Santa Rosa City Council
January 11, 2022

Roseland Area/Sebastopol
Road Specific Plan
Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition
CEQA Checklist
City of Santa Rosa
20 December 2021

EXHIBIT A
CEQA Checklist
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific
Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition
T
his document has been prepared by:

In collaborat
ion with:
2235 M
ercury Way, Suite 150
Santa Rosa, CA 95407, United States
T 707.523.1010 | E [email protected] | ghd.com D
ecember 20, 2021

Executive Summary
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition ES-i

Executive Summary
The City of Santa Rosa is proposing to acquire three properties totaling 6.09 acres located along Hearn Avenue in southwest Santa Rosa (see Figures 1 and 3 in this Checklist). The City of Santa Rosa is the Lead Agency for the proposed acquisition and is responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As shown on Figure 2 in this Checklist, the properties to be acquired are located within the boundaries of the 2016 Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects (Specific Plan, Santa Rosa 2016a).

The City’s intended uses for the subject properties would be to implement future infrastructure improvements identified in the Specific Plan (see Figure 4 in this Checklist), as well as to provide land for potential future public uses identified in the Specific Plan (see Section 2.3 in this Checklist for more details).

As proposed in the Specific Plan, the property would be used for the planned future extension of Dutton Avenue and the Colgan Creek Multi-Use Path. These improvements are also identified at the subject properties in the 2018 Update of the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 1, and the 2013
Update of the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan2.

In addition to the specified infrastructure improvements, the properties proposed to be acquired would also potentially be used to implement one or more public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The City has not yet determined the specific public uses that may potentially be built on the property. However, potential public uses specified in the Specific Plan which the City is considering are replacement of Santa Rosa Fire Station #8, a new library facility to serve residents in the plan area and beyond, a community center and pool, a recreation center, and/or a neighborhood park. The City intends to enter into a planning process to determine the specific future public use(s) which it would propose for the property, and what the intensity, design, and size of those public use(s) may be. There is, as yet, no proposed timeline for the planning process; however, it is expected to require several years. When that planning process is complete, the City would prepare the appropriate documentation for CEQA compliance before deciding whether to proceed with implementation of the plan. Because the proposed specific future public use(s) are not yet known, there is not yet sufficient factual information to enable meaningful environmental review of those potential uses. (See State CEQA Guidelines 15004(b).) As such, it would be speculative to complete site-specific, project-level environmental review for any potential uses at this time. (See Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277 [confirming that an EIR which analyzed five alternative projects did not meet CEQA’s informational purposes].) However, a programmatic-level Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) was certified for the Specific Plan in 2016 (Santa Rosa 2016b, 2016c). That Program EIR analyzes a variety of uses contemplated in the Specific Plan, as discussed in further detail below.

To comply with CEQA, the City of Santa Rosa has prepared this CEQA Checklist to tier from the Specific Plan Program EIR. The proposed property acquisition and potential future site development has been subjected to a programmatic-level analytical process consistent with the methodology and thresholds of significance applied in the Specific Plan Program EIR. This CEQA Checklist was prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), Use With Later Activities, which states: “If an agency finds that

1 The 2018 Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted by the Santa Rosa City Council in 2019 and was determined to be within the scope of a previously adopted 2010 CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration completed for a prior version of the Plan. 2 The 2013 Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan was adopted by the Santa Rosa City Council in 2013 and was determined to be within the scope of a previously certified 2007 CEQA Environmental Impact Report completed for a prior version of the Plan.

Executive Summary
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition ES-ii

pursuant to section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the Project covered by the Program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” This Checklist serves as the evaluation required pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines as to whether new significant effects have been identified or new mitigation measures would be required.

As discussed herein, none of the elements requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR have been identified. The proposed property acquisition and potential future site development would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than previously identified and addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the property acquisition and potential future development is found to be within the scope of Specific Plan, as covered by the 2016 Program EIR.

This CEQA Checklist reflects the analysis of the City as the CEQA lead agency. Further, it demonstrates that the environmental analysis, impacts, and mitigation requirements identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR remain substantially unchanged and support the finding that this later activity would not raise any new issues that result in any new significant impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant, and do not exceed the level of impacts identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR.

This CEQA Checklist, along with the previous environmental analyses, is on file with and may be obtained from the City of Santa Rosa, Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division, 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3, Santa Rosa, California, 95404.

Table of Contents
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition i

Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. ES-i Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... i

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

1.1 Summary of Proposed Property Acquisition and Later Activity.........................................1-1

1.2 Applicability of the Program EIR .......................................................................................1-1

1.3 Summary of Results .........................................................................................................1-2

2. Project Information .......................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Summary of Later Activity .................................................................................................2-1 Dutton Avenue Extension ................................................................................................................ 2-1 Colgan Creek Multi-Use Path Extension ......................................................................................... 2-2 Public Uses ...................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Required Agency Approvals .............................................................................................2-2

3. Environmental Analysis Relative to the Specific Plan Program EIR .......................................3-1

3.1 Aesthetics .........................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ....................................................................................3-4

3.3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................3-5

3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................3-13

3.5 Cultural Resources .........................................................................................................3-19

3.6 Geology and Soils ...........................................................................................................3-24

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................................................................3-27

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................3-28

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ..........................................................................................3-35

3.10 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................3-39

3.11 Noise ...............................................................................................................................3-43

3.12 Population and Housing ..................................................................................................3-46

3.13 Public Services ...............................................................................................................3-48

3.14 Traffic and Transportation ...............................................................................................3-51

3.15 Public Utilities .................................................................................................................3-58

4. References ....................................................................................................................................4-1

5. Report Preparers ..........................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 City of Santa Rosa ............................................................................................................5-1

5.2 GHD ..................................................................................................................................5-1

5.3 Sub-consultants ................................................................................................................5-1 Treanor HL ....................................................................................................................................... 5-1

Table of Contents
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition ii

Table index
Table 2-1 Project Parcels ............................................................................................................. 2-1 Table 2-2 Land Requirements for Potential Land Uses ............................................................... 2-2

Figure index
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................................. 1-3 Figure 2. Land Use Map .......................................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 2. Location of Properties to be Acquired ....................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 4. Conceptual Infrastructure Site Plan .......................................................................................... 1-6

Appendices
Appendix A Historic Resources Evaluation

Introduction
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 1-1

1. Introduction
The City of Santa Rosa is proposing to acquire three properties located along Hearn Avenue in southwest Santa Rosa (see Figure 1 in this Checklist). The City of Santa Rosa is the Lead Agency for the proposed acquisition and is responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As shown on Figure 2 of this Checklist, the properties proposed to be acquired are located within the boundaries of the 2016 Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects (Specific Plan). A programmatic-level Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) was certified for the Specific Plan in 2016. To comply with CEQA, the City of Santa Rosa has prepared this CEQA Checklist to tier from the Specific Plan EIR. This Checklist was prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), Use With Later Activities, which states: “If an agency finds that pursuant to section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the Project covered by the Program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” This Checklist serves as the evaluation required pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines as to whether new significant effects have been identified or new mitigation measures would be required.

1.1 Summary of Proposed Property Acquisition and Later Activity The City of Santa Rosa proposes to acquire 6.09 acres of property at 976, 980, and 1004 Hearn Avenue in southwest Santa Rosa (see Figure 3 in this Checklist). The City’s intended uses for the subject properties would be to implement future infrastructure improvements identified in the Specific Plan (see Figure 4 in this Checklist), as well as to provide land for potential future public uses identified in the Specific Plan (see Section 2.3 in this Checklist for more details). The infrastructure improvements and public uses were identified in the Specific Plan, albeit some of the public uses were identified at different locations within the Specific Plan area. The City has not yet determined the specific public uses that may potentially be built on the property. However, potential public uses as specified in the Specific Plan which the City is considering are replacement of Santa Rosa Fire Station #8, a new library facility to serve residents in the plan area and beyond, a community center and pool, a recreation center, and/or a neighborhood park.

1.2 Applicability of the Program EIR
On October 18, 2016, the Santa Rosa City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopted the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan EIR is a Program EIR and evaluates the broad environmental effects of the Specific Plan. The EIR can be used to evaluate subsequent later activities consistent with the Specific Plan, as described in the CEQA statute and Guidelines. When individual later activities contemplated under, and consistent with, the Specific Plan are proposed, the Lead Agency using the Program EIR is required to examine the project or activity to determine whether their effects were adequately analyzed in that EIR. If the project or activity is found to have no effects beyond those analyzed in the Program EIR and requires no new mitigation measures, no further CEQA documentation is required.

The properties to be acquired are located within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. The Land Use Map within the Specific Plan designates the property at 1004 Hearn Avenue as “Medium-Low Residential”, the property at 980 Hearn Avenue as a mix of “Medium-Low Residential” and “Retail/Medium Residential”, and the property at 976 Hearn as “Office” (see Figure 2 in this Checklist or Figure 3-1 of the Specific Plan). The Introduction
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 1-2

Santa Rosa Zoning Code designates the three properties as part of a previously approved Planned Development (PD 06-001).

Meaningful analysis of the potential future land uses is not possible at this time, because the potential future uses vary and would have unique impacts, and the potential environmental baseline may change prior to implementation of a future action. The City intends to enter into a planning process to determine the specific future public uses which it would propose for the property. When that planning process is complete, the City would prepare the appropriate documentation for CEQA compliance before proceeding with implementation of the plan.

This CEQA Checklist serves as the evaluation pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines to determine whether new significant effects have been identified or new mitigation measures would be required. This CEQA Checklist evaluates the proposed acquisition of the properties, along with a programmatic-level review of the circulation improvements shown on Figure 4 and the potential public uses identified in Table 2-2. Therefore, this CEQA Checklist prepared pursuant to CEQA is an appropriate vehicle for review of the proposed action under CEQA.

1.3 Summary of Results
The properties proposed to be acquired are located within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. As concluded by this Checklist in Chapter 3, no new environmental effects of the activity have been identified, and no new mitigation measures are required, beyond those identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR.

Mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that are applicable to the activity are identified in Chapter 3. This evaluation concludes the activity is within the scope of the Specific Plan, as covered by the 2016 Program EIR, and that, therefore, no further CEQA documentation is required prior to approving purchase of the properties.

F I G U R E 1
0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4
M ile s
P r o je c t N o .

R e v is io n N o . -
1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6
D a t e D e c 2 0 2 1
C i t y o f S a n t a R o s a
H e a r n A v e n u e S i t e A c q u i s i t i o n
M a p P r o je c t io n : L a m b e r t C o n f o r m a l C o n ic H o r iz o n t a l D a t u m : N o r t h A m e r ic a n 1 9 8 3 G r id : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P la n e C a lif o r n ia I I F I P S 0 4 0 2 F e e t P a p e r S iz e A N S I A
o
D a t a s o u r c e : W o r ld T o p o g r a p h ic M a p - la b e lle s s : C it y o f S a n t a R o s a , E s r i, H E R E , G a r m in , S a f e G r a p h , I N C R E M E N T P , M E T I / N A S A , U S G S , B u r e a u o f L a n d M a n a g e m e n t , E P A , N P S , U S C e n s u s B u r e a u , U S D A ; W o r ld T o p o g r a p h ic M a p - la b e lle s s : E s r i, H E R E , G a r m in , F A O , N O A A , U S G S , B u r e a u o f L a n d M a n a g e m e n t , E P A , N P S ; t r a n s p o r t a t io n : U S G S T h e N a t io n a l M a p : N a t io n a l T r a n s p o r t a t io n D a t a s e t ; U . S . C e n s u s B u r e a u – T I G E R / L in e ; U . S . F o r e s t S e r v ic e . D a t a R e f r e s h e d O c t o b e r , 2 0 2 1 . ; W o r ld H ills h a d e : E s r i, N A S A , N G A , U S G S , F E M A ; W o r ld H ills h a d e : E s r i, C G I A R , U S G S . C r e a t e d b y : e t h o m p s o n 3 \ \ g h d n e t \ g h d \ U S \ S a n t a
R o s a \ P r o je c t s \ 5 6 1 \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 4 6 \ G I S \ M a p s \ D e liv e r a b le s \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ H e a r n S it e \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ H e a r n S it e . a p r x - 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ 0 1 _ V ic in it y _ b la c k P r in t d a t e : 1 4 D e c 2 0 2 1 - 1 5 : 0 5 V i c i n i t y M a p
D a t a D is c la im e r
* * I n s e r t t e x t a s r e q u ir e d b y d a t a c u s t o d ia n * * * * R e m o v e o n ly if n o t r e q u ir e d b y d a t a c u s t o d ia n * * S a n t a R o s a
S o n o m a
W in d s o r
P e t a lu m a
H e a ld s b u r g
S a n t a R o s a
R o h n e r t P a r k
L e g e n d
S i t e
F I G U R E 2
D a t e
-R e v is io n N o .
1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6P r o je c t N o .

L a n d U s e M a p
H e a r n A v e n u e S i t e A c q u i s i t i o n
C i t y o f S a n t a R o s a
oP a p e r S iz e A N S I A
D a t a s o u r c e : . C r e a t e d b y : e t h o m p s o n 3 D e c 2 0 2 1
\ \ g h d n e t \ g h d \ U S \ S a n t a
R o s a \ P r o je c t s \ 5 6 1 \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 4 6 \ G I S \ M a p s \ D e liv e r a b le s \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ H e a r n S it e \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ H e a r n S it e . a p r x - 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ 0 2 _ R A S P P r in t d a t e : 1 4 D e c 2 0 2 1 - 1 5 : 0 5 S i t e
L e g e n d
S i t e P a r c e l s
F I G U R E 3
D a t e
-R e v is io n N o .
1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6P r o je c t N o .

L o c a t i o n o f P r o p e r t i e s
t o b e A c q u i r e d
H e a r n A v e n u e S i t e A c q u i s i t i o n
C i t y o f S a n t a R o s a
o
M a p P r o je c t io n : L a m b e r t C o n f o r m a l C o n ic H o r iz o n t a l D a t u m : N o r t h A m e r ic a n 1 9 8 3 G r id : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P la n e C a lif o r n ia I I F I P S 0 4 0 2 F e e t 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
F e e t
P a p e r S iz e A N S I A
D a t a s o u r c e : R o a d N a m e s : E s r i C o m m u n it y M a p s C o n t r ib u t o r s , C it y o f S a n t a R o s a , S o n o m a C o u n t y , © O p e n S t r e e t M a p , M ic r o s o f t , E s r i, H E R E , G a r m in , S a f e G r a p h , I N C R E M E N T P , M E T I / N A S A , U S G S , B u r e a u o f L a n d M a n a g e m e n t , E P A , N P S , U S C e n s u s B u r e a u , U S D A O u t s id e : S o u r c e : E s r i, D ig it a lG lo b e , G e o E y e , E a r t h s t a r G e o g r a p h ic s , C N E S / A ir b u s D S , U S D A , U S G S , A e r o G R I D , I G N , a n d t h e G I S U s e r C o m m u n it y D e c 2 0 2 1
\ \ g h d n e t \ g h d \ U S \ S a n t a
R o s a \ P r o je c t s \ 5 6 1 \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 4 6 \ G I S \ M a p s \ D e liv e r a b le s \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ H e a r n S it e \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ H e a r n S it e . a p r x - 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ 0 3 _ P r o p P r in t d a t e : 1 4 D e c 2 0 2 1 - 1 5 : 0 4 1 0 0 4 H e a r n A v e
0 4 3 - 1 9 1 - 0 2 0
0 . 2 3 A c r e s
9 7 6 H e a r n A v e
0 4 3 - 1 9 1 - 0 1 8
0 . 2 1 A c r e s
9 8 0 H e a r n A v e
0 4 3 - 1 9 1 - 0 1 9
5 . 6 5 A c r e s
F I G U R E 4
D a t e
-R e v is io n N o .
1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6P r o je c t N o .

C o n c e p t u a l I n f r a s t r u c t u r e
S i t e P l a n
H e a r n A v e n u e S i t e A c q u i s i t i o n
C i t y o f S a n t a R o s a
oP a p e r S iz e A N S I A
D a t a s o u r c e : . C r e a t e d b y : e t h o m p s o n 3 D e c 2 0 2 1
\ \ g h d n e t \ g h d \ U S \ S a n t a
R o s a \ P r o je c t s \ 5 6 1 \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 4 6 \ G I S \ M a p s \ D e liv e r a b le s \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ H e a r n S it e \ 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ H e a r n S it e . a p r x - 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 6 _ 0 4 _ C o n c e p t P r in t d a t e : 1 4 D e c 2 0 2 1 - 1 5 : 0 4

Project Information
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 2-1

2. Project Information

2.1 Project Location
The City is proposing to acquire three properties on the southern side of Hearn Avenue across from the end of Dutton Avenue. The properties total 6.09 acres and are developed with single family residences, garages, and other accessory structures. Table 2-1 summarizes the property locations, sizes, and land uses.

Table 2-1 Project Parcels
Address APN Acres Land Use Designation in
Specific Plan Current Use
976 Hearn Ave 043-191-018 0.21 Office Residence
980 Hearn Ave 043-191-019 5.65 Medium-Low Residential & Retail/Medium Residential Residence
1004 Hearn Ave 043-191-020 0.23 Medium-Low Residential Residence

2.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The properties are located within the Specific Plan boundary. The properties are surrounded to the north by Hearn Avenue, a grocery store, and single-family residences; to the east by single-family residences, Colgan Creek, Victoria Drive and Highway 101; to the south by vacant land, Colgan Creek, and single- family/commercial mixed uses; and to the west by single-family residences, Meadow View Elementary School, and Southwest Community Park.

2.3 Summary of Later Activity
The City is proposing to acquire 6.09 acres of land to implement future infrastructure improvements identified in the Specific Plan, as well as to provide land for potential future public uses identified in the Specific Plan. As proposed in the Specific Plan, the property would be used for the planned future extension of Dutton Avenue and the Colgan Creek Multi-Use Path. These improvements are identified at the subject properties in the Specific Plan, the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan.

Dutton Avenue Extension
The extension of Dutton Avenue would provide one travel lane in each direction plus a center turn lane or median from Hearn Avenue to the southern boundary of the property, maintaining a regional/arterial roadway classification. A stub-out for a future connection with Dutton Meadow would also be provided.

Class II bicycle lanes, bioswales, and sidewalks would be provided on either side of the roadway. In total, the extension would provide two 11-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot median/turn lane, two six-foot bike lanes, two 6-foot sidewalks, and two 8-foot bioswale planter areas. The total width of the roadway improvements would be 74 feet, and the size of the improvement is expected to encompass approximately 1.2 acres.

Project Information
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 2-2

Colgan Creek Multi-Use Path Extension
An extension of the Colgan Creek Multi-use Path is proposed from the southern boundary of the property to Hearn Avenue along the eastern property line. The paved multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path would be 10 feet wide, with a 12-foot setback from the eastern boundary of the property and a 5-foot setback from any future development west of the path. The size of the improvement, including the setbacks would be approximately 0.4 acres.

Public Uses
In addition to the specified infrastructure improvements, the property to be acquired would also potentially be used to implement one or more public uses identified in the Specific Plan (see Chapter 5, Public Services, in the Specific Plan). The City intends to enter into a planning process to determine the specific future public uses which it would propose for the property. There is, as yet, no proposed timeline for the planning process; however, it is expected to require several years. When that planning process is complete, the City would prepare the appropriate documentation for CEQA compliance before proceeding with implementation of the plan.

Potential future public uses may include the planned replacement of Santa Rosa Fire Station #8 to a new location in the Roseland area, a new library facility to serve residents in the plan area and beyond, a community center and pool, a recreation center, and/or a neighborhood park. Accounting for the Dutton Avenue and Colgan Creek Multi-use Path extensions, approximately 4.5 acres of the property would remain for other public uses. The property acreage to be acquired would not adequately support all of the potential public uses noted above, but it appears feasible that one or more of the listed uses could be accommodated on the property in addition to the infrastructure improvements.

Table 2-2 lists the range of land requirements needed for each potential public land use.

Table 2-2 Land Requirements for Potential Land Uses
Potential Public Land Use Minimum Size (acres) Maximum Size (acres) Replacement for Fire Station #8 0.75 1.0
Library 1.5 2.0
Recreation Center 1.0 2.75
Community Room 0.5 0.75
Community Pool 0.75 3.5
Park 2.0 4.0
Source: City of Santa Rosa
Note: Minimum and maximum sizes include both interior (i.e., building footprint) and exterior (e.g., parking and setbacks) land requirements.

