian paths and wood observation platforms: Construct gravel pedestrian pathways and approaches to new pedestrian observation platforms, install fence. 30 5 Planting of trees, shrubs, and grasses. Install irrigation. 30 6 Site cleanup and plantings: Remove temporary construction facilities, repair access points.

Start maintenance period. Test irrigation system.
21 O&M Maintenance: landscape planting viability site checks, irrigation system maintenance and repair; monitoring
TBD
* Estimated start date and work days are approximate. Some phases will overlap.

Equipment, Workers, and Truck Trips
Construction of the Project is anticipated to require approximately 12 workers,1 likely to be drawn from the local or regional labor pool within Mendocino, Sonoma, and Lake counties. Up to 130 work days may be required for this construction over a 9-month time frame. Construction would require heavy equipment including one (each) bulldozer, dump truck, and water truck, as well as two excavators and two mini excavators to accomplish the restoration. Workers would either use the park restrooms or portable toilets provided by the contractor selected to construct the Project.

It is assumed for the purposes of the analysis that construction may require up to 233 (round trip) local truck trips (14 CY capacity) to off-haul existing inert site debris and cleared vegetation; 10 truck trips to Napa County to off haul contaminated soil, and approximately 90 (one-way) truck trips to deliver clay soil, decomposed granite and building materials to the site. To the maximum extent feasible, concrete and asphalt waste debris would be recycled or reused in the local region, 1 Workers may include construction staff, heavy equipment operators, site manager, inspector(s), biologist, landscapers, and/or other technical specialists.

Page 980 of 1534 ends

1. Project Description
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-10 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 consistent with regulatory requirements. The Project would conform to local, Mendocino County and State (CalGreen Code) requirements for construction and demolition waste diversion.

1.7 Operation and Maintenance
The Project would be maintained in a manner similar to existing conditions by the City of Ukiah’s Department of Parks and Recreation operations and maintenance staff, with periodic support from volunteers, organizations, and/or designated contractors. Following construction, the site would be monitored and maintained to support the long-term viability of revegetation and other installations. Maintenance would consist of regular checks on the erosion control devices, irrigation systems, mowing upland areas, tree trimming, trash removal, weed control, plant viability monitoring, and overall site good housekeeping measures. A small all-terrain vehicle may be used to maintain or patrol the park.

Carbon Sequestration Monitoring
As part of its Urban Rivers grant program, the City expects to engage with the Carbon Cycle Institute in collaboration with the Mendocino Resource Conservation District (MRCD) to measure changes pertaining to the site’s carbon sequestration. Monitoring and analysis would rely on data collected through soil and woody vegetation sampling. Initial measurements would be taken prior to plantings, and repeated annually within the grant period.

Vegetation Management and Monitoring
Through various partnerships with the Mendocino RCD, Peregrine Audubon, the Sanhedrin Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, the City will conduct ongoing management of the site to include community park patrol, bird walks, invasive plant removal, native plant maintenance, and site monitoring.

1.8 Anticipated Permits and Approvals
In addition to this CEQA documentation, the following permits and regulatory approvals are anticipated to be required:
• Regional Water Quality Control Board: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) coverage under the Construction General Permit; and
• County of Mendocino: Flood Hazard Zone Development Permit _________________________

Page 981 of 1534 ends

1. Project Description
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-11 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

1.9 References
City of Ukiah, 2022. 2040 General Plan; Environment and Sustainability Element. Available online at: https://ukiah2040.com/
———. 2014. Tree Management Guidelines and Policies for the Operation and Maintenance of City Property. Adopted 12/1/10 and revised 11/19/14. November 11, 2014. Available online:
http://www.cityofukiah.com/NewWeb/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Citys-TreeManagement-Policy-Revised-11-19-14.pdf.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2019. Riverside Park Regeneration Project Aquatic Resources Delineation Report. Prepared for the City of Ukiah. July, 2019.

Page 982 of 1534 ends

1. Project Description
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-12 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 This page intentionally left blank

Page 983 of 1534 ends

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-1 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 CHAPTER 2
Environmental Checklist

1. Project Title: Riverside Park Regeneration Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave.

Ukiah, CA 95482

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Neil Davis, Director of Community Services Department (707) 467-5764
[email protected]

4. Project Location: 1281 E. Gobbi Street Ukiah, CA 95482

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave.

Ukiah, CA 95482

6. General Plan Designation(s): Public (P)

7. Zoning: Public Facility (PF)

8. Description of Project:

The Project proposes to restore an 8.6-acre portion of Russian River floodplain within Riverside Park, a city-owned public park located in the City of Ukiah, California. The Project comprises preparation of the site, removal of existing concrete debris, grading/site recontouring, berm construction to enhance wetlands, and installation of a boardwalk, new wood deck observation platforms, new gravel pedestrian paths, ecologically appropriate landscaping, and signage and parking improvements.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting.

0.5 miles west of Riverside Park. The Project site is adjacent to community baseball fields and a BMX track to the north; the Russian River riparian corridor to the east; vineyards to the west; and undeveloped non-native annual grasslands and agricultural fields to the south.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)
Mendocino County Flood Hazard Zone Development Permit (for placement of fill in the floodplain), Regional Water Quality Control Board Construction General Permit, and design

Page 984 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-2 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 review from the City of Ukiah are anticipated to be needed. The Project is funded in part through the California Urban Rivers Grant Program, through California Proposition 1: The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. This grant program provides financial resources for projects demonstrating: 1) more reliable water supplies, 2) the restoration of important species and habitat, and 3) a more resilient and sustainable managed water infrastructure.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

The City of Ukiah initiated Native American Tribal outreach for the proposed Project via U.S. mail, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 on May 13, 2021. As of January 2023, no responses or requests for Project consultation have been received from the tribes.

Page 985 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-3 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☒ Air Quality ☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☒ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☒ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☒ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☒ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☒ Wildfire ☒ Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.1.1 Summary of Findings
The Riverside Park Regeneration Project proposes to restore an 8.6-acre portion of Russian River floodplain within Riverside Park to improve flood control and drainage, habitat, enhance groundwater recharge and water quality, and provide a safe and ecologically interpretive park experience for visitors.

The Project comprises preparation of the site, removal of existing concrete debris, grading/site recontouring, berm construction to enhance wetlands, and installation of a boardwalk, new wood deck observation platforms, new gravel pedestrian paths, ecologically appropriate landscaping, and signage and parking improvements. Once constructed, the proposed Project would improve the quality of the environment as potentially hazardous debris would be removed from the site and wetlands within Riverside Park would be enhanced.

The analysis presented in this Initial Study has identified potentially significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation, and Wildfire, attributable to the Project’s construction. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures described throughout the Initial Study, all impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Page 986 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-4 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this Initial Study:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Page 987 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-5 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2 Environmental Checklist

2.2.1 Aesthetics
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS — Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime
views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
Riverside Park is a city-owned public park adjacent to the Russian River in Ukiah Valley. Scenic features in the Ukiah Valley include the forested mountains of the Coast Range including Cow Mountain Ridge to the east and the Western Hills framing the city of Ukiah to the west of Riverside Park. Open vistas are available to the west displaying neighboring vineyards in the foreground and distant views of the Valley framed by the foothills and mountains of the Coast Range in the background view. Views on the Valley floor within the City of Ukiah limits include those typical of existing residential and commercial development, as most of the land within the city limits is developed. The Project site has intrinsic scenic elements but is not in visual range of any scenic highways. The nearest eligible (undesignated) scenic highway is State Route (SR) 20 located approximately 7 miles northeast of Riverside Park.

Impact Discussion
a), c) Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
The proposed restoration Project would involve construction in a public scenic location within Ukiah Valley along the Russian River. Construction of the Project would require temporary closures of portions of Riverside Park for public safety and security during the approximately 9-month duration of construction. As described in the project description, avoidance areas will be established to protect aquatic and biological resources and to allow for the re-establishment of vegetation on the site. Avoidance measures would include the use of highly-visible flagging and the temporary installations of silt fencing in Riverside Park. The Project would also involve the temporary staging and use of heavy

Page 988 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-6 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 equipment and landscape materials during the construction phase. The presence of highly visible flagging, heavy equipment and materials would present a temporary visual intrusion into an otherwise scenic public place during construction.

The Project’s construction would not persist beyond the temporary (9-month) duration of construction. As described in the project description, following construction, the site would be restored, and equipment removed.

Operation
Existing visual obstructions (debris and rubble) would be removed from the site and the park’s riparian corridor would be restored with landscaping and upgraded interpretive pathways. Following construction, operation of the Project would result in an enhancement to the park which would improve public opportunities for recreational enjoyment and use of the site. The proposed boardwalk and pathways would be designed in a visually conducive manner to allow for interpretive education for visitors.

Impacts associated with construction would be temporary and less than significant. b) No impact. The Project is not proposed in an area within sightlines of a state scenic highway nor would the Project present impacts to historic structures. The nearest eligible (though undesignated) state scenic highway to Riverside Park is SR 20 approximately 7 miles northeast of the park. Therefore, there would be no impact under this criterion. d) No Impact. There is no lighting proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, the Project would have no impact regarding light.

References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. California State Scenic Highways https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed April 28, 2021.

Page 989 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-7 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES —
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The Ukiah Valley has a long agricultural history. In the 1950’s hops, pears, prunes, and grapes were widely planted throughout the valley. Today Ukiah Valley is home to several productive agricultural activities, including organically produced crops and notable vineyards. The Valley’s land consists of prime, fertile soils and benchlands highly productive for grapes. Presently, agricultural land within the region is mostly comprised of vineyards and pear orchards but also includes row crops and pasturelands. The city historically had an Agricultural Exclusive (A-E) combining district within the zoning code, but it was not applied to any lands within the city. The City’s 2040 General Plan, adopted on December 7, 2022, created an Agriculture (AG) land use designation which is applied to lands identified for annexation north of the city limits. The 2040 General Plan also includes the City’s first Agriculture Element (City of Ukiah, 2022). The Project site is not designated as farmland, but several parcels surrounding the Project site to the west, south and north within County of Mendocino jurisdiction are designated as “Prime Farmland” (DOC, 2018). There are no lands within the city limits or County’s jurisdiction adjacent to the Project site identified as Timber Preserve (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Page 990 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-8 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Impact Discussion
a) No Impact. The Project is located upon land indicated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” according to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (DOC, 2018). The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use because the Project site is not located on agricultural land and no conversion of such lands is proposed as part of the Project.
b) No Impact. The Project is not under a Williamson Act contract (County of Mendocino, 2014). Riverside Park, where the Project would be located is zoned PF (Public Facilities) (County of Mendocino, 2021) and has a General Plan designation (P) (City of Ukiah, 2022). The Project’s proposed restoration activities would be consistent with current zoning and land use designations; therefore, there would be no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
c) No Impact. The Project would improve and restore an existing city-owned park and would not alter existing public facilities zoning, which is intended to be applied to properties which are used for or are proposed to be used for public or quasi-public purposes and allows conservation areas, parks and recreation facilities by right. The As such, the Project does not propose activities or land uses incompatible with existing land use designations. Additionally, the Project would not occur on land zoned as forest land or timberland and would not conflict with existing zoning for such uses. There would be no impact under this criterion.
d) No Impact. The Project site does not contain forest land or timberland. As such, it would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of any to forest land to non-forest use. e) Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned under questions a through d, the Project would not be constructed or maintained on land designated as farmland or forest land.

However, several parcels surrounding the Project site to the west, south and north within County of Mendocino jurisdiction are designated as “Prime Farmland” (DOC, 2018).

Project construction activities that could indirectly affect adjacent agricultural lands include ground disturbance and vehicle use, which could result in dust emissions that could deposit dust on crops, and traffic delays associated with debris off hauling along East Gobbi Road. As discussed in Section 2.2.3, Air Quality, during construction, measures would be undertaken to minimize the release of fugitive dust emissions. As discussed in Section 2.2.17, Transportation, a construction traffic management plan would be implemented, which would include provisions for maintaining access for neighboring properties. Although indirect effects could occur, such effects would be temporary and would not result in any permanent conversion of farmland or forest lands.

Indirect effects would less than significant.

Page 991 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-9 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 References
California Department of Conservation (DOC), 2018. Mendocino County Important Farmland.

Available online at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Mendocino.aspx City of Ukiah, 2022. 2040 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Available online at:
https://ukiah2040.com/
County of Mendocino, 2011. Ukiah Valley Area Plan. Section 3, Land Use and Community Development. Available online: https://www.mendocinocounty.org/home/showpublished document/11871/636414328011170000. Accessed January 14, 2022.

County of Mendocino, 2014. Mendocino County Maps, Timber Production and Williamson Act Lands. https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/planning-building-services/countymaps. Accessed October 25, 2021.

County of Mendocino, 2021. Zoning Web Map. Available online at:
https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/planning-building-services/zoning-webmap

Page 992 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-10 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.3 Air Quality
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY —
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Air districts are responsible for attaining and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for criteria air pollutants. The Project is located within Mendocino County (County) which is within the North Coast Air Basin (NCAB). Air quality within the County is regulated by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD). The MCAQMD is classified as attainment or unclassified for all state and federal standards except for the state respirable particulate matter (PM10) standard (CARB, 2018; CARB, 2019); therefore, the MCAQMD has prepared the Particulate Matter Attainment Plan (PM Attainment Plan) to “prevent significant deterioration of local air quality and make reasonable efforts toward achieving attainment status for all pollutants” (MCAQMD, 2005). The Environment and Sustainability Element of Ukiah’s General Plan 2040 contains the following goal pertaining to air quality (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Goal ENV-7: To improve air quality to the benefit of public health, welfare, and reduce air quality impacts with adverse effects on residents’ health and wellbeing.

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The MCAQMD Particulate Matter (PM) Attainment Plan is the applicable air quality plan for the region; it includes a description of local air quality, the sources of local PM emissions, and recommended control measures to reduce future PM levels. The PM Attainment Plan recommends control measures that would be applicable to the Project and is the permit requirement for projects with over one acre of disturbance. Since the development of the PM Attainment Plan, this control measure has been adopted as a rule by the MCAQMD and accordingly, the Project will be subject to this measure.

In addition to the PM Attainment Plan, the Project would be required to comply with any other applicable MCAQMD rules and regulations including Rule 1-400(a), Rule 1-430(a),

Page 993 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-11 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 and Rule 1-430(b). Rule 1-430 requires implementation of precautions and mitigation measures to reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated by construction and grading activities. The Project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Fugitive Dust Reduction Measures, consistent with the requirements of Rule 1-430. Therefore, with adherence to the requirements of all applicable MCAQMD rules and implementation of the fugitive dust control measures (listed at the end of this section), the Project would not conflict with or hinder the implementation of the applicable air quality plan and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed above, the County is considered a non-attainment area for the state PM10 standard and is designated as either attainment or unclassified for all other state and federal ambient air quality standards. As part of an effort to attain and maintain the ambient air quality standards, the MCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for emissions criteria air pollutants and their precursors, as shown in Table AQ-1, below. Emissions of criteria air pollutants that exceed the applicable thresholds of significance for ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOx]), PM10 exhaust, or fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exhaust would be considered significant. The MCAQMD takes a qualitative approach to evaluating impacts from fugitive dust in that projects that implement Best Management Practices during construction would be considered to have a less than significant impact with respect to fugitive dust emissions (MCAQMD, 2010).

TABLE AQ-1

MCAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
ROG
(ppd)
NOx
(ppd)
PM10 Exhaust
(ppd)
PM2.5 Exhaust
(ppd)
Construction Emissions Threshold 54 54 82 54
Operational Emissions Threshold 180 42 82 54
NOTE: ppd = average pounds per day
SOURCE: MCAQMD, 2010.

Construction-related emissions are considered short-term in duration but, nevertheless, can represent a significant, adverse impact on air quality. During construction, the Project would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants from operation of heavy-duty construction equipment, and vehicles transporting workers and materials to and from the Project site. Construction emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0 and compared to the applicable MCAQMD thresholds of significance. Project-specific information was provided by the Project applicant including the construction equipment list, number of workers expected onsite, amount of material exported and imported, and haul truck capacity. Where project-specific information was not available, CalEEMod defaults were used. Detailed modeling assumptions are available in Appendix A.

Page 994 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-12 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Construction of the Project is anticipated to begin in early 2023 and could take up to 130 days to complete. The Project would include habitat restoration, flood control and stormwater drainage improvements, groundwater recharge and water quality enhancements, and would provide a safe an ecologically interpretive experience for park visitors. Construction emissions generated from construction of the Project are presented in Table AQ-2.

