CITY COUNCIL A G E N D A NOVEMBER 16, 2015 7:00 P.M. Regular Session 33 CHURCH STREET, SUTTER CREEK City Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org
1. CLOSED SESSION None
2. CALL TO ORDER AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM FOR REGULAR MEETING-7:00 P.M
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
4. PUBLIC FORUM – At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on items not appearing on the agenda. Comments may not exceed 5 minutes. In accordance with State Law, however, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The City Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting on the matter. The exceptions under which the City Council may discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code §54954.2.
The public comment on any item listed below shall be limited to five minutes, unless additional time is permitted by the Mayor/Council.
5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
6. INFORMATION/CORRESPONDENCE – For Information Only. * A. Monthly Calendar * B. Monthly Police Report * C. Monthly Wastewater Treatment Plant Report
7. CONSENT AGENDA – Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of Council or the Public. * A. Approval of Special Closed Session City Council Minutes of November 9, 2015. * B. Approval of City Council Minutes of November 2, 2015. * C. Approval of Special Closed Session City Council Minutes of September 3, 2015. * D. Warrants-Accept warrants as presented. * E. Treasurer’s Report-Accept as presented. * F. Adopt Resolution 15-16-* appointing Marilyn Bustillos to the Monteverde Store Board of Trustees * G. Adopt Resolution 15-16-* authorizing the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City of Sutter Creek, a Public Utilities Easement Agreement with the Jean L. Pinotti Family Trust. * H. Adopt Resolution 15-16-* authorizing the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City of Sutter Creek, a Public Utilities Easement Agreement with David and Kathy Ghormley.
* I. Adopt Resolution 15-16-* authorizing the City Manager and City Engineer to prepare an estimated monthly payment schedule to accompany the City’s “Request for Authorization (E-76) to the Caltrans District 10 Local Assistance Engineer for the construction phase of the Badger Street Bridge Replacement project; to prepare and submit all necessary documentation to secure approval for said “Alternative Construction Progress Payment Procedure; and authorize the City Manager to submit monthly invoices to Caltrans in accordance with the estimated monthly payments to the contractor, in accordance with the invoicing procedures set forth in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual, the Program Supplement, and any other regulation required to facilitate early payment to the City and contractor. * J. Adopt Resolution 15-16-* authorizing the Mayor to sign “Agreement regarding prior easement rights” with Amador Water Agency.
8. PRESENTATIONS None
9. ORDINANCES & PUBLIC HEARINGS None
10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS * A. Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project and 2. Approve the Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project and Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. * B. Continued Item from November 2, 2015: Direct Staff regarding the referendum petition received concerning the solid-waste rate increases approved on September 21, 2015 (Resolution 15-16-11) and Adopting Resolution 15-16-* Directing City Staff to take no action concerning the referendum petition challenging Resolution No. 15-16-11.
11. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT - This section is an opportunity to provide Council members with an update on staff activities. No action is expected to be taken by the Council.
12. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS - This section is to provide Council members an opportunity to present reports on their activities and to request items be placed on future agendas.
13. ADJOURNMENT * Attachments
The next scheduled meeting is MONDAY, DECEMBER 7th, at 7:00 P.M
Proceedings of the Meeting will be tape recorded. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Office at (209) 267-5647. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements. City of Sutter Creek Calendar Nov 2015- Jan 2016
Item 6A
November 2nd Mon 7:00 PM City Council Mtg
5th Thurs 8:30AM Sutter Creek Business and Professional Anderson Association Mtg
9th Mon 5:00 PM City Council Mtg-Special Closed Session 6:00 PM Planning Commission Anderson
10th Tues 5:15 PM Visitor's Center Committee Mtg Anderson
12th Thurs 3:00 PM Kennedy Mine Foundation Mtg Sexton
16th Mon 4:00 PM Grammar School Committee Mtg Murphy/Sexton 7:00 PM City Council Mtg
17th Tues 8:30 AM Sutter Creek Promotions Committee Mtg Anderson 7:00 PM SC Benefit Committee Mtg Murphy 7:30 PM Fire District Mtg Swift
18th Wed 11:30 AM ACRA Mtg Sexton
19th Thurs 9:00 AM ACTC Mtg Murphy 2:00PM ARSA Mtg Swift/Peters
December 3rd Thurs 8:30AM Sutter Creek Business and Professional Anderson Association Mtg
7th Mon 7:00 PM City Council Mtg
8th Tues 5:15 PM Visitor's Center Committee Mtg Anderson
9th Wed 1:00 PM ACRA Mtg Sexton
10th Thurs 3:00 PM Kennedy Mine Foundation Mtg Sexton 14th Mon 6:00 PM Planning Commission Anderson
15th Tues 1:30 PM ARSA Mtg Swift/Peters 7:00 PM SC Benefit Committee Mtg Murphy 7:30 PM Fire District Mtg Swift
17th Thurs 9:00 AM ACTC Mtg Murphy
21st Mon 4:00 PM Grammar School Committee Mtg Murphy/Sexton 7:00 PM City Council Mtg
January 4th Mon 7:00 PM City Council Mtg
7th Thurs 8:30AM Sutter Creek Business and Professional Anderson Association Mtg
11th Mon 6:00 PM Planning Commission Anderson
12th Tues 5:15 PM Visitor's Center Committee Mtg Anderson
13th Wed 1:00 PM ACRA Mtg Sexton
14th Thurs 3:00 PM Kennedy Mine Foundation Mtg Sexton
18th Mon 4:00 PM Grammar School Committee Mtg Murphy/Sexton 7:00 PM City Council Mtg
19th Tues 8:30 AM Sutter Creek Promotions Committee Mtg Anderson 1:30 PM Amador Air District Peters 7:00 PM SC Benefit Committee Mtg Murphy 7:30 PM Fire District Mtg Swift
21st Thurs 9:00 AM ACTC Mtg Murphy
27th Wed 10:00 AM ARSA Mtg Swift/Peters SUTTER CREEK POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
October 2015 Item 6B
TO: Amy Gedney, City Manager
FROM : Wes Glaister, Interim Chief of Police
DATE: October 5, 2015
A. PATROL INFORMATION
CALLS FOR SERVICE BY SHIFT OFFICER # OF CALLS # OF REPORTS Sgt. Glaister 62 2 Officer Harmon 146 29 Officer Brewer 89 4 Officer Pratt 200 24
HOURS USED VACATION 12 SICK 0 PERSONAL 0 OVERTIME 154.25
During the month of October, the police department had a substantial increase in call volume compared to September (497 incidents to 350). This included both calls for service and self-initiated activity. There were also more case investigations generated in October as compared to September (59 reports to September’s 40). There were two reported traffic accidents for the month.
154.25 hours of overtime was accumulated. 12 hours of vacation time and 0 hours sick time or personal leave was taken in October.
Sgt Glaister completed 60 hours of crime scene investigation training. Officer Due to October’s training schedule and the police departments current staffing level, Sgt Glaister’s regularly scheduled patrol shifts were covered on a mandatory overtime basis.
1
SUTTER CREEK POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
SIGNIFICANT CASES:
On 10/24/2015 Officer Pratt responded to a residence to investigate a reported sexual assault that had taken place two days before. The investigation is ongoing. There is no reason to believe that there is any ongoing public risk regarding this incident
On 10/25/2015 Officer Pratt responded to a residence to a reported family disturbance. It was determined that Kevin Zorrozua (51) of Sutter Creek had feloniously attacked a family member causing great bodily injury. Zorrozua was taken into custody and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
Officer Harmon and Officer Pratt made a combined nine DUI arrests in the month of October. This is a large increase over September.
B. PATROL ACTIVITY
STATISTICS # COMMENTS 1 – Traffic Collisions 2 2 -September 2 – DUI Arrests 9 1-September 3 – H & S Arrests 1 0-September 4 – Felony Arrests 3 8-September 5 – Misd. Arrest 38 13-September 6 – Citations 43 27-September 7 - Gang FI’s 0 No change 8 - Muni Cites 12 2-September
C. MAJOR CRIME PROBLEMS / COMMUNITY CONCERNS
None reported.
D. NOTABLE POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES
During the month of October, Officer Brewer and Pratt continued with the Sutter Creek Cadet field training. The Sutter Creek Police Department has begun the process of updating the cities Disaster Response Plan to make it more effective, streamlined and user friendly in the time of disaster.
2
SUTTER CREEK POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
E. MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT
During the month, 12 Municipal citations were written (parking) compared to 2 in September.
F. DEPARTMENT TRAINING COMPLETED / ATTENDED
In the month of October, Sgt Glaister attended a 60 hours CSI course presented by the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department.
Date Training Location Officer Purpose 10/19- POST CSI Basic Sac Glaister Training 24
F. COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETINGS / EVENTS ATTENDED
Date Community / Organization Location Officer Purpose
A. LIABILITY ISSUES IDENTIFIED
No new liability issues have been identified for the month of October.
3
Item 6C
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Amy Gedney City of Sutter Creek
FROM: George Allen Chief Plant Operator and Public Works Foreman
SUBJECT: Public Works Department Report for October 2015 Objective The objective of this Technical Memorandum is to provide the City Council with a status update regarding activities within the Public Works Department.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Status Constituent Monthly Results Monthly Limits Monthly Influent Flow 8.07 MG. 0.260 mgd daily avg .48mgd1 Effluent BOD, mg/L 5 mg/L 30 mg/l Effluent Settleable Matter, mL/L < 0.1 ml/L 0.5 ml/l Effluent TSS, mg/L 15 mg/L 30 mg/l Total Coliform, MPN 11 mpn 23 mpn Sludge Wasted 40,967 gal Rain 1.52 in 1.52” YTD-22.29” Last YTD 1 The .48 mgd is daily dry weather flow (April through October) The WWTP met all effluent quality discharge requirements for the month of October.
Collections System Status Sanitary Overflow Events Date Location Volume CIWQS Reported (mm.dd.yyyy) (gal) (>500 gal) 10/18/2015 120 Raylan Drive 250 gal Yes (got on curb) CIWQS Reporting
Plant Compliance Issues There were no compliance issues for the month of October. The monthly report for September was submitted electronically to SWRCB on time.
Operational Strategy Modifications A regular sludge wasting schedule was kept up for the month October and a total of 40K gallons was dewatered and disposed of to the landfill. Staff still continues to conserve water were possible. Sierra Septic hauled the rag bin on October 8, four weeks since they hauled it in September.
WWTP Emergency Response/Callout Events No emergency responses or callouts occurred this month.
Odor Complaints No odor complaints to report
Power Failures (WWTP) No power failures to report.
Injuries/Accidents No reportable injuries or accidents.
Safety Activities Safety tailgate meeting were regularly in the month of September.
Training In house treatment process training continues. Staff continues developing skills on maintenance and repair of plant equipment and working with preventive maintenance work orders.
Maintenance Management Assets at risk of failure Nothing to report.
Equipment Failures – Repair Required High Priority: The repair and replacement of the Secondary and Emergency pumps. Two are done, three more to do. Trickling filter distribution arms replacement.
Medium Priority: Replacement of number two clarigester supernatant valve. The draining and inspection of number one clarigester.
Low Priority: Look at the repair/replacement of the number two scum pump.
Equipment being repaired The repair of the gas lines to the flare burner and installation of isolation valves.
Modifications to Facilities Reduction of potable water use.
Work Order Management Work orders for the month of October were completed and sent to Larry Kram to be input into the CMMS program.
Housekeeping and Grounds General Housekeeping. Regular clarifier launder cleaning and bleaching has been occurring. Regular grounds maintenance has been occurring.
Public Works Report for October 2015 Page 2
Regular housekeeping of Ops building has been occurring.
Sewer Pipeline Activity (SSMP) General Business: 10/17/15 160 Patricia Lane 10/17/15 140 Judy Drive Pipeline Repairs, TV Inspection, Cleaning Pending: None to report.
Asset Management Staff The plant staff has been continuing to work on their CRWQCB certifications.
Computer Maintenance Management System This system is continuing to be developed via Larry Kram using a Cartegraph program.- No activity.
Operational costs Energy Consumption: 10,960Kwh Water Consumption: 164,037 gals –5,203.9 gals per day Chemical Consumption: Hypochlorite: 1,707 gals. Ferric Chloride: 455 gals. Polymer: 25 gals.
Action Items Action Item Action Item Status Secondary and Received 2 Pumps back from O’Dell’s, will be reinstalling those 2 and removing 2 others to Emergency pumps be sent out to be rebuilt. O’Dell’s picked up 2 pumps and are currently rebuilding. During routine Preventive Maintenance check of the Secondary and Emergency pumps (5 total and all the same) they were found to have the very rusted out steel frames to the point that the pull chain had fallen off.
Clarigester Need to prequalify contractors for the type of work that needs to be done to the clarigesters. Rehabilitation Began making parts list and costs for replacement if number 1 Clarigester gas lines. In August the gas line from number 2 Clarigester had a new plastic gas valve welded in. It has been since the mid 1990 that number one Clarigester has been drained and inspected for maintenance issues.
Conversion of Waiting on contractor for new counter top downstairs into Staff has purchased new cabinets and installed them in the new lab. process control Lab work area needs to be constructed including sink and counters, this would free up space laboratory upstairs.
ARSA Irrigation to Hoskins Ranch for the season has ceased. Staff has been working with the Ione operator to ensure as much water as possible can be released to Ione before the rainy season to avoid any overflows.
Public Works Report for October 2015 Page 3
Streets and Storm Drains The CYA crews have been in town performing annual creek cleaning for flood management. Staff has created a storm drain and flood prevention checklist for maintenance of storm drain inlets prior to a storm event. Work was completed on Mahoney Mill at the Cemetery to prevent runoff from the city cemetery. Staff has been working to make improvements on Frakes Street.
Parks Twenty six trees and the plants for the Minnie Provis Park project have arrived as part of the Jackson Rancheria’s project to renovate the park. Staff has been working closely to facilitate the plantings etc.
Buildings Staff will be working to coordinate the re-sanding of the floor at the Community Center. This was a budgeted item.
Public Works Report for October 2015 Page 4
Item 7A
MINUTES OF THE SUTTER CREEK CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION November 9, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM Mayor Swift called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
2. PUBLIC FORUM None.
3. CLOSED SESSION A. POTENTIAL LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Section 54956.9 1 Potential Case
4. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION No reportable action. Direction given to staff.
5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m.
______Karen Darrow, City Clerk James Swift, Mayor
Date Approved:
Item 7B
MINUTES OF THE SUTTER CREEK CITY COUNCIL OF November 2, 2015
James Swift, Mayor Staff Present: Robin Peters, Council Member Amy Gedney, City Manager Andrea Sexton, Council Member Derek Cole, City Attorney Sandy Anderson, Council Member Karen Darrow, City Clerk Victoria Runquist, City Treasurer Absent: Tim Murphy, Vice Mayor
1. CLOSED SESSION None
2. CALL TO ORDER AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM Mayor Swift called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Mayor Swift led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. PUBLIC FORUM None
5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION None
6. INFORMATION/CORRESPONDENCE A. Monthly Calendar Council member Sexton noted that the ACRA meeting was rescheduled to the 18th at 11:30 am. Council member Anderson noted that the December Sutter Creek Promotions Committee Meeting has been cancelled.
Council member Peters noted that both of the November and December ARSA meetings have been rescheduled as noted on the Calendar.
7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of City Council Minutes of October 19, 2015.
Item 10B motion amended to read as follows:
M/S Council member Murphy/Anderson to Approve Resolution 15-16-15 reserving one parking space in front of the United Methodist Church located at 14 Main Street to be used for loading and off-loading of church members on Sundays from 10 am to 1pm, and designating the southerly most parking space for loading and unloading.
Item 12 amended to read as follows:
Council member Murphy noted that the Sutter Creek Community Benefit Foundation Donor Appreciation event will be held on October 29th at the Old Grammar School.
M/S Council member Peters/Sexton to Approve Item 7A as amended. AYES: Anderson, Peters, Sexton and Swift NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Murphy MOTION CARRIED
B. Warrants-Accept warrants as presented
M/S Council member Peters/Sexton to Approve Item 7B as presented excluding warrants pertaining to Bart Industries Riebes Auto Parts and Weber Ghio & Assoc. AYES: Anderson, Peters, Sexton and Swift NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Murphy MOTION CARRIED
M/S Council member Sexton/Anderson to Approve warrants for Bart Industries Riebes Auto Parts and Weber Ghio & Assoc.
AYES: Anderson, Sexton and Peters NOES: None ABSTAIN: Swift ABSENT: Murphy MOTION CARRIED
8. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of 2013-2014 Audit- Accept the Auditor’s report
Ingrid Sheipline from Richardson and Company presented the 2013-2014 Audit Report.
Council member Peters noted that this is the Audit for 2013-2014 and due to the changes the City has made in the Finance department he anticipates that the audit for year ending 2015 will look even better. He also referenced page 20 of the Audit and asked why $90,350.00 was noted as uncollectable. Council member Peters noted that he was under the impression that the County paid the City for the delinquent sewer charges and the County took on the responsibility of collecting the delinquent amount.
Mayor Swift noted that debt that has been written off can still be collected.
Mike Kirkley of Sutter Creek noted that the collection of something should not be labeled as unrecoverable.
City Manager Amy Gedney noted that $90,350.00 is the amount that has been uncollected and that the City is still trying to recover.
9. ORDINANCES & PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Energy Action Plan
Nick Martin and Kris Bautista of Sierra Business Council presented the Sutter Creek Energy Action Plan along with Jerry O’Neill from PG&E.
Mayor Swift Opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m.
David Evitt of Sutter Creek asked about the history of the program and noted concern about the City of Sutter Creek being a viable candidate for this type of program, based on its demographics and age of existing commercial buildings. Mr. Evitt asked if the City had done an energy audit and if there was an opportunity to reduce energy usage at the wastewater treatment plant.
Mr. Martin noted that achieving the total savings would be aggressive and that a five year timeline for savings is used. He also cited that 89% of overall savings come from existing buildings not projected buildings and that 56% of the existing buildings are not up to energy standards and that these numbers indicate a viable opportunity to save energy.
Mr. O’Neill noted that the City had already implemented some of the easier measures in order to reduce energy usage and noted that all wastewater plants are different and they have engineers to evaluate the potential for energy use reduction.
Council member Sexton asked for more detail on how the Sierra Business Council will educate people about the Energy Action Plan.
Mr. Martin noted that as part of the implementation process Sierra Business Council will be holding workshops to help educate the public but noted that they will be seeking advice from the City on how to structure an outreach campaign.
Mayor Swift recommended concentrating on commercial structures to set the foundation and word of mouth will help with the outreach.
M/S Council member Peters/Sexton to close the public hearing.
AYES: Anderson, Sexton, Peters and Swift NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Murphy MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Swift declared the public hearing closed at 8:15 p.m.
Council member Peters referenced page 21 of the Energy Action Plan and asked who the City would be committing to partner with.
Mr. Martin noted that it is a State sponsored program under the California Public Utilities Commission.