2.4 Required Agency Approvals
There are no required agency approvals, other than those by the Lead Agency.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-1

3. Environmental Analysis Relative to the Specific
Plan Program EIR

3.1 Aesthetics
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.1.1: The proposed Specific Plan
would result in development on previously
undeveloped parcels in the Specific Plan
area that could block views of scenic vistas
from surrounding properties. Compliance
with existing City policies and Design
Guidelines would protect scenic vistas and
ensure this impact is less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.1.2: The proposed Specific Plan
would not substantially damage scenic
resources within a state scenic highway.

There would be no impact.

No Impact No Impact None
Required Yes
Impact 3.1.3: The proposed Specific Plan
could change the existing visual character of
the Specific Plan area by allowing new
development on currently vacant and
underutilized parcels. This impact would be
less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.1.4: The proposed Specific Plan
would introduce new sources of light or
glare. This impact would be less than
significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.1.5: The proposed Specific Plan,
in combination with other planned and
recently approved projects in the Specific
Plan area, would result in a less than
cumulatively considerable impact on the
visual character of the city.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.1.1-Scenic Vistas: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to scenic vistas, because future actions to be completed under the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to existing City policies and Design Guidelines that protect scenic vistas.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. As described in the Specific Plan Program EIR, future actions would be required to comply with existing City policies and Design Guidelines to protect scenic vistas and visual character, such as regulating site design, layout, and building heights. The subject properties are not located along a ridgeline and would not block the scenic Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-2

view of a natural ridgeline or landmark. Natural ridgelines and landmarks, such as Taylor Mountain, Bennett Mountain, and views of the Sonoma Mountain foothills are not predominantly visible from the subject properties or from adjacent areas. As a result, the impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.1.1.

Impact 3.1.2-Scenic Resources: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified no impacts relative to state scenic highways, because the Specific Plan area does not include portions of a state scenic highway.

The property to be acquired is located within the Specific Plan area and is not located adjacent to or in the vicinity of an officially designated state scenic highway. Therefore, no impact to such scenic resources would result, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.1.2.

Impact 3.1.3-Visual Character: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to visual character due to required adherence of future actions to applicable General Plan policies and City Design Guidelines.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The proposed Colgan Creek Multi-Use Path would be consistent with the Specific Plan, the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan, each of which identifies a planned trail across the property. Similarly, the future extension of Dutton Avenue at this location would be consistent with the Specific Plan, which identifies the planned extension across the property.

The potential public uses, which include a fire station, library, recreation center, community room/pool, or park, differ somewhat from the land use designations of the three properties in the Specific Plan, which are designated for office, medium-low residential, and retail/medium residential. However, as described in Section 3.10 of this Checklist (Land Use and Planning), the potential public uses for the property are either permitted or conditionally allowed within the existing zoning districts that implement the land use designations for the properties.

Hearn Avenue and nearby roadways are not designated as scenic roads in the Santa Rosa General Plan.

The infrastructure improvements and potential future public uses would be required to adhere to applicable General Plan policies and City Design Guidelines. Santa Rosa Urban Design Policies UD-A-5, UD-A-10, and UD-F-4 describe the intent for new development to be of high architectural value with landscape design that reflects the natural setting of the area. Required compliance would protect visual quality and character by regulating site design and layout, building heights, building form and materials, landscaping, and lighting.

The impacts to visual character would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.1.3.

Impact 3.1.4-Light and Glare: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to new sources of light or glare due to required adherence of future actions to Zoning Code regulations and Design Guidelines.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The infrastructure improvements and potential future public uses would be required to comply with Zoning Code lighting requirements contained in City Municipal Code Section 20.30.080, which sets maximum heights for outdoor light standards, as well as requires that lighting fixtures be shielded or recessed to reduce light spillage onto adjoining properties. Existing regulations require light fixtures to be directed downward and away from Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-3

adjoining properties and public rights-of-way, so that no on-site fixture directly illuminates an area off-site.

This and other specific design features of the lights greatly reduce the possibility of light trespass. Design review also would include review of all proposed exterior lighting to ensure such lighting would be compatible with City requirements and with the surrounding area. Therefore, the new exterior lighting would not create a new source of substantial nighttime light or glare, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.1.4.

Impact 3.1.5-Cumulative Visual Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than- cumulatively considerable impact on visual character due to required adherence of future actions to General Plan policies, proposed Specific Plan policies intended to protect and enhance visual character, and the Design Guidelines and Zoning Code regulations.

As described in Impacts 3.1.1 through 3.1.4, the proposed action includes acquisition of three parcels within the Specific Plan area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The infrastructure improvements and potential future public uses would be required to adhere to General Plan policies, Specific Plan policies, the Design Guidelines, and Zoning Code regulations. The future development at the property to be acquired would not result in impacts to scenic resources as there are no state scenic highways in the area. The future development would result in less- than-significant impacts to scenic vistas, visual character, and light and glare because future actions would be required to comply with existing City policies and Design Guidelines to protect scenic vistas, visual character, light/glare, and the potential uses are either permitted or conditionally allowed within the existing zoning districts.. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.1.5.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to aesthetics beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Aesthetics.

Mitigation Measures: There are no aesthetic-related mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that would be applicable to the proposed action.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-4

3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of
the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.2.1: The Specific Plan area and
the Annexation Areas do not contain any
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would
not convert any important farmland. There
would be no impact.

No Impact No Impact None Required Yes
Impact 3.2.2: The proposed Specific Plan
would not contribute to cumulative impacts
on agricultural resources. This impact would
be less than cumulatively considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.2.1-Convert Important Farmland: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified no impacts relative to important farmland, because the Specific Plan area and annexation areas do not contain designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Similarly, the property to be acquired is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Rather, the properties are designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” on the latest Sonoma County Important Farmland map (CDC 2021). No impact to farmland would result, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.2.1.

Impact 3.1.2-Cumulative Impacts on Agricultural Resources: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-cumulatively-considerable impact on agricultural resources as buildout of the Specific Plan would not result in farmland conversion. As described in Impact 3.2.1, the proposed action would not result in impacts to important farmland. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.1.2.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to agriculture and forest resources beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Agriculture and Forest Resources.

Mitigation Measures: There are no agriculture and forest-related mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that would be applicable to the proposed action.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-5

3.3 Air Quality
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of
the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.3.1: Subsequent land use activities
associated with implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan would not conflict
with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. This
impact is less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant None Required Yes
Impact 3.3.2: Subsequent land use activities
associated with implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan would not conflict
with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan or
result in vehicle miles traveled increases
greater than the projected population
increases over the project’s planning period.

Therefore, consistent with BAAQMD
guidance, the Specific Plan would not result
in an air quality violation and this impact is
less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant None Required Yes
Impact 3.3.3: The proposed Specific Plan
could result in short-term construction
emissions that could violate or substantially
contribute to a violation of federal and state
standards. This impact is considered
potentially significant.

Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
MM 3.3.3 Yes
Impact 3.3.4: The proposed Specific Plan
would not contribute to localized
concentrations of mobile-source CO that
would exceed applicable ambient air quality
standards. This is considered a less than
significant impact.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant None Required Yes
Impact 3.3.5: The proposed Specific Plan
could result in increased exposure of
existing or planned sensitive land uses to
construction-source toxic air contaminant
(TAC) emissions. This impact is considered
potentially significant.

Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
MM 3.3.5 Yes
Impact 3.3.6: The proposed Specific Plan
could result in the development of housing
units (sensitive land uses) near stationary or
mobile-source TACs. This impact is
potentially significant.

Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
MM 3.3.6 Yes
Impact 3.3.7: Future development within the
Specific Plan area would not result in
exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial odorous emissions. This impact
is considered less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant None Required Yes
Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-6

Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of
the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.3.8: The proposed Specific Plan,
in combination with cumulative development
in the SFBAAB, could result in a significantly
cumulative increase of criteria air pollutants
for which the air basin is designated
nonattainment. This would be a significant
cumulative impact, and the project’s
contribution to the impact would be
considered cumulatively considerable.

Cumulatively
Considerable
Cumulatively
Considerable None Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.3.1-Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to conflicts with the 2010 Clean Air Plan due to required adherence to General Plan policies, the Sonoma County Transportation Authorities Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Each of the aforementioned plans includes provisions to reduce emissions of local and regional pollutants and to promote public health in support of the goals of the Clean Air Plan.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The property to be acquired is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017a) is the currently applicable air quality plan for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 individual control measures in nine economic sectors: stationary (industrial) sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and super-GHG pollutants. Many of the control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan require action on the part of the BAAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), or local communities, and are not directly related to the actions undertaken for an individual development project.

The future roadway extension and multi-use path at the property would be consistent with the Specific Plan, which identifies the planned improvements across the property. Therefore, the future infrastructure improvements would implement the Specific Plan to improve community connectivity by improving motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities throughout the area. The potential future public uses at the property would not prevent the BAAQMD from implementing the control measures in the Clean Air Plan, and none of the measures would apply directly to the potential public uses. Therefore, the proposed action would not prevent the BAAQMD from implementing the current Clean Air Plan. As a result, the impact would be less than significant, and the proposed impact would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.3.1.

Impact 3.3.2-Violate Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Air Quality Violation During Long-Term Operations: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to violating air quality standards as buildout of the Specific Plan would be consistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan and vehicle miles traveled would increase at a lower rate than population growth.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-7

According to California standards, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), and ozone. Under national standards, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone. The Air Basin is in attainment (or unclassified) for all other air pollutants. (BAAQMD 2021) As described in Impact 3.3.1, the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan is the currently applicable air quality plan for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The proposed action would include property acquisition for future infrastructure improvements and future potential public uses identified in the Specific Plan, which would not conflict with or prevent the BAAQMD from implementing the current Clean Air Plan. The future infrastructure and public land use improvements that would be constructed at the property would implement circulation and public safety chapters of the Specific Plan (see Chapter 3 and 4 of Specific Plan) and would not result in an attributable increase in VMT as compared to that identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR, and VMT would continue to increase at a lower rate than population growth. The properties to be acquired are also within a pre-screened area of Santa Rosa where a less-than-significant VMT impact would result. As a result, the impact would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.3.2.

Impact 3.3.3-Violate Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Air Quality Violation During Short-Term Construction Activities: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a potentially significant impact relative to construction of future developments generating short-term air pollutant emissions above BAAQMD significance thresholds. Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.3 was included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure that future construction instigated under the Specific Plan would be reduced to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. As a result, the impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

All development projects in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are subject to BAAQMD rules and regulations adopted to reduce air pollutant emissions. For example, BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings, limits the quantity of volatile organic compounds in architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within the district.

Regulation 8, Rule 15, Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts, limits the emissions of volatile organic compounds caused by the use of emulsified and liquid asphalt in paving materials and paving and maintenance operations. In addition, Santa Rosa General Plan Policy OSC-J-1 requires dust abatement actions as contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Handbook. As a result of this policy provision, the City of Santa Rosa ensures that the BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are noted on construction documents and implemented during construction.

Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.3 from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the future construction projects at the property to be acquired, ensuring that future construction would be reduced to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. As a result, the project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, and the project would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact

3.3.3. Impact 3.3.4-Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Carbon Monoxide Pollutant Concentrations:

The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to localized carbon monoxide concentrations because no intersection or freeway ramp within the Specific Plan area would exceed the BAAQMD’s carbon monoxide screening criteria, which is more than 44,000 vehicles per hour at intersections and 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing of pollutants and atmosphere is substantially limited, such as a large enclosed parking structure.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-8

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The infrastructure improvements would not generate additional vehicle trips compared to trips identified in the Program EIR because the circulation improvements would not be trip generating and would be consistent with the circulation improvements identified in the Specific Plan. Therefore, traffic trips along the proposed Dutton Avenue extension were accounted for in the Program EIR. Project traffic associated with potential future public uses at the property would not increase traffic volumes at local intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour, or increase traffic volumes to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. The potential public uses were considered in the Specific Plan and the traffic volumes associated with them and existing traffic in the area of the acquisition would be well below the carbon monoxide screening criteria at local intersections. The project impacts would be less than significant, and the project would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.3.4.

Impact 3.3.5-Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations During Construction: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a potentially significant impact relative to exposure of sensitive land uses to the effects of construction-related toxic air contaminants, given that buildout of the Specific Plan may include larger-scale construction projects that could occur in proximity to residential and other sensitive land uses. Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.5 was included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure that that future construction-related toxic air contaminants under the Specific Plan would be reduced to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. As a result, the impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Sensitive receptors are defined by the BAAQMD as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.

Residential uses are also considered sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. The closest sensitive receptors are residences east and west of the subject properties, as well as north across Hearn Avenue.

The two emissions of concern for construction-generated health impacts are diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM

2.5. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which is a known toxic air contaminant. Diesel exhaust and PM2.5 pose both potential health and nuisance impacts to nearby receptors. Mitigation Measure 3.3.5 from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to future actions, ensuring that future construction-related toxic air contaminants under the proposed action would be reduced to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. As a result, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.3.5.

Impact 3.3.6-Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations During Operations: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a potentially significant impact relative to exposure of sensitive land uses to the effects of operational mobile sources and stationary sources of toxic air contaminants, given that portions of the Specific Plan area include sources of air toxics that could exceed established health criteria. Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.6 was included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure that adequate measures and associated performance standards are in place to mitigate this impact. As a result, the impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-9

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The infrastructure improvements would not generate additional vehicle trips or mobile source emissions beyond those considered in the Specific Plan Program EIR because the circulation improvements would not be trip generating and would be consistent with the circulation improvements identified in the Specific Plan.

Therefore, traffic trips along the proposed Dutton Avenue extension and related mobile source emissions were accounted for in the Program EIR. Traffic volumes associated with potential public uses were considered in the Specific Plan and the mobile source emissions associated with them were considered in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Mitigation Measure 3.3.6 from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the future improvements at the property, ensuring that adequate measures and associated performance standards are in place to mitigate potential impacts. As a result, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.3.6.

Impact 3.3.7-Expose Sensitive Receptors to Odorous Emissions: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to odorous emissions due to required compliance with BAAQMD rules that establish volatile organic compound content limits for construction materials, as well as required adherence to General Plan policies, City Design Guidelines, and applicable City Code sections that regulate odors.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The infrastructure improvements and public uses were identified in the Specific Plan, albeit some of the public uses were identified at different locations within the Specific Plan area. The public land use locations identified in the Specific Plan were near sensitive receptors, similar to the way they would be under the proposed action.

For example, the recreation center proposed in the Specific Plan to be adjacent to the Southwest Community Park would be adjacent to residences in the same way that a recreation center at the subject properties would be. Therefore, odor impacts of the project would be subject to the same BAAQMD rules and General Plan policies.

For example, BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings, limits the quantity of volatile organic compounds in architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within the district. Regulation 8, Rule 15, Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts, limits the emissions of volatile organic compounds caused by the use of emulsified and liquid asphalt in paving materials and paving and maintenance operations. Required compliance with these regulatory requirements would further reduce odor impacts associated with these sources. The impact would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.3.7.

Impact 3.3.8-Cumulative Air Quality Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a cumulatively considerable impact relative to air quality impacts, as it cannot be guaranteed that construction of future development allowed under the Specific Plan would not generate air pollutant emissions above BAAQMD significance thresholds. Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.3 was included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure that future construction instigated under the Specific Plan would be reduced to levels below BAAQMD thresholds, as much as possible. However, the cumulative impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Santa Rosa General Plan Policy OSC-J-1 requires developments to implement dust abatement actions as contained in the Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-10

BAAQMD CEQA Handbook. As a result of this policy provision, the City of Santa Rosa ensures that the BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are noted on the construction documents. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.3 from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the future developments under the Specific Plan, ensuring that future construction would be reduced to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. As such, impacts from the proposed action, in addition to other proposed and approved Specific Plan projects, are potentially significant and unavoidable, and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.3.8.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to air quality than previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Air Quality.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the proposed action.

MM 3.3.3 Where projects in the project area are subject to subsequent CEQA review, the City of Santa Rosa must ensure that in addition to the BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (or subsequent updates), BAAQMD additional mitigation measures from Table 8-2 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (or subsequent updates) are noted on the construction documents and implemented.

These measures include the following:

1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.

2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.

4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.

5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.

6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to two minutes.

10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average.

11. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3:

Architectural Coatings).

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-11

12. Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM.

13. Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines.

Timing/Implementation: Implemented during construction activities for subsequent projects within the project area
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
MM 3.3.5 Projects within the project area that have a construction area greater than 5 acres and which are scheduled to last more than two years shall be required to prepare a site-specific construction pollutant mitigation plan in consultation with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) staff prior to the issuance of grading permits. A project-specific construction- related dispersion model acceptable to the BAAQMD shall be used to identify potential toxic air contaminant impacts, including diesel particulate matter. If BAAQMD risk thresholds (i.e., probability of contracting cancer is greater than 10 in one million) would be exceeded, mitigation measures shall be identified in the construction pollutant mitigation plan to address potential impacts and shall be based on site-specific information, such as the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, project site plan details, and construction schedule. The City shall ensure construction contracts include all identified measures. Construction pollutant mitigation plan measures shall include but not be limited to limiting the amount of acreage to be graded in a single day, requiring the use of advanced particulate filters on construction equipment, and requiring the use of alternative fuels, such as biodiesel, to power construction equipment.

Timing/Implementation: Modeling shall be completed prior to grading permit issuance, and measures implemented during construction activities for subsequent projects with a construction area greater than 5 acres and construction lasting more than two years
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
MM 3.3.6 The following measures shall be utilized in site planning and building designs to reduce TAC and PM2.5 exposure where new receptors are located within 1,000 feet of emissions sources:
- Future development in the project area that includes sensitive receptors (such as residences, schools, hospitals, daycare centers, or retirement homes) located within 1,000 feet of US 101, SR 12 and/or stationary sources shall require site-specific analysis to determine the level of health risk. This analysis shall be conducted following procedures outlined by the BAAQMD. If the site-specific analysis reveals significant exposures from all sources (i.e., health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a hazard Index greater than 10, or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.8 μg/m3), measures shall be employed to reduce the risk to below the threshold (e.g., electrostatic filtering systems or equivalent systems and location of vents away from TAC sources). - Future nonresidential developments projected to generate more than 100 heavy-duty truck trips daily and/or include the need for a BAAQMD permit to operate a stationary source shall include Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-12

measures to protect public health to ensure they do not cause a significant health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 10 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 1.0, or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 μg/m3.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-13

3.4 Biological Resources
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of
Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.4.1: Implementation of the Specific Plan
could result in adverse effects, either directly or
indirectly, on species listed as endangered,
threatened, rare, proposed, and candidate plant
and wildlife species as well as plant species
identified by the CNPS with a rating of List 1A or
1B. This impact would be potentially significant.

Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
MM 3.4.1a
MM 3.4.1b Yes
Impact 3.4.2: Implementation of the Specific Plan
could result in direct and indirect loss of habitat
and individuals of animal and plant species of
concern and other non-listed special-status
species. This impact would be potentially
significant.

Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
MM 3.4.2 Yes
Impact 3.4.3: Implementation of the Specific Plan
could result in disturbance and degradation of
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the
USFWS. The impact would be less than
significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.4.4: Implementation of the Specific Plan
could result in the loss or degradation of protected
wetlands or vernal pools. This impact would be
potentially significant.

Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
MM 3.4.2a
MM 3.4.2b Yes
Impact 3.4.5: Implementation of the Specific Plan
could interfere with movement of native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or established
migratory corridor. This impact would be less than
significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.4.6: Implementation of the Specific Plan
will not result in a conflict with a local policy or
ordinance protecting biological resources. There
would be no impact.

No Impact No Impact None
Required Yes
Impact 3.4.7: Development in the Specific Plan
area would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other approved
Conservation Plan. There would be no impact.

No Impact No Impact None
Required Yes
Impact 3.4.8: Development in the Specific Plan
area, when considered together with other past,
existing, and planned future projects, could result
in a significant cumulative impact on biological
resources in the region. The project’s contribution
to the significant cumulative impact on biological
resources impacts would be less than
cumulatively considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-14

Discussion:

Impact 3.4.1-Special-Status Species: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a potentially significant impact relative to special-status species and associated habitat. Mitigation Measures MM 3.4.1a and MM

3.4.1b were included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure no net loss of habitat or species. As a result, the impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan area, which includes the properties to be acquired, is located within Critical Habitat established for California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), a federally endangered and State threatened amphibian species, as well as in potential habitat areas for rare plants, such as Burke’s goldfields, Sonoma sunshine, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and many flowered navarretia.

The closest reported sighting of CTS is approximately 0.4 miles west of the subject properties along Hearn Avenue near Southwest Community Park. Because the properties to be acquired are located within designated CTS Critical Habitat, excavation of soil during future construction may impact CTS individuals that may be located underground, within gopher burrows. Construction may also impact habitat for rare plants.