TABLE AQ-2
PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS1
ROG
(ppd)
NOx
(ppd)
PM10 Exhaust
(ppd)
PM2.5 Exhaust
(ppd)
2023Construction Emissions 3.20 32.63 1.35 1.24
2024 Construction Emissions 2.65 23.58 1.03 0.95
MCAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
NOTES:
ppd = average pounds per day
1 Project construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. See Appendix A for model outputs and more detailed assumptions. Note construction was initially anticipated to begin in 2021 and was modeled accordingly. As emission standards improve year to year, the calculation is a conservative estimate and would not result in a threshold exceedance if construction were to begin in 2023.

SOURCE: Appendix A.

As shown in Table AQ-2, construction of the Project would not result in emissions of criteria air pollutants in quantities that would exceed the MCAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance. Furthermore, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Best Management Practices which would ensure that the Project implements the control measures required by Rule 1-430, as well as the Best Management Practices required by the MCAQMD. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated with respect to emissions of fugitive dust during construction.

During operation, the Project would generate minimal criteria air pollutant emissions from use of employee vehicles for routine maintenance. These operational emissions would be the same as what is currently being performed during regular maintenance of the park and would not represent a significant new source of air pollutant emissions that could exceed the MCAQMD thresholds of significance. Since both construction and operational activity associated with the Project would not generate emissions of criteria air pollutants in amounts that would exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, and the impact would be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive land uses are those where sensitive population groups are located and include residences, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and other facilities where people spend significant amounts of time. Project impacts related to

Page 995 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-13 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 increased community health risk can occur by introducing a new source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site include residences and the Oak Manor Elementary School. The nearest residence is located 520 feet from the Project site boundary. Additional residences are located approximately

0.3 miles west of the site and the Oak Manor Elementary School is located approximately

0.5 miles west of the Project site. The Project would generate emissions of TACs during temporary construction activity. Although operation of the Project would generate occasional employee trips associated with maintenance activity, these trips would likely be made by light-duty vehicles, which are not considered to be a source of substantial TACs or PM2.5 emissions.

Project construction activities would generate TACs in the form of DPM from the use of heavy-duty, diesel fueled construction equipment. However, construction activity would be temporary and would occur over the course of approximately 130 days, beginning in 2022. The MCAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance establish a 1,000 foot-radius zone of influence from a source, within which health risks that would result from a Project should be evaluated (MCAQMD, 2010). Though the nearest residential receptor is located within this zone of influence as measured from the nearest point on the Project site boundary and the soils distribution area, most of the Project site is located beyond 1,000 feet from this receptor. Moreover, the phases that involve the use of heavy construction equipment (primarily Phases 2, 3, and 4) would take place over a period of just 2 months due to overlapping in schedule. Guidance on health risk assessments (HRAs) from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2015) does not recommend that an HRA be conducted for emissions-generating activities that do not last for more than 2 months as they are not expected to meaningfully contribute to increase in lifetime health risks. Given this guidance and the fact that most of the Project site is located beyond 1,000 feet from the nearest receptor, construction activities associated with the Project are not likely to lead to significant health risk impacts at the receptor. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

During operation, the Project would generate vehicle trips associated with routine operations and maintenance. These trips would be made by passenger vehicles that are generally gasoline-fueled and would not generate emissions of DPM. Furthermore, the nearest sensitive receptors are located outside of the zone of influence for health risks identified by the MCAQMD. Therefore, operation of the Project would not generate emissions of TACs that could pose a health risk to sensitive receptors, and the impact would be less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. During construction, use of diesel-powered vehicles and construction equipment could temporarily generate localized odors, which would cease upon Project completion and would not result in significant odorous impacts.

Typical land uses with the potential to generate considerable odorous impacts and odor complaints during operation including wastewater treatment plants, solid waste landfills,

Page 996 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-14 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 and composting facilities. The Project includes habitat restoration as well as flood control and groundwater improvements at a park that does not include land uses identified as common odor sources. Therefore, operation of the Project would not generate substantial odorous emissions and would not result in significant odor impacts.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Fugitive Dust Reduction Measures.

The Project would implement the precautions and mitigation measures required by Rule 1-430 including (MCAQMD, 2011):
• Reasonable precautions shall be taken to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne, including, but not limited to, the following provisions:
− Covering open bodied trucks when used for transporting materials likely to give rise to airborne dust.
− Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters, to enclose and vent the handling of dusty materials.
− The screening of all open-outdoor sandblasting and similar operations; − The use of water or chemicals for the control of dust during the demolition of existing buildings or structures.
• The following airborne dust control measures shall be required during all construction operations, the grading of roads, or the clearing of land:
− All visibly dry disturbed soil and road surfaces shall be watered to minimize fugitive dust emissions.
− All unpaved areas shall have a posted speed limit of 10 mph. − Earth or other material tracked onto neighboring paved roads shall be removed promptly.
− Approved chemical soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed earth surfaces in active construction areas and exposed stock piles (i.e. sand, gravel, dirt). − Dust generating activities shall be limited during periods of high winds (over 15 mph).
− Access of unauthorized vehicles onto the construction site during non-working hours shall be prevented.
− A daily log shall be kept of fugitive dust control activities.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Best Management Practices.

The Project shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Best Management Practices as recommended by the MCAQMD’s Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance and District Interim CEQA Criteria and GHG Pollutant Thresholds (MCAQMD, 2010; MCAQMD, 2013). The District Interim CEQA Criteria

Page 997 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-15 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 and GHG Pollutant Thresholds indicates that the agencies should use the Bay Area CEQA thresholds for projects in Mendocino County. Therefore, the Project shall implement the following Best Management Practices (BAAQMD, 2017):
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• 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.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • 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.
• 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 toxic control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. The 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.

References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. Available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/ media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

Accessed November 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2018. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations.

Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-areadesignations. Accessed May 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2019. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations.

Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-areadesignations. Accessed May 2021.

Page 998 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-16 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 City of Ukiah. 2022. 2040 General Plan. Available at
http://ukiah2040.com/images/docs/202212_release/UKGP_EntireGP_reduced.pdf.

Accessed January 18, 2023.

Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD), 2005. Particulate Matter Attainment Plan. January 2005. Available at http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aqmd/ pdf_files/Attainment%20Plan_DRAFT.pdf. Accessed October 2021.

Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD), 2010. Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance. June 2, 2010. Available at http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aqmd/pdf_files/MCAQMDCEQARecomendations.pdf.

Accessed October 2021.

Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD), 2011. Regulation 1 – Air Pollution Control Rules. February 15, 2011. Available at http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/ aqmd/district-regulation-1.html. Accessed October 2021.

Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD), 2013. District Interim CEQA Criteria and GHG Pollution Thresholds. December 2013. Available at http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aqmd/pdf_files/ceqa-criteria-and-ghg.pdf. Accessed November 2021.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015. Available at https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.

Accessed November 2021.

Page 999 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-17 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.4 Biological Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Several species known to occur on or in the vicinity of the Project site are protected pursuant to federal and/or state endangered species laws or have been designated as species of special concern or watch list species by CDFW. Species recognized under these terms are collectively referred to as special-status species. Special-status wildlife species with a moderate or high potential to occur within the Project site are presented in Figure 2-1 and discussed thereafter.

A historical occurrence of red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis), a CDFW species of special concern, is documented by CDFW in the riparian corridor 0.4-mile north of the Project site.

Although red-bellied newts may migrate a mile or more to and from breeding streams, this species has a low potential to occur within the Project site due to a lack of rapid streams with rocky substrates for breeding and larval development near the Project site. Also, the Project site’s riparian community is small in size, offering limited movement habitat for this species. The West coast DPS1 fisher (Pekania pennanti), a state threatened species and CDFW species of special 1 Distinct Population Segment (DPS): A distinct population segment is the smallest division of a taxonomic species permitted to be protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Page 1000 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-18 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 concern, is unlikely to occur in the Project site due to the lack of late successional coniferous forests containing large diameter trees with cavities; the nearest most-recent occurrence of the fisher to the Project site is approximately 12 miles north of the Project site. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) has historically occurred approximately 11 miles north of the Project site although the Project site does not offer suitable roosting habitat due to lack of availability of cave-like roosting habitat dominated by exposed, cavity forming rock and/or exposed walls or ceilings (Appendix B).

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)
Foothill yellow-legged frog is a state endangered species in central and southern California and CDFW species of special concern in northern California. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are small to medium–sized frogs with granular skin. They have a historical range from the Willamette River drainage in Oregon to at least the San Gabriel River drainage in Los Angeles County, California, in the foothill mountain streams east of the Sierra-Cascade crest from sea level to 1,940 meters but its current range is limited to northern and central California. Foothill yellow-legged frogs inhabit partially shaded, rocky perennial streams and rivers at low to moderate elevations across a range of vegetation types including chaparral, oak woodland, mixed coniferous forest, riparian sycamore and cottonwood forest, and wet meadows. They have also been observed using isolated pools, vegetated backwaters, and streams lacking a rocky, cobble substrate. Post-metamorphic frogs (i.e., juveniles and adults) may overwinter in refugia from high winter flows such as small tributary streams, seeps, springs, and clumps of woody debris or vegetation. Breeding habitat is typically associated with low gradient stream reaches at depositional features like lateral point bars and pool tail-outs, and egg masses are usually deposited on the downstream side of rocky substrates in shallow slow-moving water near the stream margin (Appendix B).

The nearest occurrence of foothill yellow-legged frog to the Project site is approximately 0.5-mile south along Mill Creek, a tributary connecting to the east bank of the Russian River, documented in 2016. The Russian River immediately east of the Project site contains aquatic habitat to support this species; however, the species is more commonly found along tributary streams with less dense canopy cover than that found in the vicinity of the Project site. Seasonal foothill yellowlegged frog movements away from aquatic habitat into upland territory, such as the Project site, could occur as a behavioral response to avoid high discharge events or as a movement into an overwintering site (Appendix B). Thus, this species has a moderate potential to occur.

White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus)
The white-tailed kite, when nesting, is a state fully protected species under the state’s Fish and Game Code. White-tailed kite is a medium-sized raptor that is a yearlong resident in coastal and valley lowlands in California. White-tailed kites breed from February to October, peaking from May to August. This species nests near the top of dense oaks, willows, or other large trees. The trees within the annual grassland and riparian woodland plant communities in and adjacent to the Project site provide nesting habitat for this species. No white-tailed kites were observed during the biological reconnaissance surveys; however, this species has been observed in the vicinity (Appendix B). This species has moderate potential to nest within the Project site during the nesting season.

Page 1001 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-19 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Nesting osprey are CDFW Watch-List species. Ospreys breed in northern California from Cascade Ranges to Lake Tahoe, and along the coast south to Marin County. Regular breeding sites include Shasta Lake, Eagle Lake, Lake Almanor, other inland lakes and reservoirs, and northwest river systems. Osprey are associated strictly with large, fish-bearing waters, primarily in ponderosa pine within mixed conifer habitats and prey mostly on fish and a few mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. The species uses large trees, snags, and deadtopped trees in open forest habitats for cover and nesting and requires tall open-branched “pilot trees” nearby for landing before approaching the nest, and for use by young for flight practice.

Osprey nest on a platform of sticks at the top of large snags, dead-topped trees, on cliffs, or human made structures, and occasionally on the ground. Location of the nests are typically within 240 feet of fish-producing water but may nest up to a mile from a water body. Ospreys travel up to approximately 6 miles from nest to fishing areas (Appendix B). Mature trees and utility poles in the Project site could provide suitable nesting habitat for osprey, which have a moderate likelihood to occur.

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)
Pallid bat is a CDFW species of special concern and a Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) High Priority species. The WBWG is composed of agencies, organizations, and individuals interested in bat research, management, and conservation from the 13 western states and provinces. CDFW tracks bat species that are least Low-Medium Priority in California.

Pallid bat occurs throughout California except in parts of the high Sierra and the northwestern corner of the state. Pallid bat inhabits a variety of habitats, such as grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests; however, this species is most abundant in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Pallid bats roost alone, in small groups, or gregariously. Roosts include caves, crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, mines, trees, and various man-made structures (e.g., bridges, barns, porches), that generally have unobstructed entrances/exists and are high above the ground, warm, and inaccessible to terrestrial predators. Year-to-year and night-to-night roost reuse is common; however, bats may switch day roosts on a daily and seasonal basis. No pallid bats were observed during the biological reconnaissance surveys; however, this species has a moderate potential to roost in hollows and crevices of mature trees in the annual grassland and riparian woodland habitats of the site (Appendix B).

Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)
Western pond turtle is a CDFW species of special concern. Western pond turtles are commonly found in ponds, lakes, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with rocky or muddy substrates surrounded by aquatic vegetation. These watercourses usually are within woodlands, grasslands, and open forests, between sea level and 6,000-foot elevation. Turtles bask on logs or other objects when water temperatures are lower than air temperatures. Nest sites are most often situated on south or west-facing slopes, are sparsely vegetated with short grasses or forbs, and are scraped in sands or hard-packed, dry, silt or clay soils. Most egg laying occurs during May and June, although some individuals may deposit eggs as early as late April and as late as early August. Nests are located at upland sites, often up to 0.25 mile from an aquatic site.

Page 1002 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-20 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 A western pond turtle was observed basking on large woody debris in 2002 along the Russian River 1.3 miles north of the Project site, which is considered the nearest documented occurrence of the species to the Project site. The Russian River riparian woodland community within and immediately east of the Project site contains necessary aquatic and terrestrial habitat to support dispersal of the species, although basking sites may be more commonly found on rocks above the water surface in the channel or on the riverbank. As such, there are limited basking sites within the Project site’s riparian woodland community due to the presence of dense vegetation.

However, the seasonal wetlands and annual grasslands of the Project site offer western pond turtle terrestrial habitat supporting both nesting and overwintering activities. Thus, this species has moderate potential to occur.

Special-Status Plants
No federal- or state-listed plant species were identified during the initial biological reconnaissance survey of the Project site (ESA, 2019a) or the second survey in September 2021.

The nearest documented CNDDB plant species to the Project site is Baker’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes bakeri), a CRPR 1B.1 species, observed approximately 1.4 miles southwest nearly 30 years ago. This species occurrence is presumed to be extirpated, due to mowing activities associated with nearby development.

Based on the principal habitat type in the Project site, vegetation is mostly dominated by nonnative annual grassland species, no special-status plants are expected to occur in the Project site due to the substantial soil disturbance in the past. A list of plant species documented during the habitat assessment and aquatic resources delineation is provided in Appendix B.

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Database searches of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], 2021), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Rankings (CRPR) (CNPS, 2021) were conducted within a 5-mile radius of the Project site to identify previously reported occurrences of special-status species, and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) species list was obtained (Figure 2-1, Occurrences of Special Status Species; see also Appendix B, Habitat Assessment) (USFWS, 2021). Existing local data on biological resources were also consulted, and biological reconnaissance surveys of the site were conducted on May 22, 2019 (ESA, 2019a) to inform the site habitat assessment, as well as an aquatic resources delineation (ESA, 2019b). An additional site visit was conducted on September 9, 2021 to inform the CEQA analysis. The site habitat assessment (ESA, 2019a), provided in Appendix B, includes data from the 2019 survey and a table summarizing the potential for special-status species to occur on the Project site. Special-status species with moderate or higher potential to occur are discussed below, along with proposed mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts on these species to a lessthan-significant level.

Page 1003 of 1534 ends

Path: U:\gis\GIS\Projects\18xxxx\D181242_UkiahRiversidePark\03_MXDs_Projects\Fig3-7_CNDDB_Map.aprx, ballen 10/7/2019 SOURCE: USDA, 2016; CNDDB, 2019; ESA, 2019
Figure 2-1
Occurrences of Special-Status Species
within 5 Miles of the Project Study Area
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
red-bellied newt
Raiche's manzanita
Toren's grimmia
red-bellied newt
foothill yellow-legged frog
red-bellied newt
foothill yellow-legged frog
red-bellied newt
foothill yellow-legged frog
Raiche's manzanita
Raiche's manzanita
Mendocino bush-mallow
western pond turtle
foothill yellow-legged frog
North American porcupine
western pond turtle
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
red-bellied newt
foothill yellow-legged frog
red-bellied newt
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
red-bellied newt
Burke's goldfields
Baker's navarretia
Raiche's manzanita
Baker's meadowfoam
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
N
0 1.5
Miles
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency
Study Area
Study Area Buffer (5 mi.)
CNDDB Occurrences
(as labeled)

Page 1004 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-22 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Impacts to Foothill Yellow Legged Frog
The aquatic features in the Project site do not support primary foothill yellow-legged frog breeding, resting, or rearing habitat. As such, focused surveys have not been performed and are not warranted for this species. During elevated flows in the river, there are opportunities for occasional long distance movements (up to 165 feet) into site grasslands by foothill yellow-legged frogs potentially present in the Russian River (CDFW, 2000). If foothill yellow-legged frogs are present at the time of construction, ground-disturbing activities would pose a potential threat to this species; however, because this is largely an aquatic species, its movements would generally be restricted to the river corridor and would not include the Project site. Thus, Project activities are unlikely to impact this species, and no mitigation is required.