Council member Peters noted that the Council had elected to participate in the program last year and after reviewing the Draft document believes that it is the best Energy Action Plan he has seen. He also noted that a lot of the participation will be required by the City, but the City does a have a responsibility to look out for the citizens and disseminate information the best way that it can.
Mayor Swift asked if the same incentives that are available to commercial business are available to municipalities as well.
Mr. O’Neill confirmed that municipalities are eligible for discounts. Noting that the amount of savings depends on the products and programs that the business decides to implement.
Mayor Swift suggested that the success of the program will depend on whether people save money and noted concern over whether the City has the resources to spend a lot of time on the program but that the City will certainly be able to pass on and provide the information to the public.
The Council thanked The Sierra Business Council and Jerry O’Neill from PG&E for their efforts.
M/S Council member Peters/Anderson to Approve Item 9A as presented.
AYES: Anderson, Sexton, Peters and Swift NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Murphy MOTION CARRIED
10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. Direct Staff Regarding the Referendum Petition Received Concerning the Solid Waste Rate Increases Approved on September 21, 2015 (Resolution 15-16-11)
Citing a conflict of interest Mayor Swift abstained from this matter and excused himself from the remainder of the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
City Attorney Derek Cole presented his Staff Report and recommendation to the Council. He also noted that Staff has not yet taken any action regarding the referendum petition received.
Council member Peters noted that there is an apparent conflict between the Proposition 218 process and the referendum process and is unsure why those conflicts are allowed to survive legislation. He also noted that it appears that Proposition 218 was the correct process and that the use of a referendum was not the right tool in this case.
City Attorney Cole noted that a referendum cannot be used on a tax.
Council member Sexton asked if Mr. Cole had seen a test case on this and noted that if legislature had intended to include “referenda” they would have included the term “referenda”.
City Attorney Cole noted that there is not a specific reported case dealing with this very issue but there are some similarities to a case in Yorba Linda and to the Amador Water Agency case.
Don Trammel with The Ratepayers Protection Alliance distributed a written rebuttal to City Attorney Cole’s staff report.
Bill Condrashoff of Sutter Creek noted that it was wrong for the Council to ignore the Referendum. He also noted that Article 13B of Proposition 26 shows refuse rates are not taxes and by following the Proposition 218 procedure for fees the City was treating the Refuse Rate as a fee and not a tax. Mr. Condrashoff requested that the Council follow the law and count the petitions.
Mike Kirkley of Sutter Creek noted that refuse rates are not a tax and that he would hate to see the City spend a lot of money fighting this issue. He suggested rescinding the fee and let it go to election to find out what the public wants.
David Evitt with the Ratepayers Protection Alliance asked how much it cost the City for Derek to write the Staff Report that recommends doing nothing and questioned who authorized spending public money on Mr. Cole’s opinion. He also noted that the City track record with a legitimate Proposition 218 process is bad, that it corrupted the process in the past so the Ratepayers Protection Alliance, in order to avoid another potential corrupted process, went the referendum route. Mr. Evitt noted that the law says the signatures have to be counted.
Council member Peters noted that when legal matters arise, the City seeks legal advice from the City Attorney.
Mr. Evitt noted that the City Clerk denied his request to have a copy of the ACES customers list that was used for the Proposition 218 mailer, based on the City Attorney’s opinion that ACES is a public utility. He believed that this obstruction restricts the public to access the people who have the right to protest. Mr. Evitt noted that the law says that the referendum has to be duly certified and that there will be serious consequences if the City does not follow the process.
Mimi Arata of Sutter Creek noted that she has tried to be supportive of the City but has been asking why Sutter Creek’s rates are so high compared to other cities and has not been given as answer and that is why she signed the petition.
Council member Sexton asked for clarification on the election time frames.
City Attorney Cole recited that an election can be no less than 88 days but because the next general election is so far away a special election would be needed, but he also noted that it is inconsequential because the referendum is not valid.
Council member Peters noted that if there cannot be a referendum on a tax measure then the City would not follow the instructions on how to process referenda, but there is some uncertainty regarding what to do once the referendum had been presented anyway. He also inferred since the referendum is unlawful, no counting would be required.
Council member Peters asked City Attorney Cole to address Mr. Condrashoffs allegation that Refuse rates are fees and not taxes.
City Attorney Cole noted that there are cases when rates are considered a tax when they are a revenue raising device. The City is counting on the revenue for budgeting purposes and that qualifies them as a tax. He also noted that fees and special assessments are essentially taxes, that the logic is not the “label” but the stream of revenue.
Council member Sexton, in response to Mr. Evitts Public Records Request denial, clarified that waste collection services are defined as a utility and being a public utility was the reason cited as the Public Records Request exception.
City Attorney Cole noted that the City does not have mandatory collect but the City is required to meet AB909 requirement so ultimately the City is responsible. The City has to provide waste services.
Council member Peters recommended holding off on staff direction until the next Council meeting pending analysis of the Ratepayers Protection Alliance rebuttal that the Council had not yet been able to review.
The Council directed City Attorney Cole to evaluate and review this issue based on the new information that had been presented and bring back the item to the next meeting.
11. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Gedney noted that plants are on order for the park and volunteers will be needed in the near future. She also noted that Sandi Barracco is working on a design for the bathrooms to coordinate with the Community Building.
City Manager Gedney noted that City staff has been working on cleaning storm drain inlets in anticipation of rains and noted that the Finance Committee met to review purchasing policies.
12. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Council member Sexton noted that the Sign Committee will meet on November 12th and that ACRA is in the process of selecting a consultant to assist with updates to the Master Plan.
Council member Anderson noted that the Promotions Committee has been working with the Amador Council of Tourism to establish a Lodging District.
Council member Peters noted that he attended the event at the Grammar School and that the restoration work that has been done is very nice and encouraged all the Council members to take them time to see it.
13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
______Karen Darrow, City Clerk James Swift, Mayor
Date Approved:
Item 7C
MINUTES OF THE SUTTER CREEK CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION September 3, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM Mayor Swift called the meeting to order at 3:45 p.m.
2. PUBLIC FORUM None.
3. CLOSED SESSION A. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(c)(1) Title: Police Chief
4. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION No reportable action. Direction given to staff.
5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
______Karen Darrow, City Clerk James Swift, Mayor
Date Approved:
ItemItem 7D9
STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2015 FROM: JODI STENECK, ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: WARRANTS TO BE PAID
RECOMMENDATION: Attached you will find a list of all warrants to be paid for November 16, 2015. Please approve for payment.
BUDGET IMPACT: The checks total $77,008.29
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer
City of Sutter Creek Item 7E City Treasurer's Report October 2015
Receipts & Disbursements Report City's Umpqua Bank Checking Account Receipts Deposits $ 255,809 Reversal of Bank Charges - Total $ 255,809
Disbursements Accounts Payable $ 139,786 Payroll & Benefits 111,222 Bank Charges 99 Total $ 251,107
Net Amount of Investment Transfers $ -
Recap of City Treasury Investments on Hand October 31, 2015 Market or Withdrawal Rate of Par Value Book Value Value Return Cash In Bank Umpqua Checking N/A N/A $ 376,987 0.00% Umpqua Money Market Account N/A N/A $ 920,479 0.36% * California State Treasurer's LAIF N/A N/A $ 375,591 0.28% Edward Jones $ 10,003 0.01% San Joaquin RMA $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 622,679 1.50%
Total $ 2,305,739
Total this month last year $ 1,964,780
* LAIF 1 $ 53,447 LAIF 2 $ 322,144
Victoria Runquist 11/12/2015 Item 7F
RESOLUTION 15-16-**
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK APPOINTING MARILYN BUSTILLOS TO THE MONTEVERDE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
WHEREAS, the Monteverde Store is run by a Board of Trustees on behalf of the City of Sutter Creek; and
WHEREAS, current Board member Lynda Cook is moving out of Sutter Creek and resigning her position on the Board; and
WHEREAS, Marilyn Bustillos has been a lifelong resident of Sutter Creek, attended local elementary schools and graduated from Amador High School; and
WHEREAS, the current Monteverde Store Board of Trustees has voted unanimously to request the City to appoint Marilyn Bustillos to the Board.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby appoint Marilyn Bustillos to the Monteverde Store Board of Trustees.
The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek on the 16th day of November 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
______James Swift, Mayor ATTEST:
______Karen Darrow, City Clerk
Item 7G
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2015 FROM: GARY S. GHIO, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE JEAN L. PINOTTI FAMILY TRUST FOR THE BADGER STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT – BRLO-5215(012)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 15-16-* authorizing the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City of Sutter Creek, a Public Utilities Easement Agreement with the Jean L. Pinotti Family Trust.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Sutter Creek received federal funding under the Highway Bridge Program for a Bridge Replacement Project (BRLO 5215(012) to replace and raise the Badger Street Bridge. Construction of the bridge improvements requires access to two strips of land on the Pinotti property for purposes of installing a sewer line, bridge wing walls, and storm drain facilities.
City staff has negotiated with Jean L. Pinotti who has agreed to accept various improvements including driveway replacement and restoration, replacement of impacted fencing, replacement of impacted sprinklers and irrigation lines, and replanting or replacement of impacted shrubs and trees in lieu of any monetary compensation for the Public Utilities Easement Agreement.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The improvements required on the Pinotti property under the Public Utilities Easement Agreement will be done as part of the construction contract which will be paid for with the approved project funding.
#2372/nlm Staff Report-November 16, 2015
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer RESOLUTION 15-16-*
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE JEAN L. PINOTTI FAMILY TRUST FOR THE BADGER STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (BRLO 5215(012)
WHEREAS, the City of Sutter Creek received federal funding under the Highway Bridge Program for a Bridge Replacement Project (BRLO 5215(012) to replace and raise the Badger Street Bridge; and
WHEREAS, construction of the Badger Street Bridge improvements requires access to two strips of land on the Pinotti property for purposes of installing a sewer line, bridge wing walls, and storm drain facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Standards require property owners to deed (agree to) public utilities easements for the purpose of maintaining, operating, repairing, and replacing public utilities facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a Public Utilities Easement Agreement from the Jean L. Pinotti Family Trust; and
WHEREAS, the City has negotiated with Jean L. Pinotti who has agreed to accept various improvements including driveway replacement and restoration, replacement of impacted fencing, replacement of impacted sprinklers and irrigation lines, and replanting or replacement of impacted shrubs and trees in lieu of any monetary compensation for the Public Utilities Easement Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Sutter Creek hereby accepts for recordation the Public Utilities Easement Agreement from the Jean L. Pinotti Family Trust;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to execute the Public Utilities Easement Agreement on behalf of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that city staff is directed to record the signed Agreement with the Amador County Recorder in a timely manner.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
______James Swift, Mayor ATTEST:
______Karen Darrow, City Clerk
Item 7H
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2015 FROM: GARY S. GHIO, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DAVID AND KATHY GHORMLEY FOR THE BADGER STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT – BRLO-5215(012)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 15-16-* authorizing the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City of Sutter Creek, a Public Utilities Easement Agreement with David and Kathy Ghormley.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Sutter Creek received federal funding under the Highway Bridge Program for a Bridge Replacement Project (BRLO 5215(012) to replace and raise the Badger Street Bridge. Construction of the bridge improvements requires access to two strips of land on the Ghormley property for purposes of installing a sewer line, bridge wing walls, and storm drain facilities.
City staff has negotiated with David and Kathy Ghormley who have agreed to accept various improvements including driveway replacement, replacement of impacted fencing, protection and preservation of the existing stacked rock wall, and replanting or replacement of impacted shrubs and trees, and planting of six 25 gallon White Alder trees in lieu of any monetary compensation for the Public Utilities Easement Agreement.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The improvements required on the Ghormley property under the Public Utilities Easement Agreement will be done as part of the construction contract which will be paid for with the approved project funding.
#2372/nlm Staff Report-November 16, 2015-Ghormley
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer RESOLUTION 15-16-*
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DAVID AND KATHY GHORMLEY FOR THE BADGER STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (BRLO 5215(012)
WHEREAS, the City of Sutter Creek received federal funding under the Highway Bridge Program for a Bridge Replacement Project (BRLO 5215(012) to replace and raise the Badger Street Bridge; and
WHEREAS, construction of the Badger Street Bridge improvements requires access to two strips of land on the Ghormley property for purposes of installing a sewer line, bridge wing walls, and storm drain facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Standards require property owners to deed (agree to) public utilities easements for the purpose of maintaining, operating, repairing, and replacing public utilities facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a Public Utilities Easement Agreement from David and Kathy Ghormley; and
WHEREAS, the City has negotiated with David and Kathy Ghormley who have agreed to accept various improvements including driveway replacement, replacement of impacted fencing, protection and preservation of the existing stacked rock wall, and replanting or replacement of impacted shrubs and trees, and planting of six 25 gallon White Alder trees in lieu of any monetary compensation for the Public Utilities Easement Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Sutter Creek hereby accepts for recordation the Public Utilities Easement Agreement from David and Kathy Ghormley;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to execute the Public Utilities Easement Agreement on behalf of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that city staff is directed to record the signed Agreement with the Amador County Recorder in a timely manner.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
______James Swift, Mayor ATTEST:
______Karen Darrow, City Clerk
Item 7I
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2015 FROM: GARY S. GHIO, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS PAYMENT FOR THE BADGER STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT – BRLO-5215(012)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 15-16-* authorizing the City Manager and City Engineer to prepare an estimated monthly payment schedule to accompany the City’s “Request for Authorization (E-76) to the Caltrans District 10 Local Assistance Engineer for the construction phase of the Badger Street Bridge Replacement project; to prepare and submit all necessary documentation to secure approval for said “Alternative Construction Progress Payment Procedure; and authorize the City Manager to submit monthly invoices to Caltrans in accordance with the estimated monthly payments to the contractor, in accordance with the invoicing procedures set forth in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual, the Program Supplement, and any other regulation required to facilitate early payment to the City and contractor.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Sutter Creek received federal funding under the Highway Bridge Program for a Bridge Replacement Project (BRLO 5215(012) to replace and raise the Badger Street Bridge.
All federal and most state funded local agency projects must be invoiced in arrears. This means that the local agencies must pay their contractors before requesting reimbursement from Caltrans for their costs. The Alternative Construction Progress Payment Procedure is designed to assist local agencies in the implementation of their local transportation projects when they experience severe cash flow problems. These problems could be the result of either:
· Unusual cash shortages within the local agency caused by economic or other conditions, · Significant cash shortages resulting from the payment to a contractor on an unusually large federal or state transportation project, or · Cash drain to repair damages caused by flood, earthquake or other acts of nature.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer
Since this alternative procedure requires additional processing, it will be used only for the construction phase of projects, and contingent upon availability of State funds.
Local Programs Accounting (LPA) will process a local agency’s invoice based on estimated payments to the contractor in the same manner as normal reimbursement billings
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Alternative Construction Progress Payment Procedure would eliminate the financial burden of paying contractor with city funds prior to reimbursement through the funding agency.
#2372/nlm Staff Report-November 16, 2015-Alt Const Prog Payment
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer
RESOLUTION 15-16-*
RESOLUTION OF CITY OF SUTTER CREEK AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE “ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS PAYMENT PROCEDURE FOR THE BADGER STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. BRLS 5215(012)
WHEREAS, the City contemplates receipt of construction authorization for the Badger Street Bridge Replacement Project No. BRLS-5215(012) which will allow advertising for contractors; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5, Accounting/Invoices provides an “Alternative Construction Progress Payment Procedure;” and
WHEREAS, this Badger Street Bridge Replacement Project No. BRLS-5215(012) is one of the largest public works contract ever undertaken by the City; and
WHEREAS, expenditures to date and contemplated payments to the contractor and construction inspection team will cause a significant impact to City’s cash reserves and financial solvency; and
WHEREAS, a Notice to Proceed with Construction will be delayed without the use of this progress payment procedure and severely impact construction completion on or before November 2016.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Manager and City Engineer are hereby authorized to prepare an estimated monthly payment schedule to accompany the City’s “Request for Authorization (E-76) to the Caltrans District 10 Local Assistance Engineer for the construction phase of the Badger Street Bridge Replacement Project No. BRLS-5215(012); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and City Engineer are authorized to prepare and submit all necessary documentation to Caltrans District 10 to secure approval for said “Alternative Construction Progress Payment Procedure; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit monthly invoices to Caltrans in accordance with the estimated monthly payments to the contractor, in accordance with the invoicing procedures set forth in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual, the Program Supplement, and any other regulation required to facilitate early payment to the City and contractor.
The foregoing resolution was duly approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek at a regular meeting on the 16th day of November 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
______James Swift, Mayor ATTEST:
______Karen Darrow, City Clerk
Reso for Alt Const Progress Payment Procedure ItemItem 7J9
STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2015 FROM: AMY GEDNEY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: AGREEMENT REGARDING PRIOR EASEMENT RIGHTS
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2015-16-* authorizing the Mayor to sign “Agreement regarding prior easement rights” with Amador Water Agency.
BACKGROUND: The City has reached a conclusion on the AWA easements for Pinotti and Ghormley. As part of the changes to the easements AWA now wants the attached agreement executed with the City. The agreement confirms their prescriptive rights on the existing AWA waterline in Sutter Creek. The City Attorney has reviewed this as well and does not foresee any concerns with the Agreement.
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer AGREEMENT REGARDING PRIOR EASEMENT RIGHTS
This Agreement Regarding Prior Easement Rights (“Agreement”) is entered into this ____ day of ______, 2015 by and between the City of Sutter Creek (“City”) and Amador Water Agency (“Agency”), who agree as follows:
1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with reference to the following background recitals.
1.1. Agency is holder of a perfected prescriptive easement right to maintain a pipeline and appurtenances associated with the Ione Ditch in areas in and around the City of Sutter Creek, California (“Prior Easement Rights”).
1.2. City is undertaking a project to replace the Badger Street Bridge in the City of Sutter Creek (“Project”).
1.3. As a result of the Project, and at the City’s request, the Agency has agreed to: (a) the relocation of portions of the Agency facilities maintained within the Prior Easement Rights; and (b) accept new easement agreements for the relocated Agency facilities.
2. Agreement. City and Agency agree as follows:
2.1. By executing this Agreement and assenting to the matters described in paragraph 1.3, the Agency expressly reserves, and does not waive any of, the Prior Easement Rights.
2.2. The City knowingly waives its right to assert that, and will not construe, this Agreement or the Agency’s assent to the matters described in paragraph 1.3 to affect any existing, prior easement rights of the Agency, including, but not limited to, the Prior Easement Rights.
2.3. The parties and individuals executing this Agreement each represent, by executing this Agreement, that he or she is duly authorized to do so and to bind the respective party to the Agreement’s terms.