The three properties proposed to be acquired were part of a previous development plan, known as the Dutton Meadows Project. A previous CEQA review of the Dutton Meadows Project was completed in the Dutton Meadows Project Subsequent EIR (SCH # 2002092016), certified by the City of Santa Rosa in 2005 (Santa Rosa 2005a, 2005b). The Dutton Meadows Project Subsequent EIR identified CTS habitat associated with the subject properties that would need to be mitigated during future development of the subject properties. To mitigate for CTS critical habitat associated with the subject properties, the developer of the Dutton Meadows Project purchased 12.15 acres of CTS credits from the Gobbi Mitigation Preserve in 2006.

In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 3.4.1a from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to future development at the properties to be potentially acquired, which requires that future actions incorporate and implement the minimization measures contained within the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy. The Specific Plan Program EIR also describes General Plan goals and polices that would be applicable to Specific Plan projects to minimize direct and indirect impacts on endangered, threatened, rare, proposed, and candidate species, as well as plant species with a CNPS List 1A or 1B. Policies OSC-A-2, OSC-D-3, and OSC-D-4 protect special status species through collaboration with other agencies in order to maintain connectivity between open spaces and fragmented habitat, restoring wildlife corridors and protecting areas with significant environmental concern (see Impact 3.4.3 and 3.4.5). Implementation of Policy OSC-D-1 would ensure no net loss of wetlands, and policies OSC-D-2, and OSC-D-5 ensure further protection of wetlands from development and require consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to restore and protect wetlands that provide beneficial use (see Impact 3.4.4).

No new special-status species have been listed in the project area since certification of the Specific Plan Program EIR. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) identified a prior siting of white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), a California Fully Protected Species, on or in close proximity to the subject properties.

CNDDB records do not indicate known occurrences of other species on or contiguous to the subject properties. Passerines (perching birds) and raptors (birds of prey), including white-tailed kite, are each protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Fish and Wildlife Code 3503. Several trees and structures within the project area contain cavities that could be used as foraging and nesting Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-15

habitat for passerines and raptors, as well as roosting habitat for bats, some species of which are listed as endangered, threatened, or rare. Mitigation Measure MM 3.4.1b from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the future actions, requiring pre-construction surveys and minimization measures for nesting birds and roosting bats. As such, impacts to nesting birds or roosting bats would be less than significant with mitigation, and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.4.1.

In summary, impacts to special-status species and associated habitat would be less than significant with mitigation and with prior purchase of mitigation credits, and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.4.1.

Impact 3.4.2-Species of Concern and Other Non-Listed Special-Status Species: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a significant impact relative to redevelopment of parcels containing structures, such as buildings, which may provide habitat for bat and bird species, some of which may be special-status species or protected by the Migratory Bird and Treaty Act. Mitigation Measure MM 3.4.2 was included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure no net loss of habitat or species. As a result, the impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

Similarly, trees and structures at the properties to be acquired could be used as foraging and nesting habitat for passerines and raptors protected under the Migratory Bird and Treaty Act. If such species were present at the subject properties during construction, then construction activity could have potential impacts. Mitigation Measure MM 3.4.2 from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the proposed infrastructure improvements and potential public land use projects, ensuring no net loss of habitat or species. As a result, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.4.2.

Impact 3.4.3-Sensitive Vegetation Communities including Riparian Habitat: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to potential degradation of sensitive communities. The Specific Plan Program EIR describes the required adherence of projects to General Plan goals and policies that minimize degradation of creek, riparian habitat, and other sensitive communities.

Required implementation of General Plan policy OSC-D-4 requires coordination with CDFW to identify and protect areas of environmental concern and develop a strategy that would preserve plant and animal populations in the Specific Plan area.

No riparian habitat is located within the properties that would be acquired. Due to lack of riparian habitat at the subject properties and required compliance with applicable General Plan policies, the impact would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.4.3.

Impact 3.4.4-Jurisdictional Wetlands: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a potentially significant impact relative to destruction of wetlands and associated special-status plant and animal species that rely on such habitat. Mitigation Measures MM 3.4.2a and MM 3.4.2b were included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure no net loss of wetland and/or vernal pool habitat. As a result, the impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The three parcels that would be acquired were part of a previous development plan, identified as the Dutton Meadows Project. A previous CEQA review of the Dutton Meadows Project was completed in the Dutton Meadows Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2002092016), certified by the City of Santa Rosa in 2005 (Santa Rosa 2005a, 2005b). The Dutton Meadows Project Subsequent EIR identified 0.64 acre of verified jurisdictional seasonal wetlands on the properties to be acquired that would need to be mitigated during Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-16

future development of the subject properties. To mitigate for the loss of jurisdictional wetlands at the subject properties, the developer of the Dutton Meadows Project purchased 0.8 acre of wetland credits from the Gobbi Mitigation Preserve in 2008 for the subject properties. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 3.4.2b from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the future actions, ensuring that future construction would not result in a net loss of any additional new wetlands not previously mitigated for in 2006. As such, impacts to wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.4.4.

Impact 3.4.5-Movement of Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species Within Established Migratory Corridor: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to potential impacts on wildlife corridors, because future actions would be required to implement goals and policies of the General Plan and Citywide Creek Master Plan that preserve and restore riparian corridors.

No riparian habitat or woodland is located within the properties that would be acquired. Future implementation of infrastructure improvements and potential land uses at the site would be required to implement goals and policies of the General Plan and Citywide Creek Master Plan that preserve and restore wildlife corridors. Due to required compliance with such policies, the impact would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.4.5.

Impact 3.4.6-Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, such as a Tree Preservation Policy or Ordinance: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified no impact relative to conflicts with local policies, including policies in the General Plan, Citywide Creek Master Plan, and the Santa Rosa City Code, which includes a Tree Ordinance and Creekside Development Ordinance. Any future development on the property would be required to comply with the plans and local policies identified in the applicable policy documents mentioned above. Due to required compliance with such policies and ordinances, no impact would result, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.4.6.

Impact 3.4.7-Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified no impact relative to the Specific Plan conflicting with an applicable conservation plan. Santa Rosa has not adopted a conservation plan nor is it signatory to such a plan. However, the City of Santa Rosa requires development projects within the Santa Rosa Plain to be conditioned to incorporate avoidance and mitigation measures in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy and USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion for covered species. Mitigation Measure MM 3.4.1a was included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure that future development under the Specific Plan would implement such avoidance and mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure MM 3.4.1a from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the proposed action. As a result, the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.4.7.

Impact 3.4.8-Cumulative Biological Resource Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less than cumulatively considerable impact on biological resources with the implementation of applicable General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures MM 3.4.1a, MM 3.4.1b, and 3.4.2b.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Mitigation credits for CTS habitat and wetland impacts associated with development of the three properties have been purchased. In addition, Mitigation Measures MM 3.4.1a, MM 3.4.1b, and 3.4.2b from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the future actions at the properties to be acquired. As such, the impacts, together with Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-17

impacts from other proposed and approved projects in the vicinity, would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.4.8.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to biological resources beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Biological Resources.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the proposed action, reducing potential Biological Resource impacts to less-than-significant levels.

MM 3.4.1a : Implement General Plan Mitigation Measure 4.F-5: The City of Santa Rosa shall incorporate the avoidance and mitigation measures described in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy and the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion, as conditions of approval for development in or near areas with suitable habitat for California tiger salamander, Burke’s goldfields, Sonoma sunshine, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and many flowered navarretia.

However, in accordance with the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion, projects within the Southwest Santa Rosa Preserve System will be evaluated individually and mitigation may not necessarily adhere to the ratios described in the Conservation Strategy.

MM 3.4.1b : If there is the potential for destruction of a nest or substantial disturbance to nesting birds or bats due to construction activities, a plan to monitor nesting birds or bats during construction shall be prepared and submitted to the USFWS and CDFG for review and approval.

The City shall comply with all USFWS or CDFG guidance for protection of nesting birds.

If vegetation, buildings, or bridges that potentially provide nesting sites must be removed, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys. If an active bird nest is found, the bird shall be identified as to species and the approximate distance from the closest work site to the nest estimated. No additional measures need be implemented if active nests are more than the following distances from the nearest work site: (a) 300 feet for raptors; or (b) 75 feet for other non-special-status bird species. Disturbance of active nests shall be avoided to the extent possible until it is determined that nesting is complete and the young have fledged. Bats shall be absent or flushed from roost locations prior to demolition of buildings. If flushing of bats from buildings is necessary, it shall be done by a qualified biologist during the non-breeding season from October 1 to March 31. When flushing bats, structures shall be moved carefully to avoid harming individuals, and torpid bats given time to completely arouse and fly away. During the maternity season from April 1 to September 30, prior to building demolition or construction, a qualified biologist shall determine if a bat nursery is present at any sites identified as potentially housing bats. If an active nursery is present, disturbance of bats shall be avoided until the biologist determines that breeding is complete and young are reared.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction of any subsequent project that could result in disturbance to bird or bat nests
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-18

MM 3.4.2a: Implement Mitigation Measures MM 3.4.1a. and MM 3.4.1b.

MM 3.4.2b: A formal wetland delineation shall be conducted for areas that will be permanently or temporarily impacted by the project. If jurisdictional waters cannot be avoided, the City shall apply for a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE and a Section 401 permit from the RWQCB.

These permits shall be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits and implementation of the proposed project.

The City shall ensure that the project will result in no net loss of waters of the U.S. by providing mitigation through impact avoidance, impact minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation for the impact, as determined in the CWA Section 404/401 permits.

Compensatory mitigation may consist of (a) obtaining credits from a mitigation bank; (b) making a payment to an in-lieu fee program that will conduct wetland, stream, or other aquatic resource restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation activities (these programs are generally administered by government agencies or nonprofit organizations that have established an agreement with the regulatory agencies to use in-lieu fee payments collected from permit applicants); and/or (c) providing compensatory mitigation through an aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation activity. This last type of compensatory mitigation may be provided at or adjacent to the impact site (i.e., on-site mitigation) or at another location, usually within the same watershed as the permitted impact (i.e., off-site mitigation). The project proponent/permit applicant retains responsibility for the implementation and success of the mitigation project.

Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided prior to construction and grading activities for the proposed project.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-19

3.5 Cultural Resources
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.5.1: Redevelopment within the
Specific Plan area could affect historic
properties through modification of historic
character and through construction
activities. This impact would be less than
significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.5.2: If future projects constructed
in the Specific Plan area involve ground
disturbance, implementation of the Specific
Plan could result in the disturbance of
known and undiscovered archaeological
resources or cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074. This impact would be
potentially significant.

Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
MM 3.5.2a
MM 3.5.2b Yes
Impact 3.5.3: If future projects constructed
in the Specific Plan area involve ground
disturbance, implementation of the Specific
Plan could result in the disturbance of
human remains. This impact would be
potentially significant.

Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
MM 3.5.3a
MM 3.5.3b Yes
Impact 3.5.4: Implementation of the Specific
Plan, along with any foreseeable
development in the project vicinity, could
contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural
resources. This cumulative impact is
considered less than cumulatively
considerable.

Less than
Cumulative
Considerable
Less than
Cumulative
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.5.1-Historical Resources: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to potential impacts on historical resources due to required adherence to General Plan policies and state and local regulations and standards.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. A Historic Resources Evaluation was prepared for the properties to be acquired (TreanorHL 2021), the results of which are used as a technical basis for evaluating potential impacts to historic resources.

An evaluation of each property to be acquired is provided below. There are no preservation districts in the project area. Based on the 2021 evaluation summarized below, the subject properties at 976, 980, and 1004 Hearn Avenue do not possess sufficient historical significance per relevant criteria for individual listing on the national, state, or local historic inventories. Therefore, the subject properties do not qualify as historic resources. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.5.1.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-20

976 Hearn Avenue
The property at 976 Hearn Avenue does not possess sufficient historical significance per relevant criteria for individual listing on the national, state, or local historic inventories.

Criterion A/1/Event
The property at 976 Hearn Avenue features a two-story house originally constructed in 1953, and a detached garage that was constructed in between 1963 and 1977. The existing exterior stairs were replaced in 2016, and the house and the garage were reroofed in 2018. The property was not associated with any significant events. Research did not show the subject property to be individually representative of any important patterns of residential or agricultural development within Santa Rosa; it was among many residential buildings that were constructed during the mid-20th century. Therefore, the 976 Hearn Avenue property does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories under Criterion A/1/Event.

Criterion B/2/Person
No persons of known historical significance appear to have been associated with the subject property.

Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion B/2/Person.

Criterion C/3/Design
Constructed in 1953, the house at 976 Hearn Avenue does not appear to be a significant example of an architectural type. It is a vernacular building without a definite architectural style. It fails to be the work of a master, or architecturally significant in any other respect. It appears to be of common construction and materials with no notable or special attributes. It does not possess high artistic value. Constructed in the 1960s, the garage on the parcel is utilitarian in character with no notable or special attributes. Overall, 976 Hearn Avenue does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories under Criterion C/3/Design.

Criterion D/4/Information
Archival research provided no indication that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The subject property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion D/4/Information. 980 Hearn Avenue
The property at 980 Hearn Avenue does not possess sufficient historical significance per relevant criteria for individual listing on the national, state, or local historic inventories.

Criterion A/1/Event
The residential building at 980 Hearn Avenue was constructed in 1930 as a farmhouse. The mid-20th century aerials show several outbuildings and a large orchard to the south. The orchard appeared intact until the late 20
th century. Even though the property is an example of a small, family owned and operated farm in Santa Rosa and reminiscent of the agricultural history of Santa Rosa, it does not stand out as an illustrative example of an early 20th century farm. Moreover, some of the associated outbuildings and the orchard are not extant; therefore, the property no longer provides a sense of the city’s agricultural history. It does not appear to be individually representative of any important development patterns of residential or agricultural development within the city; it was among many farms that were developed during this period.

The property was not associated with any significant events. Therefore, the 980 Hearn Avenue does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories under Criterion A/1/Event.

Criterion B/2/Person
No persons of known historical significance appear to have been associated with the subject property.

Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion B/2/Person.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-21

Criterion C/3/Design
Constructed in 1930, the farmhouse at 980 Hearn Avenue does not appear to be a significant example of an architectural type. The house has undergone substantial changes over time; it exhibits a few features of the Spanish Eclectic style such as its arched front porch, but overall is vernacular in style. It fails to be the work of a master, or architecturally significant in any other respect. It appears to be of common construction and materials with no notable or special attributes. It does not possess high artistic value. The outbuildings on the property are all utilitarian in character with no notable or special attributes. Therefore, the 980 Hearn Avenue property does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories under Criterion C/3/Design.

Criterion D/4/Information
Archival research provided no indication that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The subject property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion D/4/Information. 1004 Hearn Avenue
The property at 1004 Hearn Avenue does not possess sufficient historical significance per relevant criteria for individual listing on the national, state, or local historic inventories.

Criterion A/1/Event
The residential building at 1004 Hearn Avenue was constructed in 1950 during the postwar development of Santa Rosa. The property was not associated with any significant events. Research did not show the subject property to be individually representative of any important patterns of residential or agricultural development within Santa Rosa; it was among many residential buildings that were constructed during the mid-20th century. Therefore, the 1004 Hearn Avenue does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state or local historic inventories under Criterion A/1/Event.

Criterion B/2/Person
No persons of known historical significance appear to have been associated with the subject property.

Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion B/2/Person.

Criterion C/3/Design
Constructed in 1950, the single-family house at 1004 Hearn Avenue does not appear to be a significant example of an architectural type. It is a vernacular building without a definite architectural style. It fails to be the work of a master, or architecturally significant in any other respect. It appears to be of common construction and materials with no notable or special attributes. It does not possess high artistic value. The garage on the parcel is utilitarian in character with no notable or special attributes. Therefore, the 1004 Hearn Avenue property does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state or local historic inventories under Criterion C/3/Design.

Criterion D/4/Information
Archival research provided no indication that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The subject property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion D/4/Information.

Impact 3.5.2-Known and Undiscovered Archaeological Resources: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a potentially significant impact relative to potential impacts on archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources if any such resources are discovered during ground-disturbing project-related activities.

Mitigation Measures MM 3.5.2a and MM 3.5.2b were included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure proper evaluation and treatment of unrecorded resources if encountered during construction. As a result, the impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-22

During preparation of the Specific Plan Program EIR, the City of Santa Rosa contacted the Lytton Rancheria of California and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria regarding consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52. Although archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources are not known to be present within the properties to be acquired, the possibility of encountering previously undiscovered resources during construction cannot be discounted. Mitigation Measures MM 3.5.2a and MM 3.5.2b from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to future actions, requiring completion of a Phase I Archaeological Resource Study during the future project-specific CEQA review, as well as procedures to be taken in the event of inadvertent discovery of unrecorded resources consistent with appropriate laws and requirements. As a result, the impacts relative to archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.5.2.

Impact 3.5.3-Human Remains: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a potentially significant impact relative to potential impacts on human remains in the event that such resources are inadvertently encountered during future activities involving ground disturbance. Mitigation Measures MM 3.5.3a and MM

3.5.3b were included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure proper evaluation and treatment of unanticipated remains if encountered during construction. As a result, the impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

Although human remains are not known to be present within the properties to be acquired, the possibility of encountering such resources during construction cannot be discounted. Mitigation Measures MM 3.5.3a and MM 3.5.3b from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the future construction activities, requiring completion of a Phase I Archaeological Resource Study during the future project-specific CEQA review, as well as procedures to be taken in the event of inadvertent discovery of human remains consistent with appropriate laws and requirements. As a result, the impacts relative to human remains would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.5.3.

Impact 3.5.4-Cumulative Cultural Resource Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to cultural resources with the implementation of applicable mitigation measures and with required adherence to General Plan policies. Similarly, the proposed action would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 3.5.2a, MM 3.5.2b, MM 3.5.3a, and MM 3.5.3b from the Specific Plan Program EIR, and with applicable policies included in the General Plan. Because the proposed action, in addition to other proposed and approved actions in the vicinity, would be subject to General Plan policies regarding cultural resources, it would not cumulatively create any new or exacerbate any identified cultural resources impacts. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.5.4.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to cultural resources or tribal cultural resources beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Cultural Resources.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the proposed action, reducing potential Cultural Resource impacts to less-than-significant levels.

MM 3.5.2a: Phase 1 Archaeological Resource Study. When specific projects are proposed within the project area that involve ground-disturbing activity, a site-specific Phase I archaeological resource study shall be performed by a qualified archaeologist or equivalent cultural resources Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-23

professional that will include an updated records search, pedestrian survey of the project area, development of a historic context, sensitivity assessment for buried prehistoric deposits, and preparation of a technical report that meets federal and state requirements. If significant or unique resources are identified and cannot be avoided, treatment plans will be developed in consultation with the City and appropriate Native American representatives to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level based on the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

MM 3.5.2b: Should any archaeological artifacts be discovered during construction of any subsequent project, all construction activities shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the City shall be notified, and a professional archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Professional Qualifications in archaeology and/or history shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. The professional archaeologist shall prepare a plan to identify, record, report, evaluate, and recover the resources as necessary, which shall be implemented by the developer. Construction within the area of the discovery shall not recommence until impacts on the archaeological resource are mitigated as described in Mitigation Measure MM 3.5.2a. Additionally, Public Resources Code Section 5097.993 stipulates that a project sponsor must inform project personnel that collection of any Native American artifacts is prohibited by law.

MM 3.5.3a: Implement Mitigation Measure MM 3.5.2a (Phase 1 Archaeological Resource Study).

MM 3.5.3b: Should human remains be discovered during construction of any project in the project area, all construction activities shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the City shall be notified, and the Sonoma County Coroner shall be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-24

3.6 Geology and Soils
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.6.1: Subsequent projects
developed as a result of implementation of
the Specific Plan could be at risk from
seismic hazards. This impact is less than
significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.6.2: Construction of subsequent
projects developed as a result of
implementation of the Specific Plan could
result in temporary erosion impacts. This is
a less than significant impact.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.6.3: Subsequent projects
developed as a result of implementation of
the Specific Plan could be constructed on
soils that are expansive or have other
physical characteristics that could result in
unstable conditions. This is a less than
significant impact.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.6.4: Subsequent projects
developed as a result of implementation of
the Specific Plan, in addition to other
proposed and approved projects in the
vicinity, would not cumulatively create any
new or exacerbate any identified geological
or soils impacts. Cumulative geology and
soils impacts would be less than
cumulatively considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.6.1-Seismic Hazards: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to seismic hazards because future projects would be required to adhere to adopted building codes that address seismic hazards.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The properties to be acquired, along with all areas of Santa Rosa, are subject to seismic shaking that would result from earthquakes along the San Andreas, Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek, and other faults. A review of geologic mapping indicates that the subject properties are not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no other active or potentially active faults have been mapped passing through the properties (CDC 1983). Regional mapping of liquefaction susceptibility indicates that the soils at the subject properties have moderate liquefaction potential (USGS 1997). Regional landslide mapping indicates that the properties are located in an area that is characterized as “flatland”, and there are no creeks that flow through or adjacent to the properties (USGS 1997).