Impacts to Western Pond Turtle
The western pond turtle is known to occur east of the site within the Russian River riparian corridor and could seasonally traverse the site during the breeding season while in search of egg deposition areas. Western pond turtle could benefit from elements of the Project that restore habitat and improve floodwater and stormwater drainage. However, during construction, western pond turtle could be killed, injured, or forced to abandon habitat by vegetation removal, human and vehicle traffic, excavation, and other disturbance. These impacts would be significant, but can be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 (text of mitigation measures provided at the conclusion of this section).

Impacts to Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats, including White-tailed Kite, Osprey, and Pallid Bat
The Project site offers minimal elevated raptor nesting habitat as it lacks a substantial number of mature trees. The few tall mature trees and utility poles within the Project site provide perches for raptors, including white-tailed kite and osprey, seeking prey in the annual grasslands below. Mature trees offering crevices and cavities may provide habitat for bat roosting. Preservation of existing mature trees, and the planting of new native trees could support raptors and other birds as well as common and special status bats, including pallid bat. The enhancement of dense groundcover would support the presence of several common ground-nesting bird species for roosting, nesting, and protection from predators, such as California quail. During construction, vegetation removal could kill or injure nesting birds or roosting bats or result in nest or roost abandonment. These impacts would be significant. However, Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would be implemented to reduce impacts on nesting birds and roosting bats to a less than significant level. Refer to the conclusion of this section for text of mitigation measures. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Vegetation communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area and are defined by species composition and relative abundance. Three vegetation communities were identified within the Project site:
non-native annual grassland, riparian woodland, and seasonal wetland (see Figure 2-2, Habitat Types). Of these, the two latter categories are recognized by CDFW as sensitive natural communities. The natural community classification presented herein is based on field observations (ESA, 2019a), and the standard List of California Terrestrial Natural

Page 1005 of 1534 ends

SW-1
SW-2
Stormwater
Culvert Outfall
SOURCE: DigitalGlobe, Oct. 2017; ESA, 2019. Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Figure 2-2
Habitat Types
N
0 100
Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Study Area
Old Spoils Piles
Overhead Utility Line (~50’
above ground)
Erosional Gully
Tree Species
Boxelder maple
Coast live oak
Cottonwood
N. California black walnut
Sandbar willow
Valley oak
Arroyo willow (multi-stem)
Honey locust (non-native)
Vegetation Communities
Upland Vegetation
Non-native Annual Grassland
Non-native Shrubs
Native and Non-native Shrubs
Native Trees
Riparian Woodland
Vegetation Communities (cont.)
Seasonal Wetlands (Potential Waters of
the State andU.S.)
SW-1: Water Filled Depression
(0.140 ac.)
SW-2: Ephemeral Ditch/
Stormwater Control Feature
(0.038 ac.)
1 inch = 100 feet
Delineation conducted by Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill (ESA).

Map prepared by Brad Allen (ESA) on Oct 7, 2019
&
&

Page 1006 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-24 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 This page intentionally left blank

Page 1007 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-25 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Communities Recognized by the CNDDB (Holland, 1986). Plant communities generally correlate with wildlife habitat types; wildlife habitats were classified and evaluated using A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). Riparian woodland is discussed below; seasonal wetland is discussed under question c).

Representative photos of vegetation communities are provided in Appendix B.

Riparian Woodland
The 0.57-acre riparian woodland community located within the southeastern portion of the Project site (see Figure 2-2, Habitat Types) comprises a dense, multi-layered canopy that is directly dependent on the fluvial geomorphic processes of the Russian River (Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, 2012). In the state’s coastal range, where the Project site is located, riparian woodland communities typically occur as narrow, often dense groves of broad-leaved, winter deciduous trees ranging in height. The transition between the riparian woodland community found in the Project site and adjacent non-riparian vegetation is clearly delineated. Riparian tree species such as California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), California black walnut (Jugulans californica), California boxelder (Acer negundo), and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) intergrade into non-native annual grassland in the eastern portion of the Project site. Riparian woodland is subject to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. This community extends into the larger riparian corridor beyond the Project site, surrounding the Russian River. Work within or affecting this community, even if beneficial as a result of enhancement actions, may require a Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW.

Riparian woodland areas provide water, thermal cover, migration corridors and diverse nesting and feeding opportunities for wildlife. Bird species associated with riparian woodland habitat found in the vicinity of the Project site include osprey, a CDFW WatchList species, belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), and western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana) (EBird, 2019). Other wildlife species documented in the Russian River riparian woodland community and nearby tributaries include the foothill yellow-legged frog, red-bellied newt, and western pond turtle.

Although the Project would avoid tree removal in the riparian woodland, vegetation trimming and removal may be necessary for movement of equipment or installation of restoration features. In addition, ground disturbance may result in erosional flow towards the river, potentially damaging riparian vegetation and contributing to sediment transport into the river. These potential impacts to riparian woodlands during construction would be significant. However, these impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Two seasonal wetland features were identified on the Project site during the aquatic resources delineation (ESA, 2019b).

Page 1008 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-26 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Seasonal Wetlands
The aquatic resources delineation identified 0.178 acre of aquatic resources within the Project site, consisting of two seasonal wetlands as depicted on Figure 2-2, Habitat Types (ESA, 2019b).

Seasonal wetland (SW) 1 is located in the bottom of an artificially excavated pit, dug for the purpose of gravel extraction at the site of the former wastewater treatment facility. This seasonally water-filled depression has hydrophytic vegetation dominated by rye grass (Festuca perennis) and dock (Rumex sp.).

A few occurrences of willow (Salix sp.) and cottonwood (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) grow along the margin of this feature (Figure 2-2, Habitat Types). Soils were clearly disturbed from previous activities. The SW-1 pit was dug in the floodplain of the Russian River and the area surrounding the pit is uplands. Surface water runoff from uplands and flood events of the Russian River are the hydrologic sources for this feature. The sides of the gully are eroding into an old ruderal road, and sediment consisting of gravel and sand is splayed into the bottom of the pit. Water will only flow through the gully during flood events.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (33 CFR 328.3(b)(4)(v)) excludes as waters of the U.S pits excavated in dry land for obtaining gravel that fill with water. As such, SW-1 is not considered a water of the U.S. (ESA, 2019b); although it would likely be considered waters of the State based on its characteristics. The 3.c. definition of waters of the State (SWQCB, 2019) considers a wetland that is “the result from historic human activity and are not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape.”
SW-2 is located in the bottom of an artificially excavated ditch (see Figure 2-1, Habitat Types). This ephemeral ditch begins at a culvert outfall that discharges stormwater during rainfall events. The ditch outfalls into the Russian River, although the ditch loses a distinctive bottom and sides near the river. The bottom of the ditch is not uniformly sloped, and the western end of it does not fully drain and may retain water up to several inches deep. This feature has hydrophytic vegetation and soils similar to the seasonally waterfilled depression discussed above. 33 CFR 328.3(b)(3)(i) excludes ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary as waters of the U.S.

However, SW-2 would likely be considered a water of the State based on its characteristics, for the same reason SW-1 meets the definition above (SWQCB, 2019).

The seasonal wetlands are considered sensitive natural communities by CDFW and may be waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Impacts to this community, even if beneficial, as a result of enhancement may require a Waste Discharge Permit from the RWQCB through the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act.

CDFW also has the ability to enforce certain water quality provisions in state law. Please refer to Appendix B for further detail on the regulatory jurisdiction related to the Project.

Page 1009 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-27 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 The Project may have the beneficial effect of expanding the Russian River’s diverse habitat of vegetation and wildlife. Enhancement of native wetland vegetation surrounding the ephemeral ditch (SW-2) including removal of contaminated soils (as discussed in Section 2.2.9) would improve water quality before it enters the river. Additionally, the Project enhancement would increase habitat complexity promoting improved primary and secondary food web production. Along the eastern end of the ephemeral ditch, increased native vegetation and hydrological connectivity with the existing riparian corridor could better support dispersal opportunities of species such as western pond turtle and foothill yellow legged frog while increasing flood capacity. Similarly, native vegetation enhancement of the seasonally water-filled depression (SW-1) could support a more complex wetland habitat and accommodate more extreme flood events through grading, stabilization, and planting of native species. Soil re-nourishment, control of weeds, and improvement of native plant recruitment would encourage native plant populations throughout the Project site. These enhancements would also support breeding, foraging and dispersal habitat of foothill yellow- legged frog, western pond turtle, as well as other wildlife species.

Although the Project will avoid direct impacts to the seasonal wetland features, ground disturbance during construction could result in erosional flow into the wetland areas, causing damage to vegetation or soils. This potential indirect impact to seasonal wetlands during construction could be significant. However, indirect impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5, described in relation to impacts to the riparian woodland community. d) Less than Significant. The Russian River and its surrounding riparian woodlands provide an important corridor for terrestrial wildlife movement, amphibian and fish breeding, and migratory bird nesting, as well as cover and forage for wildlife species. The riparian woodland on the Project site is a component of the larger riparian corridor along the Russian River, which is a critical movement corridor for fish and wildlife species. Work within or affecting this community during construction may temporarily inhibit the use of this area as a wildlife corridor or nursery site. However, following construction, the riparian woodland will be maintained and potentially expanded, providing for continued use as a movement corridor and nursery site. Thus, impacts to movement of fish and wildlife species and uses as a nursery site would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
e) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The City of Ukiah 2040 General Plan, and specifically the Environment and Sustainability Element, (adopted December 7, 2022) contains goals and policies related to preservation and protection of environmental resources, such as trees, sensitive species and habitat, water quality, the Russian River and its tributaries, and wetlands. Additionally, the Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure Element contains policies specificity to maintenance of parks and recreation facilities (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Page 1010 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-28 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 The City of Ukiah Tree Management Guidelines (City of Ukiah, 2014a) provides policy guidelines for the preservation, maintenance, and enhancement of the urban forest in parks and other areas maintained by the staff and contractors of the City of Ukiah.

The City’s tree replacement guidelines state that at least one tree shall be planted for every tree removed from City property. It is preferable to plant the replacement tree in close proximity to the original tree’s location, but the replacement tree may be located elsewhere, if local conditions contributed to the previous tree’s failure. New locations should be found on the same site or in the same neighborhood at a location of similar or greater value. Preference shall be given for planting native trees whenever feasible (City of Ukiah, 2014a). No tree on the Project site has been recognized as a City of Ukiah “landmark tree” as defined by the Landmark Tree Program Guidelines and Policies (City of Ukiah, 2014b).

Should removal of any onsite trees be proposed as part of the Project, a Tree Protection and Replacement Plan, consistent with City of Ukiah General Plan Growth Management Program and the City of Ukiah Tree Management Guidelines, would be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to Project construction. All requirements and restrictions within those documents would be complied with, including the incorporation of replacement trees for each tree removed. Guidance on tree protection, removal, and replacement provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the City of Ukiah’s Tree Management Guidelines (City of Ukiah, 2014a) would be followed.

Adherence to all local tree management guidelines and e implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5, would reduce conflicts with local ordinances to less-than-significant levels.
f) No Impact. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan is applicable to the Project site. Thus, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Worker Education and Awareness.

A worker education and awareness program (WEAP) about western pond turtle and foothill yellow-legged frog shall be provided to all on-site personnel by a qualified biologist before the commencement of materials staging or ground-disturbing activities.

Though no significant impacts on foothill yellow-legged frog are anticipated, the WEAP shall include information on this species in the unlikely event they should occur in the work area. The biologist shall explain to construction workers how best to avoid impacts and should include topics on species identification, life history, descriptions, and habitat requirements during various life stages. The crew members shall sign a sign-in sheet documenting that they received the training.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Biological Monitoring.

All vegetation removal and initial grading activities associated with construction activities should be conducted under the supervision of a qualified biologist. Should any

Page 1011 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-29 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 western pond turtles be detected in the vicinity of the project footprint, the biological monitor would relocate any western pond turtles found within the construction footprint to safe, suitable habitat away from the construction zone. Any relocation activities would be reported to CDFW within 7 days.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Pre-construction Nest Surveys.

Nesting birds and their nests shall be protected during construction by use of the following measures:
1) Removal of riparian vegetation and trimming of trees shall occur outside the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 30), to the extent feasible. If removal of riparian vegetation and trimming or removal of trees during bird nesting season cannot be fully avoided, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre-construction nesting surveys within 7 days prior to the start of such activities or after any construction breaks of 14 days or more. Surveys shall be performed for the Project site and suitable habitat within 250 feet of the Project site in order to locate any active passerine (perching bird) nests and within 0.5 mile of the Project site to locate any active raptor (bird of prey) nests.
a) If active nests are located during the pre-construction bird nesting surveys, the wildlife biologist shall evaluate whether the schedule of construction activities could affect the active nests and the following measures shall be implemented based on their determination.
b) If construction may affect the active nest, the biologist shall establish a nodisturbance buffer. Typically, these buffer distances are between 25 feet and 250 feet for passerines and between 300 feet and 500 feet for raptors. These distances may be adjusted depending on the level of surrounding ambient activity or if an obstruction, such as a large tree, is within line-of-sight between the nest and construction. The buffer shall be maintained until young birds are fledged and independent of the nest.
2) For bird species that are sensitive species (i.e., fully protected, endangered, threatened, or species of special concern), a City representative, supported by the wildlife biologist, shall consult with the USFWS and/or CDFW regarding modifying nest buffers, prohibiting construction within the buffer, modifying construction, or other activities impacting nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Bat-safe Tree Work.

A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for special-status bats in advance of tree trimming to characterize potential bat habitat and identify active roost sites. Should potential roosting habitat or active bat roosts be found in trees to be disturbed, the following measures shall be implemented:
1) Trimming of trees shall occur when bats are active, approximately between the periods of March 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15; outside of bat maternity roosting season (approximately April 15 to August 15) and outside of months of winter torpor (approximately October 15 to February 28), to the extent feasible. 2) If trimming of trees during the periods when bats are active is not feasible and bat roosts being used for maternity or hibernation purposes are found on or in the

Page 1012 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-30 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 immediate vicinity of the Project site where these activities are planned, a nodisturbance buffer as determined by a qualified biologist shall be established around these roost sites until they are determined to be no longer in-use as maternity or hibernation roosts.
a) The qualified biologist shall be present during tree trimming if bat roosting habitat is present. Trees with roosts shall be disturbed only when no rain is occurring or is forecast to occur within the next 3 days and when daytime temperatures are at least 50°F.
3) Trimming of trees containing or suspected to contain roost sites shall be done under supervision of the qualified biologist. Branches and limbs not containing cavities or fissures in which bats could roost shall be cut only using small tools such as chainsaws or hand saws. Branches or limbs containing roost sites shall be trimmed the following day, under the supervision of the qualified biologist, also using chainsaws.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Riparian and Wetland Avoidance.

Sensitive vegetation communities shall be avoided during construction. High visibility and silt fencing shall be erected at the edge of the construction footprint for all work anticipated to occur within 50 feet of seasonal wetland and riparian woodland. Construction shall adhere to City of Ukiah Tree Management Guidelines. Tree protection fencing shall be placed around all trees proposed to be preserved onsite within the construction area. The fencing shall be installed 1 foot beyond the driplines of the protected trees and be maintained until construction has been completed. A qualified biological monitor shall be present during the fence installation and during any initial grading or vegetation clearing activities within 50 feet of seasonal wetlands and riparian woodland that are proposed for avoidance, to verify fences are in place and vegetation clearing is limited to the area necessary for construction.

