The proposed project is consistent with the GHG inventory contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Both the existing and projected GHG inventory contained in the City’s CAP were based on the land use designations and associated densities defined for the Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary in the City’s General Plan. The Urban Growth Boundary encompasses approximately 45 square miles and includes the incorporated portions of the city as well as unincorporated lands adjacent to the city, including the project area.
As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the proposed land plan is substantially the same as the current Santa Rosa General Plan Land Use Diagram. While there are some changes to the General Plan Land Use Diagram described in Section 2.0, the population increases and land use intensities possible as a result of the proposed project would not exceed the City’s projected 2035 population identified in the General Plan. As shown in Table 2.0-6 in Section 2.0, significant growth in the project area was assumed in the City’s General Plan 2035. Compared to the growth potential for the city as a whole, the proposed project would result in a relatively small increase in residential units and a net reduction in nonresidential square footage.
The additional residential units would provide housing for a population that represents an increase of 0.2 percent over the city’s current population of 173,071 and an increase of 0.1 percent over the city’s projected 2035 population of 237,000. The net reduction of nonresidential uses associated with the proposed project would contribute to a reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared with General Pl an projections. As described in Section 3.14, Traffic and Transportation, project implementation would reduce citywide annual VMT by 16,041,919, or approximately 5.1 percent, in 2035 compared with not implementing the proposed project. This is because the proposed project would include modific ations to the circulation network as well as
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.7-15
some changes to allowed land uses in the area. For example, the proposed project has been developed to support and expand upon current policies regarding alternative transportation. The project meets the goals of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan through policies designed to increase transit use through intensification of development around transit hubs, improve accessibi lity for pedestrians around activity centers, and support completion of the planned facilities outlined in the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. In addition, the proposed project would result in a beneficial impact to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The propos ed project includes new street and pathway connections that improve east–west circulation, enhanced connectivity to and within neighborhoods, and integration with the future multi-use paths along Roseland and Colgan creeks as well as the SMART corridor (see Figure 2.0-8 and Figure 2.0-10 in Section 2.0, Project Description).
The proposed mix of land uses, combined with current uses, also creates a diverse environment with a concentration of housing, jobs, and shoppi ng all within walking and bicycling distance of one another. As demonstrated in Section 3.14, Traffic and Transportation, with implementation of the project, multimodal levels of service for pedestrian and bicycle modes improve on at least a portion of every corridor analyzed and in many cases along the entire corridor. For these reasons, the proposed project is consistent with assumptions contained in the City’s General Plan and thus with the GHG inventory contained in the CAP.
A specific project proposal is considered consiste nt with the Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan if it complies with the “required” GHG reduction measures contained in the adopted CAP (as evident from reading the CAP GHG reduction measures, only some provide for required actions germane to new development. Several CAP GHG reduction measures are voluntary and several more are not applicable to new development). The required GHG reduction measures applicable to future development instigated by the proposed project include the following:
Action 1.1.1: Require new development to comply with the current provisions, as amended, of CALGreen, Part 11 of the California Green Building Standards Code. Action 1.1.2: Continue to require Tier 1 standards for new development and consider adding major remodels during the next building code update. Action 1.1.3: Require all new construction to be built with net zero electricity use, beginning in 2020.
Action 1.3.1: Require new construction and major remodels to install real-time energy monitors that allow building users to track their current energy use. Action 1.4.3: Require new development to supply an adequate number of street trees and private trees.
Action 3.6.1: Install traffic calming design features such as bulb-outs, median barriers, and striped crosswalks to improve pedestrian convenience and encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
Action 5.2.1: Require new refueling stations to provide biodiesel fuel, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, electric vehicle charging stations, or other alternative fuels. Action 6.1.3: Increase the City’s construction and demolition ordinance to require 75% diversion by 2020 and 85% diversion by 2035.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.7-16
Action 7.1.1: Require new development to reduce potable water use in accordance with the Tier 1 standards of CALGreen.
Action 7.3.2: Require new development in zones anticipated to receive future recycled water to meet on-site meter separation requirements to allow for the use of recycled water.
Action 9.2.1: Minimize idling times either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes or less (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Sect ion 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Provide clear signage at all access points to remind employees of idling restrictions.
Action 9.2.2: Construction equipment shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
The proposed project would not make any changes to current City standards. All development in the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, including the project, is required to adhere to all City-adopted policy provisions, including those contained in the adopted CAP. Therefore, all subsequent development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the CAP.
CAP policies are intended to achieve transit-oriented and mixed-use land use development. As described in Section 3.14, Traffic and Transporta tion, the proposed project has been developed to support and expand upon current policies regarding alternative transportation. The project meets the goals of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan through policies designed to increase transit use through intensification of development around transit hubs, improve accessibility for pe destrians around activity centers, and support completion of the planned facilities outlined in the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
The project also supports and/or strengthens the alternative transportation policies set forth in the City’s General Plan and incorporates new alternative transportation facilities designated in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. In addition, the proposed project would result in benefits to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The project includes new street and pathway connections that improve east–west circulation, enhanced connectivity to and within neighborhoods, and integration with the future multi-use paths along Roseland and Colgan creeks as well as the SMART corridor. The proposed mix of land uses, combined with current uses, also creates a diverse environment with a concentration of housing, jobs, and shopping, all within walking and bicycling distance of one another. As demonstrated in Section 3.14, Traffic and Transportation, multimodal levels of service for pedestrian and bicycle modes improve on at least a portion of every corridor analyzed with implementation of the project, and in many cases along the entire corridor.
The proposed project contains environmental sustainability related components in the categories of land use and mixed-use development, open space, and efficient and alternative transportation. The project’s diversity of land use allows flexibility in response to varying market conditions over time as well as allowing acce ss to a range of job and housing opportunities.
Additionally, a diversity of transportation opti ons reduces dependence on a single mode of transportation and provides feasible long-term alternatives in response to fuel shortages, climate change, and other unforeseen challenges. The pr oject would improve connections, particularly for bicycling and walking, to the Southside Bus Transfer Center, to the downtown SMART station, and to Sebastopol Road, the main commercial area within the project area and beyond. By its nature, the project has been developed with the objective of environmental sustainability.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.7-17
As demonstrated, the project is consistent with the City’s CAP, which is a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program as defined by the BAAQMD and was developed to comply with the requirements of AB 32 and achieve the goals of the AB 32 Scoping Plan as well as post-2020 GHG reduction targets. Therefore, the impact is less than cumulatively considerable.
In its Final Statement of Reasons for Regulato ry Action accompanying the CEQA Amendments (FSOR), the California Natural Resources Agency (2009) explains that quantification of GHG emissions “is reasonably necessary to ensure an adequate analysis of GHG emissions using available data and tools” and that “quantification will, in many cases, assist in the determination of significance.” As explained in the FSOR, the revised Section 15064.4(b) assigns lead agencies the discretion to determine th e methodology to quantify GHG emissions. Nonetheless, for informational purposes, Table 3.7-3 is presented in order to show estimated GHG emissions resulting from operation of the new land uses allowed in the project area beyond existing conditions.
T
ABLE 3.7-3
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – PROJECT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (METRIC TONS PER YEAR)1 Emissions Source CO2e
Area Source (landscaping, hearth) 555
Energy2 9,978
Mobile 34,446
Waste 2,063
Water 775
Total 47,817
Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2 (see Appendix 3.7)
Notes:
1. Emission projections account for 2,449 new single-family residential units, 1,253 new multi-family residential units, 3,097 square feet of new office space, 569,703 square fe et of new retail space, 20,000 square feet of new institutional space, and 321,014 square feet of new industrial square footage.
2. Emission projections account for 2015 CALGreen standards and the Renewables Portfolio Standard year 2030 target.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.7-18
REFERENCES
AEP (Association of Environmental Professionals). 2016. Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
Cal-Adapt. 2016. Local Climate Snapsh ots: Santa Rosa Area. http://cal- adapt.org/tools/factsheet/.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices (Appendix F).
———. 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2012. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs /Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf.
———. 2012. Our Changing Climate: Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks of Climate Change in California . Accessed April 2015.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-007/CEC-500-2012-007.pdf.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2008. Climate Change Impacts on California’s Water.
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Nitrous Oxide . http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/scientific.html.
———. 2011a. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Dioxide . http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html.
———. 2011b. Methane . http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. ———. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report : Approved Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2012a. City of Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan.
———. 2012b. City of Santa Rosa General Plan Amendment and Climate Action Plan Draft Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2011092010). January 2012.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.8-1
This section describes the potential presence of hazardous materials and conditions in the project area and in the vicinity and analyzes the risks associated with introducing the proposed development to the area. The reader is referred to Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, for information regarding impacts associated with geologic and seismic hazards and to Section 3.3, Air Quality, regarding toxic air contaminant hazards.
3.8.1 E XISTING SETTING
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DEFINED
Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regula tions (CCR), the term hazardous substance refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3). A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have prac tical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disposed of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). While hazardous substances are regulated by multiple agencies, as described below in subsection 3.8.2, Regulatory Framework, cleanup requirements are determined on a case -by-case basis according to the agency with lead jurisdiction over the project.
Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials are or will be used. It is necessary to differentiate between the “hazard” of these materials and the acceptability of the “risk” they pose to human health and the environment. A hazard is any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to health and public safety is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material.
Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials include the dose the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical enters a pe rson’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility.
PROJECT SETTING
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Sites
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker databases were searched to determine the potential for the presence of hazardous materials and hazardous waste sites in the project area pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In addition, information presented in a fact sheet developed by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast RWQCB) for the Sebastopol Road/McMinn Avenue area was also reviewed (North Coast RWQCB 2015). Sites included on the Envirostor, GeoTracker, and Sebastopol Road/McMinn Avenue area fact sheet are listed in Appendix 3.8. The sites listed in Appendix 3.8 represent conditions as of the date of preparation of this Draft EIR. As such, it is possibl e that a new site or sites could be added to this list, while other sites that may be open cases at this time may be removed from the list by a regulatory agency at some point in the future. Sites indicated as open or active are in the process of being investigated and/or remediated. Sites indicated as closed, inactive, or no further action are sites where contamination may have been previously investigated and/or remediated, but
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.8-2
are not necessarily free of contaminants because state laws and regulations provide various legal mechanisms to allow for such conditions. For example, the state allows for deed restrictions that specify prohibitions or limitations on a site where contaminants may still be present. Most of the open/active sites are along Sebastopol Road, but there are also numerous closed/inactive sites.
There are several closed sites along Corby Avenue between Hearn Avenue and Bellevue. For any site included in the list in Appendix 3.8, regardle ss of its status, or sites that may be added in the future, the Santa Rosa Fire Depart ment (SRFD) will require up-to-da te information from a project applicant regarding the status of the site. The SR FD’s process for determining whether a site may pose a risk as result of environmental contamination is summarized in Section 3.8.2, Regulatory Framework, under the “Local Hazardous Materials Oversight” subheading.
In addition, past land uses may have resulted in contamination in off-site locations, but those sites have not been investigated because no changes to those sites have been proposed that would have triggered the need for investigation. Off-site locations may also have a potential to impact a site in the project area; this is typically associated with migration of contaminated groundwater.
Transportation of Hazardous Materials
The transportation of hazardous materials in California is subject to various federal, state, and local regulations. It is illegal to transport explosives or inhalation hazards on any public highway not designated for that purpose, unless the use of the highway is required to permit delivery, or the loading of such materials (California Vehicle Code Sections 31602(b) and 32104(a)). The California Highway Patrol (CHP) designates through routes to be used for the transportation of hazardous materials. Transportation of hazardous materials is restricted to these routes except in cases where additional travel is required from that route to deliver or receive hazardous materials to and from users. Hazardous materials are routinely transported on US Highway 101 and State Route 12 through Santa Rosa. Local deliveries within the project area are also allowed, and transporters are required to comply with all applicable regulations.
Underground Pipelines and Transmission Lines
According to the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) Public Map Viewer (2015), an active natural gas transmission pipeline operated by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is located within Stony Point Road along the entire length of the Specific Plan area’s western boundary. Additional gathering and distribution pipelines, such as those that deliver gas to individual homes, are located throughout the project area.
3.8.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen sation, and Liability Act (42 USC Section 9601 et seq.)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a federal “superfund” to clean uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous wa ste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through CERCLA, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies parties responsible for any release and ensures their participation in the cleanup. The EPA is authorized to implement CERCLA in all 50 states and in US territories, though Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities are coordinated through the state environmental protection or waste management agencies. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.8-3
reauthorized CERCLA to continue cleanup activities around the country and included several site- specific amendments, definition clarifications, and technical requirements (EPA 2011).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC Section 6901 et seq.) The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from “cradle to grave,” including the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Th e RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of nonhazardous solid wastes.
The federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments are the 1984 amendments to the RCRA that focus on waste minimization and phasing out la nd disposal of hazardous waste as well as corrective action for releases. Some of the ot her mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for the EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program (EPA 2011).