CITY OF SUTTER CREEK AMADOR WATER AGENCY
By: By: James Swift Gene Mancebo Mayor General Manager
Attest:
By: Karen Darrow City Clerk
1 10\A102815ajr
RESOLUTION 15-16-*
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMADOR WATER AGENCY CONFIRMING PRESCRIPTIVE WATER RIGHTS ON THE EXISTING WATERLINE
WHEREAS, the Amador Water Agency, “AWA”, provides water services within the City of Sutter Creek, and
WHEREAS, the City of Sutter Creek received federal funding under the Highway Bridge Program for a Bridge Replacement Project (BRLO 5215(012) to replace and raise the Badger Street Bridge; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Badger Street Bridge project, the Amador Water Agency wants to confirm their prescriptive rights on the existing AWA waterline in Sutter Creek
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Sutter Creek hereby confirms prescriptive rights on the AWA waterline.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to execute the Public Utilities Easement Agreement on behalf of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that city staff is directed to record the signed Agreement with the Amador County Recorder in a timely manner.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
______James Swift, Mayor ATTEST:
______Karen Darrow, City Clerk Item 10A
STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2015 FROM: AMY GEDNEY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ FOR THE SUTTER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project.
Approve the Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project and Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project.
BACKGROUND: Project The City of Sutter Creek proposes to replace the existing Main Street Bridge with a new bridge that would meet current design standards. Rehabilitation of the approach roadways would also be made approximately 200 feet north and south of the bridge.
The proposed bridge type may either be a single span steel truss or a dual span concrete slab bridge depending on the outcome of the Location Hydraulic Study and Bridge Type Selection. For either option, a mid-creek pier may be included. Added pile footings may be placed behind, or new abutment walls may be placed in front of, the existing rock wall abutments for either bridge option.
The proposed bridge would be approximately seventy (70) feet in length. The new structure would accommodate at a minimum, the existing eleven (11) foot sidewalks, four (4) foot shoulders, and two twelve (12) foot lanes. Including barriers and railings, the resulting bridge width is 79’-4”. The work to be performed would include removal of the existing three span structure, including twelve (12) columns in the creek.
Approach roadways would be rehabilitated after the new bridge is placed and utilities are reconnected. Rehabilitation of the approaches would consist of re-paving the road, re-striping, and providing a landscaped median. At the bridge deck, improvements would include construction of shoulders and traffic barriers, railing, sidewalks, and curb ramps.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer
Utilities, including water, natural gas, telephone, and electric, would be relocated under the bridge. Street lighting and ornamental benches may also be added to the bridge. Main Street would continue to be two lanes (one in each direction), and would be re-striped accordingly. Approximately eight existing parking spaces on and near the bridge would be removed.
Construction of the bridge would include accommodations for vehicular traffic, pedestrians, and construction equipment. Access to buildings at the project site would be maintained throughout construction, except for one business, which may be temporarily closed during construction. The bridge would be removed and constructed in stages to accommodate two lanes of traffic continuously. Pedestrians would be accommodated with a temporary crosswalk. Temporary falsework would support the new bridge structure during construction. Access to the creek for bridge removal and construction may come from the City Hall parking lot or the parking lot at the corner of Boston Alley and Eureka Street. These parking lots would also be potential construction staging areas. Water within the creek would be temporarily channelized using water diversion methods.
No additional right-of-way would be required. Construction would take approximately seven (7) months.
DISCUSSION:
Public Circulation The City of Sutter Creek prepared a draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration which examined the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The document described why the project is being proposed, the existing environment that could be affected by the project, the potential impacts from the build and no-build alternatives, and the proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning June 30, 2015 through July 29, 2015. During the public review period, a copy of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was available at the Sutter Creek City Hall, 18 Main Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685 and the Amador County Main Branch Library, 530 Sutter Street, Jackson, CA 95642. The document was received by the State Clearinghouse for agency circulation on June 30, 2015 for review ending on July 29, 2015. The project was assigned State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) #2015062092.
A comment letter was received from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board describing permitting requirements and a letter was received from the State Clearinghouse confirming compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements. Copies of the letters, along with the responses, are included in the Final Initial Study.
Agency Coordination Consultation with several agencies occurred as part of preparing the project technical reports and the Initial Study. These agencies are identified in the various technical reports and include:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Downtown Commons Committee State Historic Preservation Office Native American Heritage Commission Buena Vista Rancheria
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians California Valley Miwok Tribe Ione Band of Miwok Indians Jackson Band of Mi-Wuk Indians Jackson Rancheria Band of Mi-Wuk Indians Amador County Archives Amador County Historical Society Amador County Museum Sutter Creek Woman’s Club Sutter Creek Visitors Center Native Sons of the Golden West, Amador Parlor 17
The Initial Study prepared for this project has concluded, and following public review, it has been determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:
The project will have no impact on aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, landuse and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation; The project will less than significant impact on air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, transportation/traffic, utilities, and service systems. The project will have less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and mandatory findings of significance.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared that identifies various avoidance and mitigation measures. Measures are summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in Appendix A of the Final IS/MND. The measures will ensure that the proposed project will have no significant effect on the environment.
Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will complete the California Environmental Quality Act environmental documentation for the project. Final design is currently on going and will be completed by early 2016. Construction is anticipated to commence in 2017.
Rebecca Neilon from Dokken Engineering will be present at your meeting to discuss this matter.
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project
CITY OF SUTTER CREEK, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Final Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared by the City of Sutter Creek
August 2015
General Information about this Document
What’s in this document:
The City of Sutter Creek has prepared this Initial Study (IS), which examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project located in the City of Sutter Creek, Amador County, California. The document describes why the project is being proposed, the existing environment that could be affected by the project, the potential impacts from each of the alternatives, and the proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Within this Final Initial Study, a vertical line in the margin of page indicates a revision was made. For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to City of Sutter Creek, Attn: Amy Gedney, 18 Main Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685, phone number (209) 267-5647.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...... 10
DETERMINATION ...... 11 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...... 7
I. AESTHETICS ...... 15 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ...... 18 III. AIR QUALITY ...... 20 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 23 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES...... 28 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 32 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...... 34 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...... 35 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...... 41 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ...... 45 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ...... 46 XII. NOISE ...... 47 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...... 51 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ...... 52 XV. RECREATION ...... 53 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ...... 54 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...... 56 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 58
LIST OF PREPARERS
Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity ...... 12 Figure 2 Facing west from bridge ...... 163 Figure 3 Facing east from bridge ...... 164
Tables
Table 1. Attainment for Amador County ...... 21 Table 2: Temporary and Permanent Impacts to Jurisdictional Features ...... 25 Table 3 - Properties Within or Adjacent to Study Area ...... 37 Table 4. Properties within 1 Mile of Study Area ...... 37 Table 5. ISA Summary Table ...... 38
Appendices
Appendix A Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation/Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix B Responses to Public Comments (June 30, 2015 through July 29, 2015) Appendix C SHPO Correspondence
Technical Studies Bound Separately
CEQA Environmental Checklist
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Project Title: Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Lead agency California Department of Transportation name and District 10 address: 1976 E. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Stockton, CA 95205 Contact person Amy Gedney and phone City Manager number: City of Sutter Creek 18 Main Street Sutter Creek, CA 95685 Project City of Sutter Creek Location: Project Amy Gedney sponsor’s name City Manager and address: City of Sutter Creek 18 Main Street Sutter Creek, CA 95685 General plan Downtown Commercial, Arterial description: Purpose and Purpose Need The purpose of the project is to replace the existing Sutter Creek Bridge and improve roadway approaches in order to: Enhance safety;
Carry both legal and permit loads
Provide a transportation facility consistent with local, regional, and statewide plans, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards;
Need The existing Sutter Creek Bridge is rated “structurally deficient” by Caltrans under Federal Highway Administration prescribed inspection criteria. Full replacement is needed due to significant discrepancies between current bridge structural standards and the original design, as well as age related deterioration of the sidewalks and associated structural elements.
Zoning: Downtown Commercial (DTC) Description of Proposed Build Alternative project: The proposed Build Alternative would replace the existing bridge with a new bridge (Describe the that would meet current design standards. Rehabilitation of the approach roadways whole action would also be made approximately 200 feet north and south of the bridge. involved, including but not The proposed bridge type may either be a single span steel truss or a dual span limited to later concrete slab bridge depending on the outcome of the Location Hydraulic Study and phases of the Bridge Type Selection. For either option, a mid-creek pier may be included. Added project, and any
Page 7 of 60 October 2015 secondary, pile footings may be placed behind, or new abutment walls may be placed in front of, support, or off- the existing rock wall abutments for either bridge option. site features necessary for its The proposed bridge would be approximately 70 feet in length. The new structure implementation.) would accommodate at a minimum the existing 11 foot sidewalks, 4 foot shoulders and two 12 foot lanes. Including barriers and railings, the resulting bridge width is 79’-4”. The work to be performed would include removal of the existing 3 span structure, including 12 columns in the creek.
Approach roadways would be rehabilitated after the new bridge is placed and utilities are reconnected. Rehabilitation of the approaches would consist of re-paving the road, re-striping, and providing a landscaped median. At the bridge deck, improvements would include construction of shoulders and traffic barriers, railing, sidewalks, and curb ramps.
Utilities, including water, natural gas, telephone, and electric, would be relocated under the bridge. Street lighting and ornamental benches may also be added to the bridge. Main Street would continue to be two lanes (one in each direction), and would be re-striped accordingly. Approximately eight existing parking spaces on and near the bridge would be removed.
Construction of the bridge would include accommodations for vehicular traffic, pedestrians, and construction equipment. Access to buildings at the project site would be maintained throughout construction, except for one business, which may be temporarily closed during construction. The bridge would be removed and constructed in stages to accommodate two lanes of traffic continuously. Pedestrians would be accommodated with a temporary crosswalk. Temporary falsework would support the new bridge structure during construction. Access to the creek for bridge removal and construction may come from the City Hall Parking lot or the parking lot at the corner of Boston Alley and Eureka Street. These parking lots would also be potential construction staging areas. Water within the creek would be temporarily channelized using water diversion methods.
No additional right-of-way would be required. Construction would take approximately seven months.
No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would result in no improvements to the existing bridge. The No-Build Alternative would result in no improvement in the bridge’s safety rating. Unreinforced rubble abutments will not resist seismic loading which may result in closure of the bridge in the event of an earthquake. The route would continue to be load restricted, causing permit loads to detour around Sutter Creek on the SR 49 bypass.
Surrounding Downtown Commercial and some residential land uses and setting; briefly describe the project’s surroundings: Other public State Water Resources Control Board agencies whose National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for approval is Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction required (e.g.
Page 8 of 60 October 2015 permits, General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). financial approval, or Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers participation agreements): Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
Page 9 of 60 October 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 3 for additional information.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Quality Emissions Materials Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Page 10 of 60 October 2015 DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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:
Printed Name: For:
Page 11 of 60 October 2015 Auburn State Recreation Area 49 TEHAMA UV PLUMAS
UV193 GLENN WASHOE
BUTTE UV193 LAKE LYON 80 ¨¦§ MENDOCINO PLACER
SONOMA UV49 Sacramento
Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park ^ Sutter Creek ¤£50 50 £50 Folsom Lake State Rec Area Eldorado National Forest ¤£ ¤
P A C FIC I O C E A N MARIPOSA Gold Bug Park
Lumsden Park MERCED MADERA Lions Park SAN BENITO
ELDORADOCOUNTY MONTEREY FRESNO
Y T N U O C O T N E M A R C A S
Y T N U O C O T N E M A R C A S
KINGS TULARE ¤£50
UV88
UV16 AMADORCOUNTYAMADORCOUNTY Project Vicinity
UV124 Mount Zion State Park ^ UV88 UV104 UV104 Detert Park UV49 UV26 Stanislaus National Forest UV4
UV88 Calavaras Big Trees State Park
CALAVERASCOUNTY
UV12 UV4
UV49
UV26 UV88 UV4
UV49 Columbia Historic State Park v:\1765_Sutter_Creek_Br\F1_Vic_07-08-10.mxd Source: ESRI 2008; Dokken Engineering 07/08/2010; Created By: K. Smith FIGURE 1 PROJECT VICINITY 10-AMA-City of Sutter Creek I Federal Project No. BRLS-5215(010) 0 5 10 15 Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project Miles City of Sutter Creek, Amador County, California City of Amador City
T on Rd zi R e d dg Ri e ak Sh
t Rd Go ffine
d t R t la S F r a e i h l UV49 p e o G m A B a dg d er k R S ee t Sutter Cr ch St Chur Project Location
A City of Sutter Creek l l e n 49 UV R d
UV104 d x
m A i r .
p 0
1 o -
8 r 0
- t
7 R 0 d _ c o L
_ M 2 F
\ a r in B S _ t k e e r e R d C Gat
_ n r so City of Jackson e t k t c u a
S J _ 5 6 7 1 \ : v Source: ArcMap10.3.1; Created by: cbrent FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION I 10-AMA-City of Sutter Creek Federal Project No. BRLS-5215(010) 0 ¼ ½ 1 Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project Miles City of Sutter Creek, Amador County, California
B. Environmental Impacts Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS: 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) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a-c) No Impact. Main Street is not a designated Scenic Highway in the National Scenic Byways Program nor is it a State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2007). The existing bridge is comprised of paved, asphalted surfaces and is surrounded by commercial land uses within the NRHP-eligible Sutter Creek Historic District.
Direct line of sight of the proposed project would be mostly from drivers and pedestrians along Main Street. Noticeable changes would be new railings and the rehabilitation of approach roadways. These elements would be designed to complement the visual character of the area. Visual changes would not be adverse considering that existing Sutter Creek Bridge is utilitarian in design, much of the bridge improvements would be underneath the bridge superstructure and would be minimally visible from viewer groups. No parcel acquisitions are anticipated and no neighboring businesses would be removed. The project, therefore, would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings
Page 15 of 60 October 2015 Figure 2 Facing west from bridge
Figure 3 Facing east from bridge
No heritage and protected trees were identified within the footprint. The project would not conflict with the Tree and Landscaping Ordinance (Chapter 13.24 – Trees and Landscaping) in the City of Sutter Creek’s Municipal Code.
Page 16 of 60 October 2015 While the project is within the National Register of Historic Places-eligible and California Register- eligible Sutter Creek Historic District, it was determined that the Sutter Creek Bridge was not a contributing element nor is it individually eligible for listing under the NRHP. Measures to avoid impacts to the Historic District would be implemented and are further discussed under Cultural Resources.
Construction of the proposed project would temporarily change views experienced by drivers, pedestrians, and other people in the project area since construction equipment would be visible from neighboring areas. Additionally, grading activities may expose soils. These impacts are temporary, and therefore, not considered substantial. d) No Impact. Lighting would not be considerably different from what is at the existing intersection. Day or nighttime views would not be affected significantly.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure will be implemented to minimize potential impacts (also repeated as CUL-1): AES-1: Design of the railings, sidewalks, and seating furniture on the new bridge will be architecturally consistent with and sympathetic to the historic design elements of similar historic features in the proposed Sutter Creek Historic District.
Page 17 of 60 October 2015 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST Potentially Less Than Less Than No RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts Significant Significant with Significant Impact to agricultural resources are significant Impact Mitigation Impact environmental effects, lead agencies may refer Incorporated 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 the 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? a) No Impact. The proposed project would not impact agricultural resources. As shown in the Amador County Important Farmland Map (2008), the project area is “Urban and Built-Up Land” and no Important Farmland (which includes Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance,
Page 18 of 60 October 015 Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance) is within or near the proposed project area. The nearest Important Farmland is far, at approximately 1.5 mi east-southeast, from the bridge. b) No Impact. Land within the project study area is zoned Downtown Commercial (DTC) (City of Sutter Creek 2010) and does not consist of Williamson Act contract land (Amador County 2011). c & d) No Impact. There are no forest lands or timberlands (or lands zoned as such) in the project study area. The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. e) No Impact. The project is at an existing facility surrounded by commercial development No other changes in the existing environment are anticipated to result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Page 19 of 60 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management 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) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Environmental Setting The proposed project is located within the Mountain Counties Air Basin (MCAB), in the region administered by the Amador County Air Pollution Control District (ACAPCD), which administers air quality in Amador County. The climate of the MCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical conditions. The MCAB includes the foothills and western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and is bounded to the east by the Sacramento Valley. Prevailing climatic conditions are influenced by terrain. Summer conditions are typically characterized by high temperatures and low humidity. Summer high temperatures as measured at the Sutter Hill Ranger Station (the nearest climatic monitoring station to the City of Sutter Creek) average in the 90s and summer low temperatures average under 60ºF. Occasional rainstorms and/or occasional snow, interspersed with stagnant and sometimes foggy weather, characterize winter conditions in the region. Wintertime high temperatures average over 50 ºF and winter low temperatures average in the high 30s. During winter, north winds become more frequent, but winds from the south predominate. As shown in Table 1, Amador County is in nonattainment for 8-hour Ozone for both Federal and State standards, and nonattainment for 1-hour Ozone for State standards.
Page 20 of 60 October 2015 Table 1. Attainment for Amador County
Attainment Status Pollutant Federal State O3 – 1-hour N/A Nonattainment O3 – 8-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment PM10 Unclassified Unclassified PM2.5 Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassified CO Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified NO2 Unclassified/Attainment Attainment SO2 Unclassified Attainment Sulfates N/A Attainment Lead N/A Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide N/A Unclassified Visibility Reducing Particles N/A Unclassified Source: California Air Resources Board 2015
Environmental Consequences a-e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not add additional travel lanes. As a result, no long-term permanent impacts on traffic or air quality is anticipated. The project falls under one of the exempt project types (Reconstructing bridges [no additional travel lanes]) listed under 40 CFR 93.126. As a result, potential air quality impacts would be from construction.
During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions (airborne dust) generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities related to construction. Emissions from construction equipment also are anticipated and would include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), directly-emitted particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and toxic air contaminants such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. Ozone is a regional pollutant that is derived from NOx and VOCs in the presence of sunlight and heat. Heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs and some soot particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles are delayed. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site. Dust generated will result in a temporary, local impact, limited to areas of construction. Dust control practices will be incorporated into the project to mitigate this potential impact. The dust control practices will comply with the current Caltrans’ Standard Specifications.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following measures will reduce any air quality impacts resulting from construction activities: . Route and schedule construction traffic to avoid peak travel times as much as possible, to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling vehicles along local roads.
. The construction contractor shall comply with Caltrans’ Standard Specifications Section 14-9 Air Quality.
. Amador County Air Pollution Control District’s Rule 218-Fugitive Dust Emissions would be followed. The general requirements of Rule 218 are:
Page 21 of 60 October 2015 No person may cause, allow or permit fugitive dust emissions without first implementing good housekeeping and/or work practices that reduce and control the emissions to the atmosphere below 20% opacity or equivalent Ringlemann, as stated in Rule 202, Visible Emissions. Good housekeeping and/or work practices include but are not limited to the following:
1) Application of water and/or approved chemicals to control emissions in the demolition of existing buildings or structures, construction operations, solid waste disposal operations, the grading of roads and/or the clearing of land.
2) Application of asphalt, water and/or approved chemicals to road surfaces.
3) Application of water and/or suitable chemicals to material stockpiles and other surfaces that may generate fugitive dust emissions.
4) Paving and/or re-paving roads.