References
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search for the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Ukiah, Laughlin Range, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, Cow Mountain, Purdys Gardens, Elledge Peak, Boonville, Orrs Springs topographic quadrangles.
———. 2018. California Natural Community List. CNDDB.
———. 2000. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog.

Written by: S. Morey. January.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California data request for the Ukiah, Laughlin Range, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, Cow Mountain, Purdys Gardens, Elledge Peak, Boonville, Orrs Springs U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.

City of Ukiah. 2022. 2040 General Plan. Adopted December 7, 2022. Available online at:
https://ukiah2040.com/
———. 2014a. Tree Management Guidelines and Policies for the Operation and Maintenance of City Property. Adopted 12/1/10 and revised 11/19/14. November 11, 2014. Available

Page 1013 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-31 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 online: http://www.cityofukiah.com/NewWeb/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Citys-TreeManagement-Policy-Revised-11-19-14.pdf. ———. 2014b. Landmark Tree Program Guidelines and Policies. November 14, 2014.

County of Mendocino. 2009. Mendocino County General Plan. August, 2009. ———. 2011. Ukiah Valley Area Plan. Adopted August 2, 2011.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2019a. Riverside Park Regeneration Project Habitat Assessment (Draft). December. (Appendix B)
———. 2019b. Riverside Park Regeneration Project, Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. Prepared for Melton Design Group, May 2019.

Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, ed. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections, Sacramento, CA, 165 pp.

Mendocino County Resource Conservation District. 2012. Russian River Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan. June 2012.

NatureServe, 2017. NatureServe Explorer. National and Subnational Conservation Status Definitions. Accessed online: https://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.3996/102016-JFWM079/suppl_file/10.3996102016-jfwm-079.s7.pdf. February 26, 2017.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Species list generated November 2, via: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

Page 1014 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-32 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.5 Cultural Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Setting
The City of Ukiah is within the ancestral territory of the Northern Pomo. Historically, permanent villages were established in areas with access to staple foods, generally along ecotones (transitions between varying terrain), with access to good water, and relatively flat land.

Typically, areas that are the most culturally sensitive include those adjacent to streams, springs, and mid-slope benches above watercourses because Native Americans and settlers favored easy access to potable water.

The name “Ukiah” is derived from the Indian word YO-KIA or YO-KAYO, meaning “deep valley”. Distributed over the lands of Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma Counties are many independent bands of Pomo Indians. Seven distinct Pomo languages are recognized, delineated by geographic divisions, which include: Northern, Central, Southern, Eastern, Southeastern, Northeastern, and Southwestern.

A review of (more recent) historic maps and aerial imagery shows the Project Site and surroundings in 1957 as a wastewater treatment facility. Several treatment ponds and associated structures and facilities are in the central and western portions of the Project Site and the areas to the north and south of the Project Site. The wastewater treatment plant was demolished in 1958; as shown on the 1963 aerial the facilities were demolished and the ponds were filled in. By 1984, the northern part of the former wastewater treatment plant had been constructed with baseball fields and other recreational facilities; these are located to the north of the Project Site. A small gravel mine operated in the Project vicinity. A skeet shooting range was constructed to the south of the Project Site. Currently, the Project Site contains spoil piles, a relic earthen or concrete berm, and excavations related to past gravel mining activities, as well as earthwork and site demolition activities associated with the former wastewater treatment plant Impact Discussion
a) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the Project would cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource, herein referring to historic-era architectural resources or the built environment, including buildings, structures, and objects. A significant impact could occur if the Project would cause a substantial adverse change to

Page 1015 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-33 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 a historical resource through physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource.

The Project Site is undeveloped open space without any buildings or structures remaining on the site that could be considered historical resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5. As there are no historical resources on or adjacent to the Project Site, the Project would have no impact on historical resources. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Archaeological resources can be considered historical resources, according to Section 15064.5, as well as unique archaeological resources, as defined in Section 21083.2(g). A significant impact could occur if the Project would cause a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource through physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource.

ESA staff completed a records search of the Project Site and a 0.5-mile radius around the Project Site at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System on March 17, 2020 (File No. 19-1643). The purpose of the records search was to (1) determine whether known cultural resources have been recorded within or adjacent to the Project Site; (2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded cultural resources to be present based on historical references and the distribution of nearby sites; and (3) develop a context for the identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources. Records were also reviewed in the Historic Property Data File and Built Environment Resource Directory for Mendocino County, which contains information on places of recognized historical significance, including those evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Inventory of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.

Base maps indicate that there are no previously recorded archaeological resources in the Project Site. The nearest previously recorded archaeological resource is approximately

0.5 mile to the west of the Project Site (NWIC, 2020). Two cultural resources investigations have been completed in the vicinity of the Project (ASC, 2009; Van Bueren, 2015). Neither study included the Project site, and no cultural resources were identified in the nearby vicinity of the Project Site during these investigations.

ESA completed a field survey of the Project Site on April 21, 2020 (ESA, 2020). The Project Site was walked in zigzag transects along all accessible pathways and exposed areas. The Project Site is heavily vegetated with grasses and forbs with limited visibility.

All visible soil surfaces including bare patches, pathways, and rodent holes were inspected for cultural materials. All accessible areas adjacent to the Russian River were closely inspected. Soils consisted of medium brown silty loam with angular gravel inclusions consistent with artificially-deposited and disturbed fill and sediment. An earthen ditch extends east-west on the southern side of the Project Site, beginning at a culvert outfall extending to the Russian River. Dirt and rubble piles, approximately 4 feet high, are concentrated in the northwestern section of the Project Site. A small seasonal

Page 1016 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-34 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 wetland is located in the bottom of an artificially excavated gravel pit approximately 15 feet deep on the west side. The sides of the pit are eroding onto a dirt road, and sediment consisting of gravel and sand is spread into the bottom of the pit. The sidewalls of the pit were closely inspected for cultural materials or changes in soil color or structure.

No prehistoric or historic-era artifacts or features were identified during the field survey.

The entire Project Site is disturbed from past mining activities, wastewater treatment plant features, and/or current trails and access routes.

Based on the survey results, nearby site distribution, extensive previous disturbance, and the location of proposed ground disturbing activities, the Project has a low potential to uncover archaeological resources. Despite the low potential, the discovery of archaeological materials during ground-disturbing activities cannot be entirely discounted. The inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources during Project implementation could be a potentially significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires avoidance measures or the appropriate treatment of archaeological resources if discovered during Project implementation.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. There is no indication from the archival research that any part of the Project Site has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. Therefore, it is unlikely that human remains would be encountered during construction of the Project. Despite the low potential, the possibility of inadvertent discovery cannot be entirely discounted and would result in a potentially significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which requires avoidance measures, or the appropriate treatment of human remains if accidentally discovered during Project construction.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are encountered during project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt, and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archeology, shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of Ukiah of their initial assessment. Prehistoric cultural materials might include obsidian and chert flakedstone tools (e.g. projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g. mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period cultural materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

If the City of Ukiah determines, based on recommendations from a qualified archaeologist and a Native American representative (if the resource is indigenous), that the resource may qualify as a historic property (meeting the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4), a historical resource or unique archaeological resource (as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5), or a tribal cultural resource (as defined in

Page 1017 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-35 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 PRC Section 21080.3), the resource shall be avoided if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the City of Ukiah shall consult with appropriate Native American representative (if the resource is indigenous), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource.

This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery (according to PRC Section 21083.2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource (according to PRC Section 21084.3).

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event of discovery of any human remains during project activities, such activities within 100 feet of the find shall cease until the Mendocino County Coroner has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. The Native American Heritage Commission will be contacted within 24 hours if the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American.

The Commission will then identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American, who in turn shall be contacted and requested to make recommendations to the City of Ukiah for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any grave goods. The City of Ukiah shall follow the recommendations of the most likely descendant.

References
Anthropological Studies Center (ASC), A Cultural Resources Study for the Recycled Water and Stormwater Development Project, City of Ukiah, Mendocino, California. Prepared for Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers. On file (S-36144), at NWIC, June 2009.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project. Prepared for the City of Ukiah. May 2020.

Northwest Information Center (NWIC), File No. 19-16443. On file, ESA, March 17, 2020.

Van Bueren, Thad M. Archaeological Survey Report for the Recycled Water Project in the City of Ukiah, California. On file (S-46341) at NWIC, April 2015.

Page 1018 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-36 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.6 Energy
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. ENERGY — Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The Environment and Sustainability Element and the Mobility Element of the City’s 2040 General Plan contains goals, policies, and implementing programs to promote energy use efficiency and conservation. Among the goals are the following local goals pertaining to energy conservation: Goal ENV-1.3 Open Space and Renewable Energy Production; MOB-2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant. The Project’s construction would consume energy in the form of diesel and gasoline fuels to power equipment and transport materials to the Project site.

Operation and maintenance of the Project is not anticipated to increase consumption of diesel or gasoline fuel, compared to existing conditions. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, there would be a temporary increase in local truck trips during construction, primarily associated with export of debris from the Project site. However, this energy use would be limited to fuel required to transport materials, haul off debris, and power equipment for restoration of the Project site. No electrical infrastructure or lighting is proposed or required as part of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not increase energy use during operation and maintenance of the Project. Following construction, the park would be maintained in a manner consistent with existing conditions. Thus, energy use would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary for construction or operation of the Project. Impacts associated with temporary fuel use during construction of the Project would be less than significant. b) No Impact. Although the Project’s construction would include the use of fuels to transport vehicles, materials, and equipment to Riverside Park, the Project would not interfere with or obstruct the implementation of City energy efficiency goals or policies as outlined in the City’s general plan. As described in Section 2.2.3, Air Quality, the Project would utilize energy efficient vehicles, as feasible, for construction. No state plans regarding renewable energy would be applicable to the Project. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Under this criterion, there would be no impact.

Page 1019 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-37 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 References
City of Ukiah, 2022. 2040 General Plan. Adopted December 7, 2022. Available online at:
https://ukiah2040.com/

Page 1020 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-38 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.7 Geology and Soils
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The Ukiah Valley is part of an active seismic region that contains the Maacama Fault, which traverses the valley in a generally northwest-southeast direction east of the Project area. Based on California Geological Survey maps and the Background Report for the County of Mendocino General Plan Update (prepared by P.M.C., 2003), lands within Ukiah Valley are identified as being located on a somewhat unstable geologic formation but are not located within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone, or in a landslide or liquefaction zone.

The Project area is situated within the Coast Range geologic province. The North Coast Range is comprised of a geologic feature unique to California, the Franciscan Formation, which dictates the vegetative communities. The Franciscan Formation is comprised of serpentine, sandstone, and other sedimentary rocks. The most recent geologic mapping (Dellatre & Rubin, 2020) indicates that the surficial geologic units at the Project site are mapped as historic gravel quarries and percolation ponds (gq) and modern stream channel deposits (Qsc) are also mapped at the surface within the Project site along the Russian River (Dellatre & Rubin, 2020).

Page 1021 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-39 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Impact Discussion
a.i) Less than Significant Impact. The State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) prohibits the development of structures for human occupancy across active fault traces. Under this Act, the California Geological Survey (CGS) has established “Zones of Required Investigation” on either side of Holocene-active faults2 that delimits areas susceptible to surface fault rupture. The zones are referred to as Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZs) and are shown on official maps published by the CGS (CGS, 2020). Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to a fault movement during an earthquake; typically, these types of hazards occur within 50 feet of a Holocene-active fault (CGS, 2018).

The Project site does not lie within any mapped EFZs according to the available data (CGS, 1982; 2020). Although the area can be affected by earthquakes and/or seismic ground shaking, there are no current data available to suggest Holocene-active faults are present within the Project site. While the Project site is not located within any known EFZ, the Maacama fault zone is 0.5 mile to the west of the Project site; the Maacama fault zone is mapped as an EFZ (CGS, 1982; 2020).

The Project does not include any inhabitable structures and would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects relating to rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with surface fault rupture.
a.ii) Less than Significant. The Project site is located in a historically seismically active region of California. The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities3 concluded that there is a 72 percent probability that a magnitude (MW) 6.7 earthquake or higher will strike the San Francisco Bay Area, and a 95 percent probability that a MW 6.7 earthquake (or higher) will occur in Northern California, before the year 2045 (Field et al. 2015). As discussed above, there are no known faults that intersect the Project site (CGS, 2010). According to the ShakeMap that corresponds with the earthquake planning scenario generated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), if a MW 7.6 event were to occur within the Maacama fault zone, the Project site could experience violent ground shaking with heavy to very heavy damage expected (USGS, 2016).

The Project would not include the construction of habitable structures and construction activities would be temporary. Any potential structural damage that could occur due to groundshaking would be minimized through the adherence to applicable building code requirements. To construct the expanded parking facilities and wooden overlook and pedestrian boardwalk, the Project would be required to adhere to the standards in the current version of the California Building Code (CBC), which would require a final, 2 Holocene-active faults refer to faults that have displayed surface displacement within Holocene time (the last 11,700 years) (CGS, 2018).
3 Also referred to as WGCEP, 2014, this is a working group comprised of seismologists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS), Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), and California Earthquake Authority (CEA).

Page 1022 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-40 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 site-specific geotechnical investigation be performed. The geotechnical investigation would include an analysis of groundshaking potential, and the geotechnical report would incorporate CBC seismic design criteria to develop design specifications to reduce potential impacts. Adherence to CBC guidelines and recommendation from a geotechnical report would ensure the Project would not directly or indirectly generate substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required.
a.iii) Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which unconsolidated, water saturated sediments become unstable due the effects of strong seismic shaking.

During an earthquake, these sediments can behave like a liquid, potentially causing severe damage to overlying structures. Lateral spreading is a variety of minor landslide that occurs when unconsolidated liquefiable material breaks and spreads due to the effects of gravity, usually down gentle slopes. Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is defined as the finite, lateral displacement of gently sloping ground as a result of porepressure buildup or liquefaction in a shallow underlying deposit during an earthquake.

The occurrence of this phenomenon is dependent on many complex factors, including the intensity and duration of ground shaking, particle-size distribution, and density of the soil.

The potential damaging effects of liquefaction include differential settlement, loss of ground support for foundations, ground cracking, heaving and cracking of structure slabs due to sand boiling, and buckling of deep foundations due to ground settlement. Dynamic settlement (i.e., pronounced consolidation and settlement from seismic shaking) may also occur in loose, dry sands above the water table, resulting in settlement of and possible damage to overlying structures. In general, a relatively high potential for liquefaction exists in loose, sandy deposits that are within 50 feet of the ground surface and are saturated (below the groundwater table). Lateral spreading can move blocks of soil, placing strain on buried pipelines that can lead to leaks or pipe failure.

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) groundwater data indicate the groundwater levels in the vicinity of the Project site are between 60 and 70 feet below the ground surface (DWR, 2020). Because the groundwater level is deeper than 50 feet below the ground surface, the likelihood of liquefaction at the Project site is low.

As described under criterion question a.iii), the Project would be required to adhere to the current version of the CBC, which would require a final, site-specific geotechnical investigation be performed. The geotechnical investigation would include an analysis of liquefaction potential, and should the investigation determine that there is a liquefaction potential, the geotechnical report would incorporate CBC seismic design criteria to develop design specifications to reduce potential impacts due to liquefaction. Adherence to CBC guidelines and recommendation from a geotechnical report, as applicable, would ensure the impact related to liquefaction and other seismic-related ground is less than significant with no mitigation required.

Page 1023 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-41 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 a.iv) Less than Significant Impact. Landslides are one of the various types of downslope movements in which rock, soil, and other debris are displaced due to the effects of gravity. The potential for material to detach and move down slope depends on a variety of factors including the type of material, water content, steepness of terrain, and more.

There have been no documented historic landslides within the Project site (Dellatre & Rubin, 2020). Additionally, the topography at the Project site is relatively level, indicating a low risk of landslides at the site.

Because there are no inhabitable structures proposed as part of the Project, there would be no threat to human life due to landslides. Any potential structural damage that could occur due to landslides would be minimized through the adherence to applicable building code requirements. The geotechnical investigation would include analysis of slope stability. Should the investigation conclude that there is a potential for slope instability, the geotechnical report would incorporate CBC seismic design criteria to develop design specifications to minimize damage from potential landslides. Adherence to CBC guidelines would ensure the impact related to landslides is less than significant. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The construction-related activities of the Project would involve ground-disturbing earthwork. These activities could increase the susceptibility of soils on the Project site to erosion by wind orwater and subsequently result in the loss of topsoil. If not controlled and managed, the impact of soil erosion could be significant.