Occupational and Safety Health Act (29 USC Section 651 et seq.) The Occupational and Safety Health Act is intended to ensure worker and workplace safety by requiring that employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is a division of the US Department of Labor that oversees the administration of the act and enforces standards in all 50 states.
Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC Section 2601 et seq.) The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. The TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint (EPA 2011).
Various sections of the TSCA provide EPA authority to:
Require, under Section 5, pre-manufacture notification for “new chemical substances” before manufacture.
Require, under Section 4, testing of chemicals by manufacturers, importers, and processors where risks or exposures of concern are found.
Issue Significant New Use Rules, under Section 5, when it identifies a “significant new use” that could result in exposures to, or releases of, a substance of concern. Maintain the TSCA Inventory, under Section 8, which contains more than 83,000 chemicals.
As new chemicals are commercially manufactured or imported, they are placed on the list.
Require those importing or expo rting chemicals, under Sections 12(b) and 13, to comply with certification reporting and/or other requirements. Require, under Section 8, re porting and recordkeeping by persons who manufacture, import, process, and/or distribute chemical substances in commerce.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.8-4
Require, under Section 8(e), that any pers on who manufactures (including imports), processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the co nclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment to immediately inform EPA, except where EPA has been adequately informed of such information.
Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law and Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 USC Section 5101 et seq.)
The federal hazardous materials (hazmat) transportation law is the basic statute regulating hazardous materials transportation in the United States. Section 5101 of the federal hazmat law states that the purpose of the law is to protect against the risks to life, property, and the environment that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.
The Hazardous Materials Regulations are administ ered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) and implement the federal hazmat law. The regulations govern the transportation of hazardous materials via highway, rail, vessel, and air by addressing hazardous materials classification, packaging, hazard co mmunication, emergency response information, and training. They also issue procedural regulations, including provisions on registration and public sector training and planning grants (49 CFR Parts 105, 106, 107, and 110). The PHMSA issues the Hazardous Materials Regulations (PHMSA 2011).
STATE
Unified Program
The Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of the following six environmental and emergency response programs (CalEPA 2011):
The Hazardous Waste Generator program and Hazardous Waste Onsite Treatment activities
The Aboveground Storage Tank program Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan requirements
The Underground Storage Tank program
The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory program California Accidental Release Prevention program
The Hazardous Materials Management Plans and the Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement requirements
The state agencies responsible for these programs set the standards, while local governments implement the standards. The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) oversees implementation of the Unified Program as a whole, and the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is required to consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, fee structures, and inspection and enforcement activities for these six
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.8-5
program elements. Most CUPAs have been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department. The SRFD is the CUPA for the City.
LOCAL
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The General Plan identifies several goals and policies regarding hazards and hazardous materials that are applicable to the proposed project, as listed below.
Noise and Safety Element
Goal NS-A: Prepare for disasters.
Policy NS-A-1: Maintain the Emergency Operations Plan as the City’s disaster-response plan.
Work with Sonoma County to update joint emergency response and disaster response plans, as needed.
Policy NS-A-2: Continue to promote the Citizens Organized to Prepare for Emergencies (COPE) public awareness program on the nature and extent of natural hazards in the Planning Area, and ways of minimizing the effects of disasters.
Policy NS-A-3: Establish community programs which trai n volunteers to assist police, fire and civil defense personnel during and after disasters.
Goal NS-F: Minimize dangers from hazardous materials.
Policy NS-F-1: Require remediation and cleanup, and evaluate risk prior to reuse, in identified areas where hazardous materials and petroleum products have impacted soil or groundwater.
Policy NS-F-2: Require that hazardous materials used in business and industry are transported, handled and stored in accordance with applicable local regulations.
Policy NS-F-3: Restrict siting of businesses, includin g hazardous waste repositories, incinerators or other hazardous waste disposal facilities, that use, store, process, or dispose large quantities of hazardous materials or wastes in areas subject to seismic fault rupture or very violent ground shaking.
Policy NS-F-4: Where applicable, identify and regulate appropriate regional and local routes for transportation of hazardous materi als and hazardous waste. Require that fire and emergency personnel can easily access these routes for response to spill incidences.
Policy NS-F-6: Generate and support public awarenes s and participation in household waste management, control and recycling through county programs including the Sonoma County Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.8-6
Policy NS-G-4: Continue monitoring water fire-flow capabilities throughout the City and improving water availability at any locations having flows considered inadequate for fire protection.
Policy NS-G-6: Minimize single-access residential ne ighborhoods in development areas near open space and provide adequate access for fire and other emergency response personnel.
Santa Rose City Code
Chapter 18.44 of the Santa Rosa City Code establishes the requirements for projects to comply with the California Fire Code. It also identifies the City’s amendments to the Fire Code to reflect local conditions. Regulations specific to the st orage of hazardous materials are included in Chapter 18.44, along with permit requirements. Section 18.44-5308 directs that the Fire Code Official shall publish standards providing requiremen ts for facilities that use, handle, or store materials that are or may become toxic gases.
City of Santa Rosa Emergency Operations Plan
The Draft Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) identifies the City’s emergency planning, organization, and response policies and procedures. The plan also addresses the integration and coordination with other governmental levels and special districts as required.
This plan is based on the principles and func tions of the California-required Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which is based on the FIRESCOPE Incident Command System, and identifies how the City of Santa Rosa fits in the overall state SEMS structure. In addition, the plan incorporates the additional required elements of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as directed by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5, issued February 28, 2003.
Local Hazardous Materials Oversight
Hazardous materials and contamin ants are locally regulated through the SRFD, which operates as a CUPA. CUPA programs include the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, Hazardous Waste Program, Underground Storage Tank Program, Accidental Release Program, Above- Ground Storage Tank Program, and enforcement of the portions of the Uniform Fire Code that address hazardous materials.
General program requirements include inspections of businesses and review of permit conditions and procedures for the handling, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan required of each business is used to keep track of businesses’ use of hazardous materials in accordance with both state and federal laws. The Hazardous Waste Generator Program is based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5, and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5.
The SRFD also administers the local oversight program, which oversees the investigation and cleanup of fuel releases from underground storage tanks. Sites are entered into the local oversight program when a release from an underground tank is reported. A similar program provides for the permitting, monitoring, and surveillance of septic tanks, chemical toilets, and vaults, as well as abandonment and disposal of septic waste in Sonoma County.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.8-7
The SRFD requires a Phase I environmental site as sessment (Phase I ESA) for subdivisions, multi- family residential, and commercial developmen ts. The SRFD also requires a Phase I ESA for properties that have a prior CUPA history, a so il or groundwater monitoring plan from the North Coast RWQCB, or any case history with the DTSC. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to identify “recognized environmental conditions” (RECs) that indicate the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release.
The Santa Rosa Industrial Waste Program enforces regulations issued to businesses that discharge wastewater into the Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System. The program consists of inspections, monitoring, and permitting of businesses to ensure their compliance.
First responders to hazardous material emergencies could be the SRFD or members of the SRFD’s Hazardous Materials Response Team. State law requ ires that first responders to a release of hazardous materials have a minimum 40 hours of training in accordance with the OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response standard.
Hazardous Materials Regulatory Enforcement
Enforcement of environmental regulations depends on the nature of the violation. Both the Santa Rosa Police Department and the SRFD provide enforcement. Both departments have specific training in environmental crimes and work closely with other regulatory agencies and departments such as the Utilities Department’s Industrial Waste Section, Planning and Economic Development building inspectors, and the Public Works Department’s Storm Water Management Program to ensure environmental regulations are followed.
The Sonoma County Environmental Health Division is charged with administering the State of California’s Medical Waste Program. Regulation of potentially hazardous pesticide and herbicides is under the jurisdiction of the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner.
The City’s Water Department administers the Storm Water Management Program that is designed to reduce urban runoff from polluting loca l waterways through use of best management practices, low impact design, monitoring, and other techniques.
3.8.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G standards of si gnificance. An impact related to hazards and hazardous materials is considered significant if the project would:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.8-8
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
7) Implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
METHODOLOGY
The following impact analysis is based primarily on a review of available records regarding hazardous materials use in the vicinity of the project area as well as relevant planning documents pertaining to emergency response.
Impacts Not Evaluated in Detail
The closest airport is Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, approximately 5.25 miles to the northwest of the project area (Sonoma County 2001). No private airstrips are located within 2 miles. There would be no impact relative to St andards of Significance 5 and 6, and these issues are not further evaluated.
The project area is generally developed with urban uses and is not adjacent to areas where there is a wildland urban interface fire hazard. There would be no impact relative to Standard of Significance 8, and this issue is not further evaluated.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Use, Storage, and Transport of Hazardous Materials (Standard of Significance 1) Impact 3.8.1 Implementation of the proposed project would result in the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. Accide ntal release of these materials could constitute a hazard to the public or the environment. This impact is considered less than significant.
The transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways is regulated by the CHP, the US Department of Transportation (Hazardous Mate rials Transportation Act), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Use of these materials is regulated by the DTSC (22 California Code of Regulations Sections 66001, et seq.). The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business owners, and others are required to be in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations during project construction and operation.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.8-9
Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases. All development that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling, tr ansport, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous materials.
Considering the level of protection afforded by the various requirements, restrictions, and policies enforced by agencies with jurisdiction over the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials within the project area, the release of hazardous materials is unlikely. The impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials (Standard of Significance 2) Impact 3.8.2 New development in the project area would lead to an associated increase in use of hazardous materials. The proposed project therefore has potential to r e s u l t i n a n i n c r e a s e d r i s k o f a c c i d e n tal release of hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant.
The proposed project would encourage mixed-use development in the Specific Plan area such as residential, office, retail, public, and inst itutional uses, which could include dry cleaners, hospitals, and utilities. Such uses could require the routine use of hazardous materials.
For example, retail development could be occupied by uses that sell paints, oils, and solvents, such as a home improvement store, hardware store, gas station, or auto parts store. The institutional and office land uses could be developed with a hospital or medical offices that could use, store, or dispose of materials such as pressurized oxygen tanks, medical waste, biohazardous materials, and/or radioactive materials.
Existing local, state, and federal regulations regarding the appropriate, legal use, storage, and disposal of hazardous material s associated with household and commercial uses (e.g., dry cleaners’ disposal of solvents) provide extensive regulatory oversight for the use and handling of hazardous materials and would ensure that the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment is less than significant. Therefore, the potential for the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment is considered less than significant.
With future development in the project area, there would be an increase in population and an associated greater usage of common and potentially hazardous household cleaners, as well as use of pesticides and herbicides to maintain land scaping and control pests. With the increase in population would come development of potentially hazardous infrastructure such as natural gas pipelines, storage of hazardous ch emicals in a commercial or reta il setting, additional use of landscaping and cleaning chemicals, and increased requirements for basic garbage or litter disposal, as well as special disposal of used motor oil, antifreeze, paint, batteries, etc.
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. Policy NS-F-4 specifically addresses the accidental release of hazardous materials. Adherence to these policies would be critical in reducing the risk from a hazardous materials spill.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.8-10
Through the City’s Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual, projects requiring grading or other grou nd disturbance are required to prepare and implement a post- development stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for any development or redevelopment that creates or replaces a combined total of 10,000 square-feet or more of impervious surfaces. Compliance with the SWPPP would prevent runoff from discharging into site waterways from dumpsters, maintenance areas, and other areas where potentially hazardous or hazardous materials are stored or used. Furthermore, any business that would use high quantities of hazardous materials would require registration and compliance with the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, Hazardous Waste Genera tor Program, and Accidental Release Program.
Compliance with the requirements of these programs would ensure that hazardous materials are properly transported, stored, inventoried, and disposed and would ensure that business have adequate plans and training fo r employees in order to respon d to an accidental release.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Hazardous Emissions near Schools (Standard of Significance 3) Impact 3.8.3 Several schools are located within and in the vicinity of the project area.
Hazardous materials or substances may be handled in the vicinity of these schools. This impact is considered less than significant.
Several schools are located within and in the vicinity of the project area. Construction activities associated with future development under the proposed project could result in hazardous emissions (i.e., heavy equipment diesel exhaust) or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste (i.e., construction materials) within one-quarter mile of thes e schools. However, the proposed project would not increase the acreage or density of industrial or commercial land uses in the project area.
The Annexation areas are primarily developed with residential uses, and the remaining vacant parcels in these areas are not designated for industrial or commercial use. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant new or increased hazardous materials. General Plan policies and other existing restrictions are considered adequate mitigation. The impact would be less than significant. The reader is also referred to Section 3.3, Air Quality, for further discussion of hazardous air emissions.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Contaminated Sites (Standard of Significance 4)
Impact 3.8.4 Review of environmental hazards databa ses conducted in association with the proposed project identified hazardous materials sites in the project area, including sites on the Cortese List. Impa cts related to future development of these sites are potentially significant.