5) Maintenance of roadways in a clean condition by washing with water or sweeping promptly.
6) Covering or wetting material stockpiles and open-bodied trucks, trailers, or other vehicles transporting materials that may generate fugitive dust emissions when in motion.
7) Installation and use of paved entry aprons or other effective cleaning techniques to remove dirt accumulating on a vehicle's wheels on haul or access roads to prevent tracking onto paved roadways.
8) For process equipment, the installation and use of hoods, fans, and filters to enclose, collect, and clean the emissions prior to venting.
9) Ceasing operations until fugitive emissions can be reduced and controlled.
10) Using vegetation and other barriers to contain and to reduce fugitive emissions.
11) Using vegetation for windbreaks.
12) Instituting good housekeeping practices by regularly removing piles of material that have accumulated in work areas and/or are generated from equipment overflow.
13) Maintaining reasonable vehicle speeds while driving on unpaved roads in order to minimize fugitive dust emissions .
Page 22 of 60 October 2015 14) Other precautions not specifically listed in this rule but have been approved in writing by the Air Pollution Control Officer prior to implementation.
Page 23 of 60 October 2015 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As documented in the Natural Environment Study (NES) for this project, the project would not have substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Field surveys conducted by biologists for the NES found no special status animal species within the Biological Study Area (BSA). Of the three species potentially within the BSA, only the California red-legged frog and the Tulare cuckoo was found to have a chance of occurrence, albeit low.
California red-legged frog is listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The species typically resides in permanent and semi-permanent aquatic habitats, such as creeks Page 24 of 60 October 2015 and coldwater ponds with submerged or partially submerged vegetation. A protocol-level habitat assessment for the frog was conducted in March 23, 2010 (Habitat Assessment for the California Red-legged Frog at the Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Sutter Creek, Amador County, California, 2010). The USFWS reviewed the NES and habitat assessment findings. USFWS concurred with Caltrans that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect California red- legged frog due to implementation of proposed avoidance measures (see BIO-9 through 18) and due to the lack of suitable breeding habitat at the site.
Tulare cuckoo wasp (Chrysis tularensis) is listed under the CDFG special animal list. No potential bee, wasp, or other insect nests were observed within the BSA during 2009 and 2010 biological surveys. Considering the scale of the project, the distance to the nearest siting (which is 5.5 mi away), the absence of bee and wasp nests, and the fact that the creek is regularly maintained, no substantial adverse effect to Tulare cuckoo wasp is anticipated. b) No Impact. The NES determined that, other than the federally protected wetlands (see answer “c”) no other natural communities of concern are within the BSA. c) Less Than Significant Impact. A jurisdictional delineation determined that Sutter Creek is a federally protected wetland (i.e. jurisdictional waters or Waters of the U.S.) as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Sutter Creek is also under CDFG jurisdiction. The table below summarizes temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters:
Table 2: Temporary and Permanent Impacts to Jurisdictional Features Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Sutter Creek (acres) (acres)
Waters of the U.S. 0.003 0.475
Waters of the State 0.003 0.475
As a result, measures BIO-2 through BIO-7 would be implemented and the following permits would be obtained for temporary and permanent impacts:
Section 404 authorization (Nationwide Permit 14) would be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System would be obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board
Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game
Conditions required by these permits would be implemented to prevent adverse impacts to jurisdictional waters. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Sutter Creek may act as a migration corridor for wildlife in the area, as it provides a linear path somewhat clear of human activity. Channel maintenance activities regularly remove vegetative cover within the creek channel, reducing the migration corridor value for wildlife. Because the project is replacing an existing facility, the project would not result in permanent impacts on wildlife migration. Potential
Page 25 of 60 October 2015 temporary construction impacts would be avoided through measure BIO-1, which prevents construction at night.
Further, water within the creek would be temporarily channelized using diversion methods. Effects to California red-legged frog, which could potentially disperse to the site area, would be avoided through BIO-9 through BIO-18. These measures would maintain water flow through the project site and would allow flow to resume. e) No Impact. The project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The project will be reviewed by the City for approval and measure BIO-8 would be followed. Though at least one oak tree is within the BSA, tree removal and the need for a tree permit is not anticipated. f) No Impact. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan in the project area. In the event
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required; however, the following avoidance and/or minimization measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts. Measure BIO-1: To reduce potential impacts to wildlife, construction will not take place at night, the likely time when wildlife utilized the Creek for migration purposes.
Measure BIO-2: The project will obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. Conditions required by the Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be fully adhered to during the planning and construction of the project.
Measure BIO-3: The project will submit a Section 1602 SAA from CDFW. Conditions required by the Section 1602 SAA will be fully adhered to during the planning and construction of the chosen project alternative.
Measure BIO-4: The project will submit a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 from the ACOE. Conditions required by the Section 404 Nationwide Permit will be fully adhered to during the planning and construction of the chosen project alternative.
Measure BIO-5: Temporary construction staging areas will be strategically placed to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the Sutter Creek and its associated habitats. Temporary and permanent construction impact areas shall be staked in order to contain construction activities within the project boundaries. These protected areas will be marked as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and either staked or fenced with orange snow fencing. ESAs will be delineated in coordination with a biologist familiar with sensitive areas in the BSA.
Measure BIO-6: Vegetation clearing shall only occur within the delineated project boundaries. Trees located in areas along the edge of the construction zone should be trimmed wherever possible. Protected trees will be staked or fenced at a distance that ensures protection of the tree drip line. Trees and vegetation should be removed in the late fall through late winter months as possible. A biological monitor should be onsite during all tree trimming and tree removal.
Measure BIO-7: The Project site shall be re-vegetated to preconstruction conditions with species native to the region.
Measure BIO-8: Removal of any trees, sensitive or unique vegetation protected by Sutter Creek Tree Ordinance (Chapter 13.24 Trees and Landscaping) and City of Sutter Creek Open space Element of the
Page 26 of 60 October 2015 General Plan (Policy 3.19 Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries) shall be approved by the Sutter Creek City Council. All agreed upon measures to mitigate for tree removal shall be implemented.
Measure BIO-9: First order of work will have all vegetation clipped to ground using hand equipment. The vegetation removal will be conducted with the presence of a USFWS-approved biologist who will monitor the area for the presence of CRLF.
Measure BIO-10: Following removal of vegetation, the work area will be fenced with sediment fencing at the upstream and downstream limits of the project and away from the stream at least 100 feet or as appropriate. The fencing shall be buried a minimum of six inches into the ground. The project limits will be flagged and/or signed to prevent the encroachment of construction personnel and equipment into any sensitive areas during project work. Animal exclusion fencing will be checked once per week by construction personnel; trained by a USFWS-approved biologist, to identify weaknesses and all compromised portions shall be repaired and/or replaced immediately. Animal exclusion fencing shall be removed once the construction is completed.
Measure BIO-11: Environmental awareness training shall be conducted prior to the onset of project work for construction personnel to brief them on how to recognize CRLF and how to handle any encounters with CRLF in the work area.
Measure BIO-12: Within 24 hours prior to the onset of vegetation removal, an approved and CRLF experienced biologist will survey the project area for CRLF.
Measure BIO-13: If CRLF are found at any time during project work, construction shall stop and the USFWS shall be contacted immediately for further guidance.
Measure BIO-14: Fueling and maintenance activities shall be a minimum of 100 feet from riparian or aquatic habitats. The project proponent will prepare a spill prevention and clean-up plan.
Measure BIO-15: The project will administer BMPs to protect water quality and control erosion.
Measure BIO-16: If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than five millimeters. Water shall be released or pumped downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain downstream flows during construction. Ideally, the sediment fencing will tie into the outfall of the dewatering system at the ends of the project area to prevent a gap in the exclusion.
Measure BIO-17: Upon completion of construction activities, any barriers to flow shall be removed in a manner that would allow flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate.
Measure BIO-18: Construction of the Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project will be conducted during the low flow season as feasible.
Page 27 of 60 October 2015 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the results of cultural studies and consultation, the project would not cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. A Historic Resources Property Survey Report (HPSR), Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), Historic Property Treatment Plan, and draft Finding of No Adverse Affect have been prepared for this project. The Sutter Creek Bridge (Bridge No. 26-51, Sutter Creek Retaining Wall system, and Sutter Creek Sewer System were previously determined not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within the APE.
The Sutter Creek Historic District (District) was previously determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 process on February 28, 2002 (see Appendix C). In addition, the District is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criteria 1 and 3 and is considered a historical resource for the purpose of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project.
Two commercial properties within the Area of Direct Impact, the Galino Building and attached commercial structure, and the Oneto Brothers Garage, were previously determined eligible for listing in the NRHP as contributors to the Sutter Creek Historic District by consensus through the Section 106 process on February 28, 2002 (see Appendix C). In addition, they are listed in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criteria 1 and 3 and are considered historical resources for the purpose of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project.
One institutional property within the architectural Area of Direct Impact, the Sutter Creek Auditorium/City Hall, was previously determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as an individual property and as a contributor to the Sutter Creek Historic District by consensus through the Section 106 process on February 28, 2002 (see Appendix C). It is individually eligible under Criterion A for its association with the government of Sutter Creek and under Criterion C as a good example of a public building in the vernacular Mission Revival style. It is considered a historic property for the purpose of complying with Section 106 for this
Page 28 of 60 October 2015 undertaking. The period of significance is 1928 to the present. In addition, the property is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criteria 1 and 3 and is considered a historical resource for the purpose of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project.
Nineteen additional commercial and residential properties within the Area of Direct Impact were determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as contributors to the Sutter Creek Historic District in the HRER prepared for this undertaking in February 2015. In addition, they were determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources as contributors to the Sutter Creek Historic District and are considered historical resources for the purpose of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act for this project. The California State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with the determination of eligibility for these properties on May 19, 2015.
With the implementation of the proposed conditions, including a Historic Property Treatment Plan for archaeological site CA-AMA-002 (P-03-00038) and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) (included in the Historic Property Treatment Plan) to protect adjacent contributing historic buildings, including second story balcony supports and a green stone sidewalk that is important to the City, none of these changes, either alone or collectively, will be substantial enough to have an adverse effect on the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of the historic district or any individual historic properties (details are included in the Historic Property Treatment Plan and ESA treatments). Rather, with the condition imposed, the historic properties will retain their integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, as well as their setting. As a result, they will still be able to convey their historic significance and remain eligible for the listing in the NRHP. Therefore, the proposed undertaking will not cause an adverse effect on the Sutter Creek Historic District (including the 21 contributing properties to the historic district located within the ADI), the Sutter Creek City Hall/Auditorium or the prehistoric habitation site, CA-AMA-002 (P-03-00038) [36 CFR 800.5(b)].
Although the replacement bridge would introduce a new feature into the setting of the historic district, the new bridge would replace an existing non-contributing feature. The design and materials of the new bridge are utilitarian in nature and are similar to the existing bridge features. Further, the design and materials of the proposed new bridge are compatible with the historic design features and materials of the surrounding historic district and are therefore consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed design has been approved by the Downtown Commons Committee as meeting the local requirements regarding protection of the character of the surrounding historic district. The approach roadway improvements and sidewalk repairs are also consistent with existing features within the historic district and replace existing non-contributing features of the district within the public right-of-way. Greenstone rock inlaid portions of the sidewalk, which the City would like to retain, and the second-story balcony support posts of National Register-eligible buildings that are located within the sidewalk will be protected in place with ESA measures. Therefore, overall the project would not cause an adverse effect on the significance of the Sutter Creek Historic District in a manner that the district would no longer be eligible for the NRHP.
Since there is a potential prehistoric habitation site, CA-AMA-002 (P-03-00038) in the project’s ADI, that may represent the Native American ethnographic village of Yulani, a Historic Property Treatment Plan has been developed to ensure that the property will not be adversely affected by the proposed construction. There is also the potential for unanticipated effects to buried intact deposits, features, or structural remains associated with the businesses and residences constructed during the late 1800s and early 1900s lie beneath the existing pavement. These resources have the potential to be affected during the proposed utility relocations, street improvements, bridge removal and construction, and sidewalk improvements along Main Street. Therefore, the HPTP addresses these potential archaeological resources as well.
Page 29 of 60 October 2015 With implementation of measures CUL-1 through CUL-7, the project would have less than significant impacts to cultural resources. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An archaeological field survey conducted in June 24, 2010 did not identify any surface indications of historic or prehistoric archaeological resources within the Archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE). The majority of the Archaeological APE was paved, developed/landscaped. Potential sites were not observed. It is Caltrans policy to avoid cultural resources whenever possible. Further investigations may be needed if the site[s] cannot be avoided by the project. If buried cultural materials are encountered during future activities, it is Caltrans policy that work stop in the area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. Additional survey will be required if the project changes to include areas not previously surveyed. The proposed project is not anticipated to impact archaeological resources. Native American groups were consulted during preparation of the project’s Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). With measure CUL- 4, the impacts to resources would be avoided and minimized. c) No Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to impact paleontological resources. The project area is urbanized and has been disturbed previously for the existing bridge and surrounding development. Bedrock at the project site is shallow and is not anticipated to yield paleontological resources. d) No Impact. Disturbance to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries is not anticipated because the project site is already highly disturbed from existing roadways and development. Minimization Measure CUL-4 would further avoid affects on human remains if discovered.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required; however, the following avoidance and/or minimization measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts. CUL-1: Design of the railings, sidewalks, and seating furniture on the new bridge will be architecturally consistent with and sympathetic to the historic design elements of similar historic features in the proposed Sutter Creek Historic District.
CUL-2: Vibration and other work adjacent to the historic properties will be monitored and steps taken to reduce any harmful vibration that would potentially damage historic properties. Construction contractors will be encouraged to establish their staging areas outside the historic district to avoid further disruption or damage to the district. Adjacent buildings will be protected from inadvertent physical damage by the use of fencing or other barriers.
CUL-3: The City of Sutter Creek will be kept informed of project schedules, any barriers, or other temporary improvements that may injure business or damage the historic district.
CUL-4: If human remains are discovered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall cease in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the County Coroner contacted. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who will then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains will contact Gary Jones, California Department of Transportation District 8, so that they may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable.
CUL-5: All designs and plans have been reviewed and approved by the Downtown Commons Committee to ensure that they are sympathetic to and in keeping with the historic character of the Historic District in accordance with Sutter Creek’s historic municipal ordinances and general plan. The Downtown Commons Page 30 of 60 October 2015 Committee approved the plans on June 17, 2015 via e-mail. Any changes to the plans in the future will be re-reviewed by the Downtown Commons Committee, as applicable.
CUL-6: Greenstone rock inlaid portions of the sidewalk, which the City would like to retain, and the second-story balcony support posts of National Register-eligible buildings that are located within the sidewalk will be protected in place with ESA measures. The measures are outlined in the ESA Action Plan that is contained in the Historic Property Treatment Plan.
CUL-7: Vibration and other work adjacent to the historic properties will be monitored and steps taken to reduce harmful vibration that would potentially damage historic properties. This will include placing a vibration monitor on the Auditorium/City Hall building to identify the level of vibration caused by the adjacent construction and stopping construction if a construction monitor identifies any cracking to the foundation of the building, until the building can be inspected by a structural engineer to ensure that the damage caused to the building will not cause adverse damage to the structure. If adverse physical damage is caused to the adjacent building as a result of the construction activities, the building shall be stabilized using temporary shoring and the construction methods shall be re-assessed to determine a less damaging construction method before construction can re-commence. Any damage caused to the adjacent historic building shall be repaired at the contractor’s expense. The City of Sutter Creek will be kept informed of project schedules, any barriers, or other temporary improvements that may injure business or damage the historic district. The prehistoric habitation site, CA-AMA-002 (P-03-00038) shall be addressed in accordance with the measures outlined in the Historic Property Treatment Plan.
Page 31 of 60 October 2015 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to 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 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? a (i-iv) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site does not lie within or adjacent to an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 2007). Active faulting has not been mapped as occurring across or adjacent to the project site (California Division of Mines and Geology 1994). No known late Quaternary faults pass near or trend directly toward the project site. Surface rupture, due to faulting within the project site, is not anticipated to occur unless some unknown fault was to rupture.
A seismic study was performed at the site to develop seismic design parameters for the proposed project. The project site is located within an area of high seismicity with forty-one (41) faults
Page 32 of 60 October 2015 within a 63-mile radius. The proposed project is designed in accordance with design and construction requirements of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrans Design Specifications, and applicable seismic standards. Structures would be designed according to recommended seismic values as defined by the California Building Code 2007 (CBC). As a result, no significant exposure to strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and landslides, is anticipated. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project takes place largely at existing paved areas, and would disturb roughly 3.33 acres (considering grading limits, road improvements, and right-of-way). Minor topsoils, consisting of the natural accumulation of trees, grasses, and weeds, are anticipated at the project site. Removal of the organic matter to a depth of 2- to 6- inches will be required. Clearing and grubbing operations would be performed in accordance with recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Design Report (2010) and requirements specified in the latest Caltrans Specifications, and as a result, there would be less than significant impact. Additionally, with Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion control measures implemented under the NPDES permit (see minimization measures HYD-1 through HYD-23 under the Hydrology and Water Quality section), impacts would be minimized. c) Less Than Significant Impact. An evaluation of the site soils was performed to determine the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading at the site. The liquefaction analysis showed that there is a low chance of global liquefaction (liquefying of all the site soils) occurring at the site. This is due to the lack of identified ground water in the upper soils, and medium dense to very dense nature of the site granular soils, which are not typically susceptible to liquefaction. Dry dynamic settlement analysis was also performed. The site is expected to experience low dry dynamically induced settlements along the retaining walls. Also, as discussed in a (i-iv), the proposed project is designed in accordance with design and construction requirements of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrans Design Specifications, and applicable seismic standards. As a result, the project would have a significant potential to result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d) No Impact. Fill at the project site typically consists of loose to medium dense well-graded sand with silt and poorly-graded sand with silt; medium dense poorly-graded sand with gravel; and medium dense to dense silty sand. Native soils typically consist of thickly bedded layers of dense to very dense well-graded sand; very dense poorly-graded sand; medium dense to very dense poorly-graded sand with silt; and dense to very dense well-graded sand with silt; and dense to very dense silty sand. These soils are non-expansive. e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Page 33 of 60 October 2015 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a & b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed bridge would have the same number of lanes as the existing bridge and, as a result, the project would not impact long-term operational traffic. There would be no difference between existing greenhouse gas emissions from traffic and traffic emissions resulting from the proposed project.
While construction vehicles and equipment may emit greenhouse gases, this would be temporary and intermittent and as a result, is considered a less than significant impact.
For comparison purposes, emissions were estimated using the Roadway Construction Emissions Model (Version 7.1.5.1, December 2013). Emissions were estimated to be approximately 800 metric tons of CO2 for the entire bridge project, which is anticipated to take 7 months to construct. While the Amador Air District currently has not established a greenhouse gas construction threshold, this number was compared to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s recommended threshold of significance for greenhouse gas construction emission, which is 1,100 metrics of CO2 per year. The proposed project would result in CO2 emissions less than generally recommended thresholds.