In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, stipulated in Mitigation Measure HYD-1, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be developed and implemented as part of the Project’s construction. This plan would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to control and reduce soil erosion. The BMPs may include dewatering procedures, storm water quality runoff control measures, and the construction of silt fences, as needed. The implementation of the SWPPP and associated BMPs including soil stabilization and erosion control measures would ensure that soil disturbance impacts during construction would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Refer to Section 2.2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for text of mitigation. c) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Questions a.iii and a.iv, above, there is a possibility that soil and/or geologic units within the Project site could become unstable as a result of Project construction. Also discussed above, the Project would not include the construction of any inhabitable structures and there would be no personnel residing on site during operation and maintenance of the Project. The Project would be required to adhere to the current version of the CBC, which includes specifications and seismic design criteria that would minimize Project impacts associated with ground instability.

Adherence to CBC guidelines and standards would ensure that potential impact is less than significant.

Page 1024 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-42 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 d) Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are soils that possess a “shrink-swell” characteristic. Shrink-swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying; the volume change is reported as a percent change for the whole soil. This property is measured using the coefficient of linear extensibility (COLE) (NRCS, 2017). The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) relies on linear extensibility measurements to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils. If the linear extensibility percent is more than 3 percent (COLE=0.03), shrinking and swelling may cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures (NRCS, 2017). NRCS Web Soil Survey data indicates the soil underlying the Project site has a 1.5 percent linear extensibility rating, which is considered a low linear extensibility rating (NRCS, 2019).

As stated above, the Project would be required by the CBC to prepare a final, designlevel geotechnical report, which would include site investigations. Although unlikely, if these investigations find expansive soils at the Project site, the report would provide recommendations to ensure that any structural impacts resulting from expansive soils on-site would be avoided, removed, or engineered to be suitable. Adherence to the requirements of the CBC and geotechnical investigation would avoid impacts resulting from potentially expansive soils on the Project site. The Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property related to expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The Project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system; and therefore, would not require the use of soils that are adequate for supporting such systems. There would be no impact associated with the Project having adequate soils for septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems as this infrastructure would not be applicable to the Project.
f) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would destroy a unique geologic feature or paleontological resource on site. Paleontological resources are the fossilized evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary rock deposits preserved worldwide, and the enormous number of organisms that have lived through time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils—particularly vertebrate fossils—are considered nonrenewable resources. Because of their rarity, and the scientific information such resources can provide, fossils are highly valued records of ancient life.

Geologic mapping by Dellatre & Rubin indicates that the surficial geologic units at the Project site are mapped as historic gravel quarries and percolation ponds (gq). Modern stream channel deposits (Qsc) are also mapped at the surface within the Project site along the Russian River. Additionally, there are various Holocene to Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits (Qya1, Qyf, Qof) and the sedimentary deposits of the Pleistocene to Plioceneage Ukiah Formation (QTu) mapped in the vicinity of the Project site (Dellatre & Rubin,

Page 1025 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-43 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 2020); although they do not appear to occur at the surface within the Project site, they could be present beneath the surface.

Holocene-age alluvial deposits are generally considered to have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources, due the recent age of these deposits. However, the deeper layers of these deposits are old enough to contain paleontological resources and, in general, these deeper layers have a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources (SVP, 2010). Generally, Pleistocene and Pliocene-age sedimentary deposits are considered to have a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources, which is evident from the numerous fossil discoveries in such sediments throughout California. For Project sites that are underlain by paleontologically sensitive geologic units, the greater the amount of ground disturbance, the higher the potential for significant impacts to paleontological resources. For Project sites that are directly underlain by geologic units with no paleontological sensitivity, there is no potential for impacts on paleontological resources unless sensitive geologic units which underlie the non-sensitive unit are also affected.

A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online fossil locality database did not return any records of Holocene, Pleistocene, or Pliocene-age vertebrate fossils in Mendocino County, although there are records of invertebrate fossils and microfossils in Holocene sediments in Mendocino County (UCMP, 2020).

A majority—if not all—ground disturbance is planned to occur within deposits that are too young to contain paleontological resources (gq and Qsc). Excavation at any depth within units mapped as gq and Qsc would not yield any significant paleontological resource as these deposits are too recent to contain paleontological resources. Underlying the gq and Qsc deposits are Holocene-age alluvial deposits (Qya1 and Qyf), which have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources as well, due to recent age of these deposits.

As stated above, Holocene-age deposits generally have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources close to the surface, however, this potential increases with depth (i.e., the deeper layers of these deposits have an increased potential).

Further, the presence of mapped Pleistocene-age deposits in the vicinity of the Project site indicates that these deposits exist at an unknown depth beneath the Project site.

Taking into consideration that excavations associated with Project construction are not planned to reach into the deeper deposits that have a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources, this impact would be less than significant with no mitigation measures required.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1, SWPPP and Erosion Sediment Control Plan.

Refer to Section 2.2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for text of mitigation.

Page 1026 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-44 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 References
California Geological Survey (CGS), 1982. State of California, Special Studies Zones: Ukiah, Official Map. Effective: January 1, 1982. Map. Scale 1:24,000.

CGS, 2010. Fault Activity Map of California. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/app/.

CGS, 2018. Special Publication 24. Earthquake Fault Zones: A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California. Revised 2018.

CGS, 2020. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. California Geological Survey.

Available online: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.

Dellatre, Marc P. and Ron S. Rubin (Dellatre & Rubin), 2020. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Ukiah 7.5’ Quadrangle, Mendocino County, California. Version 1.0. California Geological Survey. Map. Scale 1:24,000.

Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2020. Water Data Library – Groundwater Level Reports, Groundwater Levels for Station 391482N1231810W001.

Field, E. H. Glenn P. Biasi, Peter Bird, Timothy E. Dawson, Karen R. Felzer, David D. Jackson, Kaj M. Johnson, Thomas H. Jordan, Christopher Madden, Andrew J. Michael, Kevin R.

Milner, Morgan T. Page, Tom Parsons, Peter M. Powers, Bruce E. Shaw, Wayne R.

Thatcher, Ray J. Weldon II, and Yuehua Zeng (Field et al.), 2015. Long-Term TimeDependent Probabilities for the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 105, No. 2A. pp. 511- 543. April 2015. doi: 10.1785/0120140093.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2017. Title - National Soil Survey Handbook.

Part 618 – Soil Properties and Qualities. Section 618.41, Linear Extensibility Percent.

NRCS, 2019. Web Soil Survey. Linear Extensibility—Mendocino County, Eastern Part and Southwestern Part of Trinity County, California. Map. Scale 1:2,540.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Prepared by: SVP Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), 2020. UC Museum of Paleontology Localities database. Available online at: https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/loc.html United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. ShakeMap—M 7.4 Scenario Earthquake – Maacama-Garberville. Map. Scale unknown.

Page 1027 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-45 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Climate Change
There is scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that human activity in some measure contributes (perhaps substantially) to that change. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as “greenhouse gases” (GHG). Emissions of GHGs, if not sufficiently curtailed are likely to contribute further to increases in global temperature and associated effects of climate change. The potential effects of climate change in California include sea level rise and storm surge events, reductions in snowpack, as well as an increased number of extreme-heat days (per year), high ozone days, large forest fires, and prolonged drought (CARB, 2017).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The accumulation of GHGs emissions from human activities – such as fossil fuel-based electricity production and the use of motor vehicles – have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHGs has contributed to an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and to global climate change.

GHG emissions that result from human activities primarily include carbon dioxide (CO2), with much smaller amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4, often from unburned natural gas), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) from high-voltage power equipment, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) from refrigeration/chiller equipment. Because these GHGs have different warming potentials (i.e., the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere by a certain mass of the gas), and CO2 is the most common reference gas for climate change, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions. For example, while SF6 represents a small fraction of the total annual GHGs emitted worldwide, this gas is very potent, with 23,900 times the global warming potential of CO2. Therefore, an emission of 1 metric ton of SF6 would be reported as 23,900 metric tons CO2e. The global warming potential of CH4 and N2O are 25 times and 298 times that of CO2, respectively (CARB, 2016a). The principal GHGs resulting from human activity that enter and accumulate in the atmosphere are described below.

Page 1028 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-46 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Carbon Dioxide
CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that enters the atmosphere through natural as well as anthropogenic (human) sources. Key anthropogenic sources include the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees, wood products, and other biomass, as well as industrially relevant chemical reactions such as those associated with manufacturing cement. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.

Methane
Like CO2, CH4 is emitted from both natural and anthropogenic sources. Key anthropogenic sources of CH4 include gaseous emissions from landfills, releases associated with mining and materials extraction industries (particularly coal mining), and fugitive releases associated with the extraction and transport of natural gas and crude oil. CH4 emissions also result from livestock and agricultural practices. Small quantities of CH4 are released during fossil fuel combustion.

Nitrous Oxide
N2O is also emitted from both natural and anthropogenic sources. Important anthropogenic sources include industrial activities, agricultural activities (primarily the application of nitrogen fertilizer), the use of explosives, combustion of fossil fuels, and decay of solid waste.

Assembly Bill 32
California Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, required the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels. AB 32 required CARB to adopt regulations that identify and require selected sectors or categories of emitters of GHGs to report and verify their statewide GHG emissions, and CARB is authorized to enforce compliance with the program. Under AB 32, CARB also was required to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to the statewide GHG emissions levels in 1990, which must be achieved by 2020. CARB established this limit in December 2007 at 427 million metric tons of CO2e. This is approximately 30 percent below forecasted “business-as-usual” emissions of 596 million metric tons of CO2e in 2020, and about 10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004 (CARB, 2009). In the interest of achieving the maximum technologically feasible and costeffective GHG emission reductions, AB 32 permits the use of market-based compliance mechanisms and requires CARB to monitor compliance with and enforce any rule, regulation, order, emission limitation, emissions reduction measure, or market-based compliance mechanism that it adopts.
2017 Scoping Plan Update
Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan in January 2009 (reapproved by CARB on August 24, 2011) outlining measures to meet the GHG reduction goal to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (CARB, 2009). The Scoping Plan is required by AB 32 to be updated at least every 5 years. On December 14, 2017, CARB approved the current Climate Change Scoping Plan, California’s, 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan Update). The 2017 Scoping Plan Update outlines the proposed framework of action for achieving the 2030 GHG target of 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions relative to 1990 levels. The 2017

Page 1029 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-47 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Scoping Plan Update identifies key sectors of the implementation strategy, which includes improvements in low carbon energy, industry, transportation sustainability, natural and working lands, waste management, and water. CARB determined that the target statewide 2030 emissions limit is 260 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e) and that further commitments will be needed to achieve an additional reduction of 50 MMTCO2e beyond current policies and programs (CARB, 2017).

The 2017 Scoping Plan Update establishes the framework for achieving the 2030 statewide GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels, established by SB 32. The plan update details local actions that land-use development projects and municipalities can implement to support the statewide goal. For project-level CEQA analyses, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update states that projects should implement feasible mitigation, preferably measures that can be implemented onsite.

Significance Thresholds
The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) has adopted a threshold of significance for the purposes of evaluating GHG emissions resulting from operation of Projects within its jurisdiction. According to the Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance, a Project would have a significant impact if operational emissions of GHGs exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e) per year. The MCAQMD has not established thresholds of significance for construction GHG emissions; therefore, this analysis compares Project-related GHG emissions to the screening threshold of 900 MTCO2e per year, established by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Report, CEQA and Climate Change— Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CAPCOA, 2008). The 900 MTCO2e-per-year threshold is more conservative than the operational threshold used by the MCAQMD. Therefore, use of the CAPCOA screening threshold is a conservative metric for determining significance of impacts associated with GHG emissions that would result from the proposed Project.

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project has the potential to generate GHG emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Construction of the Project would generate GHG emissions from use of heavy-duty construction equipment and from vehicle trips associated with construction workers, vendors, and haul trucks traveling to and from the Project site. Operational GHG emissions would result from employee vehicle trips during routine maintenance of the Project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 specifically addresses the significance of GHG emissions, requiring a lead agency to make a “good-faith effort” to “describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions in CEQA environmental documents. The CEQA Guidelines do not set a numerical threshold of significance with which to evaluate GHG emissions; however, Section 15064.7 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance

Page 1030 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-48 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”
Construction-related GHG emissions that would be generated from the Project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0, and were then compared to the CAPCOA threshold of 900 MTCO2e per year, as shown in Table GHG-1, below. Project-specific information provided by the project applicant and incorporated into the model included the anticipated construction schedule, a construction equipment list, the number of workers anticipated onsite daily, and the amount of material to be imported and exported. Where Project-specific information was not available, CalEEMod defaults were used. Detailed modeling assumptions are included in Appendix A. As shown in Table GHG-1 construction of the Project would not generate GHG emissions that would exceed the applicable thresholds of significance.

TABLE GHG-1
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS1
GHG Emission MTCO2e
Construction Emissions` 300
CAPCOA Threshold 900
Exceeds Threshold? No
NOTES:

MTCO2e = metric tons CO2 equivalents
1 Project emissions were estimated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. See Appendix A for model outputs and more detailed assumptions.

SOURCE: Appendix A.

During operation, the Project would generate minimal GHG emissions from use of employee vehicles during routine maintenance. These operational emissions would be the same as what is currently being performed during regular maintenance of the park and would not represent a significant new source of GHGs that could have a significant impact on the environment. Because neither construction nor operation of the Project would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants in amounts that would exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, and the impact would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows for public agencies to analyze and mitigate GHG emissions as part of a larger plan for the reduction of GHGs and describes the required contents of such a plan. As described below, the Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

The 2017 Scoping Plan Update incorporates a broad array of regulations, policies, and state plans designed to reduce GHG emissions. Those that are applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Project are listed in Table GHG-2. As shown

Page 1031 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-49 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 below, the Project would be consistent with goals described in the Scoping Plan Update to reduce energy use and transportation emissions, consistent with statewide strategies and regulations. As a result, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable Climate Change Scoping Plan strategies and regulations to reduce GHG emissions; and the impact would be less than significant.

TABLE GHG-2

CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION ACTIONS IN 2017 SCOPING PLAN UPDATE
Strategy Description Consistency Analysis
AB 1493
(Pavley
Regulations)
Reduces GHG emissions in new
passenger vehicles from model year 2012
through 2016 (Phase I) and model years,
2017–2025 (Phase II). Also reduces
gasoline consumption to a rate of 31
percent of 1990 gasoline consumption
(and associated GHG emissions) by 2020.

Consistent. The standards would
apply to all vehicles used by
construction workers and maintenance
workers associated with the Project.

The Project would be consistent with
this regulation and would not conflict
with implementation of the vehicle
emissions standards.

Low Carbon Fuel
Standard
(Executive Order
S-01-07)
Establishes protocols for measuring lifecycle carbon intensity of transportation fuels and helps to establish use of
alternative fuels.

Consistent. The standards would
apply to all vehicles used by
construction workers and maintenance
workers associated with the Project.

The Project would be consistent with
this regulation and would not conflict
with implementation of the
transportation fuel standards.

Advanced Clean
Cars Program
In 2012, CARB adopted the Advanced
Clean Cars (ACC) program to reduce
criteria pollutants and GHG emissions for
model year vehicles 2015 through 2025.

ACC includes the Low-Emission Vehicle
(LEV) regulations that reduce criteria
pollutants and GHG emissions from lightand medium-duty vehicles, and the ZeroEmission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation, which requires manufacturers to produce an
increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning
battery electric and fuel cell electric
vehicles), with provisions to also produce
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) in
the 2018 through 2025 model years.

Consistent. The standards would
apply to all vehicles used by
construction workers and maintenance
workers associated with the Project.

Therefore, the proposed project would
be consistent with this regulation and
would not conflict with implementation
of the ACC program.

SOURCE: CARB, 2017; ESA, 2020.

Conclusion
As discussed above, the Project would be consistent with the applicable strategies and policies included in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable plan, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and the impact would be less than significant.

Page 1032 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-50 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change—Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. Available: http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2020.

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2009. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, December 2008, amended version included errata and Board requested modifications posted May 11, 2009; re-approved by CARB August 24, 2011. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2020.

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

November 2017. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

Accessed June 22, 2020.