According to the SWRCB (2015) GeoTracker database and the DTSC (2015) EnviroStor databases and a fact sheet prepared by the North Coast RWQCB (2015), over 30 known open case hazardous materials sites are located in the project area, including sites included on the Cortese
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.8-11
List, as well as cases determined by North Coast RWQCB and/or DTSC to be closed, inactive, or no further action (see Appendix 3.8). Sites indicated as closed, inac tive, or no further action are sites where contamination may have been previously investigated and/or remediated but are not necessarily free of contaminants because state laws and regulations provide various legal mechanisms to allow for contaminants to remain. In addition, there are numerous open cases in the immediate vicinity of the project area, including a cluster north of State Route 12 just west of US Highway 101 and a large cluster of military cleanup sites just west of the Specific Plan area associated with the Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station.
The sites listed in Appendix 3.8 may pose an existing threat to soil and groundwater, to workers during construction from exposure, and to future occupants of and visitors if the site were redeveloped. The level of exposure risk on these sites is variable. The greatest exposure risk is likely to occur during construction, when demolition and excavation may expose and potentially spread contaminated soil and debris from impacted areas. Contamination would most likely be spread through surface runoff, windblown dust, or groundwater seepage. Identified construction and demolition hazards include inhalation of po ssible asbestos, lead, and creosote associated with old structures and railroad ties, and genera l exposure associated with site redevelopment, including remediation. Certain sites may require closure of existing hazardous material storage facilities. These sites may be contaminated and ne ed remediation. For subdivisions, multi-family residential, and commercial developments on parcels or properties that are not listed in Appendix
3.8 (i.e., sites that have not been identified as having contaminants), the SRFD will nevertheless require the site be investigated before development can occur.
In order to develop or redevelop sites included in Appendix 3.8, regulatory oversight will be required by the SRFD, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or another agency to determine whether the conditions or previous remediation is adequate for the proposed land use. For example, a site that may have been remediated to a use suitable for commercial development could pose a greater risk if the site were to be redeveloped with residential uses.
Development of any site, particularly commercial sites, also has the potential to encounter previously undiscovered contamination or subsurface features (e.g., USTs or pipelines that may have contained hazardous materials that may been installed illegally or before permits were required). As described above, this could pose a risk to construction workers and the public.
Because there is the potential for future projects that could be constructed in the project area 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 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 OS HA standards and Santa Rosa Fire Department, Sonoma County Environmental Health Department, and State Water Resources Control Board guidelines. The Department of Toxic Substances
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.8-12
Control (DTSC) may become involved wherever toxic levels of contaminants are found that pose an immediate ha zard. 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 cl osure 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 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 excavati ons, 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 restri ctions would be developed based on site-specific conditions and would re flect 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 land owner 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.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.8-13
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 ensu re 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 Ci ty 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 heal th 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 environm ental 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 Fire Department; City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development
Department
Implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.8.4a and MM 3.8.4b 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.
Emergency Plans (Standard of Significance 7)
Impact 3.8.5 The proposed project 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.
The City’s Draft Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) provides a blueprint for emergency management in Santa Rosa in the case of a major earthquake, hazardous materials incident, flood, national security emergency, wildfire, landslide, dam failure, or other emergency. The EOP guides the City’s response to an emergency in four phases: preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.8-14
General Plan Policy NS-A-1 requires the City to maintain the EOP as the City’s disaster response plan and to work with Sonoma County to update joint emergency response and disaster response plans, as needed. Policy NS-A-3 requires the establishment of a community program to train volunteers to assist police, fire, and civil defense personnel during and after disasters.
The SRFD would review construction plans for roadway modifications in the project area and would establish temporary alternative emergency routes necessary for the duration of a construction project. During design review of subsequent projects, 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.
When taken together, existing policies and standards would ensure the potential impact of interference with an emergency access or evacuation plan would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.8.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting for hazards associated wi th the proposed project consists of Santa Rosa and the city’s Urban Growth Boundary, including future growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Cumulative impacts associated with hazard s and hazardous materials risks from increased development may include but are not limited to impacts on transportation, air quality, hydrology and water quality, and biological resources. The cumulative impacts associated with these potentially affected resources are analyzed in the applicable sections of this Draft EIR.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Impact 3.8.6 Implementation of the pr oposed project, in combination with other existing and reasonably foreseeable future projec ts, may result in cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts. These cumulative hazards impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Hazardous materials are transported on virtually all public roads, partic ularly since all motor vehicles contain hazardous materials (e.g., fuel) in addition to any hazardous cargo that may be on board. In addition, cumulative development in th e ci ty and i n po r ti o n s o f So no ma Co un ty would increase the amount of development, which would result in increased use of household and other potentially hazardous chemicals associated with nonresidential uses.
As discussed above, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials are governed by a substantial body of existing regulations intended to reduce the potential for exposure by controlling the pathways by which persons could be exposed to hazardous substances.
Compliance with these regulations is required by all projects, including any projects developed under the proposed project.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.8-15
In addition, potentially adverse environmental effects associated with the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials are usually si te-specific in nature, although their long-term impacts may be regional in extent. Individual incidents generally do not combine with similar effects that could occur with other projects in the city. Implementation of the provisions of the EPA, US Department of Transportation, Caltrans, OSHA, Cal/OSHA, and CUPA permitting processes, in combination with the environmental site assessment requirements of MM 3.8.4a and MM 3.8.4b would ensure cumulative hazardous materials impacts are less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.8-16
REFERENCES
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Agency website. Accessed December 20, 2015. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/.
———. 2015. EnviroStor. Accessed January 29. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Laws and Regulations. Accessed December 20. http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/index.html.
———. 2012. EnviroMapper. Accessed February 15.
http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home.
North Coast RWQCB (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015. Fact Sheet:
Roseland Area-Sebastopol Road/McMinn Avenue Groundwater Contamination Update, Santa Rosa, California, October 2015.
NPMS (National Pipeline Mapping System). 2015. NPMS Public Map Viewer. Accessed December
30. https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/.
PHMSA (US Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration). 2011. Agency website. Accessed December 20. http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2007. Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Draft Program EIR. ———. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035.
———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Dr aft Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2012. Existing Conditions Report for the North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan.
Sonoma County. 2001. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for Sonoma County . http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/docs/airport/ch8-excerpt.htm.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board) . 2015. GeoTracker. Accessed February 3. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-1
This section addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project related to hydrology and water quality. The existing surfac e water and groundwater hydrologic conditions of the project area and the surrounding area are characterized and a summary of relevant laws and regulations as they apply to the proposed project is provided. The impact analysis focuses on potential degradation of water quality, altera tion of existing drainage patterns, and flooding hazards.
3.9.1 E XISTING SETTING
REGIONAL CONDITIONS
Climate
Santa Rosa is in a Mediterranean climate zone typical of central coastal California. This climate zone is characterized by cool, wet winters an d warm, dry summers. The city receives a mean annual precipitation of approximately 30 inches in the lower elevations and about 45 inches in the higher elevations. The majority of the rainfall typically occurs between October 1 and April 1.
Influenced by marine air about 85 percent of the time, the region is generally protected from the hot weather of the Central Valley by the interior Coast Ranges. Although the Pacific Ocean moderates temperatures, the temperatures still have a wider range in the City than along the coast, occasionally exceeding 100 degrees Fahren heit and sometimes falling as low as several degrees below freezing for several consecutive nights.
Hydrology
Santa Rosa Creek is the major collector stream in the city and is central to the hydrologic system.
The Santa Rosa Creek watershed encompasses approximately 78.6 square miles, with headwaters on the northwestern slope of Hood Mountain. The approximately 22-mile-long creek flows through a canyon that roughly parallels Los Alamos Road, then flows west through the urban area and agricultural lands before join ing Laguna de Santa Rosa north of Sebastopol.
Laguna de Santa Rosa flows northerly to its conf luence with Mark West Creek and on to the Russian River at Mirabel. Several creeks in southwest Santa Rosa, including Colgan and Roseland Creeks, flow directly into the Laguna de Santa Rosa (Santa Rosa 2013).
Surface Water Quality
Surface water quality in the city is overseen by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the City of Santa Rosa. Laguna de Santa Rosa water quality is affected by a number of factors, including the flow and quality of waters in its tributaries, runoff from urban and agricultural activities, and natural processes such as erosion, sedimentation, algal growth, and infrequently, recycled water discharge from the subregional system, (Winzler & Kelly 2008).
The Laguna de Santa Rosa unit of the Russian River is listed under Clean Water Act Section 303(d) for impairments associated with indicator bacteria, mercury, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, sediment/siltation, and temperature (SWRCB 2011).
Groundwater Resources
The City’s groundwater supply is derived excl usively from the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin. The Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin of the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin covers an area of 80,000 acres, or approximately 125 square miles. It is the largest subbasin of the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-2
The City maintains a total of six municipal grou ndwater wells in the subbasin, two of which are production wells permitted for regular production of up to 2,300 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable supply. Three of the City’s remaining wells provide emergency stand-by supply and one provides a minor amount of landscape irriga tion water supply. The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) also has three groundwater wells in the subbasin. Although there are no legal constraints to the SCWA’s ability to use groundwater supplies, the amount of groundwater expected to be pumped by the agency is projected to remain stable until 2035, at 2,300 acre- feet annually.
The overall quality of groundwater in the subbasin is good, although high iron, manganese, and hardness have been reported in groundwater fo r some portions of the subbasin. Groundwater underlying the City’s service area generally meets primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal use. The City’s Farmers Lane wells have historical ly exhibited slightly elevated concentrations of both iron and manganese, exceeding secondary drinking water standards (Santa Rosa 2012b). However, water fr om these wells are treated to meet secondary drinking water standards prior to the well water entering the City’s system.
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CONDITIONS
Hydrology and Drainage
Two creeks flow through the Specific Plan area. Roseland Creek is an ephemeral stream that drains an area of 4.6 square mile s. It flows from an outfall at th e Northwestern Pacific Railroad in the northeastern portion of the plan area southwesterly, exiting the plan area at the approximate midpoint of its western boundary. The upper portion of Roseland Creek (Reaches 1 and 2, US Highway 101 [US 101] to Burbank Avenue) is generally characterized by a natural, meandering channel with some riparian habitat. Reach 3 (Burbank Avenue to Stony Point Road) is primarily considered a modified creek characterized by a grass-lined flood control channel. All three reaches of Roseland Creek in the Specific Plan area are recommended for preservation by the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan. Reaches 2 and 3 are covered by the City’s adopted Roseland Creek Restoration Concept Pl an; some segments may be subject to the City’s 50-foot setback requirements due to habitat value for wildlife (Santa Rosa 2013).
T h e C o l g a n C r e e k d r a i n a g e a r e a i s 7 . 8 s q u a r e m i l e s , m o s t o f w h i c h i s i n S a n t a R o s a ’ s U r b a n Growth Boundary. Colgan Creek flows under US 101 at the approximate midpoint of the plan area’s eastern boundary southwesterly to Bellevue Avenue and then flows westerly along the roadway and the plan area’s southern boundary. Colgan Creek is considered a modified creek consisting largely of a SCWA flood control channel that is grass-lined and has minimal associated riparian habitat. According to the Citywide Creek Master Plan, Reach 1 (US 101 to Victoria Drive) is recommended for habitat enhancement, while Reach 2 (Victoria Drive to Bellevue Avenue) is recommende d for restoration per the City’s adopted Lower Colgan Creek Restoration Concept Plan. That restoration is underway. Portions of the creek are under easements to cross private properties (Santa Rosa 2013).
The municipal storm drain system in the project ar ea generally consists of a series of pipes, culverts, creeks, and surface drainage features that are owned and operated by one of three public agencies: the City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, or the SCWA. Additional information about these systems is presented in Section 3.15.3 , Stormwater Drainage, in Section 3.15, Public Utilities. Portions of the storm drain network have been identified as in need of repair, rehabilitation, or other improvements (Michael Baker International 2016). Not all locations in the project area are connected to storm drain system.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-3
Flood Hazards
Major creeks in Santa Rosa have the potential to cause flooding during a large storm event, and historically flooding has occurred in areas near cr eeks. The majority of stormwater in southern Santa Rosa, which includes the project area, is channeled into Roseland and Colgan creeks. The flat topography, limited capacity, and concentrated discharge place these creeks at greatest risk of flooding. Drainage improvements to both creeks are necessary to minimize future flooding risks (Santa Rosa 2009a).