General Plan Policy NS-C-2 requires a comprehensive geotechnical investigation prior to development approval, which would be applicable to future development under the proposed action. Such investigation Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-25

would include evaluation of site-specific seismic hazards, including seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and other potentially unstable soil conditions. The California Building Code and Titles 18 and 19 of the Santa Rosa City Code require proper foundation engineering and construction in accordance with recommendations of a licensed civil engineer. By applying required geotechnical evaluation techniques and appropriate engineering practices, potential injury and damage from seismic activity and unstable soils would be substantially decreased. As a result, the impacts to seismic hazards would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.6.1.

Impact 3.6.2-Soil Erosion: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to soil erosion because future actions under the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to state and local standards for erosion control and storm water management during construction.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Implementation of future construction activities could result in localized areas of soil erosion. General Plan Policy NS-C-8 requires erosion control measures to be implemented to reduce soil erosion from runoff, construction operations, wind, and other causes. These requirements overlap those of the City’s Storm Water Management Plan regulations, which would require the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and compliance with State Water Resources Control Board NPDES Order No. 2009-0009, as amended by Order No. 2012-0006, which applies to public and private construction projects that include one or more acres of soil disturbance. Because future construction activities at the properties to be acquired would be required to implement the best management practices in accordance with the local and state regulations, substantial erosion would not likely occur during construction. As a result, the impacts to soil erosion would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.6.2.

Impact 3.6.3-Soil Hazards: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to unstable soils because future actions under the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to existing regulations and policies in the General Plan and California Building Code that address acceptable geotechnical standards.

Soils at the properties to be acquired are mapped as Zamora silty clay loam and characterized as “flatlands”. General Plan Policy NS-C-2 requires a comprehensive geotechnical investigation prior to development approval, which would be applicable to the future actions at the properties. Such investigation would include evaluation of site-specific seismic hazards, including potentially unstable soil conditions. The California Building Code and Titles 18 and 19 of the Santa Rosa City Code require proper foundation engineering and construction in accordance with recommendations of a licensed civil engineer. By applying required geotechnical evaluation techniques and appropriate engineering practices, potential injury and damage from unstable soils would be substantially diminished. As a result, the impacts to soil hazards would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.6.3.

Impact 3.6.4-Cumulative Geology and Soil Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to potential impacts on geology and soils due to required compliance with existing regulatory requirements, General Plan policies, and City codes addressing geological and soil standards.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Implementation of future Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-26

actions at the properties would be required to comply with the California Building Code, as required under City Code Title 18, which requires stringent earthquake-resistant design. Soils hazards would be mitigated through compliance with the City’s requirements for soils testing and appropriate engineering, as well as the City’s Storm Water Management Plan. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements, General Plan policies, and City codes would ensure that subsequent development under the proposed action, in addition to other proposed and approved projects in the vicinity, would not cumulatively create any new or exacerbate any identified geological or soils impacts. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.6.4.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to geology and soils beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Geology and Soils.

Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that would be applicable to the proposed action.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-27

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.7.1: The Specific Plan would not
conflict with an applicable plan adopted for
the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

This is a less than cumulatively considerable
impact.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.7.1-Compliance with Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan, a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because the Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan, which is a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program as defined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

The existing and projected GHG inventories contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan were based on the land use designations and associated densities defined for the Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary in the City’s General Plan. Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The potential public uses, which may include a fire station, library, recreation center, community room/pool, or park, differ somewhat from the Specific Plan land use designations for the three properties, which are designated as a mix of office, medium-low residential, and retail/medium residential.

However, as described in Section 3.10 of this Checklist (Land Use and Planning), the potential public uses for the property are either permitted or conditionally allowed within the existing zoning districts that implement the land use designations for the properties. Therefore, while there would be changes to the proposed land uses at the subject properties, the population increases and land use intensities possible as a result of future actions would not exceed the City’s projected 2035 population identified in the General Plan, because the overall land use within the Specific Plan area would be consistent with and accounted for in the Specific Plan Program EIR. In addition, the potential public uses were envisioned as part of the overall Specific Plan, such as the relocation of an existing fire station. The proposed future actions would be required to comply with applicable GHG reduction measures identified in the Climate Action Plan, such as compliance with California Green Building Standards, net zero electricity use, reduction of potable water use in accordance with Tier 1 standards. The project also supports completion of the planned facilities outlined in the Specific Plan, Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master, and the City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which encourage increased use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.7.1.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to greenhouse gas emissions beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that would be applicable to the proposed action.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-28

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.8.1: Implementation of the Specific
Plan would result in the use, storage, and
transport of hazardous materials. Accidental
release of these materials could constitute a
hazard to the public or the environment. This
impact is considered less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.8.2: New development in the
Specific Plan area would lead to an
associated increase in use of hazardous
materials. The Specific Plan therefore has
potential to result in an increased risk of
accidental release of hazardous materials.

This impact would be less than significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.8.3: Several schools are located
within and in the vicinity of the Specific Plan
area. Hazardous materials or substances
may be handled in the vicinity of these
schools. This impact is considered less than
significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.8.4: Review of environmental
hazards databases conducted in association
with the Specific Plan identified hazardous
materials sites in the area, including sites on
the Cortese List. Impacts related to future
development of these sites are potentially
significant.

Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
MM 3.8.4a
MM 3.8.4b Yes
Impact 3.8.5: The Specific Plan could have
an impact on area roadways used to
respond to hazardous materials incidents
and/or for emergency evacuations. Impacts
associated with adopted emergency
response and evacuation plans would be
less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.8.6: Implementation of the Specific
Plan, in combination with other existing and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, may
result in cumulative hazards and hazardous
materials impacts. These cumulative
hazards impacts would be less than
cumulatively considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.8.1-Use, Storage, and Transport of Hazardous Materials: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-29

because future actions under the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to existing requirements, restrictions, and policies enforced by agencies with jurisdiction over the use of such materials.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. During future construction activities, small amounts of hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, lubricants, paint, and cleaning materials would be used. Hazardous materials that may be used, stored, or transported would be required to follow standard protocols and regulations. For example, Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol regulate the transportation of hazardous materials and wastes, including container types and packaging requirements, as well as licensing and training for truck operators, chemical handlers, and hazardous waste haulers. Worker safety regulations cover hazards related to the prevention of exposure to hazardous materials and a release to the environment from hazardous materials use. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) also enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain worker safety training and hazard information requirements, such as procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information related to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to protect workers and employees. Proper use of materials in accordance with local, State, and federal requirements, and as required in construction documents, would minimize the potential for accidental releases or emissions from hazardous materials.

Construction of future actions on the properties to be acquired would include removal of the existing single- family residences on the properties. Based on the age of the buildings to be demolished, they may contain hazardous building materials, including, but not limited to: asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) in the roofing, flooring, ceiling, and piping; lead-based paint on the interior and exterior of the buildings; and electrical equipment that could contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). As required by law, prior to building demolition, the City would be required to survey the buildings for hazardous wastes, and if found, such wastes would be required to be separated, stored, and disposed of according to local, state, and federal regulations. The BAAQMD is vested by the California legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants, including asbestos, through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition or abatement work. However, abatement of known or suspected ACMs, as verified by survey, would occur prior to demolition or construction activities pursuant to an asbestos abatement plan developed by a State-certified asbestos consultant as required by law. All ACMs would be removed and appropriately disposed of by a State-certified asbestos contractor. Adherence to all the aforementioned regulatory requirements would ensure that potential impacts related to ACMs would be less than significant.

Both the Federal and California Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHAs) regulate all worker exposure during construction activities that impact lead-based paint. The Interim Final Rule found in 29 CFR Part 1926.62 covers construction work where employees may be exposed to lead during such activities as demolitions, removal, surface preparation for repainting, renovation, clean up and routine maintenance. Requirements for lead hazard evaluation and abatement activities, accreditation of training providers, and certification of individuals engaged in lead-based paint activities is found in California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 35001 et seq. With implementation of an abatement plan, as required, and the regulatory requirements regarding identification, handling, and disposal of lead based paint, the potential impacts related to demolition activities of lead-based paint materials would be reduced to less- than-significant levels.

Generally, the majority of PCB-containing electrical transformers has been abated of PCBs. For the isolated locations where PCBs remain, appropriate identification and removal work would be required Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-30

according to Federal and State standards. PCBs are managed under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the PCB regulations found at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 761. The TSCA gives EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response the authority to develop, implement and enforce regulations concerning the use, manufacture, cleanup, and disposal of PCBs. Therefore, with adherence to regulatory requirements, the potential for exposure to PCBs would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

The potential public uses envisioned for the three properties in the Specific Plan may require the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials, such as a fuel storage tank and back-up generator for a potential fire station. All potentially hazardous materials would be required to be handled, used, and stored in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications and applicable health and safety regulations. The use of hazardous materials would require registration and compliance with the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, Hazardous Waste Generator Program, and Accidental Release Program. Compliance with the requirements of these programs would ensure that hazardous materials are properly transported, stored, inventoried, and disposed. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, the operational impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal and accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

As a result, the impacts related to the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.8.1.

Impact 3.8.2-Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials because future projects would be required to comply with General Plan policies, the City’s Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual, and the County’s Hazardous Materials Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Generator, and Accidental Release Programs.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. As summarized in Impact

3.8.1, small amounts of hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, lubricants, paint, and cleaning materials would be used during construction of future actions, and the potential public uses envisioned for the three properties may require the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials, such as a fuel storage tank and back-up generator for a potential fire station.

General Plan Policies NS-F-1 through NS-F-6 are aimed at reducing the risk from accidental release of chemicals, waste, or other hazardous materials and would be applicable to the proposed action. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, including General Plan policies, the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, Hazardous Waste Generator Program, Accidental Release Program, and the City’s Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual and Storm Water Management Plan, the impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal and accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. As a result, the impacts to accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.8.2.

Impact 3.8.3-Hazardous Emissions near Schools: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than- significant impact relative to handling of hazardous materials or substances in the vicinity of schools due to the limited increase in hazardous materials that would result and required adherence to General Plan policies and other existing restrictions and requirements.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-31

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The properties are located approximately 0.35 mile east of Meadow View Elementary School. Construction activities for future actions would include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants, paints, and solvents, which are commonly used during construction, are not acutely hazardous, and would be used in small quantities.

Numerous laws and regulations ensure the safe transportation, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials (see Impact 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 above). Although construction activities could result in the inadvertent release of small quantities of hazardous construction chemicals, a spill or release at a construction area is not expected to endanger individuals at nearby schools given the nature of the materials and the small quantities that would be used. Because construction and operation of future actions would be required to comply with existing and future hazardous materials laws and regulations covering the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, and because of the nature and quantity of the hazardous materials to be potentially used, the impact related to the use of hazardous materials in the vicinity of schools would be less than significant. As a result, the impact relative to hazardous emissions near schools would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.8.3.

Impact 3.8.4-Contaminated Sites: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a potentially significant impact relative to the potential for construction activities to encounter previously undiscovered contamination or subsurface features that could pose a risk to construction workers and the public.

Mitigation Measures MM 3.8.4a and MM 3.8.4.b were included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure proper evaluation and remediation of any contamination that may be encountered during construction. As a result, the impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Based on a review of the Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List (Cortese List) and GeoTracker website, no known hazardous waste sites or clean-up sites are shown to be located on or adjacent to the properties. The nearest such cleanup case is associated with a store located at 2423 Dutton Avenue approximately 75 feet north of the properties, in which an investigation of the site was conducted related to a former gasoline and diesel fuel release, and case closure was granted in 2017 in compliance with the Health and Safety Code.

The three parcels that would be acquired were part of a previous development plan, identified as the Dutton Meadows Project. A previous CEQA review of the Dutton Meadows Project was completed in the Dutton Meadows Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2002092016), certified by the City of Santa Rosa in 2005. The Dutton Meadows Project Subsequent EIR summarized the results of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report that was prepared for the three properties in 2001. The EIR notes that sampling and testing of the near-surface (3 to 9 inches below the surface) showed organochlorine pesticides at concentrations above the Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) for the orchards area at 980 Hearn Avenue. At the time of the 2001 Report, several 55-gallon drums containing motor oil also were observed on the property, and one active 350-gallon above-ground diesel storage tank. No obvious evidence of soil staining associated with the above-ground storage tank was noted. In addition, the existing structures on the parcels, which would be demolished as part of the future actions, may contain asbestos and/or lead (see Impact 3.8.1 above).

As noted in the Specific Plan Program EIR, development of any site has the potential to encounter previously undiscovered contamination or subsurface features (e.g., underground storage tanks or pipelines that may have contained hazardous materials that may been installed illegally or before permits were Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-32

required). Because there is the potential for project construction to encounter hazardous materials contamination that could pose a risk to the public and the environment, this is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM 3.8.4a and MM 3.8.4.b from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to future actions at the properties, requiring completion of an updated Phase I environmental site assessment, and if required, a Phase II environmental site assessment and remediation in accordance with OSHA standards and local, state, and federal guidelines. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that on-site hazardous materials contamination effects are identified and remediated to acceptable levels, resulting in a less than significant impact after mitigation. As a result, the impacts relative to contaminated sites would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.8.4.

Impact 3.8.5-Emergency Plans: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to potential interference with an emergency access or evacuation plan due to required adherence to existing General Plan policies, City standards, and California Fire Code requirements.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The properties to be acquired are located within the Southwest Santa Rosa Evacuation Planning Area. Designated evacuation travel routes identified in the project area include Hearn Avenue, Stony Point Road, Sebastopol Road, and Highway 12.

The potential future public uses may include replacement of Fire Station #8 to the subject properties, which would be consistent with General Plan Policy PSF-E-7, which seeks to move the fire station on Burbank Avenue (Station #8) to a new location in the Roseland area. The extension of Dutton Avenue would provide one travel lane in each direction plus a center turn lane or median from Hearn Avenue to the southern boundary of the property, maintaining a regional/arterial roadway classification. A stub out for a future connection with Dutton Meadow would also be provided. This roadway would connect with Hearn Avenue as an evacuation travel route.

The Santa Rosa Fire Department (SRFD) would review construction plans for the proposed roadway extension and potential future public uses at the properties to be acquired. During design review, the City would ensure that roads and driveways are designed and constructed to meet City standards as well as California Fire Code requirements for emergency access. The SRFD would also review building plans for compliance with the Fire Code and establish a future inspection schedule for continuing compliance.

The City of Santa Rosa is currently updating its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan via a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation planning approach that involves collaboration with local jurisdictions and the community.

The process is being overseen by a Steering Committee made up of stakeholders who represent an interdisciplinary group of experts in emergency management as well as community members. A public review draft of the 2021 Update was released in June 2021. Once pre-adoption approval has been granted by the California Office of Emergency Services and FEMA Region IX, the final adoption phase will begin.

Each planning partner, including the City of Santa Rosa, is expected to individually adopt the updated plan.

Adoption by the Santa Rosa City Council was completed on November 30, 2021.

The proposed action would not physically interfere with an adopted or pending emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. When taken together, existing policies, standards, and the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan would ensure the potential impact of interference with an emergency access or evacuation plan would be less than significant. As a result, the impacts relative to emergency plans would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.8.5.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-33

Impact 3.8.6-Cumulative Hazard and Hazardous Material Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-cumulatively-considerable impact relative to hazardous materials impacts due to required compliance with mitigation measures and existing regulations managing the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, along with compliance with applicable emergency plans.

Similarly, the future actions would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 3.8.4a and MM

3.8.4.b from the Specific Plan Program EIR, and with existing local, state, and federal regulations managing the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements, General Plan policies, and mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed action, in addition to other proposed and approved projects in the vicinity, would not cumulatively create any new or exacerbate any identified hazardous material impacts. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.8.6.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to hazardous materials beyond that previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the proposed action, reducing potential Hazards and Hazardous Material impacts to less-than- significant levels.

MM 3.8.4a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Developers shall be required to complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each property to be developed or redeveloped. If a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) is identified in a Phase I environmental site assessment, a Phase II environmental site assessment shall be prepared to determine whether conditions are present that require remediation or other controls to minimize the potential for hazardous materials contamination to adversely affect public health and the environment. If remediation is required, developers shall complete site remediation in accordance with OSHA standards and Santa Rosa Fire Department, Sonoma County Environmental Health Department, and State Water Resources Control Board guidelines. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) may become involved wherever toxic levels of contaminants are found that pose an immediate hazard. Remediation shall reduce human exposure risk and environmental hazards, both during and after construction. The remediation plan shall be prepared in accordance with the environmental consultant’s recommendations and established procedures for safe remediation.

Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment will be provided in the plan. Requirements shall include but not be limited to the following:
- Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the site, including closure reports for underground storage tanks (USTs) and contaminant concentrations.
- A site-specific health and safety plan to be prepared by all contractors at the project site, where applicable. The plan must address all demolition, grading, and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The plan shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The Health and Safety Plan shall be reviewed and approved by a certified industrial hygienist.
- Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project development, including Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-34

engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site.
- Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination, where applicable, which shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with local and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines.
- Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state-licensed landfill facility.
- Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development, and prohibition of groundwater development should it be determined from test results that contamination is present. The restrictions would be developed based on site-specific conditions and would reflect the requirements of the RWQCB and/or DTSC, depending on which agency is responsible for oversight of the particular site.

Restrictions, which are sometimes also referred to as land use covenants, shall be recorded with the parcel(s), shall run with the land. The developer or landowner successor(s)-in-interest shall be responsible for ensuring development complies with the restrictions. Compliance with the restrictions must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City before a grading permit is issued.
- Completion of an approved remediation plan should land use restrictions be insufficient to allow development to proceed safely. Remediation measures may include excavation and replacement of contaminated soil with clean fill, pumping and treatment of groundwater, thermal treatment, etc.

MM 3.8.4b: In the event previously unknown contaminated soil, groundwater, or subsurface features are encountered or have the potential be present during ground-disturbing activities at any site, work shall cease immediately, and the developer’s contractor shall notify the City of Santa Rosa Fire Department for further instruction. The City shall ensure any grading or improvement plan or building permit includes a statement specifying that if hazardous materials contamination is discovered or suspected during construction activities, all work shall stop immediately until the City of Santa Rosa Fire Department has determined an appropriate course of action. Such actions may include, but would not be limited to, site investigation, human health and environmental risk assessment, implementation of a health and safety plan, and remediation and/or site management controls. The City of Santa Rosa Fire Department shall be responsible for notifying the appropriate regulatory agencies and providing evidence to the City Planning and Economic Development Department that potential risks have been mitigated to the extent required by regulatory agencies. Work shall not recommence on an impacted site until the applicable regulatory agency has determined further work would not pose an unacceptable human health or environmental risk. Deed restrictions may be required as provided under mitigation measure MM

3.8.4a.

Timing/Implementation: As a condition of subsequent project approval, and implemented during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-35

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.9.1: Construction and operation of
subsequent projects in the Specific Plan
area could generate stormwater runoff
containing pollutants from construction sites
and new impervious surfaces, which could
affect water quality. This impact would be
less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.9.2: Future development in the
Specific Plan area would not significantly
deplete groundwater supplies or alter the
area available for recharge of the
groundwater aquifer. This impact would be
less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.9.3: Future development in the
Specific Plan area could alter drainage
patterns, but would not result in substantial
erosion or flooding. This impact would be
less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.9.4: Future development in the
Specific Plan area may result in increased
stormwater runoff to the municipal storm
drain system. This impact would be less
than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.9.5: Future development in the
Specific Plan area may occur in areas
subject to flooding hazards. This impact
would be less than significant.

Less than
Significant No Impact None
Required Yes
Impact 3.9.6: The Specific Plan, in
combination with existing, approved,
proposed, and reasonably foreseeable
development in the Laguna de Santa Rosa
watershed, would alter drainage conditions,
rates, volumes, and water quality, which
could result in potential flooding and
stormwater quality impacts in the overall
watershed. This cumulative impact is
considered less than cumulatively
considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.9.1-Water Quality: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to potential for violations of water quality standards because future actions under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with existing local and state regulations, including the City’s Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual, the General Construction Permit, and the Santa Rosa City Code.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-36

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Future construction activities at the properties to be acquired have the potential to degrade water quality as a result of erosion caused by earthmoving activities or the accidental release of hazardous construction chemicals. As described in the Specific Plan Program EIR, State Water Resources Control Board NPDES Order No. 2009-0009, as amended by Order No. 2012-0006, applies to public and private construction projects that include one or more acres of soil disturbance. The future actions would be required to comply with the General Construction Permit, requiring development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which, in addition to other requirements, must include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect the quality of stormwater runoff. The future actions would also require adherence to the requirements set forth in the City’s Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual), pursuant to the City’s NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Permit requirements. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that the future actions are managed during construction to avoid discharges to the storm water system, and designed and operated to minimize the potential for violations of water quality standards. As a result, the impacts relative to water quality would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.9.1.