Page 1033 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-51 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted for the Project site, the Project site was utilized as a wastewater treatment plant from the 1930s until 1958 (Dannatt 1999). The Project site had a trap shooting facility and a police shooting facility from 1968 to 1978, and a large onsite pit that was mined for gravel from 1981 until 1986. In addition, the Project site was periodically used as an unauthorized dumping site for household debris. No additional uses of the Project site have occurred since the 1999 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that would have introduced additional or different sources of hazards or hazardous materials.

While there was no record of hazardous materials or underground storage tanks (USTs) at the Project site, the historic onsite dumping may have resulted in contamination of soil. Other prior uses of the Project site could have also resulted in contamination that may include metals, petroleum, pesticides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). Additionally, the prior use of the site as a trap shooting facility could have resulted in deposition of lead materials. As recommended in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, soil testing is necessary to determine if contamination is present at the Project site.

Page 1034 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-52 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 The Phase I assessment also discussed the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, which is located approximately 0.35 mile west of the Project site and is listed on State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker database as a hazardous materials cleanup site. The Coca-Cola site had releases from two former USTs that were removed in January of 1991. Groundwater monitoring indicated no detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and the case was closed in 1993 (Dannatt, 1999; SWRCB, 2020).

To further investigate the Project site for the potential presence of contamination from previous uses, soil samples were collected on March 23 and May 26 of 2022 and analyzed for chemicals that may be associated with the previous land uses at concentrations above regulatory action levels (ESA, 2022). The March 2022 sampling event tested for a wide range of potential contaminants including VOCs, SVOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH; gasoline, diesel, and motor oil), organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and CAM 17 metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, lead, total mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc). The metals results were compared to background levels from published studies to identify those chemicals that are present at naturally occurring background levels. All results above background levels were compared to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLCs) to assess whether onsite soils would be considered a hazardous waste if disposed of at an offsite landfill permitted to accept the waste. All results above background levels were compared to the 2019 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) developed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, 2019). ESLs are screening levels used by regulatory agencies throughout the state to assess whether further investigation and possibly cleanup is needed at sites where hazardous materials are suspected to have been spilled. ESLs are risk-based levels based on both human health and ecological habitat, which can provide comparative guidance as to whether a given chemical is present in soil at levels that might pose risks to construction workers, the public, or the environment.

The March 2022 sampling results identified lead, and the pesticides chlordane and DDT as chemicals of concern at one location (Sample S-2; see ESA 2022 for map) in the northern portion of the Project site. None of the other sample locations had any chemicals above regulatory action levels. To further evaluate the extent of soil with chemical concentrations that would exceed regulatory action levels, additional soil samples were collected around the Sample S-2 location in May 2022 and analyzed for the chemicals of concern identified during the March 2022 sampling event (i.e., lead and pesticides).

The combined results of both sampling events for the chemicals of concern are tabulated in the soil sampling technical report prepared for the Project (ESA, 2022). The results of the soil sampling indicated that the concentrations of chlordane, DDT, and lead in a limited shallow hot spot in the northern portion of the Project site (i.e., the location of Sample S-2 to one foot in depth) is the only location and depth with soil that has chemical concentrations that exceeded the terrestrial ESL, and both the surface and foundation beneficial reuse screening criteria for wetland areas. This indicates that the shallow soil at Sample S-2 is not suitable for reuse in the proposed wetland environment. No other areas have chemicals at concentrations that would prevent beneficial reuse.

Page 1035 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-53 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 The Safety Element of the City of Ukiah 2040 General Plan addresses a wide variety of approaches pertaining to hazard management and mitigation (City of Ukiah, 2022). Other regional hazards and hazardous materials guidance documents include, but are not limited to, the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Operational Area Emergency Plan, and the Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), which was adopted by the County in December 2020 (Mendocino County, 2020). The MJHMP discusses prevalent hazards within the County; identifies risks to vulnerable assets, people, and property; and provides a strategy to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources. The four cities within Mendocino County, including the City of Ukiah, contributed to the MJHMP to individually assess hazards, explore hazard vulnerability, develop mitigation strategies, and create their own plan for each respective city. The Jurisdictional Annex to the MJHMP, was adopted by the City of Ukiah in 2020. Hazards identified for the City of Ukiah include earthquakes, wildfire, dam failure, flood, and pandemic (Mendocino County, 2020).

The City of Ukiah Emergency Operation Plan (May 2021) is designed to ensure continuity of operations and essential services, such as police, fire, utilities, and other day-to-day operations during and after an emergency or disaster. This plan was developed in consultation with the Ukiah Disaster Council it complies with all local ordinances, state law, and aligns with contemporary emergency planning guidance. This plan serves as the primary guide for reducing emergency and disaster risk within the City of Ukiah and establishes roles and procedures for deployment of the City’s Emergency Operations Center. A current map of evacuation zones and routes is also maintained on the City of Ukiah’s Office of Emergency Management webpage.

Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) prepared the Mendocino Evacuation Plan (July, 2020) as an annex to the EOP and identifies evacuation routes within the County. This Plan describes existing conditions, access concerns, and strategies for managing evacuations which exceed the day-to-day capabilities of the various public safety agencies in Mendocino County.

The City of Ukiah is identified as being located within “Planning Area 2” and “Zone 2f” of the Evacuation Plan. As noted in the plan, Highways 101 and 20 are identified as primary evacuation routes for the Ukiah area. The selection of specific (additional) evacuation routes (in effect during an emergency) will be done in the field at the Incident Command Post, according to the plan (MCOG, 2020).

The Ukiah Municipal Airport is located within the Ukiah planning area City of Ukiah jurisdictional limits. The Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP) was adopted by the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission on May 20, 2021 and adopted by the Ukiah City Council on June 16, 2021. The UKIALUCP identifies areas (known as “compatibility zones”) with potential hazards and impacts to persons using or working within the vicinity of the airport.
a), b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Construction of the Project would involve the routine use of small quantities of hazardous materials commonly used during construction activities such as fuels, lubricants, and oil for construction equipment.

Storage and use of hazardous materials at the construction site during routine use could result in the release of small quantities of hazardous materials, which could degrade soil and/or surface water within the Project area. This impact would be potentially significant.

Page 1036 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-54 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 As discussed under Section 2.2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, Project construction would require compliance with the state Construction General Permit implementation of BMPs to minimize the risk of a hazardous materials release during construction activities.

The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Project would be carried out in accordance with federal, state, and county regulations. These requirements would ensure that hazardous materials used for construction would be stored in appropriate containers, with secondary containment to prevent a potential release. Additionally, Project-related spills of hazardous materials would be required to be reported to appropriate regulatory entities, including but not limited to the City of Ukiah; Mendocino County Environmental Health Department; California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Hazardous materials spills would be cleaned up immediately, and contaminated soils would be excavated and transported to approved disposal facilities, consistent with state and local requirements.

Once operational, the Project would not use hazardous materials in the Project area.

Therefore, impacts associated with the routine use of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Project construction activities would involve excavating, trenching, and grading, as well as the use of hazardous materials such as fuel, oils, and lubricants. As discussed in the Environmental Setting, shallow soil at one location (Sample S-2) in the northern portion of the Project site is known to have lead, chlordane, and DDT at concentrations above regulatory action levels. Although none of the other locations had chemical concentrations above regulatory action levels, soil with chemicals at concentrations above regulatory action levels may be present at unsuspected locations. Hazardous materials encountered in excavated soil or groundwater generated from dewatering activities during Project construction could result in a release to the environment, which could potentially expose construction workers, other City personnel, and/or the public to hazardous materials. The impact related to exposure to hazardous materials in soil and groundwater during construction of the Project and a reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental release of hazardous materials in the environment would be potentially significant. To address both the management of the known contaminated soil and the potential for newly discovered locations, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be implemented. These measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation and implementation of a Health and Safety Plan and a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan to ensure appropriate management of soil and groundwater encountered during construction.

With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The Project site is not within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

The closest school is Oak Manor Elementary School, approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project would not emit or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of a school, and there would be no impact.

Page 1037 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-55 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 d) No Impact. The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (referred to as the Cortese List) and would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. There would be no impact. e) Less than Significant Impact. Ukiah Municipal Airport is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the Project site. Most of the Project site is located outside of the six compatibility zones identified in the UKIALUCP, within the “Other Airport Environs” (OAE) area which is identified as an area having an overall low risk from airport operations. Occasional overflights may be intrusive to some outdoor activities, but the OAE zone does not contain any regulations regarding intensity of use or other standards specific to airport safety concerns that would be applicable to the Project. According to Table 3A of the UKIALUCP, most land-use categories, including recreation facilities, parks and open land areas are considered normally compatible in the OAE compatibility zone. A small portion of the site (southeast corner) of the site is located within Compatibility Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern) which includes areas within the standard traffic pattern and pattern entry routes where aircraft altitude typically 1,000 to 1,500 feet above runway. Noise and risk exposure for uses within Zone 6 is identified as low and outdoor group recreation facilities and open space areas are identified as normally acceptable within this zone. As such, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The impact would be less than significant. f) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The primary routes for evacuation from the City of Ukiah are identified as Highways 101 and 20, as these routes are well maintained and have adequate carrying capacity for evacuation purposes (MCOG, 2020). Although there are no specific evacuation routes discussed in either the Mendocino County Emergency Operations Plan, Mendocino County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, nor the City of Ukiah’s jurisdictional annex to the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Mendocino County, 2016; 2020), Highway 101 is identified as a primary route in the (recently completed) Mendocino County Evacuation Plan (MCOG, 2020). The Project site is off of East Gobbi Street, this portion of which is not considered a major roadway in the City of Ukiah.

However, East Gobbi Street directly connects to Gobbi Street, an arterial route linking to central Ukiah and Highway 101, an identified emergency evacuation route. As discussed in Section 2.2.17, Transportation, in the absence of measures to limit impacts, Project construction activity could generate traffic delays and otherwise temporarily interfere with emergency access along East Gobbi Street during construction, which has the potential to generate impacts to emergency evacuation.

To reduce traffic congestion impacts and potential access conflicts including emergency services access, Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, Construction Traffic Management Plan, would be needed to ensure that a construction traffic management plan, subject to City review and approval, would be prepared and implemented during construction. Once constructed, the Project would not interfere with or impede any emergency response or evacuation plan. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Page 1038 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-56 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 g) Less than Significant Impact. Based on mapping by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Forest Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) the Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2007).

The use of construction equipment and the possible temporary on-site storage of fuels and/or other flammable construction chemicals could pose an increased fire risk resulting in injury to workers or the public during construction. However, contractors would be required to comply with hazardous materials storage and fire protection regulations, (as described in Section 2.2.20, Wildfire) which would minimize potential for fire creation, and ensure that the risk of wildland fires during construction would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Health and Safety Plan.

The City of Ukiah or its contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to prepare a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) in accordance with federal OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.120) and Cal/OSHA regulations (8 CCR Title 8, Section 5192). Because anticipated contaminants vary depending upon the location of proposed improvements in the Project area and may vary over time, the HASP shall address site-specific worker health and safety issues during construction. The HASP shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director, Mendocino County Department of Environmental Health (MCDEH), and/or appropriate CUPA personnel for approval. The HASP shall include the following information.

1. Results of the soil sampling conducted in March and May of 2022.

2. All required measures to protect construction workers and the general public by including engineering controls, monitoring, and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction areas and to reduce hazards outside of the construction areas. If prescribed contaminant exposure levels are exceeded, personal protective equipment shall be required for workers in accordance with state and federal regulations.

3. Required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to contaminated materials, in accordance with state and federal worker safety regulations, and designated qualified individual personnel responsible for implementation of the HASP.

4. The contractor shall have a site health and safety supervisor fully trained pursuant to hazardous materials regulations be present during excavation, trenching, or cut and fill operations to monitor for evidence of potential soil contamination, including soil staining, noxious odors, debris or buried storage containers. The site health and safety supervisor must be capable of evaluating whether hazardous materials encountered constitute an incidental release of a hazardous substance or an emergency spill. The site health and safety supervisor shall implement procedures to be followed in the event of an unanticipated hazardous materials release that may impact health and safety. These procedures shall be in accordance with hazardous waste operations and regulations and specifically include, but are not limited to:
a) immediately stopping work in the vicinity of the unknown hazardous materials release;

Page 1039 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-57 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 b) notifying City of Ukiah, MCDEH, RWQCB, and/or DTSC; and c) retaining a qualified environmental firm to perform sampling, remediation, and/or disposal.

5. Documentation that HASP measures have been implemented during construction.

6. Provision that submittal of the HASP, or any review of the contractor’s HASP, shall not be construed as approval of the adequacy of the contractor as a health and safety professional, the contractor’s HASP, or any safety measure taken in or near the construction site. The contractor shall be solely and fully responsible for compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations applicable to health and safety during the performance of the construction work.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

The City of Ukiah shall require the construction contractor to prepare and implement a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan prior to construction that specifies the method for handling and disposal of the contaminated soil identified in the March and May 2022 sampling events, and newly discovered contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during construction, as applicable.

The Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall include all necessary procedures to ensure that excavated materials and fluids generated during construction are stored, managed, and disposed of in a manner that is protective of human health and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director, Mendocino County Environmental Health Department, and/or appropriate CUPA personnel for approval. The Plan shall include the following information.

1. Step-by-step procedures for evaluation, handling, stockpiling, storage, testing, and disposal of excavated material, including criteria for reuse and offsite disposal. All excavated materials shall be inspected prior to initial stockpiling, and spoils that are visibly stained and/or have a noticeable odor shall be stockpiled separately to minimize the amount of material that may require special handling. In addition, excavated materials shall be inspected for buried building materials, debris, and evidence of underground storage tanks; if identified, these materials shall be stockpiled separately and characterized in accordance with landfill disposal requirements. If some of the spoils do not meet the reuse criteria and/or debris is identified, these materials shall be disposed of at an appropriately permitted landfill facility.

2. Procedures to be implemented if unknown subsurface conditions or contamination are encountered, such as previously unreported tanks, wells, or contaminated soils.

3. Procedures for containment, handling and disposal of groundwater generated from construction dewatering, the method to be used to analyze groundwater for hazardous materials likely to be encountered and the appropriate treatment and/or disposal methods.

Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan (see Section 2.2.17, Transportation, for text of mitigation).

Page 1040 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-58 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. October 11, 2007. Map. Scale 1:12,000. Available online at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6715/fhszl06_1_map23.pdf.

City of Ukiah. 2021. City of Ukiah Emergency Operation Plan. Adopted May 13, 2021. Available online at https://cityofukiah.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/City-of-Ukiah-EmergencyOperation-Plan.pdf City of Ukiah 2021. Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP) Adopted May 20, 2021. Available online at: http://www.cityofukiah.com/NewWeb/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/Ukiah-Municipal-Airport-Land-Use-Compatibility-Plan-2021.pdf.

Accessed January 27, 2022.

City of Ukiah. 2022. 2040 General Plan. Adopted December 7, 2022. Available online at:
https://ukiah2040.com/.

Dannatt and Associates (Dannatt), 1999. Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Gobbi Street Riverside Park Property, Mendocino County, California. August 31, 1999.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2022. Soil Sampling Report, Ukiah Riverside Park Project, Ukiah, California. June 5.

Mendocino County, 2016. Mendocino County Operational Area, Emergency Operation Plan.

September 2016. Accessible online: https://www.mendocinocounty.org/home/ showpublisheddocument/8211/636329380557000000.

Mendocino County, 2020. Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). Adopted December, 2020. Vol 2, Chapter 1, City of Ukiah Jurisdictional Annex, adopted by the City of Ukiah November 18, 2020; submitted to CalOES January 25, 2021. Available online: http://mitigatehazards.com/mendocino-county/final-mjhmp/#.

Accessed January 27, 2022.

Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), 2020. Mendocino County Evacuation Plan, An Annex to the Mendocino Emergency Operations Plan, August 2020. Available online:
https://www.mendocinocog.org/files/c99a8053f/EvacuationPlan.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2022.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2019. Environmental Screening Levels.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.html.

Accessed March 22, 2022.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2020. GeoTracker database. Case Summary for Coca-Cola of Ukiah. Accessible online: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/ ?CMD=runreport&myaddress=ukiah.

Page 1041 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-59 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in a floodplain terrace of the Russian River in the inner North Coast Range. The Russian River is approximately 150 east of the Project site. The Russian River is listed on the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for water temperature and sedimentation/siltation. Due to sediment impairments in tributaries, the entire Russian River watershed is listed as impaired for sediment. Surface water supplies for the Ukiah region include direct surface diversions from the Russian River and the Eel River, from which water is diverted into the Russian River watershed through the Potter Valley Project, and stored at Lake Mendocino.

The Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Basin (commonly referred to as the Basin Plan) forms the basis for water quality standards in the region, as regulated by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Multiple beneficial uses of surface waters of the Upper Russian River Watershed (Ukiah sub area) have been identified including: municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; industrial service supply; industrial process supply; groundwater recharge; freshwater replenishment; navigation; water contact and non-contact

Page 1042 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-60 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 recreation; commercial and sport fishing; warm and cold freshwater habitat; wildlife habitat; rare, threatened, or endangered species; migration of aquatic organisms; spawning; shellfish harvesting; and aquaculture (RWQCB, 2015).

Groundwater is drawn from the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin is the northernmost basin in the Russian River basin and underlies an area of approximately 60 square miles. Average rainfall in Ukiah is slightly less than 35 inches. Most of the precipitation falls during the winter. Rainfall is often from brief, intense storms, which move in from the northwest. Virtually no rainfall occurs during the summer months.

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project would include soil disturbing activities such as grading and site contouring, which have the potential to mobilize sediment, silt, and other contaminants through runoff. As construction of the Project would disturb more than 1 acre of soil, compliance with the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (commonly referred to as the Construction General Permit) is required. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation.

The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including specific measures to control erosion and limit contamination of ground and surface waters. The City of Ukiah requires preparation of an erosion control plan which would include specific stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and siltation of the Russian River, its tributaries, and neighboring properties (City of Ukiah, 2021).

The Project’s ground disturbance in the absence of measures to protect riparian vegetation may result in erosional flow towards the river, potentially contributing to sediment into the river. As noted in the setting section, the Russian River and its tributaries are listed as impaired for sediment; therefore, erosion and sedimentation could generate potentially significant water quality impacts. To reduce potential effects Mitigation Measure HYD-1, SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control, would be implemented to ensure that regulatory requirements consistent with the terms of the Construction General Permit, SWPPP, general wetland avoidance measures (provided in the Project Description), and stormwater BMPs (as required by the City) would control and limit runoff from the Project site, consistent with water quality standards. To ensure that ground disturbance does not result in conditions of runoff on or off site and that habitats are protected, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 (described in Section 2.2.4, Biological Resources) would also be implemented. These measures would limit disturbance of existing wetlands and riparian woodlands and prevent the Project from contributing to the siltation of the Russian River and its tributaries.

As discussed in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there are existing hazards in proximity to the site which could contaminate ground or surface water quality during construction ground disturbing activities, such as excavation and movement of soils. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be implemented to reduce potential

Page 1043 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-61 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 impacts. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 requires that a health and safety plan be prepared and followed during construction. Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 requires implementation of a soil and groundwater management plan if hazardous materials or contaminated soil and groundwater above regulatory screening levels are identified. These mitigation measures would ensure that appropriate procedures are followed in the event of contact with hazardous materials to prevent release of contaminants into surface and ground waters. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impacts associated with the Project’s construction would be less than significant with mitigation implemented. (Refer to Section 2.2.9 for the text of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2).

Following construction, the City of Ukiah would be responsible for maintaining the revegetation and managing Riverside Park in a manner that would provide for ongoing protection of water quality. Water quality impacts during operation and maintenance of the Project would be less than significant.
b), e) No Impact. The Project would not utilize groundwater resources during construction or operation, nor would the Project include the extensive placement of impervious surfaces that would interfere with groundwater recharge. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the Project would include excavation and removal of approximately 2,260 CY of existing waste piles of concrete, relic asphalt, and other debris. The removal of this debris would improve conditions for groundwater recharge upon the site. Trails are also proposed as part of the overall landscape design master plan. However, the boardwalk and other pathways would be designed to allow for groundwater recharge to occur within the floodplain and park. Therefore, the Project would not impede sustainable management of the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. There would be no impact under this criterion attributable to the Project.
c.i) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project includes extensive alteration of drainage patterns for the purpose of recontouring the site and restoring wetlands and floodplain habitat areas within Riverside Park. The proposed design for the Project does not include the extensive addition of impervious surface areas. Construction would require implementation of a SWPPP which would include measures to minimize erosion and control runoff on and off-site. Resource avoidance measures, as described in the Project Description, include placement of silt fences to prevent siltation (turbid water generated during construction) from contaminating the Russian River and its tributaries.

Additionally, the contractor selected to construct the Project would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan, subject to review and approval by the City of Ukiah. To ensure that appropriate measures to limit runoff are taken prior to and during construction including preparation of a SWPPP and an erosion and sediment control plan, Mitigation Measure HYD-1, SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, would be implemented.

With adherence to stormwater and associated water quality regulatory requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 outlining basic requirements of the SWPPP and erosion control plan to be prepared for the Project, erosion and

Page 1044 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-62 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 sedimentation/siltation would be controlled during construction. Impacts would, therefore, be less than significant with mitigation.
c.ii) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed design for the Project does not include the extensive addition of impervious surface areas. Proposed graveled pathways and boardwalks would not significantly alter the conditions on site and would generally allow for the continuity of groundwater recharge. As proposed, the Project addresses existing drainage issues through removal of concrete rubble and relic debris to allow for the enhancement of seasonal (existing and constructed) wetlands. The Project is designed to improve conditions in the floodway. As the Project will require placement of fill within the regulatory floodway, a Mendocino County Flood Hazard Zone Development Permit will be required to be obtained to construct the project. The Project is designed such that no rise in the floodway would occur, as demonstrated by the FEMA No-Rise Certification prepared for the Project. There would be no detrimental flood-related impact to the site or surrounding neighborhood attributable to the Project. c.iii) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed Project is in a public park adjacent to a riparian corridor of the Russian River and neighboring agricultural lands. As discussed in question b), the Project would not add extensive impervious surface area to the site. The Project design would allow for appropriate drainage to facilitate wetland restoration as discussed in the Project’s Hydrology Technical Memorandum (ESA, 2020).

Although extensive grading and recontouring of the site would be implemented, such work would be subject to the City of Ukiah’s design standards and erosion and sediment control requirements. Consistent with these standards, measures will be taken to minimize or otherwise limit runoff during construction, subject to City engineering review and approval. Site soils would be stabilized and revegetated following disturbance. With implementation of Mitigation Measures ensuring development of a SWPPP required for the construction general permit and BMPs as part of the erosion and sediment control plan, impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. c.iv) Less than Significant Impact. Because the Project would not add extensive impervious surfaces, flood flows would not be impeded or redirected into the surrounding site.

Through the removal of relic debris from the Project site and restoration of the wetland areas within the Project site, the proposed Project, as implemented, would result in improved conditions for the functionality of this portion of the Russian River floodplain. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site is not located in the coastal zone or in a tsunami inundation zone. The Russian River is a linear waterway, not subject to a seiche. Therefore, there is no risk for release of pollutants associated with these hazards for the site and surroundings.

The Project is within the Russian River floodplain subject to periodic inundation. Under existing conditions there is potential for release of contaminants during inundation.

Proposed soil excavation and movement could increase the risk of contamination.

Therefore, measures to reduce this risk would be needed during construction of the Project.

Page 1045 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-63 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would ensure compliance with water quality requirements including preparation of a SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plan. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-23 (described in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) would be implemented to ensure that potential hazards are identified and safely removed from the site, thereby limiting contamination of surface and groundwaters. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures implemented.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

The City of Ukiah or its designated contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an erosion and sediment control plan prior to construction of the Project. The SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plan shall stipulate specific measures or best management practices (BMPs) to reduce site runoff and control and limit erosion and siltation associated with project construction. Implementation of BMPs would ensure that the effects on water quality would remain at less-than-significant levels. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Prior to construction all wetland and riparian avoidance areas, storm drains, drainage swales, and creeks located near the construction site shall be marked or flagged as avoidance areas. Pre-construction training shall be provided to make sure construction contractors and subcontractors are aware of their responsibilities regarding stormwater requirements to prevent pollutants from entering storm drains or surface waters.
• Conduct earthwork during the dry season (generally June 1–October 30). • To the extent possible, stage construction equipment and materials in previously disturbed areas.
• Minimize ground and vegetation disturbance during project construction by establishing designated equipment staging areas, ingress and egress corridors, spoils disposal and soil stockpile areas, and equipment exclusion zones prior to the commencement of any grading operations. In order to minimize the mobilization of contaminants.
• Stockpile soil only at the designated staging and stockpile area and install sediment barriers (e.g., silt fences, fiber rolls, and straw bales) around the base of stockpiles to intercept runoff and sediment during storm events. Cover stockpiles daily with tarps or geotextile fabric to provide further protection against wind and water erosion. • All construction wastes, debris, sediment, rubbish, trash, etc., shall be removed from the project site daily during construction, and thoroughly at completion of the project.

Debris shall be transported to an authorized upland disposal area. Wastes shall be disposed of properly; remove litter from the site daily; materials that cannot be reused or recycled must be taken to an appropriate landfill; dispose of hon hazardous construction wastes in covered dumpsters or recycling receptacles; recycle materials whenever possible.

Page 1046 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-64 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 • Fuel, maintain, and clean vehicles at a minimum of 175 feet distance from any riparian habitat or water body and adhere to a spill response plan. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to follow should a spill occur. Training materials for spill prevention and response measures shall be prepared in adherence with state and federal regulations. • Locate portable toilets (if utilized during construction) a minimum of 25 feet away from drain inlets, water courses and traffic circulation; portable toilets shall be secured to prevent overturning; regular service shall be provided. • Water utilized for dust control shall not be allowed to result in conditions of runoff.

Care shall be taken to not overwater causing sediment-laden runoff. Earthwork operations shall cease when wind speeds exceed 20 mph for one hour or more. • Regular spot checks shall occur during construction to ensure that erosion control measures and BMPs are functional and regularly maintained.

Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1and HAZ-2 (see Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for text of mitigation). Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-5 (see Section 2.2.4, Biological Resources, for text of mitigation).

References
City of Ukiah, 2021. Municipal Code Division 9, Planning and Development, Chapter 7, Erosion and Sediment Control. Available online: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Ukiah/#!/ Ukiah09/Ukiah0907.html#7. Accessed October 26, 22021.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2020. Draft Hydrologic Analysis for the Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Memorandum. November 2, 2020.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2018. The Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Basin, June 2018 Edition. Chapter 2, Beneficial Uses. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/180710/BP Chapter2BeneficialUses.pdf.

Page 1047 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-65 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.11 Land Use and Planning
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The City of Ukiah includes contiguous lands at the city center, as well as lands owned and managed by the city (such as Riverside Park) for a total of approximately 4.72 square miles of incorporated area. Ukiah serves as the County Seat of Mendocino County, as well as the county’s main commercial hub. Zoning and land uses are governed by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, as outlined in Division 9, Chapter 2 of the Ukiah City Code. Predominant land uses in the City include single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial uses ranging from local commercial to service commercial, as well as manufacturing, industrial, agricultural, and public facilities. The City’s 2040 General Plan was adopted by City Council on December 7, 2022, and contains the following goals and policies that are applicable to the Project (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element Goal PFS-12: To provide parks, recreational facilities, and trails for residents and visitors.

Policy PFS-12.1: Connected Park System. The City shall provide an interconnected park system that creates an urban greenbelt and links all trail systems within the City.

Policy PFS-12.2: Expansion of Recreational Amenities and Programs. The City shall expand amenities and recreational programs in parks and recreational facilities that accommodate a variety of ages and address the needs of families.

Policy PFS-12.3: Equitable Access to Parks and Recreation Facilities. The City shall establish new parks and recreation facilities to ensure all residents have access within a one-mile radius of their place of residence regardless of socio-economic status.

Environment and Sustainability Element
Goal ENV-5: To ensure the health and viability of the Russian River and its tributaries.

Policy ENV-5.1: Local Collaboratives. The City shall participate in local collaborative efforts to restore and preserve the health of the Russian River as a habitat for riparian species.

Policy ENV-5.3: Russian River Riparian Area. The City shall support the County in maintaining the Russian River as a natural riparian corridor.

Page 1048 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-66 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Goal ENV-6: To preserve and restore creeks, streams, riparian areas, and wetlands.

Policy ENV-6.2: Contamination and Sedimentation Prevention. The City shall require new development to use site preparation, grading, and construction techniques that prevent contamination and sedimentation of creeks and streams. (Source: New Policy) Policy ENV-6.3: Waterway Restoration. The City shall encourage and provide resources to landowners in the city to remove invasive species, plant native plant species, and prevent pollution from entering local creeks and waterways. (Source: New Policy) Policy ENV-6.4: Waterway Channelization. The City shall actively support the use of natural waterways within the city by avoiding any new waterway channelization within the city and collaborating with local and regional agencies to restore channelized waterways where feasible. (Source: New Policy)
Policy ENV-6.5: Creek Protection. The City shall require new development located adjacent to stream corridors to include appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, erosion and sedimentation prevention, and natural creek channel and riparian vegetation preservation. (Source: Existing Programs OC-7.5(a), OC-9.2d, OC-9.2e, modified) Policy ENV-6.6: Erosion Control Plans. The City shall require new development that requires significant grading near creeks, streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to prepare erosion control plans that address grading practices that prevent soil erosion, loss of topsoil, and drainageway scour, consistent with biological and aesthetic values. (Source:

New Policy).

Policy ENV-6.8: Research and Educational Access. The City shall work with public and private landowners adjacent to creeks to allow public access to creeks, streams, waterways, and riparian areas for educational and research programs Land Use Element
Policy LU-11.8: Tree Preservation. The City shall encourage the preservation of trees on public and private property. Priority should be given to the preservation of trees considered significant due to their size, history, unusual species or unique quality.

Impact Discussion
a) No Impact. The Project would consist of restoration and enhancement of trails within a public park, with no change of use or other alteration that would physically divide an established community; therefore, there would be no impact under this criterion. b) No Impact. The General Plan land use classification for Riverside Park is Public (P) and, is zoned as Public Facilities (PF). The P designation applies to lands which is intended to be applied to properties which are used for or are proposed to be used for public or quasipublic purposes. Similarly, the PF zoning district is intended to be applied to properties which are used for or are proposed to be used for public or quasi-public purposes or for specified public utility purposes. Parks and recreation facilities, as well as conservation and natural resource conservation areas are listed as allowed uses with the PF zoning district. Additionally, the Project supports the Public Facilities, Services and

Page 1049 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-67 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Infrastructure; Environment and Sustainability; and Land Use elements of the City’s 2040 General Plan, which encourage the preservation of sensitive natural resources, restoration and preservation of flood plains and areas along the Russian River, as well as maintenance of existing recreational facilities and development of new facilities.

The Project would conform to existing zoning and land use classifications; no new land uses are proposed as part of the Project (City of Ukiah, 2022). Given the Project would comply with all regulatory requirements, does not propose new land uses to the site or surrounding area, and does not conflict with the City’s land uses or General Plan goals or policies, there would be no impact with respect to land use and planning.

References
City of Ukiah, 2022. City of Ukiah 2040 General Plan, Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure; Environment and Sustainability; and Land Use elements. Available at https://ukiah2040.com/ Accessed December 28, 2022.

City of Ukiah, Zoning Map. n.d. Available at http://www.cityofukiah.com/NewWeb/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/Zoning-2017-17x24-Final.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2020.

Page 1050 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-68 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.12 Mineral Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires Geologists of the State to classify lands into Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) categories based on the known or inferred mineral resource potential of that land. The mineral resource land classification supports the protection and wise development of California’s mineral resources (California Department of Conservation, 2019).

Aggregate resource minerals, primarily sand and gravel, found along many rivers and streams in Mendocino County is considered the most prominent mineral resource found in the county. The Ford Gravel Bars are along the Russian River near Ukiah. Historically, aggregate mining occurred at the Project site within and near Riverside Park.

Discussion
a, b) No Impact. According to the California Geological Survey, the land within the Project Site is not assigned as an MRZ indicating a low potential for the presence of valuable mineral resources based on the site geography (California Department of Conservation, 2020.) The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Data System also indicates no mineral resources in the lands of the Project site (USGS, 2020). The City’s 2040 General Plan does not indicate the presence of mineral resources, nor an important mineral resource recovery site within the Project site (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Therefore, the Project would not result in loss of mineral resources or a mineral resource recovery site. Under these criteria, there would be no impact.

References
California Department of Conservation, 2020. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Lands Classification. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ index.html?map=mlc. Accessed May 31, 2020.