The project would implement the use of energy efficient lighting, such as LED traffic signals, if appropriate.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required; however, the following avoidance and/or minimization measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts. CC-1: The project would incorporate the use of energy efficient lighting, such as LED traffic signals as appropriate.
Page 34 of 60 October 2015 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Potentially Less Than Less Than No MATERIALS: Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Page 35 of 60 October 2015 a) Less than Significant. The proposed project is designed to accommodate current and future traffic on the existing facility and is not anticipated to induce new additional transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would not be significant based on background research of hazardous materials in the project vicinity and implementation of precautionary measures. A Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (October 2010) was prepared for the proposed project. The ISA evaluated the potential for hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons to exist within the study area, and was based on a governmental records search, select agency interviews, aerial photograph and topographic map review and visual site survey. The following information is from the ISA.
Previous Studies
A report entitled “Dual Phase Extraction Pilot Test Results Report for the Sierra Trading Post #10, 121 Hanford Street, Sutter Creek, California”; dated January 25, 2010 was prepared by APEX Envirotech, Inc. This site is located approximately ¼-mile to the northwest from the study area. The report included some background on the property and indicated it was operated as a gasoline/diesel station (Jon’s Pit Stop, 1998) and that soil and groundwater contamination had occurred due to an unauthorized release of petroleum hydrocarbons. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) case file was opened in 1998. Various site investigations/remediation had occurred from 1998 to the present, including the installation of several groundwater monitoring wells.
A report entitled “Revised Final Preliminary Endangerment Assessment was prepared for the Old Eureka Mine and Salvage Yard, Sutter Creek, California” was prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated October 31, 2006. The Old Eureka Mine site is located approximately ¼-mile southeast of the study area. In summary the report described that the Old Eureka Mine operated as a gold mine circa 1850 to 1941, reopened in 1945 and finally ceased mining operations in 1953. The site was then used by a logging trucking company and finally as a salvage yard which continued operations until 2005. A Phase II investigation confirmed that there were hazardous materials/hazardous waste impacts to the site from past uses including elevated levels of arsenic, chromium and TPH as diesel and motor oil. This report indicated that a Remedial Action Workplan (RAW) would need to be prepared for this property to describe the site contamination, evaluate various remediation alternatives, select an alternative and provide an engineering plan for the selected alternative.
A letter entitled “Concurrence with Closure for Amador Motors, 33 Main Street, Sutter Creek, Amador County”, prepared by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (CVRWQCB), dated August 4, 1993, described that site contamination had occurred due to leaking underground fuel tanks. The former Amador Motors property is situated within the study area and is bounded by Sutter Creek to the north, Main Street to the east, Badger Street to the south and residential properties to the west. Documents pertaining to this site indicated that the site contained one 1,000-gallon gasoline tank and two 550-gallon gasoline tanks, which were removed in 1992. At the time of the tank removals high concentrations of petroleum-contaminated soil were encountered and approximately 30 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed from the site and taken to an approved disposal site. Additional soil surrounding the two 550-gallon tanks was not removed because removal of that soil would compromise existing thrust blocks for adjacent high-pressure water mains. However, several subsequent studies have indicated that the site has been remediated and that no further action at this site was required.
A Voluntary Cleanup Agreement letter for the Knights Foundry property, located at 81 Eureka Street, Sutter Creek, California was prepared by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), dated April 5, 2008. This site is located on two parcels and situated approximately 500-feet northeast of the study area. The agreement indicated that the site
Page 36 of 60 October 2015 formerly operated as an iron foundry, machine shop and blacksmith shop from 1872 to 1996. Previous studies indicated the presence of elevated concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, total petroleum hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in the surface soils and lead dust inside several buildings.
ISA For the ISA, a summary of the published lists of known hazardous substance sites was provided by Environmental Data Resources (EDR). EDR reviewed standard federal, state, and local listings of known sites and identified 11 sites within 1 mile of the Subject Property.
The Radius Report identified 3 properties located within or immediately adjacent to the study area which are presented on Table 3. The Radius Search identified 8 additional known sites within 1 mile of the study area and they are presented on Table 4.
Table 3 - Properties Within or Adjacent to Study Area
Listing Release ISA Property Location Summary Case Status Acronym Information/ Cleanup
Potter Home Underground fuel No violations HIST UST N/A 27 Main Street tank(s). reported.
City of Sutter Creek HIST Cortese, HIST Underground fuel No violations N/A 18 Main Street UST tank(s). reported.
Former Amador Motors (aka RCRA, FINDS, HIST Small quantity No current Case Closed Foothill Motors) Cortese, LUST, CA generator; violations 33 Main Street FID UST, SWEEPS Underground fuel reported. UST, HAZNET tank(s). Previous site contamination mitigated.
Table 4. Properties within 1 Mile of Study Area
ISA Property Location Listing Summary Release Case Status Acronym Information/ Cleanup Lincoln Mine Project WMUDS/SWAT Solid Waste No violations N/A 7 Eureka Street generator. reported.
Aldo Pinotti HIST UST Underground fuel No violations N/A 35 Spanish Street tank(s). reported.
Jack’s Chevron CA FID UST, HIST Underground fuel No violations N/A 82 Main Street UST tank(s). reported.
Main Street/Gopher Flat Road HIST UST Underground fuel No violations N/A tank(s). reported.
John’s Pit Stop CA FID UST, HIST Small quantity UST, HIST Cortese, generator; 121 Hanford Street Case Open LUST, SWEEPS UST, Underground fuel HAZNET tank(s).
Page 37 of 60 October 2015 Nor-Cal Beverage Co., Inc. HIST UST Underground fuel No violations N/A 25 Gopher Flat Road tank(s). reported.
Knight Foundry VCP, Envirostor Former Foundry No violations N/A 81 Eureka Street reported.
Central Eureka Mine HIST Cal-Sites, Site contamination Site Case Open Old Ridge Road/Eureka Street Cortese, DEED, VCP, contamination RESPONSE, requiring Envirostor mitigation.
The following Table 5 summarizes the findings of the ISA. Table 5. ISA Summary Table Description of Location Description of REC Evidence Found Associated AUL Sutter Creek Bridge that will Potential for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM). New uses of ACM were be demolished/altered due to banned by the EPA in 1989. Revisions to regulations issued by the planned construction activities. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) on June 30, 1995, require that all thermal systems insulation, surfacing materials, and resilient flooring materials installed prior to 1981 be considered Presumed Asbestos None Containing Materials (PAC) and treated accordingly. In order to rebut the Found designation as PAC, OSHA requires that these materials be surveyed, sampled, and assessed in accordance with 40 CFR 763 (Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act [AHERA]). ACM have also been documented in the rail shim sheet packing, bearing pads, support piers, and expansion joint material of bridges. Sutter Creek Bridge that will Potential lead-based paint on painted portions of Sutter Creek Bridge be demolished/altered due to structure over Sutter Creek. Structures constructed prior to 1978 are None planned construction activities. presumed to contain lead-based paint unless proven otherwise, although Found buildings constructed after 1978 may also contain lead-based paints. Existing roadways within Potential lead and heavy metals associated with pavement striping. project boundaries including Implementation of improvements may require the removal and disposal of Main Street, Eureka Street yellow traffic stripe and pavement marking materials (paint, thermoplastic, None and Church Street. permanent tape, and temporary tape). Yellow paints made prior to 1995 may Found exceed hazardous waste criteria under Title 22, California Code of Regulations, and require disposal in a Class I disposal site. Exposed soil and/or rock fill Potential elevated levels of arsenic or other contaminants in the exposed soil None in the project construction and/or rock fill from mine tailings that may have been dumped or used as fill Found area. within the project boundaries. Various pole -mounted Potential PCB’s in pole-mounted electrical transformers. As of the date of electrical transformers this ISA, the existence and/or levels of PCB's associated with the pole- or None adjacent to the project pad-mounted electrical transformers, which may be encountered within the Found boundaries. planned construction area, had not been determined. Natural gas pipeline and Potential explosive hazard associated with the natural gas pipeline and various other pipelines various other pipelines should construction activities extend into the pipeline None located adjacent to, and easements. Found within the project alignment.
Based on the governmental records search, select agency interviews, aerial photograph and topographic map review and visual site survey, the actions under Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures are recommended to verify the presence/extent of Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) and evaluate the potential for remediation during the Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) phase of the Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project.
Page 38 of 60 October 2015 c) No Impact. Currently, vehicles using Main Street may be transporting hazardous material or waste, however, the proposed project would not expose to the public any greater risk since the bridge is an existing facility. The only school within ¼ mi of the project area is the Sutter Creek Primary School at 110 Broad Street, Sutter Creek, CA. d) No Impact. The proposed project is not on a site included in the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, which is also known as the Cortese List. No sites in the Sutter Creek are on the Cortese List (EnviroStar 2015). e & f) No Impact. The nearest airport or privately-owned airport or airstrip is the Amador County Airport, roughly 1 mi southeast of the project site. As a bridge replacement, the project is not anticipated to result in a safety hazard. g) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, there would be no temporary substantial effects to public services such as fire, police, or emergency medical response. Planned lane closures, an emergency detour plan, and an emergency notification plan would be used to manage transportation movements at the construction area. h) No Impact. The project site is adjacent to commercial and residential land uses. No proposed project components are adjacent to, or within, wildlands.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The following actions are recommended to verify the presence/extent of Recognized Environmental Conditions and evaluate the potential for remediation during the Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) phase of the Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project: HAZ-1: Conduct asbestos surveys utilizing a certified consultant prior to any modification to or demolition of the Sutter Creek Bridge structure or other structures that may be altered or demolished to accommodate the planned construction.
HAZ-2: Conduct lead-based paint surveys utilizing a certified consultant prior to modifications/ demolition of the existing Sutter Creek Bridge structure, or other buildings or structures that may be altered or demolished to accommodate the planned construction.
HAZ-3: To avoid impacts from pavement striping during construction it is recommended that testing and removal requirements for yellow striping and pavement marking materials be performed in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provision 15-300 REMOVE TRAFFIC STRIPE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS.
HAZ-4: Perform a preliminary environmental screening for arsenic in areas of exposed soils within the project construction area to determine the possible presence and levels of arsenic from potential mine tailings that may have been dumped within the project boundaries or used as fill. This preliminary screening should consist of soil (and/or rock fill) sampling and laboratory analysis for potentially elevated levels of arsenic within the limits of proposed construction, and/or right-of-way acquisition. Screening levels for arsenic should conform to the State of California Cal-Modified Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG’s) values. Should the preliminary screening encounter elevated levels of arsenic, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) should be performed. The Phase II ESA should consist of subsurface sampling and laboratory analysis and be of sufficient quantity to define the extent and concentration of arsenic within the areal extent and depths of planned construction activities. The Phase II ESA should also provide a Health and Safety Plan for worker safety and Work Plan for handling and disposing of contaminated soil.
Page 39 of 60 October 2015 HAZ-5: Any leaking transformers observed during the course of the project should be considered a potential polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) hazard. A detailed inspection of individual electrical transformers was not conducted for this ISA. However, should leaks from electrical transformers (that will either remain within the construction limits or will require removal and/or relocation) be encountered during construction, the transformer fluid should be sampled and analyzed by qualified personnel for detectable levels of PCB's. Should PCBs be detected, the transformer should be removed and disposed of in accordance with the appropriate regulatory agency. Any stained soil encountered below electrical transformers with detectable levels of PCB's should also be handled and disposed of in accordance with the appropriate regulatory agency.
HAZ-5: As is the case for any project that proposes excavation, the potential exists for unknown hazardous contamination to be revealed during project construction (such as previously undetected petroleum hydrocarbon contamination from former underground storage tanks or potential explosive threat if a natural gas transmission pipeline is ruptured during construction). If known or previously unknown hazardous waste/material is encountered during construction, the procedures outlined in Appendix F (Caltrans Hazards Procedures for Construction) shall be followed.
Page 40 of 60 October 2015 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Page 41 of 60 October 2015 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No permanent impacts to water quality are anticipated with the project. Potential permanent impacts from transportation projects typically result from increased storm water runoff and alterations to stream morphology and hydraulics. Stream morphology and hydraulics would undergo little change, as the only difference in the channel would be the reduction of piers under the bridge. Regarding storm water runoff, the amount of impervious surfaces would be slightly less than the existing condition, resulting in similar or lower rates of storm water runoff and no permanent or long-term negative impacts on water quality.
While soil disturbance could temporarily discharge sediments and other materials into the creek during construction, construction Best Management Practices (see measures WQ-1 through WQ- 17) would be implemented to avoid and minimize such impacts. Conditions given by permits are also anticipated to avoid or minimize temporary construction impacts to water quality. As described under IV. Biological Resources, the proposed project would obtain Section 401 and Section 404 permits under the Clean Water Act, as well as a Section 102 Streambed Alteration Agreement (Under the California Fish and Game Code) (see measures WQ-17 through WQ-22). b) No Impact. The project does not propose activities requiring permanent increases in groundwater use because no buildings or new land uses are proposed. c & e) Less Than Significant Impact. Drainage improvements by the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Minor drainage improvements would take place at the approach roadways, including curb and gutter work. Such features are minor and would connect with the city’s existing storm water system. Because the project would have a similar amount of impervious surfaces, and because curb and gutters already exist at the project site, the project would not 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. d & h) No Impact. As discussed in the Location Hydraulic Study (2011) for this project, no impacts to the floodplain are anticipated. The project would increase the floodway due to a lower volume of piers within the channel. Specifically, the project improvements would reduce the bridge columns and the diameter of the piers will be smaller than the existing two piers combined. The project would not impede or redirect flood flows. With an increased floodway, Sutter Creek underneath the bridge would be able to convey the 100-year flood without overtopping the bridge. f) No Impact. The only project features which may have impact on water quality are permanent and temporary storm water flows. These are addressed in answer “a” of this subsection. g) No Impact. The project does not propose housing. i) No Impact. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The project replaces an existing bridge, and the project would provide an increased floodway to convey a 100-year flood.
Page 42 of 60 October 2015 j) No Impact. The proposed project is located 7 mi northeast of the nearest lake, Lake Amador. It is also roughly 100 mi northeast of the ocean. As a result, the project site is not subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required; however, the following avoidance and/or minimization measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts. HYD-1: Work within the live channel of Sutter Creek would be limited to the period between April 15 and October 15 to avoid the rainy season.
HYD-2: Prior to work in or near Sutter Creek, coffer dams, culverts, and/or other temporary water diversion features will be installed to reduce sedimentation during construction; diverted or impounded water will not be discharged into the stream prior to treatment to remove sediment.
HYD-3: Land disturbing activities and the installation of erosion and sedimentation control practices shall be coordinated to reduce on-site erosion and off-site sedimentation. These measures may include mulches (above the mean high water line only), soil binders and erosion control blankets, silt fencing, fiber rolls, sediment desilting basins, sediment traps, and check dams.
HYD-4: Existing vegetation shall be protected where feasible to provide an effective form of erosion and sediment control, as well as watershed protection, landscape beatification, dust and pollution control, noise reduction, and shade. Vegetation shall be preserved using methods such as implementation of year-round temporary fencing prior to clearing and grubbing operations or other soil-disturbing activities in areas where no construction activity is planned.
HYD-5: The area of construction and disturbance would be limited to as small an area as feasible.
HYD-6: Loose bulk materials may be applied to the soil surface as a temporary cover to protect bare soils from rainfall impact, increase infiltration, and reduce runoff and erosion.
HYD-7: Stabilizing material, such as water, shall be applied to the soil surface to prevent the movement of dust at the Project site due to traffic, wind, and grading activities.
HYD-8: All areas shall be restored to pre-construction contours and revegetated with native species. Hydroseeding would be implemented as a temporary measure, if feasible.
HYD-9: Provide berms along the tops of slopes to prevent water from running uncontrolled down the slopes.
HYD-10: Collect the water in these berms and take it down the slopes in an erosion-proof drainage system. Sediment that is collected within these berms would be allowed to "settle out" and would be removed from the site.
HYD-11: Provide energy dissipaters and erosion control pads at the bottom of slope drains. Other flow conveyance control mechanisms may include earth dikes, swales, or ditches. Stream bank stabilization measures should also be implemented.
HYD-12: All construction related materials would be hauled off-site after completion of construction.
HYD-13: All erosion control measures and storm water control measures would be properly maintained until the site has returned to a pre-construction state.
Page 43 of 60 October 2015 HYD-14: All construction roadway areas would be properly protected to prevent excess erosion, sedimentation, and water pollution.
HYD-15: All vehicle and equipment maintenance procedures would be conducted off-site. In the event of an emergency, maintenance would occur away from the stream channel.
HYD-16: All concrete curing activities would be conducted to minimize spray drift and prevent curing compounds from entering the waterway directly or indirectly.
HYD-17: All construction materials, vehicles, stockpiles, and staging areas would be situated outside of the stream channel as feasible. All stockpiles would be covered, as feasible.
HYD-18: The water pollution control plan shall include measures to avoid creating contaminants, minimize the release of contaminants, and water quality control measures to minimize contaminants from entering surface water or percolating into the ground.
HYD-19: The water quality control measures shall address both construction and operation periods.
HYD-20: Fluvial erosion and water pollution related to construction is controlled by a construction water pollution control program, which shall be filed with the appropriate agency and kept current throughout any site development phase.
HYD-21: The water pollution control program shall include best management practices as appropriate, given the specific circumstances of the site and/or project.
HYD-22: The RWQCB may request to comment and approve the Water Pollution Control Plan.
HYD-23: A spill prevention and countermeasure plan would be incorporated into the Water Pollution Control Plan.
Page 44 of 60 October 2015 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Less Than Significant Impact. As the replacement of an existing bridge, the project would not physically divide an established community. During construction, disruption of the downtown area would be minimized through staging. Automobile and pedestrian traffic through Main Street would be maintained by having one side of the bridge open. b) No Impact. Applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations include the City of Sutter Creek General Plan (2009) and the Amador County Transportation Commission Regional Transportation Plan). The project is listed under the Highway Bridge Program as Project ID 3359, “BRIDGE NO. 26C0051, Main Street OVER Sutter Creek, in City of Sutter Creek. Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.” c) No Impact. As also discussed under IV. Biological Resources, the project area is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are proposed.
Page 45 of 60 October 2015 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a & b) No Impact. The project does not change land uses at the site. While mineral resources do exist in the City of Sutter Creek, no known mineral resources are at the project site. Further, the bridge is an existing feature surrounded by commercial development.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Page 46 of 60 October 015 XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a, c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not a Type 1 project as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772.5(h) because it does not significantly change the horizontal or vertical alignment of the existing highway and does not increase the number of through-traffic lanes. Because the project would not increase traffic capacity, it is not anticipated to increase traffic noise in the long-run. Potential project noise impacts are therefore limited to construction noise. b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Without mitigation measures, demolition of the bridge and excavation of the channel for bridge piles could potentially result in substantial ground borne vibration or noise levels. Because the bridge is within the Sutter Creek Historic District and is adjacent to historic buildings, the State Historic Preservation Officer requested that “vibration and other work adjacent to the historic properties [will] be monitored and steps taken to reduce any harmful vibration that would potentially damage historic properties” to prevent adverse effect on such properties. As a mitigation measure, the project will incorporate vibration monitoring during construction as described in measure NOI-4.