The infrastructure report for the proposed project ( Appendix 2.0) identified the following specific locations in the project area where localized drainage and flooding needs to be addressed (Michael Baker International 2016):
Upper Roseland Creek at West Avenue, McMinn Avenue, and Burbank Avenue, where flooding issues were confirmed in the 2009 Sa nta Rosa Flood Insurance Study (identified as a SCWA Zone 1A project)
Colgan Creek from Corby Avenue to the railroad tracks Lower Colgan Creek at Dutton Meadow to Bo ron Avenue, and Boron Avenue to Victoria Drive
Earl and Boyd streets, nuisance flooding
O’Hair Court, persistent flooding when high water backs up the storm drain and floods the court
100-Year Flood Hazard Zones
The Roseland Creek and Colgan Creek floodways wi thin the plan area are designated by FEMA as Zone AE indicating that they must be kept free of encroachment to ensure that the 1 percent annual chance flood (also re ferred to as the “100-year flood”) can be carried without substantial increases in flood height (FEMA 2012). In addition, two larger areas adjacent to Roseland Creek (west of McMinn Avenue and ea st of Old Stony Point Road) and one area adjacent to Colgan Creek (between US 101 and the railroad) that extend outside of the floodway are also designated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as Zone AE, indicating that they are subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood. Figure 3.9- 1 shows the locations of the flood hazard zones.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-4
Dam Failure Inundation
In addition to natural flood hazards, flooding can also occur as a result of dam inundation caused by dam failure. Structural failure may be caused by seismic activity. The most extreme flood risk to the project area would be as the result of an uncontrolled release from a failure at Matanzas Creek Reservoir, or to a lesser degree Lake Ralphine or Spring Lake (Santa Rosa Creek Reservoir). The dams impounding the Matanzas Creek Reservoir, Lake Ralphine, and Spring Lake are operated by the SCWA and are annually inspec ted by California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) engineers to ensure the dams are performing and being maintained in a safe manner.
When determined to be structurally inadequate to withstand anticipated ground shaking, dams under DSOD jurisdiction are required to undergo seismic retrofitting. With annual DSOD inspection and oversight, the potential for catast rophic failure is considered to be very low (Santa Rosa 2009b). The SCWA reports there is no history of dam failure at these three facilities, and the frequency and probability of failure is low (SCWA 2008).
A segment of Colgan Creek south of Hearn Avenue is subject to inundation in the event of a failure of Matanzas Creek Dam located east of the plan area. The inundation area is the same as the 100-year flood zone described previously.
Tsunami, Sea Level Rise, Seiche, and Mudflows
Flooding can also occur due to tsunamis, seiches, or mudflows. Tsunamis are waves caused by an underwater earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. Because the project site is located inland, it could not experience a tsunami or climate change–induced sea level rise effects. A seiche is a rhythmic motion of water in a partially or completely landlocked water body caused by landslides, earthquake-induced ground accele rations, or ground offset. Several reservoirs located within or near the city limits could potentially experience seiche waves from a significant seismic event. However, none of these reservoirs are in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. A mudflow or mudslide is the most rapid and fluid type of downhill mass wasting. It is a rapid movement of a large mass of mud formed from loose earth and water. The plan area is not located near any sources of mudflows (Santa Rosa 2009a).
Groundwater
Gasoline, diesel, and chlorinated solvents from commercial and industrial facilities have impacted groundwater in the Roseland area ar ound Sebastopol Road near McMinn Avenue.
The North Coast RWQCB provides regulatory oversight of the groundwater investigation and remediation for 15 open cleanup sites (North Coast RWQCB 2015). Other sites where contamination has been identified have been remediated. Additional information about contaminated sites is presented in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
North Coast RWQCB staff has noted that sensitive receptor surveys conducted in the Roseland Area have identified numerous domestic groundwater wells. Their field interviews indicate that some of these wells were properly destroyed, some are still used for domestic and/or irrigation use, and some are not used. There may be additional domestic wells that have not been identified. North Coast RWQCB staff have re commended that the City conduct a water well survey in the Roseland/Sebastopol Road area to identify these wells.
FIGURE 3.9-1
FEMA Flood Zones
IÆ
IÆ
?ÝE
?ÝE
West 3rd St
Brittain Ln
West Hern Ave
T:\_GIS\Sonoma_County\MXDs\Santa_Rosa\SRRASP\EIR_Figures\FEMA Flood Zones.mxd (5/5/2016) 0 1,000 2,000
FEET
Source: FEMA DFIRM (2015); City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.
Legend
City Limits
Annexation Areas
Project Area
FEMA Flood Zone Type
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
Colgan CreekRoseland Creek
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-7
Annexation Area Conditions
Hydrology
Santa Rosa Creek flows along the northerly boundary of the West Third Street Annexation area.
As described previously, Santa Rosa Creek is approx imately 22 miles long and drains an area of approximately 78.6 square miles. The creek flows from its headwaters on the northwestern slope of Hood Mountain through a canyon that roughl y parallels Los Alamos Road, then flows west through the urban area and through agricultural lands before joining Laguna de Santa Rosa north of Sebastopol. The portion of Santa Rosa Creek that flows along the West Third Street Annexation area, identified as Reach 5 (Pierson Street to Stony Point Road), is characterized as a modified-natural channel with some maturing tree s along its bank providing canopy cover. This reach is recommended for riparian enhancement, including removal of invasive species and replanting with natives (Santa Rosa 2013). There are no surface water resources in either the Brittain Lane or the West Hearn Avenue annexation areas.
Flood Hazards
100-Year Flood Hazard Zones
The West Third Annexation area, the Brittain Lane Annexation area, and the majority of the West Hearn Avenue Annexation area are located outs ide the 100-year flood hazard area and are considered to be at minimal risk of flood inundation based on current FEMA mapping. The westernmost portions of two parcels in the West Hearn Avenue Annexation area are within the 500-year flood hazard area and are considered to be at moderate risk of flood inundation (FEMA 2012). Figure 3.9-1 shows the location of the flood hazard zone in the West Hearn Avenue Annexation area.
Dam Inundation
The inundation area for Matanzas Creek Dam coincides with the 100-year flood zone for Colgan Creek (Figure 3.9-1), as noted above. None of the annexation areas is within the inundation area for Matanzas Creek Dam.
Tsunami, Sea Level Rise, Seiche, and Mudflows
Similar to the Specific Plan area, the Annexation areas are not at ri sk of inundation from tsunami, sea level rise, seiche, or mudflows.
3.9.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) gives states the primary responsibility for protecting and restoring water quality. In California, the Stat e Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine RWQCBs are the agencies with the primary responsibility for implementing federal CWA requirements, including developing and implementing programs to achieve compliance with water quality standards. Water quality standard s include designated beneficial uses of water bodies, criteria or objectives (numeric or narrative) which are protective of those beneficial uses,
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-8
and policies to limit the degradation of water bodies. The proposed project is located in a portion of the state that is regulated by the North Coast RWQCB.
Section 303 of the CWA
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that all states in the United States identify water bodies that do not meet specified water quality standards and do not support intended beneficial uses. Identified waters are placed on the Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies.
Once a water bo dy i s placed o n thi s li st, sta tes are required to develop a water quality control plan for the water body and each associated pollutant/stressor.
Santa Rosa Creek, as a tributary to the Russian River, is listed on the Section 303(d) as a Category 5A impaired water body, indicating that a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is required but has not yet been developed to address the identified impairments. The listed impairments for Santa Rosa Creek are indicator bacteria from an unknown source; sedimentation/siltation from numerous sources including land development, road construction, and urban runoff; and water temperature resulting from hydromodification, re moval of riparian vegetation, and streambank modification. Neither Roseland nor Colgan creek is included on the Section 303(d) list (SWRCB 2011).
Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA
Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA are administered through the regulatory program of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and regulate the water quality of all discharges of fill or dredged material into waters of the United Stat es, including wetlands and intermittent stream channels. Section 401 (Title 33, USC Section 1341) of the Clean Water Act sets forth water quality certification requirements for any applicant applyi ng for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity, including but not limited to the construction or operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the wa ters of the United States. In California, certifications must be approved by the SWRCB or the local RWQCB.
Section 404 of the CWA
As authorized by Section 402(p) of the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Waste discharge requirements for discharges to surface waters also serve as NPDES permits.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains. FEMA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps identifying which land areas are subject to flooding. The maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the community. The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA, with the minimum level of flood protection for new development determined to be the 1-in-100 annual exceedance probability (i.e., the 100-year flood event).
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-9
STATE
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs as the principal state agencies with the responsibility for controlling water quality in California. The act contains water quality policies and water quality standards that apply to both surface water and groundwater. It provides the legislative framew ork for regulations governing the discharges of pollutants from point and nonpoint sources.
Each RWQCB is required to develop, adopt, and implement a Water Quality Control Plan for its respective region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in each region. Basin Plans identify beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater in the corresp onding region; specify water quality standards, known as water qual ity objectives, for both surface water and groundwater; and develop the actions necessary to maintain the standards to control nonpoint and point sources of pollutants to the state’s waters.
The SWRCB issues NPDES permits to cities and counties through the RWQCBs, and it is the responsibility of the RWQCBs to preserve and enhance the quality of the state’s waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge requirements. The project area is under a MS4 permit from the RWQCB and LID requirements.
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans The SWRCB has adopted a General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order 2012-0006-DWQ). The Construction General Permit applies to any construction activity affecting 1 acre or more. The focus of the perm it is to minimize the potential effects of construction runoff on receiving water quality. The permit requires preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that identifie s best management practices (BMPs) describing erosion control measures. Examples of typical construction BMPs to address water quality include using temporary mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures to protect uncovered soils.
Project proponents are required to submit to the RWQCB a Notice of Intent, a site map, a signed certification statement, an annual fee, and a SW PPP. The permit program is risk-based, wherein a project’s risk is based on the project’s potential to cause sedimentation and the risk of such sedimentation on the receiving waters. A project’s risk determines its water quality control requirements, ranging from Risk Level 1, which consists of only narrative effluent standards, implementation of best management practices, and visual monitoring, to Risk Level 3, which consists of numeric effluent limitations, additi onal sediment control measures, and receiving water monitoring. Additional requirements include compliance with post-construction standards, preparation of rain event action plans, in creased reporting requirements, and specific certification requirements for certain project personnel.
The SWPPP must include best management practices to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality by implementing erosion control measures and re ducing or eliminating non-stormwater discharges. Examples of typi cal construction best management practices included in SWPPPs include, but are not limited to , using temporary mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures to protect unco vered soils; storing materials and equipment to
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-10
ensure that spills or leaks cannot enter the storm drain system or surface water; developing and implementing a spill prevention and cleanup plan ; and installing sediment control devices such as gravel bags, inlet filters, fiber rolls, or silt fences to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants from discharging to the drainage system or receiving waters.
REGIONAL
Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region The project area is within the jurisdiction of the North Coast RWQCB. The Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan), prepared by the North Coast RWQCB, identifies the beneficial uses of surface waters in its region and specifies water quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these waters. According to the Basin Plan, beneficial uses of the Santa Rosa subarea of the Russian River include mu nicipal, agricultural, and industrial supply; groundwater recharge; warm and cold freshwater habitat; navigation; spawning, reproduction, and development; water contact recreation; non-water contact recreation; wildlife habitat; rare species; and possible shellfish and aquati c plant and animal harvesting (North Coast RWQCB 2011).
The North Coast RWQCB also issues the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Phase 1 permit to the City requiring post-construction stormwater quality measures and site design consistent with the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual and pollution preparation measures.
LOCAL
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan po licies most pertinent to the proposed project in regard to hydrology or water quality and flooding issues.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal PSF-I: Manage, maintain, and impr ove stormwater drainage and capacity.
Policy PSF-I-1: Require dedication, improvement and maintenance of stormwater flow and retention areas as a condition of approval.
Policy PSF-I-2: Require developers to cover the costs of drainage facilities needed for surface runoff generated as a result of new development.
Policy PSF-I-3: Require erosion and sedimentation control measures to maintain an operational drainage system, preserve drainage capacity and protect water quality.
Policy PSF-I-4: Require measures to maintain and improve the storm drainage system, consistent with goals of the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan, to preserve natural conditions of wate rways and minimize paving of creek channels.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-11
Policy PSF-I-5: Cooperate with the Sonoma County Water Agency and the Northern California Regional Water Quality Control Board to conduct regular assessment of stormwater drainage fa cilities, to ensure that adequate drainage capacity is maintained throughout the system to accommodate increases in residential and commercial development.
Policy PSF-I-6: Require implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce drainage system discharge of non-point source pollutants originating from streets, parking lots, residential areas, businesses, industrial operations and those open space areas involved with pesticide application.
Policy PSF-I-7: Prepare and distribute information to increase awareness of businesses and residents about the need to reduce dr ainage system discharge of non-point source pollutants.
Policy PSF-I-8: Implement the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) in order to reduce pollutants and runoffs flows fr om new development and significant redevelopment projects.
Policy PSF-I-9: Consider installation of creekside pathways, consistent with the Citywide Creek Master Plan and Bicycle and Pede strian Master Plan, when possible as part of stormwater improvement projects along the city’s creek corridors.
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal OSC-E: Ensure local creeks and riparian corridors are preserved, enhanced, and restored as habitat for fish, birds, mammals and other wildlife.
Policy OSC-E-1: Maintain creek areas using practices that protect and support fish and wildlife as well as help retain hydraulic capacity.
Policy OSC-E-2: Plan and perform stream maintenance activities that respect the balance of flood protection and environmental protection.