Impact 3.9.2-Groundwater Resources: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to depletion of groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge because the Specific Plan is anticipated to reduce water demand compared to that assumed in the City’s long-range water planning documents.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The Santa Rosa 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) summarizes the City’s water needs and demands over a 25-year planning horizon through year 2045. The fundamental determination of the 2020 UWMP is that the City has or will have sufficient water resources to meet the City’s projected growth over the next 25 years under all anticipated hydrologic conditions, although customers should expect some demand reductions during dry years to ensure demands align with the City’s water supply. The California Water Code also requires the City to prepare an updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Shortage Plan) every five years. The Shortage Plan defines water shortage levels and identifies corresponding response actions and procedures for reducing demand for water during mild to severe droughts or other water shortage conditions. The 2020 UWMP and the 2020 Shortage Plan were adopted by the City Council on June 8, 2021.

The future infrastructure and potential public use improvements that would be constructed at the properties proposed to be acquired would implement circulation and public safety chapters of the Specific Plan. The improvements would not result in an increase in groundwater demand or a substantial increase in new impervious surfaces as compared to that identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR, because the improvements were considered within the overall Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed action would not result in the depletion of groundwater supplies or a substantial effect on groundwater recharge. As a result, the impacts relative to groundwater resources would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.9.2.

Impact 3.9.3-Drainage Patterns: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to alteration of existing drainage patterns because future actions under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with General Plan goals and policies, the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan, and other local requirements that require the City to manage, maintain, and improve stormwater drainage and capacity.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-37

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The properties to be acquired are located approximately 0.1 mile west of the Colgan Creek Flood Control Channel. No on-site streams or creeks are present on the properties, and the properties are not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or within a floodway or other special flood hazard zone. As such, implementation of future actions on the properties to be acquired would not require alteration of a creek or other waterbody or impede flooding. Drainage patterns at the properties would remain essentially the same as they currently exist and would connect to the local storm drain system. The implementation of future actions on the properties would also require adherence to the requirements set forth in the City’s Storm Water LID Manual, City General Plan policies, and the City’s NPDES storm water permit. As a result, the impacts relative to drainage patterns would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.9.3.

Impact 3.9.4-Storm Drain Capacity: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to the adequacy of stormwater capacity because future actions under the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to existing General Plan and Citywide Creek Master Plan policies, the City Municipal Code, and other requirements that ensure that adequate stormwater capacity is available.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. On-site drainage infrastructure for the roadway extension, multi-use path, and potential future public uses would be required to comply with the City of Santa Rosa Storm Water LID Technical Design Manual to retain the increase in runoff and mimic pre-development hydrologic conditions, ensuring the planned stormwater drainage system has adequate capacity to serve the future actions. As a result, the impacts relative to storm drain capacity would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.9.4.

Impact 3.9.5-Flooding Hazards: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to potential for risks associated with flood hazards due to required adherence to General Plan and Citywide Creek Master Plan policies and state programs.

As described in Impact 3.9.3, no on-site streams or creeks are present on the properties proposed to be acquired, and the properties are not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or within a floodway or other special flood hazard zone (FEMA 2012) or in an area that has been mapped as being subject to flooding as a result of a levee or dam failure. As a result, there would be no impact relative to flooding hazards, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.9.5.

Impact 3.9.6-Cumulative Water Quality, Runoff and Flooding Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to water quality, runoff, and flooding due to required adherence to existing General Plan and Citywide Creek Master Plan policies, the City’s Storm Water LID Technical Design Manual, General Construction Permit, and compliance with County criteria for stormwater capacity.

As described in Impacts 3.9.1 through 3.9.5, the future actions on the properties proposed to be acquired would be required to comply with applicable regulations and guidance, such as the General Construction Permit, the City’s Storm Water LID Technical Design Manual, and General Plan policies, which would ensure that subsequent development, in addition to other proposed and approved projects in the vicinity, would not cumulatively create any new or exacerbate any identified hydrology related impacts. There Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-38

would be no impact relative to flooding hazards. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.9.6.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to hydrology and water quality beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Hydrology and Water Quality.

Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that would be applicable to the proposed action.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-39

3.10 Land Use and Planning
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.10.1: The Specific Plan would not
divide an established community. There
would be no impact
No Impact No Impact None
Required Yes
Impact 3.10.2: The Specific Plan would not
conflict with applicable land use plans. This
impact would be less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.10.3: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not significantly
contribute to adverse cumulative impacts
related to land use including conflicts with
applicable land use plans. This impact would
be less than cumulatively considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.10.1-Divide Established Community: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified no impact relative to division of an established community, given that buildout of the Specific Plan is intended to improve community connectivity by improving vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities throughout the area.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The land would be used for the planned extension of Dutton Avenue and the Colgan Creek Multi-use Path, which are identified in the Specific Plan and other planning documents as occurring at the property. The remaining developable space on the property may potentially be used to implement the planned replacement of Santa Rosa Fire Station #8, and/or other public uses identified in the Specific Plan, such as a new library facility, a community center and pool, recreation center, and/or a neighborhood park. Such land uses would not divide the community. Rather, the future infrastructure improvements would implement the Specific Plan to improve community connectivity by improving motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities throughout the area. The proposed action would have no impact relative to dividing an established community, and would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.10.1.

Impact 3.10.2-Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans or Existing Uses: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, given that the Specific Plan was made consistent with applicable land use plans through a General Plan Amendment.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire 6.09 acres of land within the Specific Plan Area on the southern side of Hearn Avenue to implement future infrastructure components of the Specific Plan. In addition to the roadway and multi-use path extensions, the City may propose future public uses on the properties.

A discussion of the potential future land uses and an evaluation of potential conflicts is provided below for each property.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-40

Consistency Evaluation for 976 Hearn Ave (043-191-018)
The property at 976 Hearn Avenue is a 0.21-acre parcel developed with a two-story house and detached garage. The Specific Plan land use designation for the property is “Office”. Santa Rosa’s CO (Office Commercial) zoning district is consistent with and implements the Office land use classification.

The City is proposing to acquire this parcel to implement the Colgan Creek Multi-use Path, which is identified as an infrastructure improvement that would occur at the site in the Specific Plan, and to implement potential public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Implementation of the proposed path would require removal of the existing residence and accessory structures. The proposed paved multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path would have a north-south orientation across the parcel and would be 10 feet wide, with a 12-foot setback from the eastern boundary of the property and a 5-foot setback from any future development west of the path. The remaining developable space would be small, and may potentially be used for minor structures or land uses, such as a small parking lot, accessory to the potential public uses on the adjacent property at 980 Hearn Avenue.

Table 2-6 of the Santa Rosa Zoning Code identifies utility infrastructure and recreational facilities as permitted land uses in the CO (Office Commercial) zoning district. Therefore, the multi-use path and other potential land uses for the property would be allowable land uses. The proposed multi-use path at this location would be consistent with the Specific Plan, the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan, each of which identifies a planned trail across the property. The proposed property acquisition and implementation of the Colgan Creek Multi-use Path and other potential land uses on this parcel would not result in a conflict with the Specific Plan.

Consistency Evaluation for 980 Hearn Ave (043-191-019)
The property at 980 Hearn Avenue is a 5.65-acre parcel developed with a farmhouse and former orchard.

The Specific Plan land use designations for the property include “Medium-Low Residential” and “Retail/Medium Residential”. Santa Rosa’s R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district implements the Medium-Low Density land use classification, and the CG (General Commercial) and R-2 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning districts implement the Retail/Medium Residential land use classification.

The City is proposing to acquire this parcel to implement the future extension of Dutton Avenue, which is identified in the Specific Plan as an infrastructure improvement that would occur at the property, as well as other potential public uses. Implementation of the future roadway extension would require the removal of the existing residence and accessory structures. The future roadway extension would have a general north-south orientation across the parcel, with a stub-out for a future connection with Dutton Meadow near the southwestern corner of the parcel. The proposed Dutton Avenue extension would provide one vehicle travel lane in each direction plus a center turn lane or median from Hearn Avenue to the southern boundary of the property, maintaining a regional/arterial roadway classification. Class II bicycle lanes, bioswales, and sidewalks would be provided on either side of the roadway. In total, the future extension would provide two 11-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot median/turn lane, two six-foot bike lanes, two 6-foot sidewalks, and two 8- foot bioswale planter areas.

Table 2-6 of the Santa Rosa Zoning Code identifies utility infrastructure as a permitted land use for the R-1, R-2, and CG zoning districts. Therefore, the proposed Dutton Avenue extension would be an allowable use on the property. In addition, as noted above, the future roadway extension at this location would be consistent with the Specific Plan, which identifies the planned extension across the property. The proposed property acquisition and implementation of the Dutton Avenue extension on this parcel would not result in a conflict with the Specific Plan.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-41

The remaining developable space on the property may potentially be used to implement the planned replacement of Santa Rosa Fire Station #8, and/or other public uses identified in the Specific Plan, such as a new library facility, a community center and pool, a recreation center, and/or a neighborhood park.

Table 2-6 of the Santa Rosa Zoning Code identifies the following for these land uses:
– Public safety facilities, such as the potential replacement of Santa Rosa Fire Station #8, are an allowable land use with a Minor Conditional Use Permit within the R-1, R-2, and CG zoning districts. – Libraries are a permitted land use in the CG zoning district, and an allowable land use with a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. – Community rooms (public meeting facilities) are an allowable land use with a Minor Conditional Use Permit within the R-1, R-2, and GC zoning districts.
– Community pools and recreation centers (Quasi-public health/fitness facilities) are allowable land uses with a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. – Parks are a permitted land use in the GC zoning district, and an allowable land use with a Minor Conditional Use Permit within the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts.

As summarized above, the proposed public uses for the property are either permitted or conditionally allowed within all of the land use designations on the property. The proposed property acquisition and implementation of the potential future public uses on this parcel would not result in a conflict with the Specific Plan.

Consistency Evaluation for 1004 Hearn Ave (043-191-020) The property at 1004 Hearn Avenue is a 0.23-acre parcel developed with a residence and accessory structures. The Specific Plan land use designation for the property is “Medium-Low Residential”. Santa Rosa’s R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district implements the Medium-Low Density land use classification.

The City is proposing to acquire this parcel in part to implement the planned future extension of Dutton Avenue, which is identified as an infrastructure improvement that would occur on the adjacent property at 980 Hearn Avenue, as well as other potential public uses. Implementation of the proposed roadway extension and/or public uses on this property would require the removal of the existing residence and accessory structures. Given the location of the parcel in relation to the proposed future extension of Dutton Avenue, the development potential would likely be limited to minor structures, such as storm water LID features, accessory to the proposed roadway extension, and/or possibly a community room, small neighborhood park, or other public uses noted above.

Similar to the analysis for 980 Hearn Avenue, the proposed land uses would be allowable land uses associated with the R-1 zoning district and the Medium-Low Density land use classification for the property.

The proposed acquisition of the parcel and implementation of the potential infrastructure related improvements and/or future potential public uses on this parcel would not result in a conflict with the Specific Plan.

Because the Specific Plan was made consistent with applicable land use plans through a General Plan Amendment, the above finding that the proposed action would not conflict with the Specific Plan means that the proposed action also would not conflict with the General Plan. There are no other applicable land use plans to consider. As a result, the impact relative to conflicts with applicable land use plans would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.10.2.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-42

Impact 3.10.3-Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-cumulatively-considerable impact relative to land use and planning, given that the land uses contemplated by the Specific Plan were substantially similar to the vision presented in the General Plan. As described in Impact 3.10.1 and Impact 3.10.2, the proposed property acquisition and implementation of future infrastructure related improvements and potential public uses would not divide the community or result in a conflict with the Specific Plan. The proposed property acquisition, infrastructure improvements, and other potential land uses are included in the Specific Plan and would not cumulatively create new land use impacts. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.10.3
Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to land use and planning beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Land Use and Planning.

Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that would be applicable to the proposed action.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-43

3.11 Noise
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.11.1: The Specific Plan would not
expose residents to traffic noise or
stationary sources of noise in excess of
established standards. Impacts would be
less than significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.11.2: Specific Plan operation
would generate increased local traffic
volumes that could cause a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity. This would be a less
than significant impact.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.11.3: Planned development under
the Specific Plan would be required to
comply with City noise standards set forth in
the City Code. This impact would be
considered less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.11.4: Construction activities could
cause a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels at nearby noise-
sensitive land uses, which may result in
increased levels of annoyance, activity
interference, and sleep disruption. This
impact is considered less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.11.5: The Specific Plan, when
considered in combination with other past,
existing, planned future projects, would
result in increased noise levels. This
cumulative impact would be considered less
than cumulatively considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.11.1-Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to exposure of residents to traffic noise or stationary sources of noise because projects would be required to adhere to existing regulations and City policies establishing acceptable or conditionally acceptable noise thresholds.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. As described in the Specific Plan Program EIR, noise levels in the project area range from 61.7 to 62.0 dBA Ldn, a normally or conditionally acceptable noise environment for all land uses according to City noise provisions.

Future actions would be required to comply with General Plan Policy NS-B-4, which requires all new developments proposed for areas with existing noise above 60 dBA to submit an acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. In cases where acceptable or conditionally acceptable noise thresholds would be exceeded, future actions would be required to incorporate measures, such as adding buffers Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-44

and/or landscaped earth berms, orienting windows away from unacceptable noise exposure, and/or incorporating state-of-the-art structural sound attenuation and setbacks, to reduce noise effects. The need for noise attenuation measures in building construction and project design would be determined at the time development is proposed. As a result, the impacts relative to generation of noise levels in excess of standards would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.11.1
Impact 3.11.2-Result in a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Above Levels Existing Without the Project: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to increases in traffic noise levels associated with the Specific Plan because such levels would not be greater than applicable noise level thresholds (i.e., traffic noise would not increase by 5 dBA or more over pre-Specific Plan noise conditions).

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The roadway noise associated the infrastructure improvements (i.e., the Dutton Avenue extension and Colgan Creek path) was considered in the Specific Plan Program EIR and determined to be less than significant. The infrastructure improvements to be implemented as a result of the proposed property acquisition and the surrounding noise environment are substantially the same as those analyzed in the Specific Plan Program EIR, because they were specifically identified at this location in the Specific Plan. Therefore, the impacts of the Dutton Avenue extension and Cogan Creek path would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels.

As described in the Specific Plan Program EIR, buildout of the Specific Plan is estimated to increase traffic noise levels along Hearn Avenue in the project area by 0.3 dBA. Future actions at the property to be acquired would be required to comply with General Plan Policy NS-B-14, which ensures that developments do not increase ambient noise levels more than 5 dBA Ldn above existing background within 250 feet of sensitive receptors. For reference, traffic volumes along a roadway would have to triple for noise levels to increase by 5 dBA. Due to compliance with General Plan policies, the potential increases in traffic noise levels associated with future actions would not be greater than the applicable noise level thresholds and therefore would be less than significant. As a result, the impact relative to increases in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.11.2.

Impact 3.11.3-Exposure to Groundborne Vibration: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less- than-significant impact relative to exposure of sensitive receptors to groundborne vibration because future projects would be required to comply with existing regulations as well as the temporary intermittent nature of construction activity.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. No pile driving would be anticipated for construction of the Dutton Avenue extension, the Colgan Creek Multi-use Path, or the potential public uses. At a distance of 25 feet, typical construction activities using non-pile driving construction equipment cause vibration levels up to 0.21 in/sec PPV. No structures sensitive to such levels of groundborne vibration are located within 25 feet of the construction area on the properties. Construction vibration levels also would be temporary, intermittent, and short in duration.

Long-term operational activities associated with the potential future land uses would be regulated by City Code Section 20-30.090, Ground Vibration, which states that no ground vibration that is perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the property lines of the site is permissible. In a case where potential Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-45

groundborne vibration-related impacts could occur, a potential public uses would need to incorporate measures, such as adding buffers and/or incorporating state-of-the-art structural design and setbacks, to reduce negative effects. Because of required compliance with existing regulations, the project impact relative to exposure to groundborne vibration would be less than significant, and the project would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.11.3.

Impact 3.11.4-Exposure to Short-Term Construction Noise: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to construction noise because such activities have relatively short overall durations, and because standard conditions of approvals require best management practices for the control of construction-generated noise levels.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. As described in the Specific Plan Program EIR, the City of Santa Rosa does not establish quantitative noise limits for demolition or construction activities occurring in the city. This is because noise generated by infrastructure improvements and infill development have relatively short overall construction durations, with the noisiest phases of construction (e.g., demolition, foundations, project infrastructure, building core and shell) limited to a time frame of one year or less. As a standard condition of development approval, the City requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for the control of construction-generated noise levels. Commonly applied BMPs in Santa Rosa include limiting noise-generating construction activities to the less noise-sensitive hours of the day, prohibiting idling of heavy-duty off-road equipment when not in use, and ensuring that construction equipment is properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations.

Implementation of these BMPs would be applicable to the future construction activities and would minimize potential impacts to nearby noise-sensitive land uses. As a result, the impact relative to increases in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the improvements would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.11.4.

Impact 3.11.5-Cumulative Noise Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than- cumulatively-considerable impact relative to traffic-generated noise due to the cumulative noise levels being within the conditionally acceptable noise environment, and because predicted increases in traffic noise levels associated with the Specific Plan would not be greater than 5 decibels, which is the change required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. Similarly, as discussed in Impact

3.11.1 through Impact 3.15.4 above, the proposed action would not contribute to increased noise levels in excess of established standards. The subsequent development under future actions, in addition to other proposed and approved developments in the Specific Plan area, would not result in cumulatively significant noise impacts. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.11.5.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to noise beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Noise.

Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that would be applicable to the proposed action.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-46

3.12 Population and Housing
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.12.1: The Specific Plan would
result in population growth in the project
area that is consistent with growth
projections for the city. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.12.2: The Specific Plan could
involve redevelopment activities on currently
occupied residential parcels, but there would
be no net displacement of people or housing
overall. Therefore, this impact would be less
than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.12.3: The Specific Plan, along with
other approved, proposed, and reasonably
foreseeable development, could induce
population and housing growth in the City’s
Urban Growth Boundary. This cumulative
growth is consistent with the City’s General
Plan 2035 population projections and is
therefore less than cumulatively
considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.12.1-Induce Substantial Population Growth: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less- than-significant impact relative to population growth, as the new residential units to be developed under the Specific Plan would be consistent with the growth planned for and evaluated in the General Plan.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. As a result, the impacts relative to inducement of substantial population growth would be less than significant, because the growth associated with the improvements have already been accounted for in the Specific Plan and the Specific Plan Program EIR. The proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.12.1.

Impact 3.12.2-Displacement: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to displacement of people due to required adherence to Specific Plan policies addressing anti- displacement goals and because the Specific Plan would not result in an overall net loss of housing.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Implementation of future actions on the property to be acquired would include removal of three existing single-family residential homes on the properties. In light of the overall implementation of the overall Specific Plan, the removal of the residential homes on the properties would not result in a substantial loss of housing that could result in the displacement of people. As a result, the project impacts relative to displacement would be less than significant, and the project would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact

3.12.2. Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-47

Impact 3.12.3-Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to population growth and housing because the Specific Plan is intended to help Santa Rosa meet housing demand through focused urban development, consistent with the Santa Rosa General Plan.

As described in Impact 3.12.1 and 3.12.2, the future development on the properties to be acquired is not considered substantial unplanned population growth. Future actions would require removal of three existing homes. As proposed in the Specific Plan, the parcels would be used for a planned extension of Dutton Avenue and a Colgan Creek Multi-use Path, together with one or more potential future land uses. In light of the overall implementation of the overall Specific Plan, the removal of the residential homes on the properties would not result in a substantial loss of housing that could result in the displacement of people.

The subsequent development under the proposed action, in addition to other proposed and approved projects in the Specific Plan area, would not cumulatively create new population growth impacts. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.12.3.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to population and housing beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Population and Housing.

Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that would be applicable to the proposed action.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-48

3.13 Public Services
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.13.1.1: Development resulting
from implementation of the Specific Plan
could increase demand for fire protection,
fire prevention, emergency medical, and law
enforcement services, resulting in the need
for new facilities, the construction of which
could result in physical environmental
effects. This impact would be less than
significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.13.1.2: The Specific Plan, in
combination with other reasonably
foreseeable development, would increase
the city’s population and could contribute to
the need for expanded fire protection and
emergency medical services that could
cause significant physical impacts to the
environment. The proposed Specific Plan’s
contribution to this cumulative impact would
be less than cumulatively considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.13.2.1: The Specific Plan would
result in the development of new residential
and nonresidential uses in the project area,
which would increase enrollment at local
schools. This impact would be less than
significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.13.2.2: The Specific Plan, in
combination with other reasonably
foreseeable development in the city, would
generate new student enrollments at local
area schools. The cumulative impact would
be less than cumulatively considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.13.3.1: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would increase demand for
parks and recreational facilities. This impact
would be less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.13.3.2: Implementation of the
Specific Plan, in combination with other
reasonably foreseeable development in the
city, would increase demand for parks and
recreational facilities. This cumulative impact
would be less than cumulatively
considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-49

Discussion:

Impact 3.13.1.1-Increase Demand for Fire Protection, Fire Prevention, Emergency Medical, and Law Enforcement Services: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to increased demand for fire protection, emergency medical, and law enforcement services as it would not require facilities beyond those envisioned in the General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The future actions at the properties that are proposed to be acquired would not result in an increase in demand for fire, emergency medical, and police services beyond those envisioned in the General Plan EIR or the Specific Plan EIR. As a result, the impact relative to increased demand for fire protection, fire prevention, emergency medical, and law enforcement services would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.13.1.1.

Impact 3.13.1.2-Cumulative Fire Protection, Fire Prevention, Emergency Medical, and Law Enforcement Services Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-cumulatively- considerable impact relative to public safety services because the Specific Plan’s increase in intensity of development would not result in an increase demand for services beyond those envisioned in the General Plan EIR. As discussed in Impact 3.13.1.1, the proposed property acquisition and future public uses would not contribute to the need for new or expanded public safety services beyond those envisioned in the General Plan EIR or the Specific Plan EIR. The subsequent development under the proposed action, in addition to other proposed and approved projects in the vicinity, would not cumulatively create any new public safety impacts because they would be consistent with that evaluated in the Specific Plan. As such, the impact would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.13.1.2.

Impact 3.13.2.1-Generate Demand for New Schools: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less- than-significant impact relative to demand for new schools, as increases in school age children expected from buildout of the Specific Plan would be minor and would develop over the next 25 years, could be managed through adjustments to school boundaries to ensure school capacity is not exceeded, would be funded by school impact fees pursuant to Senate Bill 50, and would be supported in existing and already planned educational facilities.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Such land uses would not necessitate or facilitate construction of new schools, as no residences would be built. As a result, the impact relative to demand for new schools would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.13.2.1 Impact 3.13.2.2-Cumulative School Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than- cumulatively-considerable impact relative to schools because buildout of the Specific Plan would be subject to General Plan goals and policies, because the increase in students could be accommodated by existing and planned schools, and because individual developments would be subject to development impact fees which would be used to fund school site construction and/or expansion. As discussed in Impact 3.13.2.1, the property acquisition and future public uses would not contribute to the need for new or expanded schools beyond those envisioned in the Specific Plan, because no residences would be built. The proposed action would not contribute to a cumulative impact relative to demand for schools. As such, the impact would be less-than-cumulatively-considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.13.2.2.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-50

Impact 3.13.3.1- Increase Demand for New Parks and Use of Existing Developed Parks: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to parkland because a sufficient number of existing and proposed new parks in the Specific Plan area are proposed to serve anticipated growth, and because funding for development of these parks is available.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Such land uses would not increase housing or population and therefore would not increase demand for new parks or increase demand on existing parks. In addition, one of the possible public uses of the properties would be for a new park. As a result, the impact relative to increased demand for new parks and use of existing developed parks would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.13.3.1
Impact 3.13.3.2-Cumulative Parks and Recreational Facility Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-cumulatively-considerable impact relative to parkland because the Specific Plan would provide sufficient new land zoned for park and recreation use to accommodate the anticipated population increase, because park construction would be funded via existing City fee programs, and the Specific Plan area would be subject to General Plan goals and policies. The proposed action would not contribute to the need for new or expanded parks beyond those envisioned in the Specific Plan. As such, the impact would be less-than-cumulatively-considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.13.3.2.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to public services beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Public Services.

Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that would be applicable to the proposed action.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-51

3.14 Traffic and Transportation
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of
the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.14.1: Specific Plan traffic would
not degrade corridor operations to
unacceptable levels of service under
Existing plus Project conditions. This impact
would be less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant None Required Yes
Impact 3.14.2: Specific Plan traffic would
have the potential to degrade mainline
freeway operations to unacceptable levels of
service under Existing plus Project
conditions. This impact would be potentially
significant.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable None Required Yes
Impact 3.14.3: Specific Plan traffic would
have the potential to degrade freeway ramp
operations to an unacceptable level of
service at the southbound US 101 freeway
offramp at Hearn Avenue under Existing
plus Project conditions. This impact would
be potentially significant.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable None Required Yes
Impact 3.14.4: The Specific Plan includes
various roadway improvements that would
be designed and constructed according to
City-approved design standards to ensure
safety. This impact would be less than
significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant None Required Yes
Impact 3.14.5: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not interfere with
emergency access within the Specific Plan
area. This impact would be less than
significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant None Required Yes
Impact 3.14.6: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not conflict with any
alternative transportation policies or plans.

This impact would be less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant None Required Yes
Impact 3.14.7: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would result in improvements
to pedestrian and bicycle circulation in the
Specific Plan area that would enhance
connectivity and safety. This impact would
be less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant None Required Yes
Impact 3.14.8: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would have a beneficial impact
on bus transit by concentrating uses in a
transit-oriented development pattern and by
increasing connectivity to transit facilities.

This impact would be less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant None Required Yes
Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-52

Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of
the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.14.9: Construction activities
associated with Specific Plan
implementation may temporarily affect
vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
circulation. This impact would be potentially
significant.

Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
MM 3.14.9 Yes
Impact 3.14.10: Specific Plan traffic, when
considered together with other past, present,
and future development, would have the
potential to degrade corridor operations to
unacceptable levels of service (Future plus
Project or cumulative condition). This
impact would be less than cumulatively
considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None Required Yes
Impact 3.14.11: Specific Plan traffic, when
considered together with other past, present,
and future development, would have the
potential to degrade mainline freeway
operations to unacceptable levels of service
(Future plus Project or “cumulative”
conditions). This impact would be potentially
cumulatively considerable.

Potentially
Cumulatively
Considerable
Potentially
Cumulatively
Considerable
None Required Yes
Impact 3.14.12: Specific Plan traffic, when
considered together with other past, present,
and future development, would have the
potential to degrade freeway ramp
operations to an unacceptable level of
service at the westbound SR 12 freeway off-
ramp at Dutton Avenue (Future plus Project
or cumulative conditions). This impact would
be potentially cumulatively considerable.

Potentially
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.14.1-Corridor Operations: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to roadway corridor operations because study area corridors evaluated were expected to continue operating acceptably at level of service (LOS) D or better with the addition of Specific Plan- generated traffic and incorporation of the roadway improvements identified in the Specific Plan. This includes the roadway segment of Hearn Avenue within the project area.

As of July 1, 2020, Senate Bill (SB) 743 established a change in the metric to be applied to determining traffic impacts associated with projects. Rather than the delay-based criteria associated with a LOS analysis, the change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a result of future actions is now the basis for determining impacts with respect to transportation and traffic under CEQA.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and potential public uses identified in the Specific Plan. As described in the Specific Plan Program EIR, VMT attributable to build-out of the Specific Plan was anticipated to Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-53

increase by 49.4 percent over baseline conditions, while the increase in population was estimated at 86.1 percent. Thus, VMT was estimated to increase at a much lower rate than population growth. The infrastructure improvements and other potential public uses associated with the proposed property acquisition were included in the Specific Plan EIR traffic analyses, and therefore the VMT is included in the overall VMT for the Specific Plan.

The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) encourages the use of screening maps to establish geographic areas for which the anticipated VMT would be 15 percent below regional average thresholds, allowing jurisdictions to “screen” projects in those areas from quantitative VMT analysis under which impacts can be presumed to be less than significant. The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) has prepared screening maps for the City of Santa Rosa, and the properties to be acquired are located in a pre-screened area. Such areas are identified as being within transit priority areas (areas within 0.5 mile of rail station), along high quality transit corridors (areas within 0.5 mile of transit routes with 15 minute peak headways), and areas with work-based VMT per employment lower than 15% below the countywide average as estimated by the 2019 Sonoma County Travel Model. The properties to be acquired are within the pre-screened area for Santa Rosa, therefore is reasonable to conclude that the proposed action would have a less-than-significant VMT impact. As a result, the impact on VMT and corridor operations would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.1.

Impact 3.14.2-Mainline Freeway Operations: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a significant unavoidable impact relative to mainline freeway operations, because buildout out of the Specific Plan would increase the density on northbound US 101 between Todd Road and State Route 12 by more than one percent. The Specific Plan Program EIR determined that physical improvements, such as further widening US 101, would not be feasible, and that the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority recognize that US 101 will experience congestion into the foreseeable future.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The future infrastructure and potential public uses associated with the proposed property acquisition were included in the Specific Plan Program EIR traffic analyses, and, therefore, the contribution of the proposed action to increased density on northbound US 101 was included and considered in the Program EIR. The traffic would contribute to the traffic related to Specific Plan buildout along US 101, and therefore the impact would be significant and unavoidable, but within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.2.

Impact 3.14.3-Degrade Freeway Ramp Operations: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a significant impact relative to freeway ramp operations, because projected off-ramp queues at southbound US 101 at Hearn Avenue were determined to extend onto the mainline freeway. The queues were determined to be the result of spillback from upstream signals and capacity constraints created by the existing two-lane Hearn Avenue freeway overpass. The Specific Plan Program EIR noted that the City of Santa Rosa is in the environmental phase of Caltrans project approval (Project Approval/Environmental Document [PA/ED]) for the Hearn Avenue overpass widening project, which would ultimately alleviate adverse queuing conditions. However, because the Hearn Avenue overpass would not be complete under Existing plus Project conditions, the proposed Specific Plan’s impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable in the near term. Under Future plus Project conditions (see Impact 3.14.12), the Hearn Avenue overpass widening, and interchange project was projected to be completed and the impact was reduced to less than significant.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-54

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan.

The future infrastructure and potential public uses associated with the proposed property acquisition were included in the Specific Plan Program EIR traffic analyses, and, therefore, the contribution of future actions to increased queues on southbound US 101 at the Hearn Avenue off-ramp was included and considered in the Program EIR. The traffic would contribute to the overall Specific Plan related traffic relative to the queues on southbound US 101 at the off-ramp for Hearn Avenue, and therefore the impact would be significant and unavoidable in the near-term, but within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.3.

Impact 3.14.4-Design Features: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to design features of future actions under the Specific Plan, because improvements to the transportation and circulation system within the Specific Plan area would be required to adhere to local, regional, and federal design standards and checked for compliance as part of the entitlement process.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The future extension of Dutton Avenue and the Colgan Creek Multi-Use Path would be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable local and state design standards. The proposed extension would provide one vehicle travel lane in each direction plus a center turn lane or median from Hearn Avenue to the southern boundary of the property, maintaining a regional/arterial roadway classification. Class II bicycle lanes, bioswales, and sidewalks would be provided on either side of the roadway. The proposed Colgan Creek Multi-Use Path would be 10 feet wide, with a 12-foot setback from the eastern boundary of the property.

As described in the Specific Plan Program EIR, improvements to the transportation and circulation system would be required to adhere to local, regional, and federal design standards and checked for compliance.

As a result, the impact related to design features would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.4.

Impact 3.14.5-Emergency Access: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to emergency access because the Specific Plan includes new streets that would improve connectivity within the Specific Plan area, creating new routes for all users, including emergency responders. Plans for individual developments to be constructed in the Specific Plan area would be reviewed for compliance with emergency access requirements by public safety officials as part of the City’s entitlement process.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Improvements to the transportation and circulation system would be required to adhere to local, regional, and federal design standards and checked for compliance with emergency access standards. As a result, the impact relative to emergency access would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.5.

Impact 3.14.6-Consistency with Alternative Transportation Policies and Plans: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to Specific Plan consistency with alternative transportation policies and plans because the Specific Plan was developed to both support and expand upon current policies regarding alternative transportation. This included compliance with the goals of the SCTA Comprehensive Transportation Plan, completion of facilities outlined in the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the City’s General Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-55

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The land would be used for the planned extension of Dutton Avenue and the Colgan Creek Multi-use Path, which are identified in the Specific Plan and other planning documents as occurring at the property. The proposed extension of Dutton Avenue and the Colgan Creek Multi-use Path would implement the City’s approved plans for alternative transportation, including the Specific Plan, the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan. As a result, the impact relative to consistency with alternative transportation policies and plans would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.6.

Impact 3.14.7-Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified less-than- significant impacts relative to pedestrian and bicycle circulation because the Specific Plan was developed to support and expand upon pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including new street and pathway connections that improve east–west circulation, enhance connectivity to and within neighborhoods, and integrate the future multi-use paths along Roseland and Colgan creeks as well as the SMART corridor.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The land would be used for the planned extension of Dutton Avenue which would include Class II bicycle lanes, and the Colgan Creek Multi-use Path which would be paved and intended for bicycle and pedestrian use. The proposed extension of Dutton Avenue and the Colgan Creek Multi-use Path would implement the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. As a result, the impact relative to pedestrian and bicycle circulation would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.7.

Impact 3.14.8-Transit Operations: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to transit operations because the Specific Plan would have a beneficial impact on bus transit by concentrating uses in a transit-oriented development pattern and by increasing connectivity to transit facilities.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. This would include the planned extension of Dutton Avenue and the Colgan Creek Multi-use Path, which are identified in the Specific Plan and which would increase connectivity to transit facilities in the Specific Plan. The properties are located within a transit priority area (areas within 0.5 mile of a rail station) and along a high quality transit corridor (areas within 0.5 mile of transit routes with 15 minute peak headways). The impact on transit operations would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.8.

Impact 3.14.9-Construction Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a potentially significant impact relative to construction-phase impacts, because construction of new development and infrastructure under the Specific Plan may temporarily have an adverse effect on traffic flows and accessibility during construction activity, such as requiring traffic detours. Mitigation Measure MM 3.14.9 was included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure that future construction activity implement traffic control plans to reduce construction impacts. As a result, the impact identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR was reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Mitigation Measure

3.14.9 from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to future actions, ensuring that construction Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-56

traffic control plans are developed and implemented to avoid congestion and delays on the local street network. As a result, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.9.

Impact 3.14.10-Cumulative Corridor Operations: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than- cumulatively-considerable impact on corridor operations because vehicular traffic on all study corridors was expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS D or better with the addition of Specific Plan-generated traffic and roadway improvements. Similarly, as discussed in Impact 3.14.1, the proposed property acquisition, infrastructure improvements, and other potential public uses are included in the Specific Plan and would not cumulatively create new land use impacts that would substantially alter VMT or LOS conditions. The properties to be acquired are within a pre-screened area for Santa Rosa where projects have been determined to have a have a less-than-significant VMT impact. The future actions at the properties to be potentially acquired, in addition to other proposed and approved actions in the Specific Plan area, would not cumulatively create new VMT or roadway corridor impacts. As such, impacts would be less-than-cumulatively-considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.10.

Impact 3.14.11-Mainline Freeway Operations: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact on mainline freeway operations because the increases in freeway density attributable to buildout of the Specific Plan would exceed one percent on northbound US 101, eastbound SR 12, and westbound SR 12.

As discussed in Impact 3.14.2, the future infrastructure and public land use improvements that would be constructed at the properties to be potentially acquired were included in the Specific Plan EIR traffic analyses and, therefore, the contribution of the future actions to increased density on northbound US 101 was included and considered in the Program EIR. The traffic would contribute to the overall Specific Plan related traffic along US 101, and therefore, the proposed action would contribute to the cumulative increase in traffic to US 101. As such, impacts would be cumulatively considerable, but within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.14.11.

Impact 3.14.12-Freeway Ramp Operations: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a cumulatively considerable impact on cumulative conditions relative to freeway ramps, because traffic from buildout of the Specific Plan when considered together with other past, present, and future development in the vicinity is projected to exceed storage on off-ramp queues and extend onto mainline SR 12 at the Dutton Avenue off- ramp. Mitigation Measure MM 3.14.12 was included in the Specific Plan Program EIR to ensure that the Dutton Avenue westbound off-ramp is widened to extend the right-turn pocket to alleviate the adverse queuing onto the mainline freeway.

As discussed in Impact 3.14.3, the future infrastructure and potential public land use improvements that would be constructed at the properties to be potentially acquired would implement elements of the Specific Plan and, therefore, would not result in a substantial increase in attributable local traffic as compared to that identified in the Specific Plan Program EIR. The traffic would contribute to the overall Specific Plan related traffic relative to the southbound US 101 off-ramp at Hearn Avenue, however, the Hearn Avenue overpass widening and interchange project was projected to be completed under cumulative conditions and the cumulative impact was reduced to less than significant. Traffic attributable to the potential future public uses at the properties to be acquired is more likely to utilize the US 101 ramps at Hearn Avenue as opposed to the SR 12 ramp at Dutton Avenue. As a result, the contribution to cumulative freeway ramp operations would be less than cumulatively considerable, no mitigation would be required, and the proposed action’s impact would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact

3.14.12. Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-57

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to transportation beyond those previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Traffic and Transportation.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR would be applicable to the proposed action, reducing Traffic and Transportation Impact 3.14.9 to less-than-significant levels.

MM 3.14.9: Prior to construction activities, applicants seeking to construct projects in the project area shall submit a construction traffic control plan to the City of Santa Rosa for review and approval. The plan shall identify the timing and routing of all major construction-related traffic to avoid potential congestion and delays on the local street network. Any temporary road or sidewalk closures shall be identified along with detour plans for rerouting pedestrian and bicycle traffic for rerouting pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The plan shall also identify locations where transit service would be temporarily rerouted or transit stops moved, and these changes must be approved by the Santa Rosa CityBus and Sonoma County Transit before the plan is finalized. If necessary, movement of major construction equipment and materials shall be limited to off-peak hours to avoid conflicts with local traffic circulation.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction activities.

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-58

3.15 Public Utilities
Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.15.1.1: The Specific Plan would
not exceed the City’s projected water
demand identified in the 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan. Thus, no new or
expanded water entitlements would be
required and this impact would be less than
significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required
None
Required
Impact 3.15.1.2: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not require any new or
expanded water treatment facilities. There
would be no impact.

No Impact No Impact None
Required
None
Required
Impact 3.15.1.3: The Specific Plan, in
combination with other reasonably
foreseeable development in the Sonoma
County Water Agency service area, would
result in less than cumulatively considerable
water supply impacts.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.15.2.1: Wastewater flows
generated as a result of the proposed
Specific Plan would not exceed existing
capacity at the Laguna Wastewater
Treatment Plant or in existing conveyance
facilities. No improvements would be
required; therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.15.2.2: Existing, planned, and
reasonably foreseeable development in the
cumulative setting, when considered
together with the Specific Plan, would result
in a cumulative increase in demand for
wastewater conveyance and treatment
services requiring system improvements.

This cumulative impact would be less than
cumulatively considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.15.3.1: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would require the extension of
existing stormwater drainage facilities to
serve new development. This impact would
be less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.15.3.2: Cumulative growth in the
city would increase the volume of
stormwater entering the City’s drainage
system. This cumulative impact would be
less than cumulatively considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-59

Impact Statement from Program EIR
Program EIR
Level of
Significance
Project Level
of Significance
Mitigation
Measure
Within
Scope of the
Program
EIR?
Impact 3.15.4.1: Future development
resulting from implementation of the Specific
Plan would increase demand for solid waste
collection, recycling, and disposal services.

This impact would be less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.15.4.2: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not be expected to
result in conflicts with any federal, state, or
local solid waste regulations. This impact
would be less than significant.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
None
Required Yes
Impact 3.15.4.3: The Specific Plan, when
considered in combination with other
existing and planned development in the
SCWMA service area, would increase
cumulative demand for solid waste disposal
services. This cumulative impact would be
less than cumulatively considerable.

Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
Less than
Cumulatively
Considerable
None
Required Yes
Discussion:

Impact 3.15.1.1-Require New or Expanded Water Entitlements: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to the need for new water entitlements, as the water demand for the Specific Plan area would be less than the demand assumed in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and no new system improvements would be required.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and potential public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The infrastructure improvements would not increase water demands. Santa Rosa receives the majority of its drinking water supply from the Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water), which provides water principally from the Russian River to retail water suppliers in Sonoma County. New development in the City of Santa Rosa is required to be extremely water efficient, complying with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and the CALGreen building code which requires new development to be 20% more water efficient than existing development, with new development often exceeding this target. The City’s Water Shortage Plan details how the City will respond to a reduction in regional water supply deliveries.