Page 47 of 60 October 2015 d) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction of the project, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. The project would comply with the Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 7- 1.01I, “Sound Control Requirements,” which states that noise levels generated during construction shall comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, and that all equipment shall be fitted with adequate mufflers according to the manufacturers’ specifications.
Generally, noise levels at construction sites can vary from 55 dBA to a maximum of nearly 96 dBA when heavy equipment is used. Construction noise of this project would be intermittent, and noise levels would vary depending on the type of construction activity. For this project, lowest construction equipment-related noise levels would be 55 dBA at a distance of 50 ft for sound from a pick-up truck. Highest noise levels would be up to 90 dBA (at a distance of 50 ft) for a hoe ram and a concrete saw. A jackhammer, which would be up to 85 dBA at a distance of 50 ft, would also be used.
No adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated because construction would be conducted in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8.02 and applicable local noise standards. Construction noise would be short-term and intermittent. Construction is expected to take approximately seven months. Further, implementing measures NOI-1 through NOI-4 would minimize the temporary noise impacts from construction. e & f) No Impact. The nearest airport or privately-owned airport or airstrip is the Amador County Airport, roughly 1 mi southeast of the project site. Because the project does not add capacity and would not increase traffic, as also discussed in answer “a, c” above, the project is not anticipated to expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise.
Page 48 of 60 October 2015 Figure 7. Noise Levels of Common Activities
Page 49 of 60 October 2015 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Abatement Measures
No mitigation is required; however, the following standard specifications, avoidance and/or minimization measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts. NOI-1: The Contractor shall follow Caltrans Section 14-8.02 of the Standard Specifications. As such:
o The noise level from the Contractor’s operations, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., shall not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. This requirement shall not relieve the Contractor from responsibility for complying with local ordinances regulating noise level.
o Internal combustion engines would be equipped with the manufacturer-recommended muffler. Internal combustion engines on the job site would not be operated without the appropriate muffler.
NOI-2: As directed by the City of Sutter Creek, the contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, including (but not limited to) changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources.
NOI-3: The Contractor shall follow Section 10.50.120—“Building and construction noise limitations,” as stated in the Sutter Creek Municipal Code:
o It is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects or to operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist or any other construction-type device, between the hours of seven p.m. of one day and seven a.m. of the next day, in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless, beforehand, a permit therefor has been duly obtained form the planning commission. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work as defined in Section 10.50.020 of this chapter.
NOI-4: Vibration and other work adjacent to the historic properties will be monitored and steps taken to reduce any harmful vibration that would potentially damage historic properties.
Page 50 of 60 October 2015 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Induce substantial 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 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) No Impact. The project replaces an existing bridge with a new bridge. The proposed project does not add accessibility to new areas and therefore is not anticipated to induce population growth. b & c) No Impact. The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, nor would it displace substantial numbers of people. Right-way-needs are not anticipated to affect neighboring commercial properties, and would not permanently displace housing, businesses, or people. Since any acquisitions would be minor and no relocations or acquisition of existing homes would occur, right-of-way acquisition from the project would have less than significant effect.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are proposed.
Page 51 of 60 October 2015 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
I) Fire protection?
II) Police protection?
III) Schools?
IV) Parks?
V) Other public facilities? a (i-ii, v) Less Than Significant Impact. No existing fire and police protection or parks are located within the project site.
During construction, there would be no temporary substantial effects to public services such as fire, police, or emergency medical response. Planned lane closures, an emergency detour plan, and an emergency notification plan would be used to manage transportation movements at the construction area.
Since the project would include right-of-way coordination and management of transportation movements during construction (see measure PS-2), the project would have less than significant impact on public services. a (iii-iv) No Impact. There are no schools or parks within the proposed project area. While Minnie Provis Park is just 200 feet east of the project site, the bridge replacement would not prevent access to it or cause disruption of park activities. No mitigation measures would be required.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The following measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts on public facilities (PS-2 is also repeated as TRA-1 in the traffic section): PS-1: Upon completion of the environmental document phase, acquisition efforts would be performed in accordance with the appropriate State and Federal regulations, as well as local policies.
PS-2: Temporary impacts to traffic flow as a result of construction activities would be minimized through construction phasing and signage. Planned lane closures, an emergency detour plan, and an emergency notification plan would be used to manage transportation movements at the construction area.
Page 52 of 60 October 2015 XV. RECREATION: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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? a & b) No Impact. No community, regional, or other recreational facilities are within the proposed project area. The nearest park is Minnie Provis Park, which is roughly 200 feet east of the proposed project limits. As a replacement of an existing bridge, the proposed project would not lead to increased use of the park, and it also would not lead to induced growth or needed additional recreational facilities.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Page 53 of 60 October 2015 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? a) No Impact. The proposed project is programmed under the Local Bridge lump sum grouping in the FSTIP. It is HBP-ID 3359 with the project description: BRIDGE NO. 26C0051, Main Street OVER Sutter Creek, in City of Sutter Creek. Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not change the traffic capacity over the bridge, therefore no permanent long-term effects to traffic would result. Short-term, temporary impacts would be minor delays during construction. Such delays would be minimized through traffic control, construction staging, and signage. Measure TRA-1 would be implemented to minimize traffic delays during construction. c) No Impact. The bridge will be low-lying, similar to the existing bridge, and would not result in airport obstructions. As a replacement of an existing bridge, it would have no effect on air traffic Page 54 of 60 October 2015 patterns and would not result in safety risks regarding the Amador County Airport, which is 1 mi to the southeast. d) No Impact. Design features would comply with Caltrans and City standards or would be approved, as appropriate, as non-standard features. e) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, an emergency detour plan would be used to manage transportation movements at the construction area. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Public transportation at the project area consists of routes handled by Amador Regional Transit System. Three routes run within the project area, through Main Street. The bus lines would not be permanently affected. Construction activities may result in temporary delays and obstacles because traffic would need to be slowed, stopped, or detoured. Bus lines at the project area would be accommodated for with traffic control. The impact would not be substantial due to its temporary nature. Traffic control would be implemented to minimize temporary/construction impacts. No bicycle lanes currently exist, or are planned to be, along Main Street.
Currently, sidewalks at the project site are not compliant with the ADA. Pedestrian features, including sidewalks with grades and curb ramps at intersections that satisfy Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, are included in the project. These features would be along at least one side of all local streets throughout the project limits. All quadrants surrounding the intersection would be accessible by pedestrians.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required; however, the following standard avoidance and/or minimization measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts. TRA-1: Temporary impacts to traffic flow as a result of construction activities would be minimized through construction phasing and signage. Planned lane closures, an emergency detour plan, and an emergency notification plan would be used to manage transportation movements at the construction area.
Page 55 of 60 October 2015 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE Potentially Less Than Less Than No SYSTEMS: Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) No Impact. As a transportation project, no wastewater would result from the facility. b) No Impact. As a transportation project, no new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities would be required. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes storm water drainage improvements along Main Street. Drainage improvements would connect with the City’s existing drainage system. Construction of these improvements take place within the existing Main Street and would not require a new or substantial expansion of drainage facilities.
Page 56 of 60 October 2015 d) No Impact. As a bridge replacement, the project does not require additional water supplies. No impact to existing entitlements would result. e) No Impact. As a transportation project, no impacts from, or to, wastewater treatment services would result. f) Less Than Significant Impact. As a transportation project, the project would not generate substantial solid waste during operation. Some litter may occur on the roadway, but this is not anticipated to be more than that is currently generated. During construction, solid waste may be generated from modification of sidewalks and currently paved portions, however, the amount is not expected to exceed landfill capacities. g) No Impact. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are necessary.
Page 57 of 60 October 2015 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Measures BIO-9 through BIO-18 would be implemented to avoid impacts to California red-legged frog, and with implementation of Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3, no adverse effect on historic resources would result.
b) No Impact. Since the project replaces an existing bridge, it does not have cumulatively considerable impacts when viewed in connection with the effects of past
c) Less Than Significant Impact. No substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, are anticipated. Construction noise would be minimized through timing restrictions. Traffic control would be implemented to manage traffic movements and allow for emergency vehicles as needed.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Page 58 of 60 October 2015 List of Preparers
The following is a list of persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study.
City of Sutter Creek
Amy Gedney, City Manager
Dokken Engineering
Rebecca Neilon, P.E., Project Engineer.
Matt Griggs, P.E., Project Manager.
Namat Hosseinion, Senior Environmental Planner. B.A. and M.A., Anthropology; 16 years environmental planning experience. Contribution: Environmental Manager.
Cherry Brent, Associate Environmental Planner. B.A. and M.A., Geography; 11 years environmental planning experience. Contribution: Environmental document preparation.
Amy Dunay, Environmental Planner/Archaeologist, Registered Professional Archaeologist; M.A. in Archaeology, B.A. in Classics; 9 years of experience in California prehistoric and historical archaeology. Contribution: Historic Property Survey Report, Cultural Documentation.
Sarah Holm, Associate Environmental Planner. B.A., Biology and B.S., Environmental Science; 9 years environmental planning experience. Contribution: Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts).
Page 59 of 60 October 2015 PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Page 60 of 60 October 2015 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Appendix A Mitigation/Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: Aesthetics AES-1: Design of the railings, sidewalks, and seating furniture on the new City Final Design bridge will be architecturally consistent with and sympathetic to the historic design elements of similar historic features in the proposed Sutter Creek Historic District.
Air Quality AQ-1: Route and schedule construction traffic to avoid peak travel times City, Contractor Construction as much as possible, to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling vehicles along local roads.
AQ-2: The construction contractor shall comply with Caltrans’ Standard Specifications Section 14-9 Air Quality.
AQ-3: Amador County Air Pollution Control District’s Rule 218-Fugitive Dust Emissions would be followed. The general requirements of Rule 218 are:
No person may cause, allow or permit fugitive dust emissions without first implementing good housekeeping and/or work practices that reduce and control the emissions to the atmosphere below 20% opacity or equivalent Ringlemann, as stated in Rule 202, Visible Emissions. Good housekeeping and/or work practices include but are not limited to the following:
Application of water and/or approved chemicals to control emissions in the demolition of existing buildings or structures, construction operations, solid waste disposal operations, the grading of roads and/or the clearing of land.
Application of asphalt, water and/or approved chemicals to road surfaces.
Application of water and/or suitable chemicals to material stockpiles and other surfaces that Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: may generate fugitive dust emissions.
Paving and/or re-paving roads.
Maintenance of roadways in a clean condition by washing with water or sweeping promptly.
Covering or wetting material stockpiles and open-bodied trucks, trailers, or other vehicles transporting materials that may generate fugitive dust emissions when in motion.
Installation and use of paved entry aprons or other effective cleaning techniques to remove dirt accumulating on a vehicle's wheels on haul or access roads to prevent tracking onto paved roadways.
For process equipment, the installation and use of hoods, fans, and filters to enclose, collect, and clean the emissions prior to venting.
Ceasing operations until fugitive emissions can be reduced and controlled.
Using vegetation and other barriers to contain and to reduce fugitive emissions.
Using vegetation for windbreaks.
Instituting good housekeeping practices by regularly removing piles of material that have accumulated in work areas and/or are Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: generated from equipment overflow.
Maintaining reasonable vehicle speeds while driving on unpaved roads in order to minimize fugitive dust emissions.
Other precautions not specifically listed in this rule but have been approved in writing by the Air Pollution Control Officer prior to implementation. Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: Measure BIO-1: To reduce potential impacts to wildlife, construction will City, California Final Design and not take place at night, the likely time when wildlife utilized the Creek for Department of Construction migration purposes. Transportation, and Construction Contractor Measure BIO-2: The project will obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. Conditions required by the Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be fully adhered to during the planning and construction of the project.
Measure BIO-3: The project will submit a Section 1602 SAA from CDFG. Conditions required by the Section 1602 SAA will be fully adhered to during the planning and construction of the chosen project alternative.
Measure BIO-4: The project will submit a Section 404 Nationwide Permit Biological Resources 14 from the ACOE. Conditions required by the Section 404 Nationwide (cont’d) Permit will be fully adhered to during the planning and construction of the chosen project alternative.
Measure BIO-5: Temporary construction staging areas will be strategically
placed to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the Sutter Creek and its
associated habitats. Temporary and permanent construction impact areas
shall be staked in order to contain construction activities within the project
boundaries. These protected areas will be marked as Environmentally
Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and either staked or fenced with orange snow
fencing. ESAs will be delineated in coordination with a biologist familiar
with sensitive areas in the BSA.
Measure BIO-6: Vegetation clearing shall only occur within the delineated project boundaries. Trees located in areas along the edge of the construction zone should be trimmed wherever possible. Protected trees will be staked or fenced at a distance that ensures protection of the tree drip line. Trees and vegetation should be removed in the late fall through late winter months as possible. A biological monitor should be onsite during all tree trimming and tree removal.
Biological Resources (cont’d)
Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: Measure BIO-6: Vegetation clearing shall only occur within the delineated project boundaries. Trees located in areas along the edge of the construction zone should be trimmed wherever possible. Protected trees will be staked or fenced at a distance that ensures protection of the tree drip line. Trees and vegetation should be removed in the late fall through late winter months as possible. A biological monitor should be onsite during all tree trimming and tree removal.
Measure BIO-7: The Project site shall be re-vegetated to preconstruction conditions with species native to the region.
Measure BIO-8: Removal of any trees, sensitive or unique vegetation protected by Sutter Creek Tree Ordinance (Chapter 13.24 Trees and Landscaping) and City of Sutter Creek Open space Element of the General Plan (Policy 3.19 Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries) shall be approved by the Sutter Creek City Council. All agreed upon measures to mitigate for tree removal shall be implemented.
Measure BIO-9: First order of work will have all vegetation clipped to ground using hand equipment. The vegetation removal will be conducted with the presence of a USFWS-approved biologist who will monitor the area for the presence of CRLF.
Measure BIO-10: Following removal of vegetation, the work area will be fenced with sediment fencing at the upstream and downstream limits of the project and away from the stream at least 100 feet or as appropriate. The fencing shall be buried a minimum of six inches into the ground. The project limits will be flagged and/or signed to prevent the encroachment of construction personnel and equipment into any sensitive areas during project work. Animal exclusion fencing will be checked once per week by construction personnel; trained by a USFWS-approved biologist, to identify weaknesses and all compromised portions shall be repaired and/or replaced immediately. Animal exclusion fencing shall be removed once the construction is completed.
Measure BIO-11: Environmental awareness training shall be conducted prior to the onset of project work for construction personnel to brief them
Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: on how to recognize CRLF and how to handle any encounters with CRLF in the work area.
Measure BIO-12: Within 24 hours prior to the onset of vegetation removal, an approved and CRLF experienced biologist will survey the project area for CRLF.
Measure BIO-13: If CRLF are found at any time during project work, construction shall stop and the USFWS shall be contacted immediately for further guidance.
Measure BIO-14: Fueling and maintenance activities shall be a minimum of 100 feet from riparian or aquatic habitats. The project proponent will prepare a spill prevention and clean-up plan.
Measure BIO-15: The project will administer BMPs to protect water quality and control erosion.
Measure BIO-16: If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than five millimeters. Water shall be released or pumped downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain downstream flows during construction. Ideally, the sediment fencing will tie into the outfall of the dewatering system at the ends of the project area to prevent a gap in the exclusion.
Measure BIO-17: Upon completion of construction activities, any barriers to flow shall be removed in a manner that would allow flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate.
Measure BIO-18: Construction of the Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project will be conducted during the low flow season as feasible. Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: Cultural Resources CUL-1: Design of the railings, sidewalks, and seating furniture on the new City, California Final Design, bridge will be architecturally consistent with and sympathetic to the historic Department of Construction design elements of similar historic features in the proposed Sutter Creek Transportation, and Historic District. Construction Contractor
CUL-2: Vibration and other work adjacent to the historic properties will be monitored and steps taken to reduce any harmful vibration that would potentially damage historic properties. Construction contractors will be encouraged to establish their staging areas outside the historic district to avoid further disruption or damage to the district. Adjacent buildings will be protected from inadvertent physical damage by the use of fencing or other barriers.
CUL-3: The City of Sutter Creek will be kept informed of project schedules, any barriers, or other temporary improvements that may injure business or damage the historic district.
CUL-4: If human remains are discovered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall cease in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the County Coroner contacted. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who will then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains will contact Gary Jones, California Department of Transportation District 8, so that they may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable.
CUL-5: All designs and plans have been reviewed and approved by the Downtown Commons Committee to ensure that they are sympathetic to and in keeping with the historic character of the Historic District in accordance with Sutter Creek’s historic municipal ordinances and general plan. The Downtown Commons Committee approved the plans on June 17, 2015 via e-mail. Any changes to the plans in the future will be re- reviewed by the Downtown Commons Committee, as applicable. Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: CUL-6: Greenstone rock inlaid portions of the sidewalk, which the City would like to retain, and the second-story balcony support posts of National Register-eligible buildings that are located within the sidewalk will be protected in place with ESA measures. The measures are outlined in the ESA Action Plan that is contained in the Historic Property Treatment Plan.
CUL-7: Vibration and other work adjacent to the historic properties will be monitored and steps taken to reduce harmful vibration that would potentially damage historic properties. This will include placing a vibration monitor on the Auditorium/City Hall building to identify the level of vibration caused by the adjacent construction and stopping construction if a construction monitor identifies any cracking to the foundation of the building, until the building can be inspected by a structural engineer to ensure that the damage caused to the building will not cause adverse damage to the structure. If adverse physical damage is caused to the adjacent building as a result of the construction activities, the building shall be stabilized using temporary shoring and the construction methods shall be re-assessed to determine a less damaging construction method before construction can re-commence. Any damage caused to the adjacent historic building shall be repaired at the contractor’s expense. The City of Sutter Creek will be kept informed of project schedules, any barriers, or other temporary improvements that may injure business or damage the historic district. The prehistoric habitation site, CA-AMA-002 (P-03-00038) shall be addressed in accordance with the measures outlined in the Historic Property Treatment Plan.
Greenhouse Gases CC-1: The project would incorporate the use of energy efficient lighting, City, California Final Design such as LED traffic signals as appropriate. Department of Transportation, and Construction Contractor Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: Hazards and Hazardous HAZ-1: Conduct asbestos surveys utilizing a certified consultant prior to City, California Final Design, Materials any modification to or demolition of the Sutter Creek Bridge structure or Department of Prior to other structures that may be altered or demolished to accommodate the Transportation, and Construction, planned construction. Construction Contractor Construction
HAZ-2: Conduct lead-based paint surveys utilizing a certified consultant prior to modifications/ demolition of the existing Sutter Creek Bridge structure, or other buildings or structures that may be altered or demolished to accommodate the planned construction.