Goal OSC-I: Conserve and maintain water quality.
Policy OSC-I-1: Maintain high levels of water quality for human consumption and for other life systems in the region by regularly monitoring water quality.
Policy OSC-I-6: Protect groundwater recharge areas, particularly creeks and riparian corridors. Identify and protect other potential groundwater recharge areas.
Noise and Safety Element
Goal NS-D: Minimize hazards associated with storm flooding.
Policy NS-D-1: Ensure flood plain protection by retaining existing open areas and creating new open areas needed to retain stormwater, recharge aquifers and prevent flooding.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-12
Policy NS-D-2: Maintain current flood hazard data and coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, Sonoma County Water Agency and other responsible agencies to coordinate flood hazard analysis and management activities.
Policy NS-D-3: Require that new development and redevelopment projects meet the requirements of the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual to reduce impe rmeable surface area, increase surface water infiltration and minimize surface wate r runoff during storm events. Such features may include:
Additional landscape areas,
Vegetated swales with bioretention;
Rain gardens; and
Pervious pavement.
Policy NS-D-4: Incorporate features and appropriate standards that reduce flooding hazards.
Policy NS-D-5: Apply design standards to new developm ent that help reduce project runoff into local creeks, tributaries, and drainage ways.
Policy NS-D-6: Evaluate flood hazards prior to approv al of development projects within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated flood zone.
Ensure that new development within flood zones is designed to be protected from flooding without negatively affecting adjacent areas.
Goal NS-E: Provide protection of public and private properties from hazards associated with dam inundation.
Policy NS-E-1: Support efforts to conduct periodic inspections of local dams to ensure all safety measures are in place.
City of Santa Rosa City Code
City Code Chapter 17.12, Storm Water, regula tes modifications to the natural flow of storm waters as well as discharges to the City’s stormwater system in compliance with applicable NPDES stormwater discharge permits.
Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual The Storm Water Low Impact Development Technica l Design Manual (LID Manual), adopted by t h e C i t y o f S a n t a R o s a i n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 1 a n d i m p l e m e n t e d i n 2 0 1 2 , a p p l i e s t o b o t h p r i v a t e l y sponsored projects and municipal capital impr ovement projects. The LID Manual requires applicable projects to design and implem ent post-development measures to reduce stormwater pollution. Under the LID Manual, appl icable projects are required to design and implement post-development measures for the management of stormwater quality and stormwater volume for the entire development site. The LID Manual emphasizes managing stormwater runoff through landscape-based treatment and retention methods to reduce the potential impacts to local waterways.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-13
The goal of the manual is to reduce pollution and runoff volumes to the maximum extent possible for capital improvement projects and new development or redevelopment projects meeting the following criteria:
Development that creates or replaces a combined total of 1 acre or more of new impervious surface.
Street, road, highway, or freeway construction or reconstruction, creating or replacing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface.
All development that includes four or more dwelling units. Industrial parks, commercial strip malls, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, or automotive service facilities creating or replacing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. Parking lots with 25 or more spaces or 10,000 square feet not associated with other projects.
City of Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan
The Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan, revised and adopted by the City Council in August 2013, implements General Plan 2035 Goal OS C-E and provides guidelines for the care, management, restoration, and enhancement of nearly 90 miles of creeks in Santa Rosa. The master plan is intended for use by City and County staff when planning creek enhancement and restoration activities, coordination and expansion of creekside trail systems, making broader land-use planning decisions co ncerning creeks, and in the de velopment approval process for projects proposed adjacent to a waterway. Co nceptual restoration plans for Roseland Creek and Colgan Creek are included in the Master Plan.
The Citywide Creek Master Plan includes policies for habitat preservation, enhancement, restoration, and development of trails by each watershed. The following policies in the Master Plan are relevant to the proposed project.
Policy HA-1-2: Meet or exceed the required creek setback distance to provide ecological buffers, recognize the 100 year floodpl ain, and allow for stream corridor restoration. Development shall locate outside the creek setback, as defined within the Santa Rosa Zoning Code.
Policy HA-2-3: Allow streambank and waterway stability repairs as necessary and reasonable to protect the integrity of adjacent properties and public health and safety. Repairs should be sensitive to the natural environment. Use bioengineering techniques, where possible.
Policy SW-1-1: Cooperate with partner agencies to conduct regular assessment of storm water drainage facilities to ensure that adequate drainage capacity is maintained throughout the system.
Policy SW-1-2: Maintain current flood hazard data, and coordinate with responsible agencies to coordinate flood hazard analyses and management activities.
Policy SW-1-3: Balance habitat restoration and hydr aulic capacity. Provide a detailed hydraulic analysis for every project component affecting flood conveyance
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-14
prior to implementation to identify allowable “roughness” values and to interpret those values in the form of a vegetation planting and monitoring plan. Consider use of detention basins and diversion channels where appropriate to maintain hydraulic capacity.
Policy SW-2-1: New development and redevelopment projects shall comply with the City NPDES storm water permit and with the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual.
Policy SW-2-2: Storm water treatment measures that involve small scale landscape based Low Impact Development Best Management Practices (BMPs) that treat storm water as close to the source as possible shall be prioritized over other BMPs.
Policy SW-2-3: Future storm water offset projects wh ich fulfill City NPDES storm water permit hydromodification requirements shall implement projects identified in the Citywide Creek Master Plan where feasible.
Policy EC-1-1: Where discretionary approval for new development is sought adjacent to the creek, that development shall, to the extent possible, be consistent with and support the Master Plan. Planners and decision-makers will look for consistency between proposed projects and the Master Plan. The overall intent of this policy is to incorporate the creek into the project design.
Policy EC-1-2: Conditions of approval for development should include dedication (per fee- title and/or easement) of land and construction of Master Plan improvements as appropriate, and where a nexus can be demonstrated.
Policy EC-1-3: The design of new development adjacent to the creek shall, to the extent possible, allow for future public improvements consistent with the Master Plan.
Policy WQ-1-1: Preserve waterways by informing resi dents of the environmental effects of dumping yard waste, pet waste, or pollutants such as motor oil into creeks or into storm drains that empty into creeks as well as littering. The Storm Water and Creeks section of the Utilities Department has created several brochures about storm water pollution prevention and the benefits of local creeks.
Policy WQ-2-1: Require implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce drainage system discharge of non-point source pollutants originating from streets, parking lots, residential areas, business, industrial operations and those open space areas involved with the application of chemicals. Continue implementation of the Integrated Pest Management program.
Policy WQ-2-2: Implement the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual to reduce pollutants and ru noff flows from new development and redevelopment projects.
Policy WQ-3-1: Ensure that construction and other activities adjacent to creek channels are sensitive to the natural environment. Avoidance of work adjacent to creek channels is always preferred but if necessary, impacts to the natural environment shall be minimized or mitigated. Ensure that these activities do not disrupt or pollute the waterway.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-15
Policy PR-1-1: Proposed improvements associated with development projects should be consistent with the Master Plan.
Policy HS-1-1: Minimize hazards associated with storm flooding.
Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Design Criteria The SCWA works cooperatively with the incorpor ated cities, unincorporated communities, and the state and federal governments to oversee flood control channel modifications and flood control revenue collection in flood protection zones. Santa Rosa is located in Flood Zone 1A— Laguna de Santa Rosa—Mark West Creek Watershed.
Storm drainage infrastructure in unincorporated Sonoma County is designed using SCWA Flood Control Design Criteria. In compliance with these criteria, all culverts and drainage systems in the City of Santa Rosa must be designed to a ccommodate the runoff from a 10-year recurrence interval storm event and protect finished floors from the 100-year recurrence interval storm. The SCWA reviews project plans for proposed dr ainage improvements, and all new private development projects or redevelopment proj ects that could be implemented under the proposed project are required to demonstrate compliance with SCWA design criteria. Prior to approving a private development project in th e project area, the City requires written confirmation from the SCWA that the project meets applicable SCWA criteria.
3.9.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G standards. An impact to hydrology and water quality is considered significant if the project would:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the prod uction rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. 5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-16
7) Place housing within a 100-year flood ha zard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. 8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
9) Expose people or structures to a significan t loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. 10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
METHODOLOGY
The hydrology and water quality analysis presen ted below is based on a review of published information, reports, and plans regarding regional and local hy drology, climate, topography, and geology obtained from private and governme ntal agencies as well as from Internet websites. Primary sources include the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035, Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan, the infrastructure report prepared for the proposed project ( Appendix 2.0 ), and FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Impacts Not Evaluated in Detail
The project area is not located in an area subject to tsunami, seiche, sea level rise effects, or mudflow. There would be no impact relative to Standard of Significance 10, and these issues are not further evaluated.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Water Quality (Standards of Significance 1, 5, and 6)
Impact 3.9.1 Construction and operation of subsequent projects in the project area could generate stormwater runoff containing po llutants from construction sites and new impervious surfaces, which could affect water quality. This impact would be less than significant.
Construction activities associated with subsequent projects that involve grading, excavation, or trenching could temporarily disturb soils. Soils co uld be subject to erosion from wind and rain, resulting in potential sediment transport from the project sites to Roseland and Colgan creeks.
Other pollutants, such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, can attach to sediment and be transported with sediment to downstream lo cations. Sediment-associated pollutants could also cause or contribute to degradation of surface water quality. The delivery, handling, and storage of construction materials and wastes, as well as the use of construction equipment containing fuel, oil, and grease, could also intr oduce a risk for contamination that could impact surface water or groundwater qual i t y a s r e s u l t o f s p i l l s o r leaks from heavy equipment and machinery. Equipment and mate rial staging areas could be sources of surface water and groundwater pollution because of the use of paints, solvents, cleaning agents, and metals during construction. Pesticide use (including herbicides and fungicides) associated with site preparation work is another potential source of contamination related to construction activities.
These construction activities could impact surface water and groundwater quality in a manner that could lead to violations of water quality standards, if controls are not in place to minimize potential impacts.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-17
The areas of potential development in the project area are primarily vacant or underutilized parcels surrounded by developed sites. The mo dification of these parcels to an area with buildings, parking, and landscaping could increa se the rate and amount of stormwater runoff and change the types and amounts of urban po llutants in stormwater runoff compared to existing conditions because there could be more impervious surface over which stormwater would flow. Urban stormwater discharged to Sa nta Rosa, Roseland, and Colgan creeks through the City’s drainage system or overland flow has the potential to violate water quality standards, if measures are not in place to minimize the types and amounts of pollutants in the runoff discharged to the creeks. Sedimentation and er osion would not be a substantial component of post-construction stormwater runoff because so ils exposed during construction would be covered with impervious surfaces (buildings, parking areas, hardscaping) or landscaped.
Every project that is subject to the General Construction Permit is required to apply for coverage and develop and implement a project-specific SWPPP. The SWPPP must include erosion control/soil stabilization techniques, best management practices for preventing the discharge of construction-related pollutants, drainage faci lity inspections, monitoring and maintenance programs, and training and information programs. In addition, any project larger than 1 acre must comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit. The City is required to verify that the applicant has filed a Notice of Intent under the Construction General Permit and has prepared a SWPPP before issuing a grading or building permit. The City requires developers to prepare and implement the requirements set forth in the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual), pursuant to NPDE S Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Permit requirements. As the area is gradually built out consistent with the LID Manual, the water quality associated with stormwater runoff would gradually be expected to improve compared to existing conditions. Incorporation of the LID Ma nual requirements into new projects would be reviewed by City staff in conjunction with issuance of grading and/or building permits.
Projects not subject to the LID Manual or the NPDES Construction General Permit would be subject to Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 17. 12, which requires implementation of all practicable measures to reduce and/or eliminate the release of pollutants to the stormwater system; requires construction contractors to implement BMPs to prevent the discharge of construction wastes, debris, and contaminants from entering the system; and requires compliance with all ap plicable BMP guidelines and requirements adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project area.
Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that subsequent projects in the project area are designed and operated to minimize the potential for violations of water quality standards. Therefore, impacts to water quality would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Groundwater Resources (Standard of Significance 2)
Impact 3.9.2 Future development in the project area would not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or alter the ar ea available for recharge of the groundwater aquifer. This impact would be less than significant.
Subsequent projects in the project area would use municipal water sources, which would include the use of groundwater. As discussed in more detail in Section 3.15, Public Utilities, the City anticipates having surplus water supply in year 2035, and the proposed project would
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-18
reduce water demand compared to that assume d in the City’s long-range water planning documents. There would be adequate supply to meet existing demands and planned future demands, and no new or expanded wa ter entitlements would be required. As a result, the proposed project would not substantially deplet e groundwater supplies because it would not result in the need to pump more water from the local groundwater basin than assumed in the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
The areas of potential future development in th e project area are generally limited to vacant and underutilized parcels. Although development of these parcels would introduce new impervious surfaces such as buildings and roadways, most of the parcels in the project area are planned for low-density residential and open space, which would allow continued on-site percolation of runoff. Higher density develo pment is generally limited to corridors along Sebastopol Road and Hearn Avenue. No development would be allowed within the floodways of Colgan and Roseland creeks, which are identifie d as primary areas of recharge in the city.