During water shortage stages 5 through 8, consistent with a 30% or greater reduction in water use, future water demands from new developments must be offset by sustained water reductions elsewhere in the City’s water service area.

The Santa Rosa 2020 UWMP summarizes the City’s water needs and demands over a 25-year planning horizon through year 2045. The fundamental determination of the UWMP is that the City has or will have sufficient water resources to meet the City’s projected growth over the next 25 years under all anticipated hydrologic conditions, although customers should expect some demand reductions during dry years to ensure demands align with the City’s water supply. The proposed action would not result in the need for new or expanded water entitlements. As a result, the impact relative to the need for water entitlements would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.15.1.1.

Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-60

Impact 3.15.1.2-Require New or Expanded Water Treatment Facilities: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified no impact relative to the need for expanded water treatment facilities, as buildout of the Specific Plan would not require the expansion of existing water supplies or treatment facilities.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and potential public uses identified in the Specific Plan. As described in Impact 3.15.1.1, the property acquisition and future actions would not result in the need for new or expanded water entitlements or treatment facilities. As a result, the impact relative to water treatment facilities would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.15.1.2.

Impact 3.15.1.3-Cumulative Water Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than- cumulatively-considerable impact relative to water supply impacts because sufficient water supplies would be available and buildout of the Specific Plan would not contribute to the need for new or expanded water supply or treatment infrastructure. Similarly, as discussed in Impact 3.15.1.1 and Impact 3.15.1.2, the property acquisition and future actions at the property would not contribute to the need for new or expanded water supply or treatment infrastructure. The future actions, in addition to other proposed and approved actions in the Specific Plan area, would not cumulatively create new water supply impacts because water demand from the uses was considered in the Specific Plan Program EIR, and the demand from buildout of the Specific Plan is less than the demand assumed in the UWMP, and no new system improvements would be required. As such, impacts would be less-than-cumulatively-considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.15.1.3.

Impact 3.15.2.1-Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to wastewater capacity, as the City’s modeling of anticipated wastewater flows in the Specific Plan area indicates that buildout of the Specific Plan would not worsen existing capacity issues in the conveyance system and would not require pipe upsizing or other improvements beyond those previously identified in the City’s Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Update.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and potential public uses identified in the Specific Plan. As described in the Specific Plan Program EIR, development of the Specific Plan area has been considered in terms of generating wastewater in the City’s General Plan 2035 and Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan. As described in the Specific Plan Program EIR, the Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) has an average daily dry weather flow of 15.5 mgd and is permitted for 21.34 mgd average daily dry weather flow.

The WTP has excess capacity of approximately 5.84 mgd, and the Specific Plan’s anticipated wastewater volume compared to existing conditions would represent less than 10 percent of this excess capacity. The change in land uses under the proposed action would not result in a substantial increase in demand for wastewater demand beyond that evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR. As a result, the impact relative to wastewater conveyance and treatment would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.15.2.1.

Impact 3.15.2.2-Cumulative Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-cumulatively-considerable impact relative to wastewater conveyance and treatment because wastewater modeling indicates that buildout of the Specific Plan would not contribute to existing conveyance system capacity issues and would not require system improvements beyond those previously identified in the City’s 2014 Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Update.

Similarly, as discussed in Impact 3.15.2.1, the proposed property acquisition and future actions would not contribute to the need for expanded wastewater conveyance or treatment infrastructure. The future actions, in addition to other proposed and approved development in the Specific Plan area, would not cumulatively Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-61

create new wastewater impacts. As such, impacts would be less-than-cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.15.2.2.

Impact 3.15.3.1-Require New and Expanded Stormwater Drainage Facilities: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-significant impact relative to impacts associated with construction of infrastructure improvements because: 1) stormwater drainage infrastructure exists in the Specific Plan area, 2) future development projects would be required to adhere to the City’s Storm Water LID Technical Design Manual and City Code Chapter 17-12 which would limit increases in stormwater runoff, and 3) physical impacts associated with infrastructure improvements are evaluated and mitigated in the Specific Plan EIR.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and potential public uses identified in the Specific Plan. The future actions at the properties would be required to include new storm water facilities in compliance with the City of Santa Rosa LID Technical Design Manual, including drainage management areas, numeric sizing criteria for storm water retention and treatment prior to discharge, site design measures to reduce runoff, stormwater treatment measures, and hydromodification guidelines. Stormwater generated as a result of the new impervious surfaces would be captured by required LID features which would be designed to retain the increase in stormwater runoff to mimic pre-development hydrologic conditions. The LID components and drainage infrastructure would work with the existing topography of the site and would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the subject properties. As a result, the impact relative to stormwater drainage would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.15.3.1.

Impact 3.15.3.2-Cumulative Stormwater Drainage Facility Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than-cumulatively-considerable impact relative to stormwater impacts because development would be subject to the goals and policies of the General Plan including the City’s Storm Water LID Technical Design Manual and City Code Chapter 17-12, and because buildout of the Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in a net increase in stormwater volumes and would not require major improvements to the City’s drainage system. Similarly, as discussed in Impact 3.15.3.1, the proposed action would be subject to applicable regulations and design guidelines that limit increases in stormwater runoff to the local drainage system. The future actions, in addition to other proposed and approved actions in the Specific Plan area, would not cumulatively create new stormwater drainage impacts because actions within the Specific Plan would be required to include storm water facilities in compliance with the City of Santa Rosa LID Technical Design Manual, including drainage management areas, numeric sizing criteria for storm water retention and treatment prior to discharge, site design measures to reduce runoff, stormwater treatment measures, and hydromodification guidelines. Stormwater generated as a result of new impervious surfaces would be captured by required LID features designed to retain the increase in stormwater runoff to mimic pre-development hydrologic conditions. As such, the impact would be less than cumulatively considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact

3.15.3.2. Impact 3.15.4.1-Increased Demand for Solid Waste: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less- than-significant impact relative to operational and construction waste, as the increase in solid waste anticipated to be generated by buildout of the Specific Plan would not exceed the permitted capacity of local landfills, and because future development would be required to comply with existing regulations such as General Plan policies and Santa Rosa’s Construction and Demolition Debris Franchise Agreement.

Under the proposed action, the City would acquire property within the Specific Plan Area to implement future infrastructure improvements and potential public uses identified in the Specific Plan. Construction of future actions at the properties to be potentially required would result in a temporary increase in solid waste Environmental Analysis
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 3-62

disposal needs associated with construction waste, followed by operational-related solid waste. Solid waste within the City of Santa Rosa is collected and transported to the Central Disposal Site Transfer Station. Municipal solid waste is then disposed of at both the Central Disposal site and at out-of-County landfills within the Bay Area. Out-of-County landfills include Redwood Sanitary Landfill in the City of Novato, Potrero Hills Landfill in Suisun City, Vasco Road Landfill in the City of Livermore, and Keller Canyon Landfill in the City of Pittsburg. Future actions would be required to comply with existing regulations such as General Plan policies and Santa Rosa’s Construction and Demolition Debris Franchise Agreement. As described in the Specific Plan Program EIR, sufficient capacity exists at regional landfills to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs. The subsequent development under the proposed action would not create any new solid waste impacts. As a result, the impact relative to solid waste would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.15.4.1.

Impact 3.15.4.2-Solid Waste Regulation Conflict: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than- significant impact relative to disposal of solid waste, as development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations and recycled efforts. Similarly, the proposed action would be required to comply with existing regulations related to the disposal of solid waste, including recycling efforts to assist the City in complying with Assembly Bill 939 diversion rate requirements. As a result, the impact relative to conflicts with solid waste regulations would be less than significant, and the proposed action would be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.15.4.2.

Impact 3.15.4.3-Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts: The Specific Plan Program EIR identified a less-than- cumulatively-considerable impact relative to solid waste because the anticipated increase in solid waste generation resulting from buildout of the Specific Plan would not have a substantial effect on landfill capacity and because development would be subject to General Plan goals and policies regarding solid waste disposal and would be conditions to participate in recycling programs offered through the City’s franchised waste collection company. As discussed in Impact 3.15.4.1 and Impact 3.15.4.2, the proposed property acquisition and future actions would not contribute to the need for expanded solid waste facilities or conflicts with solid waste regulations. The future actions, in addition to other proposed and approved actions in the Specific Plan area, would not cumulatively create new solid waste impacts, because future actions would be required to comply with existing regulations related to the disposal of solid waste, including recycling efforts to assist the City in complying with Assembly Bill 939 diversion rate requirements.

As such, the impact would be less-than-cumulatively-considerable and within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Impact 3.15.4.3.

Conclusion: The proposed action would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to public utilities than previously addressed in the Specific Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed action is found to be within the scope of the Specific Plan Program EIR relative to Public Utilities.

Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures from the Specific Plan Program EIR that would be applicable to the proposed action.

References
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 4-1

4. References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines. May.

BAAQMD. 2017b. Final 20107 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air-Cool the Climate. April 19.

BAAQMD. 2021. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Website Accessed November 1, 2021 at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Cortese List Data Resources. Accessed November 15, 2021 at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. State Scenic Highway List. Available online:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/2017-03desigandeligible-a11y.xlsx California Department of Conservation (CDC). 1983. Special Studies Zones; Santa Rosa Quadrangle. July 1.

California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2021. Sonoma County Important Farmland 2018. Published September 2021.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 06097C0736F. Effective October 16, 2012.

Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation impacts in CEQA.

State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. December.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2005a. Dutton Meadows Project Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2002092016. January.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2005b. Dutton Meadows Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2002092016. May.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. November 3.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Environmental Impact Report. June.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2012. Climate Action Plan. June 5.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2013. Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2016a. Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan. November.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2016b. Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2016012030. May.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2016c. Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2016012030. August.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2017. City of Santa Rosa Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2019. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018. March.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2020. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Guidelines Final Draft. June 5, 2020.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 8.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2021b. Santa Rosa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

TreanorHL. 2021. Historic Resources Evaluation, 976, 980 and 1004 Hearn Avenue. December USGS. 1997. Summary Distribution of Slides and Earth Flows in Sonoma County, California.

Report Preparers
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 5-1

5. Report Preparers

5.1 City of Santa Rosa
Amy Nicholson, Senior Planner

5.2 GHD
Brian Bacciarini, Senior Environmental Scientist
Patricia Collins, Senior Project Manager

5.3 Sub-consultants
Treanor HL
Aysem Kilinc, Architectural Historian / Preservation Planner Report Preparers
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 5-1

Appendices

Report Preparers
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan – Hearn Avenue Site Acquisition 5-2

Appendix A
Historic Resources Evaluation

treanorhl.com

TREANOR HL

976, 980 and 1004 HEARN AVENUE

SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA

HISTORIC RESOURCE S EVALUATION

DECEMBER 20, 2021

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1

2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...............................................................................................................................1

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................1

4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................................1 976 Hearn Avenue (APN 043-191-018) ...........................................................................................................2 980 Hearn Avenue (APN 043-191-019) ...........................................................................................................3 1004 Hearn Avenue (APN 043-191-020) .........................................................................................................5

5. ARCHITECTURAL STYLES ...............................................................................................................................6

6. SITE HISTORY .................................................................................................................................................7

7. HISTORIC CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................9

8. ARCHITECT/BUILDER .................................................................................................................................. 10

9. OCCUPANCY HISTORY ............................................................................................................................... 10

10. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................... 11 National Register of Historic Places ............................................................................................................. 11 California Register of Historical Resources .................................................................................................. 12 City of Santa Rosa ........................................................................................................................................ 13

11. SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION ..................................................................................................................... 14 Current Historic Status ................................................................................................................................. 14 976 Hearn Avenue Significance Evaluation ................................................................................................. 14 980 Hearn Avenue Significance Evaluation ................................................................................................. 15 1004 Hearn Avenue Significance Evaluation ............................................................................................... 16

12. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................................... 18

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 1

1. INTRODUCTION
GHD, Inc. has requested TreanorHL’s assistance in evaluating three parcels located at 976, 980, and 1004 Hearn Avenue in Santa Rosa (APNs 043-191-018, -019, and 0 20) for their eligibility as historic resources. The parcels have not been identified on any national, state, or local historic resources inventory. The subject pr operties were surveyed in 1995 as part of the Hearn Avenue Road Widening Project: 976 Hearn Avenue was rated “7, Not evaluated” 980 Hearn Avenue was rated “5S1, Eligible for local listing only-listed or eligible separately under Local Ordinance,” and 1004 Hearn Avenue was rated “6Z, Found ineligible for National Register.” 1 The following report is intended to provide a historical evaluation of the properties in order to determin e if they appear to be historic resources as defined by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the City of Santa Rosa.

2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The subject properties at 976, 980, and 1004 Hearn Avenue do not appear to be eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories, as they do not appear to be eligible under any of the established criteria.

3. METHODOLOGY
TreanorHL conducted a site visit on November 4, 202 1 to evaluate the existing conditions, historic features, and architectural significance of the property. Available research was completed including consultation wi th Sonoma County Assessor’s Office, City of Santa Rosa Building Division, Sonoma County Library, city directorie s, historical aerials and photographs, newspaper articles, and various other online repositories.

4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject properties are approximately 2 miles south of downtown Santa Rosa. Located to the west of railroad tracks and U.S. Highway 101, three parcels are on the south side of Hearn Avenue. From east to west, 976 Hearn Avenue features a two-story house and a detached ga rage; the large parcel at 980 Hearn Avenue features a one- story single-family house and multiple accessory structures; and the 1004 Hearn Avenue property has a one-story single-family house and a detached garage. Large vacant parcels, formerly used for agricultural purpos es, are immediately to the south and west. The surrounding consists mostly of single-family houses and large commercial and light industrial buildings closer to the highway.

1 Katherine Johnson, Bright Eastman, Final Historic Architectural Survey Report, Hearn Avenue Road Widening Project, located in Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California, FHWA No. CMC-5920 (018) (September 1995), 20. The properties were evaluated in 1995 before the status codes were revised, the quoted descriptions above refer to the pre-2003 codes.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 2

Figure 1. The subject properties on Hearn Avenue; the subject parcels outlined in red (Google Earth, imagery date June 2019).

976 He arn Avenue (APN 043 -191 -018)
The 65-foot-wide and 140-foot-deep parcel features a two-story house and a tall one-story garage. An L -shaped driveway leads to the structures which are set back approximately 85 feet from Hearn Avenue. The vernacular house is L-shaped in plan. The wood frame building has horizontal cladding and a low-pitched, asphalt shingle- clad cross gable roof. The windows appear to be woo d sash with flat wood trim, some with aluminum screens.

Three windows on the west façade have awnings. An o verhanging second story at the northeast corner shelters the first floor entry on the north façade. Wood stairs lead up to a small porch and another entry at t he north side of the second floor. A side entrance that consists of a single door and a window is on the west façade. The house received several alterations over time: the existing exterior stairs were replaced, and the house and the garage were reroofed, and windows were replaced.

A detached, tall one-story garage is to the southwest of the house. This wood frame structure also has horizontal cladding and an asphalt shingle-clad gable roof. Two roll up garage doors are on the north façade.

Hearn Aven ue

1004 976 98 0
Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 3

Figure 2. The front (north) façade of the house at 976 Hearn Avenue, the garage is to the right.

Figure 3. The west façade of the house at 976 Hearn Avenue.

980 Hearn Avenue (APN 043 -191 -019)
The 700-foot-deep parcel has a 200-foot-wide street frontage on Hearn Avenue. A single-family house is set back approximately 25 feet from the street while three detached outbuildings are to the south. A small concrete pond and fountain are at the front. The rest of the parcel is vacant with a few scattered trees. The o ne-and-a- half-story vernacular single-family house is irregular in plan. The wood-frame building has stucco cla dding, although horizontal wood siding is visible at places where the stucco fell off. A combined low-pitched hipped (front) and gable (center) caps the house. A shed-roof addition is to the south. The primary window type is wood- sash double-hung and narrow trim. Some windows were replaced over time with aluminum-sash windows. A recessed, partial-width front porch with arched openings is at the northwest corner of the house. A flight of concrete stairs leads to the porch and the main entrance which consists of a wood door with an aluminu m screen. A wood window with a divided upper sash is to the west of the door and an aluminum doble-hung window is to the east of the porch.

The west façade is punctuated with an arched porch opening, two wood windows, and a secondary entrance .

Sheltered beneath a wood awning with brackets, this entrance consists of a single door flanked with wood-sash, four-lite casement windows. A flight of concrete stairs with simple metal railing leads to the entrance. The rear façade has a one-story addition with a shed roof and four aluminum-sash casement windows, three with narrow

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 4
and one with wide wood trim. The east façade has a side entrance is at the south end: a small porch with a shed roof and two wood posts shelters a single wood door. From south to north, the rest of this façade features two wood-sash, four-lite double-hung windows, a small aluminum slider, and an aluminum double-hung window. The house received multiple alterations over time, including a rear addition and window replacements.

A small outbuilding to the southeast of the house is rectangular in plan. The wood-frame structure has stucco walls and a gable roof clad with corrugated metal panels. A window on the east façade was filled in an d the door on the north was boarded over. A second outbuilding is to the southwest of the house. L-shaped in plan with a shed roof, this wood-frame structure’s walls are clad in horizontal wood siding and plywood. A sliding barn door is on the east wall; the rest of the openings are boarded over. To the south is the third outbuilding which is a wood-frame structure rectangular in plan. The front portion is semi-open with a shed roof while the rear section is capped with a gable roof. Walls are clad in corrugated metal panels. A slider and a tilt-up garage door punctuate the west wall.

Figure 4. The front (north) and partial west façades of the house at 980 Hearn Avenue.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 5

Figure 5. The rear (south) and east façades.

Figures 6, 7 and 8. The outbuildings to the south of the house.

1004 Hearn Avenue (APN 043 -191 -020)
A one-story single-family house and a one-story garage are on the 85-foot-wide and 120-foot-deep parce l at 1004 Hearn Avenue. A driveway runs along the east side of the property. Set back 25 feet from the street, the wood frame vernacular house with stucco clad walls is irregular in plan. A low pitched, tile-clad, hipped roof with curved eaves caps the building. The front (north) façade has a partial-width porch at the center which shelters a single wood door and a pair of wood-sash, four-lite, double-hung windows to the east—all openings have aluminum screens. A large, fixed picture window is to the west of the porch. Another pair of wood doub le-hung windows are to the east. Facing the driveway, the east façade features, from north to south, a pair of wood double-hung windows; a smaller wood-sash, double-hu ng window; a single side door; and an aluminum-sash fixed window. The rear (south) façade is arranged in two sections connected by a covered porch. The ea st quarter has an aluminum-sash fixed window while the rest of the façade is set back, featuring multiple aluminum- sash casement windows. A single wood door on the we st wall opens to the porch. A brick chimney rises from the west façade which is punctuated with one aluminum-s ash casement window at the south end. The house received multiple alterations over time, including a rear addition in 1960, a new rear porch, and window replacements.

A one-story garage stands to the southwest of the house. The wood-frame structure is rectangular in pl an and capped with a gable roof. The walls are clad in stucco and plywood panels. Two large openings, a doubl e door and possibly a former garage door, are on the east façade. A small wood window with flat trim is on th e north façade. Attached to the south is a simple shed with corrugated metal panel roof.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 6

Figure 9. The front (north) and east façades of the house at 1004 Hearn Avenue.

Figures 10 and 11. The partial rear (south) façade on the left and the west façade on the right.

Figure 12. The garage.

5. ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
The houses at 976 and 1004 Hearn Avenue are vernacu lar in nature; the buildings currently do not illustrate a definite architectural style. The house at 980 Hearn Avenue has received extensive alterations over time; it exhibits a few features of the Spanish Eclectic style such as its arched front porch, but overall is vernacular in style. All accessory structures on the subject parcels appear utilitarian.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 7

6. SITE HISTORY
According to the Sonoma County Assessor’s Office, t he house at 980 Hearn Avenue was constructed in 193 0, 1004 Hearn Avenue in 1950, and 976 Hearn Avenue in 1953. 2 All three parcels were part of a larger property owned by the Pieri family, which was eventually subdivided between the Pieri’s daughters. 3 No building permits associated with the initial constructions were found for the buildings. In the early to mid-20 th century, the area around the subject properties, especially to the south of Hearn Avenue and east of the railroad tracks were mostly agricultural. The Sanborn fire insurance maps for Santa Rosa focus on the area around downtown, and do not cover the subject properties.