HAZ-3: To avoid impacts from pavement striping during construction it is recommended that testing and removal requirements for yellow striping and pavement marking materials be performed in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provision 15-300 REMOVE TRAFFIC STRIPE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS.
HAZ-4: Perform a preliminary environmental screening for arsenic in areas of exposed soils within the project construction area to determine the possible presence and levels of arsenic from potential mine tailings that may have been dumped within the project boundaries or used as fill. This preliminary screening should consist of soil (and/or rock fill) sampling and laboratory analysis for potentially elevated levels of arsenic within the limits of proposed construction, and/or right-of-way acquisition. Screening levels for arsenic should conform to the State of California Cal-Modified Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG’s) values. Should the preliminary screening encounter elevated levels of arsenic, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) should be performed. The Phase II ESA should consist of subsurface sampling and laboratory analysis and be of sufficient quantity to define the extent and concentration of arsenic within the areal extent and depths of planned construction activities. The Phase II ESA should also provide a Health and Safety Plan for worker safety and Work Plan for handling and disposing of contaminated soil.
HAZ-5: Any leaking transformers observed during the course of the project should be considered a potential polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) hazard. A detailed inspection of individual electrical transformers was not conducted for this ISA. However, should leaks from electrical transformers (that will either remain within the construction limits or will require removal Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: and/or relocation) be encountered during construction, the transformer fluid should be sampled and analyzed by qualified personnel for detectable levels of PCB's. Should PCBs be detected, the transformer should be removed and disposed of in accordance with the appropriate regulatory agency. Any stained soil encountered below electrical transformers with detectable levels of PCB's should also be handled and disposed of in accordance with the appropriate regulatory agency.
HAZ-5: As is the case for any project that proposes excavation, the potential exists for unknown hazardous contamination to be revealed during project construction (such as previously undetected petroleum hydrocarbon contamination from former underground storage tanks or potential explosive threat if a natural gas transmission pipeline is ruptured during construction). If known or previously unknown hazardous waste/material is encountered during construction, the procedures outlined in Appendix F (Caltrans Hazards Procedures for Construction) shall be followed.
Hydrology and Water HYD-1: Work within the live channel of Sutter Creek would be limited to Construction Contractor Construction Quality the period between April 15 and October 15 to avoid the rainy season.
HYD-2: Prior to work in or near Sutter Creek, coffer dams, culverts, and/or other temporary water diversion features will be installed to reduce sedimentation during construction; diverted or impounded water will not be discharged into the stream prior to treatment to remove sediment.
HYD-3: Land disturbing activities and the installation of erosion and sedimentation control practices shall be coordinated to reduce on-site erosion and off-site sedimentation. These measures may include mulches (above the mean high water line only), soil binders and erosion control blankets, silt fencing, fiber rolls, sediment desilting basins, sediment traps, and check dams.
HYD-4: Existing vegetation shall be protected where feasible to provide an effective form of erosion and sediment control, as well as watershed protection, landscape beatification, dust and pollution control, noise reduction, and shade. Vegetation shall be preserved using methods such Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: as implementation of year-round temporary fencing prior to clearing and grubbing operations or other soil-disturbing activities in areas where no construction activity is planned.
HYD-5: The area of construction and disturbance would be limited to as small an area as feasible.
HYD-6: Loose bulk materials may be applied to the soil surface as a temporary cover to protect bare soils from rainfall impact, increase infiltration, and reduce runoff and erosion.
HYD-7: Stabilizing material, such as water, shall be applied to the soil surface to prevent the movement of dust at the Project site due to traffic, wind, and grading activities.
HYD-8: All areas shall be restored to pre-construction contours and revegetated with native species. Hydroseeding would be implemented as a temporary measure, if feasible.
HYD-9: Provide berms along the tops of slopes to prevent water from running uncontrolled down the slopes.
HYD-10: Collect the water in these berms and take it down the slopes in an erosion-proof drainage system. Sediment that is collected within these berms would be allowed to "settle out" and would be removed from the site.
HYD-11: Provide energy dissipaters and erosion control pads at the bottom of slope drains. Other flow conveyance control mechanisms may include earth dikes, swales, or ditches. Stream bank stabilization measures should also be implemented.
HYD-12: All construction related materials would be hauled off-site after completion of construction.
HYD-13: All erosion control measures and storm water control measures would be properly maintained until the site has returned to a pre- Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: construction state.
HYD-14: All construction roadway areas would be properly protected to prevent excess erosion, sedimentation, and water pollution.
HYD-15: All vehicle and equipment maintenance procedures would be conducted off-site. In the event of an emergency, maintenance would occur away from the stream channel.
HYD-16: All concrete curing activities would be conducted to minimize spray drift and prevent curing compounds from entering the waterway directly or indirectly.
HYD-17: All construction materials, vehicles, stockpiles, and staging areas would be situated outside of the stream channel as feasible. All stockpiles would be covered, as feasible.
HYD-18: The water pollution control plan shall include measures to avoid creating contaminants, minimize the release of contaminants, and water quality control measures to minimize contaminants from entering surface water or percolating into the ground.
HYD-19: The water quality control measures shall address both construction and operation periods.
HYD-20: Fluvial erosion and water pollution related to construction is controlled by a construction water pollution control program, which shall be filed with the appropriate agency and kept current throughout any site development phase.
HYD-21: The water pollution control program shall include best management practices as appropriate, given the specific circumstances of the site and/or project.
HYD-22: The RWQCB may request to comment and approve the Water Pollution Control Plan. Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: HYD-23: A spill prevention and countermeasure plan would be incorporated into the Water Pollution Control Plan.
Noise NOI-1: The Contractor shall follow Caltrans Section 14-8.02 of the City, Construction Construction Standard Specifications. As such: Contractor
o The noise level from the Contractor’s operations, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., shall not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. This requirement shall not relieve the Contractor from responsibility for complying with local ordinances regulating noise level.
o Internal combustion engines would be equipped with the manufacturer-recommended muffler. Internal combustion engines on the job site would not be operated without the appropriate muffler.
NOI-2: As directed by the City of Sutter Creek, the contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, including (but not limited to) changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources.
NOI-3: The Contractor shall follow Section 10.50.120—“Building and construction noise limitations,” as stated in the Sutter Creek Municipal Code:
o It is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects or to operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist or any other construction-type device, Implementation Resource Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation Measure Responsible Party During: between the hours of seven p.m. of one day and seven a.m. of the next day, in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless, beforehand, a permit therefor has been duly obtained form the planning commission. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work as defined in Section 10.50.020 of this chapter.
NOI-4: Vibration and other work adjacent to the historic properties will be monitored and steps taken to reduce any harmful vibration that would potentially damage historic properties.
Public Services PS-1: Upon completion of the environmental document phase, acquisition City, California Prior to efforts would be performed in accordance with the appropriate State and Department of Construction, Federal regulations, as well as local policies. Transportation, and Construction Construction Contractor PS-2: Temporary impacts to traffic flow as a result of construction activities would be minimized through construction phasing and signage, as described in the Traffic Control Plan. Planned lane closures, an emergency detour plan, and an emergency notification plan would be used to manage transportation movements at the construction area.
Transportation/Traffic TRA-1: Temporary impacts to traffic flow as a result of construction City, California Final Design, activities would be minimized through construction phasing and signage. Department of Construction Planned lane closures, an emergency detour plan, and an emergency Transportation, and notification plan would be used to manage transportation movements at Construction Contractor the construction area. Appendix B Responses to Public Comments (June 30, 2015—July 29, 2015)
Comment 1: Trevor Cleak, Environmental Scientist, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (July 22, 2015)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Comment 1A: Construction Storm Water General Permit Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Response 1A: The Construction General Permit was included as a required permit in the Draft Initial Study and is included in the Final Initial Study. Please see pages 8 and 32 of the Final Initial Study.
Comment 1B: Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittees reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/post-construction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process. Response 1B: Response 1C: Industrial Storm Water General Permit Storm water discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ. Response 1C: Since the project is not an industrial site, the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No 2014-0057-DWQ was not added to the Final Initial Study. Comment 1D: Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed form the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACOE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. Response 1D: A Section 404 (Nationwide Permit 14) is anticipated for this project. The Section 404 permit was discussed on page 25 and measure BIO-4 of the Draft Initial Study. It has also been added to page 9 of the Final Initial Study. A Section 1602 permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife was also discussed in measure BIO-3. The Section 1602 permit has also been added to page 9 of the Final Initial Study. Comment 1E: Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification. If an USACOE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certification. Response 1E: A Section 401 is anticipated for this project. The Section 401 permit was discussed on page 25 and measure BIO-2 of the Draft Initial Study. It has also been added to page 9 of the Final Initial Study. Comment 1F: If USACOE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “non-federal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project will require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. Response 1F: Thank you. This comment is acknowledged. Comment 1G: If the property will be used for commercial irrigated agricultural, the discharger will be required to obtain regulatory coverage under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. Response 1G: The property will not be used for commercial irrigated agriculture. Comment 1H: If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Response 1H: The project does not include construction dewatering and the project does not require discharge of groundwater to waters of the United States.
Comment 2: Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse (August 17, 2015)
Response 2: Thank you for your comments. They have been included in the Final Initial Study. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s comments are included in the Final Initial Study.
Appendix C SHPO Correspondence
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100 (916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053 [email protected] www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
May 19, 2015 Reply To: FHWA_2015_0410_001
Julie Myrah, Branch Chief Caltrans District 10 Maintenance & Planning Services PO Box 2048 Stockton, CA 95201
Re: Determinations of Eligibility for the Proposed Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project BRLS- 5215 (010) in Sutter Creek, Amador County, CA
Dear Ms. Myrah:
Thank you for consulting with me about the subject undertaking in accordance with the January 1, 2014 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (PA).
Caltrans has determined that the following properties are contributors to the Sutter Creek Historic District, a property previously determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP):
• 50 Main Street • 59 Main Street • 44 Main Street • 53 Main Street • 40 Main Street • 51 Main Street • 38 Main Street • 47 Main Street • 36 Main Street • 43 Main Street • 34 Main Street • 37 Main Street • 32 Main Street • 5 Main Street • 30 Main Street • 7 Main Street • 28 Main Street • 6 Main Street • 14 Main Street
Caltrans has also determined that the building located at 3 Main Street is not eligible for the NRHP either individually or as a contributor to the Sutter Creek Historic District.
Based on my review of the submitted documentation I concur with the foregoing determinations.
Thank you for considering historic properties during project planning. If you have any questions, please contact Natalie Lindquist of my staff at (916) 445-7014 or email at [email protected] .
Sincerely,
Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D. State Historic Preservation Officer
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 10 P.O. Box 2048, STOCKTON, CA 95201 (1976 E. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD. 95205) PHONE (209) 948-7427 Serious drought FAX (209) 948-7782 Help save water! TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov
April 8, 2015
Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph, D. State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816
Attention: Cindy Woodward
Subject: Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR) for the proposed Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement Project BRLS-5215(010) in Sutter Creek, Amador County, California
Dear Dr. Roland-Nawi:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is initiating consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for the above referenced project in accordance with the January 2014 First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and California State Historic Preservation Officer and the California Department ofTransportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act as it pertains to the Administration ofthe Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (PA). Caltrans is transmitting this documentation as part of its NEP A assignment of federal responsibilities by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) pursuant to 23 USC 327. We are consulting with you under Section 106 PA Stipulation VIII.C.6, which requires consultation with the SHPO regarding evaluation of identified properties
Enclosed please find a Historic Property survey Report (HPSR) with attached Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), Archaeological Survey Report (ASR). Under the PA, Caltrans is responsible for ensuring the adequacy of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) (Stipulation VIlLA) and identification efforts (Stipulation VIII.B). Caltrans is consulting with you at the present time under Stipulation VIII.C.6, which requires that we seek your concurrence on Caltrans' determinations of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
In co~unction with Caltrans and the FHWA, Amador County (County) is proposing to replace the Sutter Creek Bridge (#26C0015) over Sutter Creek located on Main Street in the historic district of Sutter Creek. The project would replace the existing 1900/1906 three span 80-foot long by 80-foot wide bridge with a 70 foot long by 79 foot 4 inch single span steel truss or a dual span concrete slab bridge depending on the outcome of the Location Hydraulic Study and Bridge
"Provide a safo, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph. D. April 8, 2015 Page2
Type Selection. For either option, a mid-creek pier may be included. Added pile footings may be placed behind, or new abutment walls may be placed in front of, the existing rock wall abutments for either bridge option. Rehabilitation of the approach roadways as well as curb, ramp, and sidewalk improvements for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act would also be made for a distance of approximately 200 feet north and south of the bridge.
Two Areas of Potential Effect (APE) maps were established for this undertaking, an Archaeological APE and a Historic District (Architectural) APE. Both APEs for this undertaking include the current County right-of-way, right-of-way acquisition, and construction easements for staging; however the Archaeological APE also contains an Area of Direct Impact (AD I). A full project description and depiction of the APEs can be found on pages 2 through 3, and on Figures 3 and 4 ofthe HPSR.
Consultation and identification efforts for the proposed undertaking (summarized on pages 3 to 9 of the IIPSR) resulted in the identification of:
-Two resources previously determined eligible individually for the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP) within the APE: • Sutter Creek Historic District (SHPO, February 28, 2002; FHWA concurred March 18, 2002) (eligible under A and C; period of significance: mid 1850s to late 1920s) • 18 Main Street, Sutter Creek Auditorium/City Hall (SHPO, February 28, 2002; FHWA concurred March 18, 2002) (eligible under A and C)
-Three resources previously determined eligible for the NRHP as contributing elements to the Sutter Creek Historic District within the APE: • 26 Main Street, Galino Building (SHPO, February 28, 2002; FHWA concurred March 18, 2002) • 18 Main Street, Sutter Creek Auditorium/City Hall (SHPO, February 28, 2002; FHWA concurred March 18, 2002) (in addition to being individually eligible under A and C) • 33 Main Street, Amador Motors (Oneto Brothers Garage) (SHPO, February 28, 2002; FHWA concurred March 18, 2002)
-Three resources previously determined not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within the APE:
• Sutter Creek Sewer System (SHPO, February 28, 2002; FHWA concurred March 18, 2002) • Sutter Creek Bridge (Bridge No. 26-51) (SHPO, February 28, 2002; FHWA concurred March 18, 2002) • Sutter Creek Retaining Wall system (SHPO, February 28, 2002; FHWA concurred March 18, 2002)
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph. D. April 8, 2015 Page 3
-Nineteen resources were identified within the APE which appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP as contributors to the Sutter Creek Historic District in accordance with 36 CFR §800.4(c)(1). Pursuant to Stipulation VIII.C.5 of the PA, Caltrans is requesting your concurrence with the following eligibility determination:
• 50 Main Street, Richards Building • 44 Main Street, Ratto Theatre • 40 Main Street, F. Coblentz & Bros. Store • 38 Main Street, David Nathan Store • 36 Main Street, Brinn's Brick Store/Malatesta Building • 34 Main Street, McHenry's Saloon • 32 Main Street, Sutter Creek Hotel • 30 Main Street, Lorenzo Cuneo Plumbing Shop • 28 Main Street, Sutter Creek Antiques • 14 Main Street, Sutter Creek Methodist Church • 59 Main Street, Werner Building • 53 Main Street, American Exchange Hotel • 51 Main Street, Morris and Siebe Drugstore • 47 Main Street, Masonic & Odd Fellows Hall • 43 Main Street, Boitano Residence • 3 7 Main Street, Hubbell Building • 5 Main Street, Tibbits-Campbell House • 7 Main Street, Mitchell-Potter House • 6 Main Street, Commercial Building
· -One resource was identified within the APE which does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP neither individually nor as a contributor to the Sutter Creek Historic District in accordance with 36 CFR §800.4(c)(1). Pursuant to Stipulation VIII.C.6 ofthe PA, Caltrans is requesting your concurrence with the following eligibility determination:
• Tudor Revival single family residence, 3 Main Street This residence was constructed in 1932 and as such, falls outside of the district's period of significance (mid-1850s through late 1920s). Further, most of the properties within the district are either commercial, institutional, or residences of the Mother Lode architectural style, not Tudor Revival, therefore it does not contribute to the overall character and feeling of the historic district.
No other architectural or archaeological resources requiring evaluation were identified within the APE.
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph. D. April 8, 2015 Page 4
We look forward to your response regarding the eligibility of the 19 new contributors to the Sutter Creek Historic District and the one Tudor Revival single-family residence within 30 days ofyour receipt ofthis submittal, in accordance with Stipulation VIII.C.6 of the PA.
Once we have concurrence on the eligibility of the above listed resources, Cal trans will apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect, and will continue consultation with the SHPO pursuant to Stipulation X of the PA.
If you have any questions regarding this document, please contact Emilie Zelazo, Associate Environmental Planner (Archaeology), PQS Principal Investigator, Prehistoric Archaeology, at 209-942-6141.
Sincerely,
JULIE MYRAH District 10 Maintenance & Planning Services Branch Chief c. Anmarie Medin, Caltrans Division of Environmental Analysis, Cultural Studies Office Chief Kelly Hobbs, Cal trans DEA, Section 106 Coordination Branch Chief
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability"
Technical Studies Bound Separately
Air Quality Report.
Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment.
Hydrology and Hydraulics Report.
Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts).
Screened Undertaking Memorandum
Transportation Impact Analysis
Item 10B
STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2015 FROM: DEREK COLE, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: CONTINUED ITEM: DIRECT STAFF REGARDING THE REFERENDUM PETITION RECEIVED CONCERNING THE SOLID- WASTE RATE INCREASES APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 (RESOLUTION 15-16-11)
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Attorney continues to recommend the City Council take no action concerning the referendum. Should the Council agree, the City Attorney has prepared a draft resolution the Council may consider and, if it is the pleasure of the Council (with any amendments), adopt to reflect its reasons for referendum’s rejection.
BACKGROUND:
At the November 2 City Council Meeting, the City Council received a report from the City Attorney regarding the legality of the referendum petition challenging the Council’s approval of increased rates for ACES service. During this meeting, the Amador Ratepayer Protection Alliance (“RPA”) submitted a letter and provided oral comments challenging the City Attorney’s conclusions and recommendations. On November 9, RPA hand-delivered another letter (dated November 3), Attachment A, stating additional grounds in which the challenged the City Attorney’s advice to the Council.
This memorandum addresses the contentions RPA has made in its two letters and during oral presentation to the Council.
{DPC/00040358. } 1 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer
DISCUSSION:
At the November 2, 2015 meeting, and again in its subsequent letter, RPA contended that the constitutional prohibition on referenda challenging tax measures is inapplicable because its referendum challenges not a “tax,” but a “property-related fee” approved under Proposition 218. RPA’s position fails for a number of reasons.