Therefore, the proposed project would not be anticipated to significan tly alter groundwater recharge. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Drainage Patterns (Standards of Significance 3 and 4)
Impact 3.9.3 Future development in the project area could alter drainage patterns, but would not result in substantial erosio n or flooding. This impact would be less than significant.
Areas of potential development in the project area are generally limited to vacant and underutilized parcels surrounded by existing deve lopment. Thus, major drainage patterns in the vicinity of these parcels have already been established. Future projects in the project area would not likely result in substantial alteration of existing drainage patterns.
Development near Roseland or Colgan creeks may require permitting with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), North Coast RWQCB, and/or the SCWA, where applicable. The following potential permits or approvals may be required:
Streambed Alteration Agreement. Any portio ns of a proposed project occurring along the banks of Roseland Creek or Colgan Creek may be subject to the requirements for a CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement. Re storation and enhancement of bank areas covered by concrete slabs and riprap would be included as part of any project located adjacent to the creek.
401 permit from Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sonoma County Water Agency Review. For any portions of a project occurring along the banks of Roseland Creek or Colgan Creek, a pplicants would be required to obtain a revocable license from the SCWA prior to construction on the agency’s property.
In addition, as described in Impact 3.9.4, below, subsequent projects in the project area would be requir ed to co mply wi th the Ci ty’s General Plan goals and policies that r equire the Ci ty to manage, maintain, and improve stormwater dr ainage and capacity. The two General Plan policies most relevant under this goal are Policy PSF-I-1 and Policy PSF-I-3 These policies require
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-19
dedication, improvement, and maintenance of stormwater flow and retention areas as a condition of approval, and implementation of erosion and sediment control measures to maintain an operational drainage system an d preserve drainage capacity. In addition, subsequent projects in the project area woul d need to demonstrate conformance with the applicable policies in the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan, such as Policies SW-2-1 through SW-2-3, which require new development to comply with the City’s NPDES stormwater permit and the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual, encourage the use of small-scale landscape-based LID best management practices over other BMPs, and require implementation of projects identified in the Master Plan as part of future stormwater offset projects where feasible. With compliance with these existing regulations and requirements, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Storm Drain Capacity (Standard of Significance 5)
Impact 3.9.4 Future development in the project area may result in increased stormwater runoff to the municipal storm drain system. This impact would be less than significant.
Subsequent development in the project area ma y result in increased runoff and flows to the municipal storm drain system due to new paving or surfacing, the addition or removal of storm drain inlets, or other changes to the existing storm drain system. Increased flows contributed as a result of the proposed project may have an ad verse impact on the capacity of storm drain conveyance in the municipal system. The infrastructure report for the proposed project has identified improvements within the project area for the overall storm drainage system to address the known drainage and flooding issues along lo wer Colgan Creek, upper Roseland Creek, and other locations (see Appendix 2.0, Table 7).
In accordance with the SCWA flood control cr iteria, every private development project would be required to develop hydrology and hydraulic calculations, maps, and a report. All culverts and drainage systems in the City of Santa Rosa must be designed to accommodate the runoff from a 10-year recurrence interval storm even t and protect finished floors from the 100-year recurrence interval storm. The SCWA reviews project plans for proposed drainage improvements, and all new private development projects or redevelopment projects that could be implemented under the proposed project are required to demonstrate compliance with SCWA design criteria. Prior to approving a private development project in the project area, the City requires written confirmation from the SCWA that the project meets applicable SCWA criteria. If the results of a hydraulic analysis for a project indicate that stormwater discharges to Roseland or Colgan creeks would increase water surface elevations (and the potential for flooding), the City requires that features be included in project design to demonstrate that the storm system has capacity to accommodate any increased flows resulting from the proposed project, or that upgrades to the system are made.
Pursuant to the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) Manual and City Code Chapter 17-12, the City would require future individual development projects to mitigate the stormwater runoff generated by the project so that post-development runoff would not exceed the pre- development conditions. While the goal of the LID requirements is to reduce pollutants in stormwater and the design criteria for the LID feat ures focuses on smaller, more frequent storms,
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-20
this would also help reduce stormwater flows to the drainage system. General Plan Policy PSF-1-1 requires drainage improvements to be completed prior to occupancy of projects.
Citywide Creek Master Plan Goal SW-1 requires that the hydraulic capacity of the city’s creeks be maintained, based on current runoff, to ensure an adequate level of flood control protection. Pertinent policies under this goal include Policy SW-1-1, which requires regular assessments of stormwater drainage facilities, and Policy SW-1-3, which requires projects that would affect flood conveyance to provide a detailed hydraulic analysis prior to implementation.
Therefore, compliance with the City’s General Plan 2035 and the Citywide Creek Master Plan policies, City Code, and SCWA requirements described above would ensure that adequate stormwater capacity is available to serve future development projects, which would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Flooding Hazards (Standards of Significance 7, 8, and 9) Impact 3.9.5 Future development in the project area may occur in areas subject to flooding hazards. This impact would be less than significant.
As shown on Figure 3.9-1, FEMA designates portions of the project area as 100- and 500-year f l o o d h a z a r d a r e a s . H o w e v e r , G e n e r a l P l a n P o l i c y N S - D - 6 r e q u i r e s t h e C i t y t o e v a l u a t e f l o o d hazards prior to approval of development proj ects in FEMA-designated flood zones and to ensure that new development in such zones is designed to be protected from flooding. Citywide C r e e k M a s t e r P l a n P o l i c y S W - 1 - 3 r e q u i r e s p r o j e c t s t h a t w o u l d a f f e c t f l o o d c o n v e y a n c e t o provide a detailed hydraulic analysis prior to implementation.
There are dams that have the potential to cause flooding in the project area, should a dam failure occur. The inundation area for the Ma tanzas Creek Dam coincides with the Colgan Creek 100-year floodplain. As described above, implementation of Policy ND-D-6 would ensure new development is protected from flood hazard s. The Matanzas Creek, Lake Ralphine, and Spring Lake dams are under the jurisdiction of the DSOD, which routinely inspects dams to ensure public safety. In accordance with General Plan Policy NS-E-1, the City supports efforts of the DSOD and other agencies to conduct periodic in spections of local dams to ensure all safety measures are in place.
Although portions of the project area are subjec t to potential flooding hazards, existing City policies and state programs minimize the pote ntial for risks to structures and the public associated with flood hazards and dam failure. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-21
3.9.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting for hydrology and water quality is the Laguna de Santa Rosa watershed, which originates at Hood Mountain in the Maya camas Mountains to the east and discharges to Laguna de Santa Rosa, a large wetland comple x downstream of the Santa Rosa urban area.
Various cities, water districts, sanitation districts, school districts, public lands, and private lands are also devoted to resource extraction and other uses in the watershed.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Water Quality, Runoff, and Flooding Impacts
Impact 3.9.6 The proposed project, 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.
Development in the Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary has the potential to result in a cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality. However, the General Plan 2035 EIR identified that with implementation of the policies included in the General Plan, the General Plan would result in a less than significant cu mulative impact related to hydrology and water quality. Development in the project area was assumed in the General Plan and would be subject to all applicable General Plan policies considered in the General Plan 2035 EIR.
Therefore, development of the lands in the project area is not expected to contribute to a cumulative hydrologic or water quality impact in the Santa Rosa area.
Cumulative development would use municipal wa ter sources, which would include the use of groundwater. While there are some changes to the General Plan land use diagram, as described in Section 2.0, the population increases and land use intensities possible as a result of the proposed project would not exceed the City’s projected growth identified in the General Plan. As discussed in more detail in Section 3.15, Public Utilities, the groundwater supply would be adequate to support the projected amount of groundwater anticipated to be pumped to support future growth in Santa Rosa, including the project area (see Impacts 3.15.1.1 and
3.15.1.3). Therefore, the resulting cumulative impact on groundwater resources is less than significant.
Peak runoff could increase gradually, due to increased impervious surface area, as development proceeds. However, these impacts would be reduced through improvements to the storm drain network within the project area, and are not expected to contribute to the cumulative effects to stormwater capacity (see subsection 3.15.3 for more details). The City requires written confirmation from the SCWA that projects meets applicable SCWA criteria. If the results of a hydraulic analysis for a project indicate that stormwater di scharges to Roseland or Colgan creeks would increase water surface elevations (and the potential for flooding), the City requires that features be included in project design to demonstrate that the storm system has capacity to accommodate any increased flows resulting from the proposed project, or that upgrades to the system are made. For any projec t that may be situated in a FEMA floodplain, the City requires hydraulic studies to ensure flood risk would not be exacerbated and that structures are protected from flood hazards.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-22
The impact on water quality would depend on the effectiveness of best management practices and engineering controls to prevent pollution from entering the storm drain system and area waterways. Adherence to the City’s Storm Wa ter Low Impact Developm ent Technical Design Manual and developing a site-specific SWPPP ba sed on current best management practices would ensure that cumulative impacts on water quality would not be significant.
Taken together, existing General Plan policies and requirements ensure that cumulative hydrologic and water quality impacts are less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.9-23
REFERENCES
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2012. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Panel Numbers 06097C0736F; 06097C0717F; 06097C0737F; 06097C0739F; 06097C0738F; Effective Date 10/16/2012).
Michael Baker International. 2016. Infrastructure Report for City of Santa Rosa.
North Coast RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region.
North Coast RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015. Fact Sheet: Roseland Area- Sebastopol Road/McMinn Avenue Groundwa ter Contamination Update, Santa Rosa, California, October 2015.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Dr aft Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2012. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment the North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan. ———. 2013. Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan.
Santa Rosa, City of, and County of Sonoma. 2011. Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual.
SCWA (Sonoma County Water Agency). 2008. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Sonoma County. 2012. NPDES Information. Accessed March 30, 2012. http://www.sonoma- county.org/prmd/sw/sw-npdes.htm.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2011. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report).
———. 2012a. Construction General Permit Fact Sheet. Accessed February 13. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs
/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo_2009_0009_complete.pdf. ———. 2012b. GeoTracker GAMA Groundwater In formation System. Accessed February 13. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/gama/geotracker_gama.shtml.
USDOE (US Department of Energy). 2012. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Accessed February 13. http://www.etec.energy.gov/ Regulation/Porter-Cologne-Water-Quality- Control-Act.html.
Winzler & Kelly. 2008. Incremental Recycled Water Program Seasonal Storage Project Draft EIR.
Chapter 4.6: Water Quality.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.9-24
This page intentionally left blank
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.10-1
This section describes the existing and proposed land uses in the project area, characterizes current and proposed surrounding land uses, and describes the land use designations according to the City of Santa Rosa General Plan and zoning in the project area. The assessment focuses on proposed changes in land use, use compatibility, and General Plan consistency to the extent that potential General Plan conflicts may lead to physical impacts on the environment. Physical effects on the environment that could result from implementation of the project are addressed in the appropriate technical sections of this Draft EIR (see Sections 3.1 through 3.15).
3.10.1 E XISTING SETTING
SANTA ROSA
Urban Growth Boundary
The City of Santa Rosa 2035 General Plan establ ishes the limited of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The UGB contains 29,140 acres, a little more than 45 square miles, and encompasses all incorporated land as well as unincorporated land that will eventually be annexed and served by the city. The city’s planning area extends outside of the UGB on all sides of Santa Rosa, and includes the Charles M. Schu lz-Sonoma County Airport to the northwest and Annadel State Park to the southeast. The planning area encompasses approximately 75,200 acres, or 118 square miles. The General Plan assumes all urban development through 2035 will be contained within the UGB. All land use classificat ions outside the UGB on the General Plan Land Use Diagram reflect Sonoma County General Plan designations – primarily rural residential and agricultural uses. Development outside the UGB is discouraged in order to promote open areas around the city and to demarcate an obvious end to urban development.
Santa Rosa voters approved a 5-year UGB in 1990, and a 20-year UGB measure in 1996. The current voter-approved UGB will expire in 2016. Current pr ojections indicate that there is sufficient land available within the UGB to accommodate growth needs until 2035 (Santa Rosa 2009a).
Existing land uses in the city are described in the General Plan (Santa Rosa 2009a, p. 2-2) as follows:
Santa Rosa has a traditional downtown, which, together with the nearby Santa Rosa Junior College (JC) area, holds approximately one-quarter of the 16.5 million square feet of commercial/office space within the UGB. Abou t half of the city’s commercial acreage (660 acres of a total of 1,370 acres) is in strip retail uses. Another 10.6 million square feet of industrial space is scattered in peripheral locations. The city’s residential neighborhoods are diverse, ranging from the traditional - such as JC, Burbank, and West End – with grid street patterns and moderately high densities, to low density hillside neighborhoods such as Chanate/Hidden Valley, Rincon Valley, an d Fountaingrove. With the exception of downtown, land uses are contained in single-use districts, and mixed use (residential and non-residential) development is sparse. Approximately 16 percent of land (approximately 4,655 acres of a total of 29,140 acres) within the UGB is vacant.