The properties received some additions over time. The house at 1004 Hearn Avenue received a rear addit ion in 1960.
4 The garage at 976 Hearn Avenue was constructed between 1963 and 1977, replacing a smaller accessory structure. A number of outbuildings to the south of the house at 980 Hearn Avenue are visible on the m id-20 th century aerial photographs but they were demolished in the 1970s and 2000s. The southern half of the 980 Hearn Avenue parcel appeared as an orchard in the a erial photographs until at least 1993. 5 Hearn Avenue was widened in the 1990s, and the north property line of the subject properties moved approximately 15 feet south.

At the 976 Hearn Avenue property, the existing exterior stairs were replaced in 2016, and the house and the garage were reroofed in 2018. 6 All houses have received window and door replacements.

Figure 13. 1953 aerial photograph of the area, the subject parcels outlined by the dashed red line (City of Santa Rosa Aerials).

2 Email communication with the Sonoma County Assessor’s Office. 3 Final Historic Architectural Survey Report, Hearn Avenue Road Widening Project, 9. 4 “Building permits issued,” The Press Democrat, November 20, 1960. 5 City of Santa Rosa Aerials, https://maps.srcity.org/Html5Viewer/Index.html?viewer=AerialViewer&Center=6375999,1920000. 6 City of Santa Rosa Building Division.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 8

Figure 14. 1963 aerial photograph of the area, the subject parcels outlined by the dashed red line (City of Santa Rosa Aerials).

Figure 15. 1977 aerial photograph of the area, the subject parcels outlined by the dashed red line (City of Santa Rosa Aerials).

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 9

Figure 16. 2001 aerial photograph of the area, the subject parcels outlined by the dashed red line (City of Santa Rosa Aerials).

7. HISTORIC CONTEXT 7
The City of Santa Rosa is centrally located within the County of Sonoma along Highway 101, approximate ly 55 miles north of San Francisco. The land was once part of the Rancho Cabeza de Santa Rosa which was gran ted to Maria Ignacia Lopez, the mother of General Vallejo’s widow, Francisca Benicia Carrillo, in 1837. Lopez and her children moved to Rancho Cebeza de Santa Rosa from San Diego and built a home on the south side of San ta Rosa Creek. She remained at the Rancho until her death. In 1853, Lopez’s son Julio Carrillo filed a claim for part of the property and built his home on a site that is in present day downtown Santa Rosa at Second Street.

Carrillo then donated the land for the original courthouse and plaza. The city was officially founded in 1854.

Most of the early American settlers during the mid-1800s established farmsteads throughout the area, and Santa Rosa thrived as the trading center of the rich agricultural lands. In 1870, the first railroad was established through the city. The railroads made Santa Rosa a shipping hub for agricultural products, the lumber industry and basalt quarries.

The 1906 earthquake greatly damaged the young city’ s business section, and most of the commercial district had to be rebuilt. Santa Rosa continued to grow and prosper at a steady rate up to World War II. The war brought the development of two military airfields and government housing, which brought thousands of n ew residents to the area. Postwar through to the 1970s, Santa Rosa continued to experience increases in population and residential development, and annexed much of th e agricultural land surrounding the city limits. The growth

7 Unless noted, summarized from Anne Bloomfield, Cultural Heritage Survey of the City of Santa Rosa, California , (San Francisco: 1989), 1-5 and 7-14; and Douglas E. Kyle, Historic Spots in California , revised edition, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002), 509.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 10
spread out into the outlying farmsteads, which were generally replaced by large neighborhoods of tract housing and typical postwar American suburban development.

Small scale houses and cottages predominated the late 19 th and early 20 th century residential development of Santa Rosa. These are mostly one-story wood frame single-family houses with front porches and detached garages; often featuring a few stylish details at the eaves or the porch. A number of farmhouses and o utbuildings survive. No longer representative of the agricultural industry, these buildings are usually simpler than the city examples. Once located on large farmland or orchards, the remaining farmhouses are surrounded by contemporary residential developments. Some still retain water tank house, barn, and/or several orchard trees.

Hearn Avenue
Historically the [Hearn Avenue] area has provided for the needs of late-19 th -century and early-20 th -century fruit farmers and chicken ranchers, as well as for families during the Depression, when growing one's own food was often necessary even for fulltime wage earners. Small-scale farms were viable during World War II, as food production was deemed a high-priority occup ation. Following the War, however, the basis of the small-scale farm was threatened by both opportunity and competition. The post-war economic boom provided diverse work opportunities in Santa Rosa and elsewhere in the North Bay, drawing farmers into the stores, factories, and offices of the towns and cities. At the same time, technological advancements i n agricultural productions and improvements in transp ortation networks encouraged the development of large, corporate-run farms, bringing about the decline of the family-owned and operated farm. A visual representation of this phenomenon is present […] as other agricultural outbuildings that have been converted to storage facilities and other non-farming related uses. 8

8. ARCHITECT/BUILDER
No architects or builders were found to have been a ssociated with the initial construction of the subject properties.

9. OCCUPANCY HISTORY
The subject properties had been occupied by the mem bers of the Pieri family. Vincenzo and Peter Pieri acquired the properties in 1930; Peter and Maria Pieri granted the land to Vincent and Emma Pieri in 1932. The Pieris grew pears, plums, walnuts, prunes, and raised chickens. 9

According to the available records, 980 Hearn Avenue was occupied by Vincent and Emma Pieri from 1941 to 1978. Vincent immigrated from Italy and worked as a farmer. The couple had two daughters, Dorothy and Margaret. Margaret married Arthur R. Nelson and mov ed to the 1004 Hearn Avenue property in 1951; the family lived there until at least 1965. Grandsons Arthur and Tim Nelson resided at 1004 Hearn Avenue Dorothy worked as a clerk and married Clyde B. Caskadon, a salesman; the family lived at 976 Hearn Avenue from 1953 u ntil at least 1995.
10 8 Excerpted from Final Historic Architectural Survey Report, Hearn Avenue Road Widening Project, 10. 9 Katherine Johnson, Bright Eastman, DPR Form, Emma & Vincent Pieri Farm, July 5, 1995 (included in the Final Historic Architectural Survey Report, Hearn Avenue Road Widening Project)
10 City directories via Ancestry.com; The Press Democrat; Dorothy Irene Caskadon obituary, https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/pressdemocrat/name/dorothy-caskadon-obituary?pid=2495641; Final Historic Architectural Survey Report, Hearn Avenue Road Widening Project, 10.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 11
976 Hearn (constructed in 1953)
1953 – 1995 Clyde B. and Dorothy Caskadon, counter man/salesman/partsman

980 Hearn (constructed in 1930)
1941 Emma Pieri, Margaret Pieri
1945 Arthur Nelson
1947 – 1949 The Nelson family: Arthur Nelson; Marga ret N. Nelson, clerk; R. and Margie Nelson 1949 – 1978 Vincent and Emma Pieri, rancher/farmer

1004 Hearn (constructed in 1950)
1951 – 1995 Arthur R. and Margaret Nelson & the Ne lson family

10. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory background provided below offers an overview of national, state, and local criteria used to assess historic significance.

National Register of Historic Places
National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation , describes the Criteria for Evaluation as being composed of two factors. First, the property must be “associated with an important historic context.” 11 The National Register identifies four possible context types, of which at least one must be applicable at the national, state, or local level. As listed under Section 8, “Statement of Significance,” of the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, these are:

A. Property is associated with events that have ma de a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

B. Property is associated with the lives of person s significant in our past.

C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristi cs of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.

D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, in formation important to prehistory or history. 12

Second, for a property to qualify under the National Register’s Criteria for Evaluation, it must also retain “historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.” 13 While a property’s significance relates to its
role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to “a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.” 14 To determine if a property retains the physical characteristics corresponding to its historic context, the National Register has identified seven aspects of integrity:

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred...

11 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin 15 (Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, 1997), 3. 12 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, National Register Bulletin 16A (Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, 1997), 75. 13 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15, 3. 14 Ibid., 44.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 12
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property...

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property...

Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property...

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory...

Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time...

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
15 Since integrity is based on a property’s significance within a specific historic context, an evaluation of a property’s integrity can only occur after historic significance has been established. 16 California Register of Historical Resources
California Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison , outlines the differences between the federal and state processes. The context types to be used when establishing the significance of a property for listing on the California Register are very similar, with emphasis on local and state significance. They are:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. It has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. 17

Like the NRHP, evaluation for eligibility to the California Register requires an establishment of historic significance before integrity is considered. California’s integrity threshold is slightly lower than the federal level.

As a result, some resources that are historically significant but do not meet NRHP integrity standards may be eligible for listing on the California Register.
18 California’s list of special considerations is shorter and more lenient than the NRHP. It includes som e allowances for moved buildings, structures, or objects, as well as lower requirements for proving the significanc e of resources that are less than 50 years old and a more elaborate discussion of the eligibility of recons tructed buildings.
19 15 Ibid., 44-45.
16 Ibid., 45.
17 California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register and National Register: A Comparison, Technical Assistance Series 6 (Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2001), 1. 18 Ibid.
19 Ibid., 2.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 13
In addition to separate evaluations for eligibility to the California Register, the state will automatically list resources if they are listed or determined eligible for the NRHP through a complete evaluation process. 20

City of Santa Rosa
The Santa Rosa City Council adopted a Preservation Ordinance in 1988 and created the City's Cultural Heritage Board. The Board recommends to the City Council designation of landmarks and preservation districts, reviews permits for alterations to landmarks and buildings within preservation districts, and promotes public awareness of historic resources. Article III of Chapter 17-22 of the City Code allows for the City Council to de signate landmarks and defines a landmark as “any site… plac e, building, structure, street, street furniture, sign, work of art, natural feature or other object having a specific historical, archaeological, cultural or architectural value in the City and which has been designated a landmark by th e City Council,” and preservation districts as “any clearly described geographic area having historical significance or representing one or more architectural per iods or styles typical to the historic of the City which has been designated a preservation district by the City Council.” 21 The City of Santa Rosa currently has twenty-one landmarks and eight designated historic preservation districts. 22

Generally, historical resources in Santa Rosa include the following properties:
 Properties or Districts listed in the National Register of Historic Places.  Properties that have been designated local Landmark s by the City of Santa Rosa.  Properties within a local designated Preservation District that contribute to the significance of the District.
 Properties listed as having historical significance in the City’s local register (the Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Survey) even though the properties have not been officially designated as Landmarks or Preservation Districts by the City.
 Other properties presumed to be historically or culturally significant under the provisions of [the California Environmental Quality Act] CEQA by the City of Santa Rosa. 23 According to the City, although properties older than 50 years are considered to be historic, not all such properties are necessarily significant. The Department of Planning and Economic Development, the City’s lead environmental agency, determines whether a project involves a property of historical or cultural significance. The above listings provide the primary guide for this determination. In cases where the documentation is n ot available; appears to be inaccurate; or is otherwise disputed, the following process can be followed in order to determine significance. Similar to the federal and state criteria, the following specific criteria are used by the City of Santa Rosa in order to determine historical significance:

Event. Is the property associated with an event that has made a significant contribution to Santa Rosa’s history; or
Person. Is the property associated with the life of a person who was significant in Santa Rosa’s histo ry; or

20 All State Historical Landmarks from number 770 onward are also automatically listed on the California Register. California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register of Historical Resources: The Listing Process. Technical Assistance Series 5 (Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, n.d.), 1.
21 City of Santa Rosa City Code Chapters 17-22 and 20-58. 22 City of Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 (Santa Rosa, November 3, 2009), 11-2. 23 City of Santa Rosa, Cultural Heritage Board, Processing Review Procedures for Owners of Historic Properties, (Adopted January 2001, edited September 2006), 18-19.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 14
Design. Does the property embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction found in Santa Rosa before 1950; or
Information. Has the property yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in Santa Rosa’s prehistory or history; and
Integrity. Does the property retain enough aspects of location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association to convey its historic significance? 24

11. SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION
Current Historic Status
The subject properties at 976, 980, and 1004 Hearn Avenue have not previously been identified on any l ocal, state, or national historic resources inventories. The subject properties were surveyed in 1995 as par t of the Hearn Avenue Road Widening Project: 976 Hearn Avenu e was rated “7, Not evaluated” 980 Hearn Avenue was rated “5S1, Eligible for local listing only-listed or eligible separately under Local Ordinance,” and 1004 Hearn Avenue was rated “6Z, Found ineligible for National Register.” 25

976 Hearn A venue Significance Evaluation
Criterion A/1/Event
The residential building at 976 Hearn Avenue was co nstructed in 1953 during the postwar development of Santa Rosa. The adjacent farmhouse at 980 Hearn Avenue wa s owned and occupied by Pieri family, who built this house for their daughter Dorothy and her husband Cl yde B. Caskadon. The property was not associated with any significant events. Research did not show the subject property to be individually representative of an y important patterns of residential or agricultural development within Santa Rosa; it was among many residential b uildings that were constructed during the mid-20 th century. Therefore, the 976 Hearn Avenue property does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories under Criterion A/1/Event.

Criterion B/2/Person
No persons of known historical significance appear to have been associated with the subject property.

Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion B/2/Person.

Criterion C/3/Design
Constructed in 1953, the house at 976 Hearn Avenue does not appear to be a significant example of an architectural type. It is a vernacular building without a definite architectural style. It fails to be the work of a master, or architecturally significant in any other respect. It appears to be of common construction and materials with no notable or special attributes. It does not possess high artistic value. Constructed in the 1960s, the garage on the parcel is utilitarian in character with no notable or special attributes. Overall, 976 Hearn Avenue does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories under Criterion C/3/Design.

24 Ibid.
25 Katherine Johnson, Bright Eastman, Final Historic Architectural Survey Report, Hearn Avenue Road Widening Project, located in Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California, FHWA No. CMC-5920 (018) (September 1995), 20. The properties were evaluated in 1995 before the status codes were revised, the quoted descriptions above refer to the pre-2003 codes.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 15
Criterion D/4/Information
Archival research provided no indication that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The subject property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion D/4/Information.

Integrity
Since 976 Hearn Avenue does not appear individually eligible for listing in the national, state or local historic inventories, an integrity assessment was not undertaken.

980 Hearn Avenue Significance Evaluation
Criterion A/1/Event
The residential building at 980 Hearn Avenue was co nstructed in 1930 as a farmhouse. The mid-20th cent ury aerials show several outbuildings and a large orchard to the south. The orchard appeared intact until the late 20 th century since that time many of the outbuildings have been demolished. Even though the property is an example of a small, family owned and operated farm in Santa Rosa and reminiscent of the agricultural history of Santa Rosa, it does not stand out as an illustrative example of an early 20 th century farm. Moreover, some of the associated outbuildings and the orchard are not extant; therefore, the property no longer provides a s ense of the city’s agricultural history. It does not appear to be individually representative of any important development patterns of residential or agricultural development within the city; it was among many farms that were developed during this period. The property was not associated with any significant events. Therefore, the 980 He arn Avenue does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories under Criterion A/1/Event.

Criterion B/2/Person
No persons of known historical significance appear to have been associated with the subject property. The Pieri family who resided at the property until at least 1978 did not make any important contributions to the state’s or Santa Rosa’s history. Therefore, the building does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion B/2/Person.

Criterion C/3/Design
Constructed in 1930, the farmhouse at 980 Hearn Ave nue does not appear to be a significant example of an architectural type. The house has undergone substantial changes over time; it exhibits a few features of the Spanish Eclectic style such as its arched front porch, but overall is vernacular in style. It fails to be the work of a master, or architecturally significant in any other respect. It appears to be of common construction and materials with no notable or special attributes. It does not possess high artistic value. The outbuildings on the property are all utilitarian in character with no notable or special attributes. Therefore, the 980 Hearn Avenue property does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories under Criterion C/3/Design.

Criterion D/4/Information
Archival research provided no indication that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The subject property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion D/4/Information.

Integrity
Since 980 Hearn Avenue does not appear individually eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories, an integrity assessment was not undertaken.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 16
Deviation f rom 1995 Survey
In 1995 as part of the Hearn Avenue Road Widening P roject a Historic Architectural Survey Report was conducted and included a finding of 5S1 for the property at 980 Hearn Avenue. The report found that th e property did not meet any criteria for listed in the National Register of Historic Places, but did state “at the local level, the Pieri farm may be eligible for designation as a Sonoma County or City of Santa Rosa landmar k.

Although no longer a working farm, this property provides a visual sense of Sonoma County’s history and of the importance that agriculture has played in the shaping of the county’s cultural landscape.” 26

Since 1995, several of the outbuildings have been demolished. Upon the updated review of the parcel in its current state, TreanorHL found that while the property is a modest example of a small, family owned and operated farm in Santa Rosa and reminiscent of the agricultural history of Santa Rosa, it does not stand out as an illustrative example of an early 20
th century farm and due to the loss of numerous outbu ildings and the orchard the property no longer provides a visual sense of the city’s agricultural history. Research did not indicate that the property is individually representative of any important development patterns of residential or agricultural development within the city. It was among many farm s that were developed during this period. Due to the changes in the property in combination with additional research into the historic context, TreanorHL does not concur with the 1995 finding that the property may be eligible at the local level.

1004 Hearn Avenue Significance Evaluation
Criterion A/1/Event
The residential building at 1004 Hearn Avenue was c onstructed in 1950 during the postwar development of Santa Rosa. The adjacent farmhouse at 980 Hearn Ave nue was owned and occupied by Pieri family, who bui lt this house for their daughter Margaret and her husband Arthur R. Nelson. The property was not associated with any significant events. Research did not show the subject property to be individually representative of any important patterns of residential or agricultural development within Santa Rosa; it was among many res idential buildings that were constructed during the mid-20 th century. Therefore, the 1004 Hearn Avenue does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state or local historic inventories under Criterion A/1/Event.

Criterion B/2/Person
No persons of known historical significance appear to have been associated with the subject property.

Therefore, the building does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion B/2/Person.

Criterion C/3/Design
Constructed in 1950, the single-family house at 1004 Hearn Avenue does not appear to be a significant example of an architectural type. It is a vernacular building without a definite architectural style. It fails to be the work of a master, or architecturally significant in any other respect. It appears to be of common construction and materials with no notable or special attributes. It does not possess high artistic value. The garage on the parcel is utilitarian in character with no notable or special attributes. Therefore, the 1004 Hearn Avenue property does not appear eligible for listing in the national, state or local historic inventories under Criterion C/3/Design.

Criterion D/4/Information
Archival research provided no indication that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The subject property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion D/4/Information.

26 Katherine Johnson, Bright Eastman, Final Historic Architectural Survey Report, Hearn Avenue Road Widening Project, located in Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California, FHWA No. CMC-5920 (018) (September 1995), 39.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 17

Integrity
Since 1004 Hearn Avenue does not appear individuall y eligible for listing in the national, state, or local historic inventories, an integrity assessment was not undertaken.

12. CONCLUSION
Based on the above evaluation of the subject proper ties at 976, 980, and 1004 Hearn Avenue in Santa Rosa, it does not appear that the subject properties possess sufficient historical significance per relevant criteria for individual listing on the national, state, or local historic inventories. Therefore, the subject prope rties do not appear to qualify as historic resources.

Project Name: 976-1004 Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa HRE
Historic Resources Evaluation
Project No: HP0584.2101.00
December 20, 2021

treanorhl.com 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ancestry.com.

Bloomfield, Anne.

Cultural Heritage Survey of the City of Santa Rosa, California . San Francisco: 1989.

California Office of Historic Preservation. California Register and National Register: A Compar ison, Technical Assistance Series 6. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2001. ----. California Register of Historical Resources: The Listing Process . Technical Assistance Series 5. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, n.d.

City of Santa Rosa Aerial Viewer.

City of Santa Rosa Building Division.

City of Santa Rosa City Code.

City of Santa Rosa, Cultural Heritage Board.

Processing Review Procedures for Owners of Historic Properties .

Adopted January 2001, edited September 2006.

City of Santa Rosa. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 (Santa Rosa, November 3, 2009), Google Earth.

Historic Aerials by NETR Online. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Johnson, Katherine and Bright Eastman. Final Historic Architectural Survey Report, Hearn A venue Road Widening Project, located in Santa Rosa, Sonoma Cou nty, California, FHWA No. CMC-5920 (018) .

September 1995.

Kyle, Douglas E. Historic Spots in California . Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002.

McAlester, Virginia, and A. Lee McAlester. A field guide to American houses: the definitive guide to identifying and understanding America's domestic architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2019.

National Park Service. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Ev aluation, National Register Bulletin 15.

Washington, DC: United States Department of the Int erior, 1997. ----. How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, National Register Bulletin 16A. Washington, DC:

United States Department of the Interior, 1997.

Newspapers.com.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.

Sonoma County Assessor’s Office.

Sonoma County History & Genealogy Library.

The Press Democrat.