First, RPA’s position is contrary to judicial authority holding that government fees, despite being labeled as something other than taxes, are within the measures subject to the constitutional prohibition at issue, California Constitution, Article II, Section 9(a). Specifically, Community Health Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 990, a post-Proposition 13 case, found that a local measure concerning “license fees, permit fees, charges and/or assessments” fell within the scope of the prohibition. Similarly, in City of Atascadero v. Daly (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 466, also a case decided after Proposition 13, the court found the prohibition applicable to “any device” intended as an “imposition or increase of a source of revenue,” including “fees, charges, service charges, levies and assessments of every sort whatever.” As these cases make clear, the term “tax levy” in Article II, Section 9(a) must be given an expansive reading. The term should be read to cover virtually any device that is intended to raise revenue from the public, property owners, or private parties.
In its subsequent letter, RPA contends that the enactment of Proposition 26 in 2010 somehow undermines this case authority. RPA is incorrect. As explained during the November 2 Council meeting, the Constitution prohibits the use of referenda to challenge tax measures because such referenda can greatly disrupt agencies in their financial planning and administration. (Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 839-840.) This rationale, first expressed nearly 60 years ago, has been repeated consistently in the case law that has interpreted the constitutional prohibition on tax referenda. Proposition 26 did not affect any change in the rationale. Like Proposition 218, Proposition 26 was intended to close a “loophole” created by court rulings allowing local agencies to impose many types of charges not expressly referred to as “taxes.” Proposition 218 closed the “loophole” that led to the widespread use of property-related fees and special assessments after enactment of Proposition 13 in 1978. (See Ballot Arguments in Support of Proposition 218, Exhibit A.) Proposition 26 subsequently closed the “loophole” that developed through agencies charging a wide range of regulatory fees and other charges on goods and services. (See Ballot Arguments in Support of Proposition 26, Exhibit B.) Overall, the goal of both initiatives was to stop agencies from circumventing voter- approval requirements by calling government charges something other than taxes.
Because the goal of Proposition 26, like Proposition 218, was to close a “loophole” allowing “hidden taxes” to be imposed by fees and other charges, RPA’s reliance on the text of Proposition 26 is misplaced. RPA notes that in defining what constitutes a “tax” for purposes of that initiative, Proposition 26 excludes “[a]ssessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with [Proposition 218]” from the definition. (Cal. Const., Art. XIIIC, § 3(e)(7).) But this is simply a reflection that assessments and fees were already subject to popular-approval requirements, and that further modifications to the process for those devices were not necessary or intended. As noted, Proposition 26 was intended to close “loopholes” that still existed (principally in the form of “regulatory” fees and charges) despite the “loopholes” that
{DPC/00040358. } 2 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer
Proposition 218 had closed. Thus, in excepting fees and assessments subject to Proposition 218 from the definition of “tax,” Proposition 26 clarified that it was not amending or superseding the property-owner protections that already existed. The goal was simply to ensure drafting harmony between the two initiatives. No intent to alter the definition of “tax levy” in the separate constitutional provision concerning referenda can reasonably be inferred from the “exception” language of Proposition 26.
Finally, in its subsequent letter to the City Council, RPA disputes the notion that it improperly seeks “two bites at the apple” through its referendum. RPA claims that because Proposition 218 is intended to guarantee property-owner rights, and referenda are intended guarantee voter rights, the majority-protest and referendum processes may both occur. This argument is without support. The constitutional provisions regarding both processes must be interpreted with reference to well-established rules courts use in reconciling statutes.1 Two such rules apply here. These are that: (1) later statutes prevail over earlier ones (People v. Moody (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 987); and (2) specific statutes prevail over general ones (People v. Ahmed (2011) 53 Cal.4th 1532.) These rules are based on judge-created presumptions. The Legislature is presumed to know of the statutes on the books when it enacts new ones; and it is presumed to reject the application of general statutes affecting a subject when it speaks specifically about the subject.
The referendum provision in the California Constitution was originally enacted in 1911 and by its terms is subject to any act that may be properly characterized as legislative. Proposition 218, in contrast, was enacted in 1996 and dealt specifically with the type of “property-related fee” at issue here. Because the People are presumed to have known of the Constitution’s referendum provision at the time they enacted Proposition 218, and because that initiative created a detailed and unique process for popular approval of property-related fees, the People effectively specified the fee-approval process would be an exclusive one. That is, applying the rules of interpretation, the People must be said to have impliedly rejected the use of the referendum in light of their more recent endorsement of a specific form of popular approval for fees.
Buttressing this conclusion is a key provision of Proposition 218, which states:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution … the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge. The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees and charges shall be applicable to all local governments ….” (Cal. Const., Art. XIIIC, § 3.)
With this provision, the drafters of Proposition 218—and the People through their approval of the measure—expressly confirmed that the right to reduce or repeal taxes, fees, and assessments by initiative would be preserved. It is telling that language confirming the right to affect
1 The rules for interpreting statutes apply equally to the interpretation of the State Constitution. (Hyatt v. Allen (1880) 64 Cal. 353.)
{DPC/00040358. } 3 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer
reductions or repeals by referendum is not also included in the quoted language—especially given that a mere two words (“or referendum”) between the words “initiative” and “power” would have been all that was necessary. When the lack of mention of the referendum in this language is considered in conjunction with the fact Proposition 218 is the later and more specific constitutional provision, the most reasonable interpretation is that the referendum power is not authorized in cases in which majority-protest proceedings have been duly followed.
OPTIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER:
The options remain the same as set forth in the City Attorney’s previous memorandum. The Council may (1) proceed with verifying whether the referendum qualifies for the ballot and, if so, hold a City Council meeting to either repeal Resolution 15-16-11 or call an election; (2) direct Staff to take no action concerning the referendum; or (3) authorize the filing of “pre- election challenge” against the proponents regarding the referendum’s legality.
{DPC/00040358. } 4 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer
ROPP REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL FEES BE APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE. FEES INCLUDE THOSE THAT ADDRESS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SOCIETY OR THE ENVIRONMENT 26 CAUSED BY THE FEE-PAYER’S BUSINESS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 26
YES ON PROPOSITION 26: STOP POLITICIANS FROM Taxes to unless we stop them: ENACTING HIDDEN TAXES • Food • Gas • Toys • Water State and local politicians are using a loophole to impose • Cell Phones • Electricity • Insurance • Beverages Hidden Taxes on many products and services by calling them • Emergency Services • Entertainment “fees” instead of taxes. Here’s how it works: PROPOSITION 26: HOLD POLITICIANS At the State Level: ACCOUNTABLE • California’s Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the “State politicians already raised taxes by $18 billion. Now, Legislature for new or increased taxes, but the politicians use instead of controlling spending to address the budget deficit, a gimmick to get around this by calling their taxes “fees” so they’re using this gimmick to increase taxes even more! It’s time they can pass them with only a bare majority vote. for voters to STOP the politicians by passing Proposition 26.”— At the Local Level: Teresa Casazza, California Taxpayers’ Association • Most tax increases at the local level require voter approval. Local politicians play tricks on voters by disguising taxes as Local politicians have been calling taxes “fees” so they can “fees” so they don’t have to ask voters for approval. They need bypass voters and raise taxes without voter permission— to control spending, not use loopholes to raise taxes! It’s time to taking away your right to stop these Hidden Taxes at the hold them accountable for runaway spending and to stop Hidden ballot. Taxes at the local level. PROPOSITION 26 CLOSES THIS LOOPHOLE YES ON PROPOSITION 26: PROTECT CALIFORNIA Proposition 26 requires politicians to meet the same vote FAMILIES requirements to pass these Hidden Taxes as they must to raise California families and small businesses can’t afford new and other taxes, protecting California taxpayers and consumers by higher Hidden Taxes that will kill jobs and hurt families. When requiring these Hidden Taxes to be passed by a two-thirds vote of government increases Hidden Taxes, consumers and taxpayers pay the Legislature and, at the local level, by public vote. increased costs on everyday items. PROPOSITION 26 PROTECTS ENVIRONMENTAL AND “The best way out of this recession is to grow the economy CONSUMER REGULATIONS AND FEES and create jobs, not increase taxes. Proposition 26 will send a Don’t be misled by opponents of Proposition 26. California has message to politicians that it’s time to clean up wasteful spending some of the strongest environmental and consumer protection in Sacramento.”—John Kabateck, National Federation of laws in the country. Proposition 26 preserves those laws and Independent Business/California PROTECTS LEGITIMATE FEES SUCH AS THOSE TO VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 26 TO STOP HIDDEN CLEAN UP ENVIRONMENTAL OR OCEAN DAMAGE, TAXES—www.No25Yes26.com FUND NECESSARY CONSUMER REGULATIONS, OR PUNISH WRONGDOING, and for licenses for professional TERESA CASAZZA, President certification or driving. California Taxpayers’ Association DON’T LET THE POLITICIANS CIRCUMVENT OUR ALLAN ZAREMBERG, President CONSTITUTION TO TAKE EVEN MORE MONEY California Chamber of Commerce FROM US Politicians have proposed more than $10 billion in Hidden JOEL FOX, President Taxes. Here are a few examples of things they could apply Hidden Small Business Action Committee
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 26
Do you want corporations to write special protections into PROPOSITION 26 IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, California’s Constitution? PUBLIC SAFETY, & TAXPAYERS. Should California protect polluters at the expense of public The California Professional Firefighters, League of Women safety? Voters of California, California Nurses Association, Sierra Club, That’s what Prop. 26 is: big oil, tobacco, and alcohol companies Planning & Conservation League, Californians Against Waste, want taxpayers to pay for cleaning their mess. As a result, local and California Tax Reform Association all oppose 26 because police and fire departments will have fewer resources to keep it would force ordinary citizens to pay for the damage done by us safe. polluters. The claim that Prop. 26 won’t harm consumers and the Californians can’t afford to clean up polluters’ messes when environment is false. Corporations are spending millions local governments are cutting essential services like police and fire misleading voters into thinking that the payments made by departments. companies that pollute or harm public health are “hidden taxes.” WE NEED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, NOT POLLUTERS! The campaign’s own website cited “Oil severance fee to mitigate VOTE NO on 26. oil spill clean up, and build larger response and enforcement capabilities” as a hidden tax. RON COTTINGHAM, President Here are some other fees they don’t want to pay—listed in their Peace Officers Research Association of California own documents: WARNER CHABOT, Chief Executive Officer • Fees on polluters to clean up hazardous waste California League of Conservation Voters • Fees on oil companies for oil spill cleanup • Fees on tobacco companies for the adverse health effects of PATTY VELEZ, President tobacco products. California Association of Professional Scientists
60 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. ROPP REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL FEES BE APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE. FEES INCLUDE THOSE THAT ADDRESS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SOCIETY OR THE ENVIRONMENT 26 CAUSED BY THE FEE-PAYER’S BUSINESS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 26
Should polluters be protected from paying to clean up the • Alcohol companies don’t want to pay fees used for police damage they do? protection in neighborhoods and programs to prevent Should taxpayers foot the bill instead? underage drinking. The answer is NO, and that’s why voters should reject One of the so-called “hidden taxes” identified by the Proposition 26, the Polluter Protection Act. Proposition 26 campaign is a fee that oil companies pay in order Who put Prop. 26 on the ballot? Oil, tobacco, and alcohol to cover the cost of oil spill clean-up, like the one in the Gulf. The companies provided virtually all the funding for this measure, oil companies should be responsible for the mess they create, not including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Phillip Morris. the taxpayers. Their goal: to shift the burden of paying for the damage these Proposition 26 will harm local public safety and health, by companies have done onto the taxpayers. requiring expensive litigation and endless elections in order for How does this work? Prop. 26 redefines payments for harm to local government to provide basic services. Fees on those who the environment or public health as tax increases, requiring a ²/³ do harm should cover such costs as policing public nuisances or vote for passage. repairing damaged roads. Such payments, or pollution fees on public nuisances, would The funds raised by these fees are used by state and local become much harder to enact—leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. governments for essential programs like fighting air pollution, California has enough problems without forcing taxpayers to pay cleaning up environmental disasters and monitoring hazardous for cleaning up after polluting corporations. waste. They require corporations such as tobacco companies to Companies that pollute, harm the public health, or create a pay for the harm they cause. public nuisance should be required to pay to cover the damage If Proposition 26 passes, these costs would have to be paid for they cause. by the taxpayers. But the big oil, tobacco, and alcohol corporations want you, DON’T PROTECT POLLUTERS. Join California the taxpayer, to pay for cleaning up their messes. That’s why these Professional Firefighters, California Federation of Teachers, corporations wrote Proposition 26 behind closed doors, with California League of Conservation Voters, California Nurses zero public input, and why they put up millions of dollars to get Association, Consumer Federation of California, and California Proposition 26 on the ballot. Alliance for Retired Americans, and vote NO on 26. Proposition 26 is just another attempt by corporations to www.stoppolluterprotection.com protect themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens. The problem isn’t taxes “hidden” as fees; it’s the oil and tobacco JANIS R. HIROHAMA, President companies hiding their true motives: League of Women Voters of California • Polluters don’t want to pay fees used to clean up hazardous JANE WARNER, President waste. American Lung Association in California • Oil companies don’t want to pay fees used for cleaning up oil BILL MAGAVERN, Director spills and fighting air pollution. Sierra Club California • Tobacco companies don’t want to pay fees used for addressing the adverse health effects of tobacco products.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 26
Proposition 26 fixes a loophole that allows politicians to impose “Proposition 26 doesn’t change or undermine a single law new taxes on businesses and consumers by falsely calling them protecting our air, ocean, waterways or forests—it simply stops “fees”. the runaway fees politicians pass to fund ineffective programs.”— Proposition 26 stops politicians from increasing Hidden Taxes Ryan Broddrick, former Director, Department of Fish and Game on food, water, cell phones and even emergency services— Here’s what Prop. 26 really does: BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN HIGHER COSTS THAT • Requires a TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE LEGISLATURE CONSUMERS WILL PAY, NOT BIG CORPORATIONS. FOR PASSING STATEWIDE HIDDEN TAXES disguised Politicians and special interests oppose Prop. 26 because they as fees, just like the Constitution requires for regular tax want to take more money from working California families by increases. putting “fees” on everything they can think of. Their interest • Requires a POPULAR VOTE TO PASS LOCAL HIDDEN is simple—more taxpayer money for the politicians to waste, TAXES disguised as fees, just like the Constitution requires including on lavish public pensions. for most other local tax increases. Here are the facts: YES on 26—Stop Hidden Taxes. Preserve our Environmental Prop. 26 protects legitimate fees and WON’T Protection Laws. ELIMINATE OR PHASE OUT ANY OF CALIFORNIA’S www.No25Yes26.com ENVIRONMENTAL OR CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS, including: JOHN DUNLAP, Former Chairman –– Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act California Air Resources Board –– Hazardous Substance Control Laws MANUEL CUNHA, JR., President –– California Clean Air Act Nisei Farmers League –– California Water Quality Control Act –– Laws regulating licensing and oversight of Contractors, JULIAN CANETE, Chairman Attorneys and Doctors California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 61
RESOLUTION 15-16-*
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO TAKE NO ACTION CONCERNING THE REFERENDUM PETITION CHALLENGING RESOLUTION No. 15-16-11
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-16-11, approving rate increases requested by ACES Environmental Services, Inc. (“ACES”) for the solid-waste collection services it provides within City limits;
WHEREAS, prior to approving the rate increases, the City followed the Proposition 218 “majority protest” process for new or increased property-related fees and received only two written protests;
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2015, the City Clerk received a referendum petition seeking to overturn Resolution No. 15-16-11;
WHEREAS, the City received a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the legality of proposed referendum at the regular City Council meeting held on November 2, 2015;
WHEREAS, at the November 2, 2015 City Council meeting, the City Council received written and oral comments from the Amador Ratepayer Protection Alliance (“RPA”) concerning the proposed referendum and received an additional letter from RPA on November 9, 2015;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a further legal opinion from the City Attorney at its regular City Council meeting of November 16, 2015 in response to the oral and written comments it received from RPA and others;
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the right of referendum is a fundamental one that the California Constitution guarantees to the People of the State of California, and to the citizens of Sutter Creek;
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges, in light of the fundamental nature of the right to referendum, any exceptions to that right must be very narrowly construed;
WHEREAS, Article II, Section 9(a) of the California Constitution states one of the few, narrow exceptions to the right of referendum in that it prohibits referenda that challenge legislative actions “providing for tax levies or appropriations for usual current expenses of the State” ;
WHEREAS, California courts have held that the prohibition on referenda concerning tax levies applies equally to local agencies;
WHEREAS, California courts have held that the term “tax levy” in Article II, Section 9(a) not only includes levies labelled as taxes, but all types of devices intended to raise revenue, including property-related fees, special assessments, and other types of charges;
WHEREAS, the rationale for the prohibition on referenda concerning tax levies is the disruption such measures cause in agencies’ abilities to identify available revenue sources for their services, set budgets, and manage their fiscal affairs;
WHEREAS, this rationale is as equally applicable to a measure challenging a referendum is a fee, charge or special assessment as it is to a referendum challenging a levy that is traditionally characterized as a “tax”;
WHEREAS, because the City follows Proposition 218 in the setting of service rates for its franchise solid-waste hauler, the approval of the ACES rate increases constitutes a “tax levy” within the meaning of Article II, Section 9(a) of the California Constitution;
WHEREAS, the proposed referendum would substantially interfere with the City’s ability to ensure solid-waste collection services are provided within City limits in a manner that ensures the City’s compliance with waste-diversion requirements of the AB 939 Legislation (codified in the Health & Safety Code);
WHEREAS, because of the City’s limited size, the City does not have the staffing, resources, or economy of scale to provide solid-waste collection on its own and, for that reason, must rely on a franchise hauler to provide such service;
WHEREAS, to ensure the City can continue to utilize the long-term services of a franchise hauler, thereby avoiding any potential the City would need to take the extraordinary task of provide solid-waste service itself, the City’s franchise hauler must be able receive a reasonable return for the services it provides;
WHEREAS, because the proposed referendum could interfere with the franchise hauler’s ability to receive a reasonable return, the referendum equally jeopardizes the City’s ability to ensure solid-waste collection services are provided, as well as the City’s ability to comply with AB 939;
WHEREAS, in addition to the prohibition on the use of referenda challenging tax levies, a proper reading of Proposition 218 requires that the property-related fee process the City followed in approving the ACES rate increases is the exclusive form of popular approval authorized, and that the referendum power is thus inapplicable;
WHEREAS, the explanation of reasons and conclusions within this Resolution are not necessarily exclusive of all grounds the City has for concluding the proposed referendum is illegal and are stated without prejudice to the City’s ability to raise other grounds in any legal action concerning the City’s decision to take no action concerning the referendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED the City Council directs its City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, and other relevant City employees take no action concerning the referendum challenging Resolution No. 15-16-11;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in light of the reasons stated above, it is unnecessary for the City Council to hold a hearing to consider the repeal of, or election concerning, the proposed referendum, as would otherwise be required under the California Elections Code; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council directs that the referendum petitions the City has received be maintained in strict compliance with all applicable record-keeping and confidentiality requirements imposed by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek on this 16th day of November 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
ATTEST:
______Tim Murphy, Vice Mayor ______Karen Darrow, City Clerk