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
The Specific Plan area has a mix of uses, including low, medium, and medium-high density residential, and office, retail, industrial, public institutional, recreational, and educational facilities (see Figure 3.10-1). Retail development occurs mainly along Sebastopol Road. Industrial and auto- oriented land uses are concentrated along US Highway101 and the rail corridor, south of Hearn Avenue, with some additional industrial land along the rail corridor between Sebastopol Road and Barham Avenue. There are a number of schools in the community, in both the incorporated
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.10-2
and unincorporated areas of the plan area. The pl a n a r e a i s s e r v e d b y f o u r p a r k s , S o u t h w e s t Community Park, Bayer Park, Bellevue Ranch Park and South Davis Park. The largest of the parks is Southwest Community Park, which is located on Hearn Avenue next to the Southside Bus Transfer Center and comprises 19.7 acres. Two additional parks are in the planning stage of development, including Lower Colgan Park along Colgan Cr eek and Roseland Creek Community Park on Burbank Avenue. The remainder of the Specific Plan area is composed primarily of single-family and multi-family residential.
ANNEXATION AREAS
West Third Street
The area north of Third Street is primarily developed as a low-density, suburban residential neighborhood with few vacant lots. South of Third Street, the area is developed with primarily industrial uses, including automotive and ot her repair shops, contractors and wholesale warehouses, and manufacturing. Several single-family homes also front Third Street.
Brittain Lane
The Brittain Lane Annexation area is primarily developed as low-density, rural residential neighborhoods with scattered vacant parcels. The Joe Rodota Trail is located along the northern boundary of the area.
West Hearn Avenue
The West Hearn Avenue Annexation area is primarily developed with low-density, rural residential neighborhoods with scattered vacant parcels.
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING
Existing Santa Rosa General Plan land use designations in the project area are shown on Figure
2.0-3 (see Section 2.0, Project Description). Existing City zoning in the project area is shown on Figure 2.0-4. Sonoma County General Plan land use designations and zoning in the project area are shown on Figure 2.0-5 and Figure 2.0-6, respectively. As shown in these figures, the project area is designated and zoned for a variety of uses including residential at various densities, mixed use, commercial, office, industrial, and public/institutional.
3.10.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL AND STATE
There are no federal or state regulations applicable to land use and the proposed project.
LOCAL
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 serves as the overall guiding policy document for the city. The following is a list of applicable General Plan go als and policies most pertinent to the proposed project with regard to land use and planning.
FIGURE 3.10-1
Existing Land Use
IÆ
IÆ
?ÝE
?ÝE
West 3rd St
Brittain Ln
West Hearn Ave
Roseland
Victoria Dr
T:\_GIS\Sonoma_County\MXDs\Santa_Rosa\SRRASP\EIR_Figures\Existing Land Use.mxd (3/8/2016) 0 1,000 2,000
FEET
Source: City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.
Legend
City Limits
Annexation Areas
Specific Plan Area
Existing Land Use
Residential - Single Family
Residential - Multi Family
Residential - Senior
Residential - Mobile Home
Common Area
Business - Office
Business Strip
Business - Shopping Center
Business - Motel
Public / Institutional
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Heavy
Industrial - Warehouse
Recreation
Creek / Waterway
Educational
Landscape
Open Space
Parking
Private Road
Railroad Right-of-Way
Vacant
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.10-5
Land Use and Livability Element
Goal LUL-A: Foster a compact rather than a scattered development pattern in order to reduce travel, energy, land, and materials consumption while promoting greenhouse gas emission reductions citywide.
Policy LUL-A-1: As part of plan implementation—i ncluding development review, capital improvements programming, and prepar ation of detailed area plans—foster close land use/transporta tion relationships to promote use of alternative transportation modes and discourage travel by automobile.
Policy LUL-A-2: Annex unincorporated land adjacent to city limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary, when the proposal is timely and only if adequate services are available. Ensure that lands proposed for annexation provide a rational expansion and are contiguous to existing urban development.
Policy LUL-A-3: Require development in county area s within the Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary to be built to City of Santa Rosa standards to ensure consistency upon annexation.
Policy LUL-A-4: Review the policy of providing city services to county areas prior to annexation.
Evaluate the following:
Annexation prior to allowing development;
City and county development standards;
Payment of development impact fees; and
Agreements with county for provision of services.
Goal LUL-E: Promote livable neighborhoods by requiring compliance with green building programs to ensure that new construction meets high standards of energy efficiency and sustainable material use. Ensure that everyday shopping, park and recreation facilities, and schools are within easy walking distance of most residents.
Policy LUL-E-1: Provide new neighborhood parks and recr eation facilities, elementary schools, and convenience shopping in accordan ce with the General Plan Land Use Diagram and General Plan Table 2-4.
Policy LUL-E-4: Protect the rural quality of Very Low Density areas within the Urban Growth Boundary through design and development standards in the Zoning Code, and development review.
Goal LUL-F: Maintain a diversity of neighbor hoods and varied housing stock to satisfy a wide range of needs.
Policy LUL-F-3: Maintain a balance of various housing types in each neighborhood and ensure that new development does not result in undue concentration of a single housing type in any one neighborhood. Downtown is excepted.
Goal LUL-G: Promote mixed use sites and centers.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.10-6
POLICY LUL-G-1: DEVELOP THE FOLLOWING AREAS AS MIXED USE CENTERS (SEE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM):
Community Shopping Centers:
South of Hearn Avenue, at Dutton Meadow Avenue
West of Corporate Center Parkway, at Northpoint Parkway Piner Road, at Marlow Road
Petaluma Hill Road, at Yolanda Avenue
Goal LUL-I: Maintain vibrant, convenien t, and attractive commercial centers.
Policy LUL-I-3: Allow neighborhood centers that include small grocery stores, cleaners, and similar establishments, where they can be supported, within walking distance of residential uses. Ensure that ne ighborhood centers do not create unacceptable traffic or nuisances for residents due to the hours and nature of their operation, and are designed to facilitate walking and bicycling.
Residential developments which are not within walking distance of convenience shopping are encouraged to provide small centers envisioned by this policy.
Goal LUL-K: Protect industrial land supply and ensure compatibility between industrial development and surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LUL-K-1: Require industrial development adjacent to residential areas to provide buffers, and institute setback, landscaping, an d screening requirements intended to minimize noise, light, and glare and other impacts.
Southwest Area Plan
Policy LUL-R: Establish rational patterns of population densities, transportation, and services Policy LUL-R-1: Require that neighborhoods be comprise d of a mix of residential housing types and neighborhood serving facilities which support one another. Regional serving uses are not permitted within residential neighborhoods.
Goal LUL-T: Preserve the Northwestern Paci fic Railroad corridor for public and commercial transportation uses.
Policy LUL-T-1: Utilize the Northwestern Pacific corridor for public transportation uses and improve its long term viability by designating potential future rail stations/stops and intensive land use.
Goal LUL-U: Preserve, as permanent open s pace, areas which contain state or federally listed rare and endangered species.
Policy LUL-U-1: Designate areas with state or federally listed endangered species as permanent open space.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.10-7
Policy LUL-U-2: Utilize the Residential, Low Density/Open Space land use category as a “holding zone” for areas where the ultimate disposition of resources has not yet been determined.
Policy LUL-U-3: Develop plans for long term mainte nance of permanent open space.
Policy LUL-U-4: Protect biologically sensitive habitats and incorporate riparian plant materials in the landscape plans for projects.
City of Santa Rosa Zoning Code
The Santa Rosa Zoning Code implements the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures in the city. In addition, the Zoning Code is adopted to protect and promote the public he alth, safety, and general welfare of residents and to preserve and enhance the city’s aesthetic quality.
City of Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan
The Citywide Creek Master Plan, adopted by the City Council in August 2013, implements General Plan 2035 Goal OSC-E and provides guidelines for the care, management, restoration, and enhancement of nearly 90 miles of creeks in Santa Rosa. The master plan is intended for use by City and County staff when planning creek enhancement and restoration activities, coordination and expansion of creekside trail systems, making broader land-use planning decisions concerning creeks, and in the development approval process for projects proposed adjacent to a waterway.
3.10.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G standards. A la nd use and planning impact is considered significant if the project would:
1) Physically divide an established community.
2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zo ning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
METHODOLOGY
The following impact analysis is b a s e d o n a r e v i e w o f r e l e v a n t l a n d u s e p l a n n i n g d o c u m e n t s including the Santa Rosa 2035 General Plan and the City’s Zoning Code.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.10-8
Impacts Not Evaluated in Detail
No adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans cover Santa Rosa.1 There would be no impact relative to Standard of Significance 3, and the issue is not further evaluated.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Divide Established Community (Standard of Significance 1) Impact 3.10.1 The proposed project would not divide an established community. There would be no impact.
The proposed project consists of the preparatio n and implementation of a comprehensive land use, circulation, and infrastructure plan for the community of Roseland and would result in the annexation of the remaining unincorporated isla nds in southwest Santa Rosa. These actions are intended to create a more cohesive and connected community while preserving existing uses and the unique character of the area. The proposed project does not include any design features or other characteristics that would divide the community. Rather, the proposed project would improve community connectivity by improving motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities throughout the area. There would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans or Existing Uses (Standard of Significance 2) Impact 3.10.2 The proposed project would not conflict with applicable land use plans. This impact would be less than significant.
As shown in Figure 2.0-6 in Section 2.0, Project Description, the proposed land plan is substantially the same as the land use diagram contained in the City’s General Plan 2035 ( Figure 2.0-3 in Section 2.0, Project Description). However, the project proposes to change land use designations in the following areas:
West of Burbank Avenue south of Hughes Av enue, land use designations would change from Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential to Public/Institutional. These parcels are currently developed as Roseland Creek Elementary School and surrounded by residential uses. The proposed amendment at this location would make the existing use consistent with the General Plan and would not result in any land use incompatibilities. East of Burbank Avenue south of Hughes Avenue, land use designations would change from Medium Density Residential and Retail/Medium Density Residential to Parks/Recreation and Medium Low Density Re sidential. The parcels to be designated
1 The Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy was completed in 2005, but neither the City nor Sonoma County have adopted it. It is a guidance document that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife use in conjunction with their review of permits. Projects in th e plan area are individually required to mitigate impacts on the species covered in the Conservation Strategy if the project would affect the covered species.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.10-9
Parks/Recreation are largely undeveloped, with the exception of a few single-family residential units and associated outbuildings, and are part of the proposed Roseland Creek Community Park. Development of parks at these locations would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The parcels to be designated Medium-Low Density Residential are surrounded by land with the same designation and are currently vacant or developed as residential. The proposed amendment at this location would be compatible with surrounding uses.
Along the north side of Hearn Avenue, west of Burbank Avenue, land use designations would change from Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential. Development of higher-density housing in this location would be compatible with the Low and Medium Density Residential designations to the north and would complement the adjacent Southside Bus Transfer Center consistent with General Plan Policy LUL-A-1.
At the Colgan Creek Park site the land use designation would change from Medium Density Residential to Parks and Recreation. This property is adjacent the Lower Colgan Creek Park and existing residential uses. The property is also adjacent existing warehousing/distribution operations but is separated from these uses by the Roseland Creek corridor and landscaping. The proposed amendment at this location would be compatible with these surrounding uses.
Along the south side of Hearn Avenue, just east of Southwest Community Park, the land use designations would change from Medium and Medium Low Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential/Public Institutional. Development of higher-density housing and institutional uses at this location would be compatible with the public/institutional designation to the south and would complement the nearby Southside Bus Transfer Center consistent with General Plan Policy LUL-A-1. East of Dutton Meadow, across from Meadow View Elementary School, the land use designation would change from Medium Density/Retail and Business Services to Medium Low Density Residential. Development of medi um density housing at this location would be consistent with the residential and mixed-use designations surrounding the site. In the West Hearn Annexation area, the existing land use designation of Low Density Residential would be changed to Very Low Density Residential. The proposed designation would be compatible with the rural residential development along this street.
Where changes in land use designation are proposed, a General Plan Amendment is proposed as part of the project to ensure consistency with the General Plan. Rezoning in the Specific Plan area and establishment of pre-zoning in the Annexation areas consistent with the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan land use designations is also proposed as a part of the project.
The proposed project promotes the use of alte rnative transportation modes consistent with General Plan Policy LUL-A-1 by increasing density adjacent to the Southside Bus Transfer Center and by improving east/west connectivity and additional bicycle and pedestrian connections. The project is also consistent with General Plan Poli cies LUL-R-1 and LUL-U-2 by providing for a range of residential housing types and densities. The proposed annexations woul d be consistent with General Plan Policy LUL-A-2, as the islands proposed for annexation are adjacent to the city limits, are within the Urban Growth Boundary, are contiguous to existing urban development, would be adequately served by the City’s existing services, and would represent a rational expansion of the city.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.10-10
Therefore, with approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and zoning changes, the proposed project would be consistent with appl icable land use plans. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.10.4 CUMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting for land use consists of the City of Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), as identified in the General Plan 2035.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Land Use Impacts
Impact 3.10.3 Implementation of the proposed project 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.