California Department of Conservation, 2019. SMARA Mineral Land Classification. Available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mineral-land-classification-smara. Accessed June 1, 2020.

City of Ukiah, 2022. 2040 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://ukiah2040.com/. Accessed December 28, 2022.United State Geological Survey (USGS), 2020. Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS), MRDS records graded, Mapping Tool. Available at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/map-graded.html. Accessed May 29, 2020.

Page 1051 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-69 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.13 Noise
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. NOISE — Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters including the rate of oscillation (frequency) of sound waves, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). Sound pressure is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB roughly corresponding to the threshold for human hearing, and 120-140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency but rather a broad band of audible frequencies in varying levels of magnitude. Given that the typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes low and extremely high frequencies, referred to as A-weighting, and is expressed in A-weighted decibels (dBA).

Noise Exposure and Community Noise
Noise levels in a community environment rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. In fact, community noise varies continuously with time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. Background noise levels change throughout a typical day, but do so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources and atmospheric conditions. The addition of short duration single event noise sources (e.g., helicopter and other aircraft flyovers, horns, sirens) makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day.

These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level from instant to instant requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. Noise descriptors discussed in this analysis are summarized below:

Page 1052 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-70 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Leq: The equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq is the constant sound level which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period).

Ldn: The day-night noise level (Ldn) or the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period and which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night (“penalizing” nighttime noises). Noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dBA to take into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noises.

Lmax: The instantaneous maximum noise level measured during the measurement period of interest.

The City of Ukiah Municipal Code does not specify quantitative noise standards for construction activities. However, Chapter 3, Section 6054 of the Municipal Code restricts construction activities within a residential zone, or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom, to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The nearest residential receptor is located across the street from the entrance to Riverside Park, but is located beyond 500 feet from the outer edge of the Project site; therefore, the Project site is not within 500 feet of a residential zone and this restriction does not apply. Other sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site include residences approximately 0.3 miles to the west, as well as the Oak Manor Elementary School, located approximately 0.5 miles west of the Project site.

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would generate noise primarily during construction as discussed below. Once operational, the Project would not include any stationary noise sources. Maintenance would consist of regular checks on the erosion control devices and irrigation systems, mowing upland areas, tree trimming, trash removal, weed control, plant viability monitoring, and overall site good housekeeping measures. A small all-terrain vehicle may be used to maintain or patrol the park, which would generate minimal noise. Therefore, the operational noise impact would be less than significant.

As detailed in Section 1.6.4 of the Project Description, construction would take place over a period of up to nine months and would include six (overlapping) phases:
• Phase 1 - Mobilization, site clearing, and grubbing (7 days); • Phase 2 - Debris removal (21 days);
• Phase 3 - Fine grading and soil compaction (21 days); • Phase 4 - Construction of pedestrian paths and wooden observation platforms (30 days);
• Phase 5 - Planting of vegetation and installation of irrigation (30 days); and • Phase 6 - Site clean-up (21 days).

Page 1053 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-71 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Construction would involve use of equipment that would generate noise at and adjacent to construction areas. Noise impacts from construction would depend on the type of activity being undertaken and the distance to the receptor location. Construction noise impacts are most severe if construction activities take place during noise-sensitive hours (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), in areas immediately adjoining noisesensitive land uses, and/or when construction duration lasts over extended periods of time. Project construction will require heavy equipment including a bulldozer, dump truck, and water truck, as well as two excavators and two mini excavators to accomplish the restoration.

Table NOI-1 shows typical noise levels produced by the types of construction equipment that are expected to be used for Project construction.

TABLE NOI-1

TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Type of Equipment Lmax at 50 feet, dBA Acoustical Usage factor (%) Backhoe 78 40
Dozer 82 40
Dump Truck 76 40
Excavator 81 40
Front End Loader 79 40
Grader 85 40
Pickup Truck 75 40
Roller 80 20
SOURCE: FHWA, 2017.

The operation of each piece of off-road equipment at the Project site would not be constant throughout the day, as equipment would be turned off when not in use. This is accounted for in the acoustical usage factor for each equipment, also shown in Table NOI-1. Over a typical work day, equipment would operate at different locations on the Project site and would not always be operating concurrently.

Although no construction noise standards of the Ukiah Municipal Code are applicable to the Project, the Project’s construction activities would generally occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3 p.m. Consistent with Ukiah Municipal Code restrictions on construction within a residential zone, construction would be restricted to the less noisesensitive daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No work on weekends and holidays is proposed.

To estimate the daytime construction noise levels that the closest sensitive receptors would be exposed to, consistent with the methodology recommended by the FTA in its Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual (2018), the two noisiest pieces of equipment used for Project construction are assumed to be operating simultaneously at

Page 1054 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-72 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 the center of the Project site, which is located approximately 800 feet from the Project site boundary and therefore approximately 1,300 feet from the nearest residential receptor. Taking into account the acoustical usage factors, simultaneous operation of a grader and a dozer at the same location at the center of the Project site would generate a combined daytime noise level of 54.4 dBA Leq at this receptor. There are no quantitative standards for construction noise specified by either the Ukiah General Plan or the municipal code. The FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment has identified a daytime 1-hour Leq level of 90 dBA as a noise level where adverse community reaction could occur at residential land uses (FTA, 2018). Construction noise generated by the Project would be well below this level. Therefore, noise impacts from the operation of construction equipment at the Project site would be less than significant.

In addition to construction equipment, noise would also be generated from construction vehicles transporting workers and materials to and from the Project site. Construction workers would generate approximately 24 trips per day (from 12 workers on average). In addition, it is estimated that off-hauling existing site debris and cleared vegetation from the site would require up to 233 truck trips (466 one-way trips) over 21 days of Phase 2 and delivery of clay soil, decomposed granite and building materials to the site would require approximately 90 (one-way) truck trips over a period of 51 days during Phases 3 and 4. The Project would also require off haul of approximately 228 CY of contaminated soil materials, which would involve 34 (one-way) truck trips, as described in the Project Description. Construction traffic trips to and from the Project site would occur during the less noise-sensitive, daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays. On an average, this equates to approximately 3 trips per hour during Phase 2 and 2 trips per day during Phases 2 and 3. As the nearest residential receptor would be located along the truck route to and from the Project site, the increase in construction truck traffic would add to the ambient noise level at the receptor over the period of construction. However, the addition of noise from 3 truck pass-bys over an hour during Phase 2 would not increase the hourly Leq at the receptor to beyond the FTA’s 90 dBA standard. Increase in truck-related noise at the receptor during Phases 3 and 4 would be even lower. Therefore, the impact of Project construction traffic on roadside noise levels would also be less than significant.

Operation
Following construction, the Project will be maintained by existing operations and maintenance staff, with support from volunteers, organizations, and/or designated contractors. Maintenance activities would include regular checks on the erosion control devices, irrigation systems, mowing upland areas, tree trimming, trash removal, weed control, and implementation of other good housekeeping measures at the site. These activities would generate additional vehicular trips to the site as well as result in the operation of equipment to accomplish these tasks, both of which would generate noise.

However, due to the distance of more than 500 feet separating sensitive receptors from these activities at the Project site, noise generated would attenuate to well below ambient noise levels at the sensitive receptors. The operational noise impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant.

Page 1055 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-73 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 The Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. This impact would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the type of soil, equipment, and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment can cause ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings on the soil near the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results, ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage at the highest levels. While ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage structures, fragile buildings must receive special consideration.

There are no structures in the vicinity of the Project site that are of historical significance (see Section 2.2.5, Cultural Resources). Therefore, to assess impacts, the analysis below uses the construction vibration criteria for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage and vibration levels that could generate human annoyance.

Construction activities may generate perceptible vibration while impact equipment or heavy earth moving equipment are in use. Equipment expected to be used for Project construction, as shown in Table NOI-1, do not include any high vibration generating equipment such as pile drivers, drill rigs or vibratory compactors. The FTA and Caltrans have adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential impacts related to receiving land uses sensitive to vibration. The FTA identifies 0.2 in/sec PPV as the level at which potential damage could result to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.

Caltrans identifies 0.24 in/sec PPV as the level at which vibration is distinctly perceivable to humans.

Based on ground-borne vibration levels for standard types of construction equipment provided by the FTA, of the equipment proposed to be used for Project construction, the use of a vibratory roller/compactor would be expected to generate the highest vibration levels. Vibratory rollers typically generate vibration levels of 0.210 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet (FTA, 2018). However, there are no structures within this distance of proposed construction activities. Residential receptors closest to proposed construction activities are located over 500 feet away. At this distance, noise generated by construction equipment would not be perceptible when compared to the building damage and human annoyance vibration thresholds of 0.2 in/sec and 0.24 in/sec, respectively.

Therefore, operation of the highest vibration generating construction equipment would result in less-than-significant impacts at nearby residences. Vibration impacts from other equipment are expected to be lower. Further, the operation and location of each piece of construction equipment at the Project site would not be constant throughout the day; equipment would be operating at different locations within the Project site and would not always be operating concurrently. Consequently, vibration levels during the majority of

Page 1056 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-74 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 the construction period at the nearest off-site residences would be much lower. Therefore, vibration impacts from Project construction would be less than significant.

Once operational, the Project would not include any new sources of vibration. Therefore, the Project would have no operational impacts with regard to ground-borne vibration. c) No Impact. There are no private airstrips located in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest public airport is the Ukiah Municipal Airport located approximately 1.3 miles to the southwest of the project site. The Project site is outside of the delineated noise contours, as described in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (City of Ukiah, 2021). Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft activity. Therefore, there would be no impact.

References
City of Ukiah 2021. Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP) Adopted May 20, 2021. Available online: http://www.cityofukiah.com/NewWeb/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/Ukiah-Municipal-Airport-Land-Use-Compatibility-Plan-2021.pdf.

Accessed January 27, 2022.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2017. Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors, last updated August 24, 2017. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/ environmental-programs/noise-and-vibration.

Page 1057 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-75 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.14 Population and Housing
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
According to the California Department of Finance, in 2021 the population was 86,669 in the County of Mendocino and 15,526 in the City of Ukiah (CDOF, 2021). Overall, the City of Ukiah’s population has increased moderately in the past 30 years, with an accelerated increase in the last 5 years. The City’s annual growth rate between 1990 and 2018 averaged approximately

0.3 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, the City added 545 residents, or 3.7 percent to its population.

Discussion
a) No Impact. In general, a project would be considered growth-inducing if its implementation would result in substantial population increases and/or new development that would not otherwise occur in the absence of that project. The Project does not include inhabitable structures, such as housing or businesses. Nor would the Project result in permanent employment opportunities that could indirectly induce population growth.

The Project’s construction and restoration would be likely to require a small, temporary workforce, which is expected to be drawn from the local labor pool or from neighboring counties. Although the Project may enhance the public enjoyment or use of the park the Project would not expand the existing park, nor lead to substantial increased population.

There would be no impact associated with population growth. b) No Impact. The Project would not displace any existing housing or remove residents.

Therefore, no replacement housing would be required to be constructed elsewhere and no impact would occur under this criterion.

References
California Department of Finance 2021. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2020 and 2021, Sacramento, California May 2021. Available online:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. Accessed January 27, 2022.

Page 1058 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-76 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.15 Public Services
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES —
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public
services:
i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The Ukiah Police Department provides law enforcement and public safety/police services for the entire City limits including Riverside Park. The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department provides police services for areas outside of the City limits. Fire protection services in the Ukiah Valley are provided by the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority in collaboration with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). Educational facilities in the Ukiah Valley area are provided by the Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD, 2020), County Office of Education, and the Mendocino-Lake Community College District. There are also several private and charter schools serving residents within the City of Ukiah, as well as the unincorporated portions of Mendocino County. There are 13 City parks (including Riverside Park), a municipal golf course, and a skate park managed by the City of Ukiah, in addition to other recreational facilities in the City.

Impact Discussion
a.i) No Impact. The City of Ukiah Fire Department and Ukiah Valley Fire District are two departments that work as one, referred to as Ukiah Valley Fire Authority, maintaining comprehensive coverage for the City and the surrounding Ukiah Valley (City of Ukiah, 2020). The Ukiah Valley Fire Authority Station 643 and the Ukiah Valley Fire District Station are both located within 3.5 miles of the Project site. The Project would not result in an increase in population or the construction of facilities that would increase demand for fire protection services or impact service ratios, such that new fire protection facilities would be required to be constructed. The Project’s construction and operation would not result in a substantial increase in demand for fire protection services that could not be met by existing local service systems. Therefore, no impact would occur under this criterion.

Page 1059 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-77 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 a.ii) No Impact. The City of Ukiah’s Police Department provides law enforcement services to the City of Ukiah. The department’s communications center handles all 9-1-1 calls and non-emergency calls for both the City of Ukiah and City of Fort Bragg police departments. Ukiah’s Police Department is located at 300 Seminary Avenue, approximately 2 miles west of the Project site. Construction and maintenance of the Project would not result in an increase in demand for police protection or impact service ratios that could not be met by existing local public service providers. Therefore, no impact would occur under this criterion.
a.iii) No Impact. The Ukiah Unified School District serves the City of Ukiah. There are 14 schools servicing grades preschool through High School within the District. As described in Section 2.2.14, Population and Housing, the Project would not result in an increase in housing or population. Therefore, the Project would not generate an increase in demand for local school facilities. No impact would occur under this criterion. a.iv) Less Than Significant. As described in Section 2.2.14, Population and Housing, the Project is not expected to result in a temporary or permanent increase of local population.

Thus, existing parks or other public facilities would not be impacted and a need for additional parks or public facilities would not be necessary. Although improvements of Riverside Park may attract a slight increase in park visitors following construction, that potential increase would be considered a less than significant impact. a.v) No Impact. The Project would not include any residential development or otherwise increase the local population such that the provision of additional public facilities would be needed. Therefore, there would be no impact pertaining to the construction of such facilities associated with the proposed Project.

References
City of Ukiah Police, About Ukiah PD. Available at https://www.ukiahpolice.com/about/aboutukiah-pd/. Accessed May 12, 2020.

City of Ukiah, 2020. Consolidated Fire Services. Available at http://www.cityofukiah.com/ projects/consolidated-fire-services/. Accessed May 12, 2020.

Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD), 2020. Schools. Available at https://www.uusd.net/apps/ pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=675525&type=d&pREC_ID=1067736. Accessed May 12, 2020.

Page 1060 of 1534 ends

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-78 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.16 Recreation
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. RECREATION —
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The City maintains a wide variety of park and building facilities to meet the needs of the community. Most parks are open daily to the public between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Many facilities may also be reserved for a low rental fee. Rental operations include picnic and barbecue facilities, conference and meeting rooms, banquets and wedding facilities, a board room and auditorium, sports stadium and complex, swimming pool, amphitheaters, covered gazebo, and a pavilion. In addition to the 14 parks and facilities, the City has completed four miles of the Great Redwood Trail, established by SB 1029 (McGuire), which is expected to be a 320-mile, multi-use rail-to-trail project from the San Francisco Bay Area to Humboldt County.

The Project would be located in Riverside Park along the Russian River, which provides various recreational opportunities such as swimming, fishing, inner tubing, and picnicking. There are four public access points to the Russian River near the City of Ukiah, from north to south access points include: the Ukiah Softball Complex, the Vichy Springs/Perkins Road crossing, the end of East Gobbi Street at Riverside Park, and the Talmage Road crossing. The access point located at the end of East Gobbi Street in Riverside Park is the closest river access point to the Project site located adjacent to and north of Riverside Park. Excluding Riverside Park, the closest recreational facility to the Project site is Oak Manor Park located west of the Project site.

Impact Discussion
a) No Impact. As stated in Section 2.2.14, Population and Housing, the Project would not introduce a new population or induce growth such that substantial deterioration would occur to existing recreational facilities in Ukiah. However, The Project would enhance the recreational experience for residents of the surrounding communities and contribute to the use of an existing recreational facility. The Project would include restoration of Riverside Park, enhancement of park trails, supporting environmental education through native riparian plantings and placement of interpretive signage. Therefore, following construction, the Project would benefit the existing neighborhood and deter potential overuse of other existing and nearby parks. The Project would not result in the acceleration of or substantial deterioration of Riverside Park or other recreational facilities. There would be no adverse impact under this criterion.

Page 1061 of 1534 ends

Ukiah City CouncilJuly 17, 2024

Ukiah City Council
July 17, 2024