The General Plan 2035 evaluated cumulative land use impacts and determined that, with implementation of the goals and policies contained in the General Plan, land use impacts would be cumulatively less than significant. As discussed in this section, the land uses and use intensities contemplated by the proposed project are substantially similar to the vision presented for the area in the General Plan 2035 and previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or previously unidentified cumulative impacts related to land use and planning. This cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.10-11
REFERENCES
Santa Rosa, City of. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Dr aft Environmental Impact Report.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.10-12
This page intentionally left blank
3.11 NOISE
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-1
This section includes a description of existi ng noise conditions, a summary of applicable regulations, and an analysis of potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project.
Mitigation measures are recommended, as necessary, to reduce significant noise impacts. Data used to prepare this section was taken from the transportation impact study (Appendix 3.14) and information obtained by modeling existing and future traffic noise levels in the project area and the surrounding area (Appendix 3.11).
3.11.1 E XISTING SETTING
FUNDAMENTALS OF SOUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
Sound is technically described in terms of am plitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical inte nsity of the pressure vibrations which make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devise d to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound because of its potential to disrupt sleep, to interfere with speech communicatio n, and to damage hearing. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway.
Amplitude
Amplitude is the difference between ambient air pressure and the peak pressure of the sound wave. Amplitude is measured in decibels on a logarithmic sc ale. Laboratory measurements correlate a 10 dB increase in amplitude with a perceived doubling of loudness and establish a 3 dB change in amplitude as the minimum audible difference perceptible to the average person.
Frequency
Frequency is the number of fluctuations of the pressure wave per second. The unit of frequency is the Hertz (Hz). One Hertz equals one cycle per second. The human ear is not equally sensitive to sound of different frequencies. To approximate th is sensitivity, environmental sound is usually measured in A-weighted decibels. On this scale, the normal range of human hearing extends from about 10 dBA to about 140 dBA. Common community noise sources and associated noise levels, in dBA, are depicted in Figure 3.11-1.
Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are logarithmic units, sound le vels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source under the same conditions. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of 5 dB.
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-2
Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximatel y 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distan ce from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics. No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance is assumed.
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more.
NOISE DESCRIPTORS
The decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. The Leq is a measure of ambient noise, while the Ldn and CNEL are measures of community noise. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined in Table 3.11-1.
The A-weighted decibel sound level scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time- varying events.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends on the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-3
FIGURE 3.11-1
TYPICAL COMMUNITY NOISE LEVELS
Source: Caltrans 2012
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-4
TABLE 3.11-1
DEFINITIONS OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS
Term Definitions
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20.
Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micropascals (or 20 micronewtons per square meter), where 1 pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a referenc e sound pressure (e.g., 20 micropascals).
Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.
Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.
A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.
Equivalent Noise Level, Leq L eq, the equivalent energy noise level, is th e average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the L eq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure.
For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.
Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise level s that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.
Day/Night Noise Level, L dn or
DNL
Ldn, the Day-Night Average Level, is a 24-hour average L eq with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour L
eq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.
Community Noise Equivalent
Level, CNEL
CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average L eq with a 5 dBA
“weighting” during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respec tively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour L
eq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA
CNEL.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing l evel of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends on its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-5
HUMAN RESPONSE TO NOISE
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well- being and contributing to undue stress and anno yance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60–70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings that can provide noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, reside ntial streets that can provide noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55– 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60–75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65–80 dBA).
Regarding increases in A-weighted noise levels (dBA), the following relationships should be noted for understanding this analysis:
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived by humans.
Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference. A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. An increase of 5 dBA is typically considered substantial. A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.
EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE
Hearing Loss
While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even in a community noise en vironment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise, but may be due to a single event such as an explosion.
Natural hearing loss associated with aging may al so be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a noise exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long-term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over 8 hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter.
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-6
Sleep and Speech Interference
The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors, the th resholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noise of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA L dn. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is roughly equal to the Ldn and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection, and most jurisdictions a pply the same criterion for all residential uses.
Typical structural attenuation is 12–17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling. Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57–62 dBA L
dn with open windows and 65–70 dBA L dn if the windows are closed. Levels of 55–60 dBA are common along collector streets an d secondary arterials, while 65–70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75–80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way . In order to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed; those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows with Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings greater than 30 STC.
Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the anno yance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 55 dBA L
dn. At an L dn of about 60 dBA, approximately 2 pe rcent of the population is highly annoyed. When the L dn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 12 percent. There is an increase in annoyance due to ground vehicle noise of approximately 1 percent per dBA for an L
dn of 60–70 dBA. For an Ldn of 70–80 dBA, each decibel
increase increases the percentage of the population highly annoyed by about 2 percent. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the L dn due to aircraft noise is 60 dBA, approximately 10 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase up to 70 dBA adds about 2 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed.
Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase in aircraft noise results in about a 3 percent increase in the percentage of the population highly annoyed.
FUNDAMENTALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and in the United States is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB).
The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-7
buildings, such as operation of mechanical eq uipment, movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. Although the motion of the ground may be perceived, without the effects associated with the shaking of a building, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human reaction. In addition, the rumble noise that usually accompanies building vibration is perceptible only inside buildings (FTA 2006). As such, the range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings.
The general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels is described in Table 3.11-2.
T
ABLE 3.11-2
HUMAN RESPONSE TO DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION Vibration
Velocity Level Human Reaction
65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception for many people. 75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptib le and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.
Source: FTA 2006
In urban environments, such as the project area and Santa Rosa as a whole, sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities, light rail transit, and heavy trucks and buses.
Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors.
The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction-related groundborne vibration levels. Rail operations are potential sources of substantial groundborne vibration depending on distance, the type and the speed of trains, and the type of railroad track. People’s response to groundborne vibration has been correlated best with the velocity of the ground. The velocity of the ground is expressed on the decibel scale. The reference velocity is 1 x 10
-6 inches per second (in/sec). RMS, which equals 0 VdB and 1 in/sec, equals 120 VdB. Groundborne vibration levels from heavy trucks and buses are not normally perceptible, especially if roadway surfaces ar e smooth. Buses and trucks typically generate groundborne vibration levels of about 63 VdB at a distance of 25 feet when traveling at a speed of 30 mph. Higher vibration levels can occur when buses or trucks travel at higher rates of speed or when the pavement is in poor condition. Vibration levels below 65 VdB are below the threshold for human perception.
NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Noise-sensitive land uses are those that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise. Noise-sensitive land uses in Santa Rosa include public schools, hospitals, and institutional uses such as churches, museums, and private schools. Typically, residential uses are also considered noise-sensitive receptors. Indust rial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise.
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-8
EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Noise is a significant and inherent part of Santa Rosa’s environment. According to the Santa Rosa General Plan Noise and Safety Element (2009), throughout most of the city, noise can be characterized as routine background sounds and unusual or intermittent events. Cars, trucks, buses, trains, air conditioning systems, and aircraft generate background noise. Intermittent, and sometimes excessive, noise can come from leaf bl owers, helicopters, train whistles (at grade crossings), chain saws, un-muffled motor vehicles, and similar sources. Excessive noise can cause annoyance, health problems, economic loss, and ultimately hearing impairment.
The project area noise environment is defined primarily by vehicular traffic along area roadways.
This noise is a result of historical land use decisions, competing regional and community goals, geographic factors, and limited local controls. The major sources of noise in the project vicinity include highways such as US Highway 101 (US 101) and State Route (SR) 12, as well as regional and arterial streets such as Bellevue Avenue, Stony Point Road, and Sebastopol Road. In addition, Northwestern Pacific freight trains have resumed service along the existing rail corridor traversing the project area and contribute to the existing noise environment. Railroad noise is most noticeable from horn soundings at grade crossings. This same railroad corridor is also planned for future Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) commuter/passenger operations. To a lesser extent, activities at nearby commercial and industrial us es also contribute on an intermittent basis to ambient noise levels in the project area. Primary existing noise sources are discussed below.
Railroad Noise
Northwestern Pacific Railroad
The North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) has resumed service along the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. Based on information derived from the NCRA’s Russian River Division Freight Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in November 2009, freight train service along the railroad line would consist of a total of two round-trip freight train operations per day. One of these trains is anticipated to include a single locomotive engine with 10 to 25 cars, while the second would likely consist of two locomotive engine s with approximately 60 cars. Based on this information, predicted freight train noise levels in the project area would be approximately 58 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the track centerline, without the sounding of locomotive warning horns (NCRA 2009). Assuming a maximum instantaneous noise le vel of 108 dB with locomotive warning horns sounding, predicted average-daily noise levels at 50 feet from the track centerline would be 67 dBA Ldn. The sounding of warning horns generally occurs within approximately one-quarter mile of a grade crossing. Given the number of grade cr ossings in the project area, the sounding of warning horns would be expected. Predicted distances to train noise contours are summarized in Table 3.11-3.
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
In addition to the Northwestern Pacific trains, SMART plans to use the Northwestern Pacific Railroad corridor as a rail transit corridor. According to th e Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit DEIR prepared in 2005, approximately 12 passenger trains would travel along this rail corridor between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The predicted 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for the SMART rail corridor would extend to a distance of approximately 25 feet from the track centerline, without the sounding of train horns. The sounding of train horns is typically required within approximately one-quarter mile of grade crossings. With the sounding of train horns, instantaneous maximum noise levels could reach 105 dBA at 70 feet. However, the SMART DEIR does not present calculated average-daily
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-9
noise levels (in CNEL/L dn) or projected average-daily noise contours with the sounding of train horns (SMART 2005).
Predicted noise contours for the SMART passenger tr ains, with the sounding of train horns, were calculated based on the noise data and anticipated hours of operation provided in the SMART DEIR and assuming that trains would be somewhat equally distributed throughout the anticipated hours of operation (Santa Rosa 2012). Trains will operate in both directions every 30 minutes during peak commute hours. There is also a mid-weekda y trip scheduled as well as more intermittent weekend service (SMART 2016). Based on the modeling conducted, SMART train noise levels would be approximately 74 dBA L dn at 50 feet from the track center line (Santa Rosa 2012). Predicted noise levels are summarized in Table 3.11-3.
Cumulative Train Noise Levels
Cumulative average-daily train noise levels were calculated based on the above predicted noise levels for freight and passenger trains (Santa Rosa 2012). Given the number of grade crossings and distances between grade crossings, the soundi ng of locomotive warning horns would be anticipated in the project area. Predicted distances to average-daily noise contours were calculated assuming an average noise attenuation rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from the railroad centerline. Predicted train noise le vels and distances to cumulative train noise contours are summarized in Table 3.11-3 . As depicted, predicted cumulative train noise levels would be 75 dBA L
dn at 50 feet from the track (Santa Rosa 2012). The projected 60 dBA L dn noise contour would extend to a distance of approximately 430 feet from the track centerline (Santa Rosa 2012). The 65 and 70 L dn contours would extend to approximately 200 and 90 feet from the track centerline, respectively (Santa Rosa 2012).
TABLE 3.11-3
RAILROAD CORRIDOR NOISE LEVELS
Ldn at 50 Feet from Railroad Centerline Distance (feet) to Cumulative Ldn Contours from Railroad Centerline
NWPR SMART Cumulative 60 65 70
67 74 75 430 200 90
Source: Santa Rosa 2012
Note: Assumes a maximum instantaneous noise level of 108 dB with horns sounding. Assumes 2 freight trains and 12 passenger trains daily.
Airport Noise
The Charles M. Shultz-Sonoma County Airport is the nearest airport to the proposed project area, located approximately 5.25 miles to the northwest. While the southwestern corner of the project area is located within the Area of Influence for this airport, which regulates building height limits, the project is not located within the airport’s measured noise contours (Sonoma County 2016).
Existing Freeway Noise
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments within and surrounding the project area using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic volumes from the project traffic analysis (see Appendix 3.11).
The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site en vironmental conditions. The average vehicle
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-10
noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data shows that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels.
The average daily noise levels along plan area roadway segments are presented in Table 3.11-4.
T
ABLE 3.11-4
EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment Surrounding Uses Ldn at 75 Feet from Near- Travel-Lane Centerline
Sebastopol Road
Stony Point Road to Dutton Avenue Commercial & Residential 64.7 Dutton Avenue to SR 12 Corridor Commercial, Industrial & Residential 57.7 Stony Point Road
SR 12 Corridor to Sebastopol Road Commercial 66.9
Sebastopol Road to Northpoint Parkway Residential 66.0
Northpoint Parkway to Hearn Avenue Residential 66.6
Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue Residential 65.7
Dutton Avenue
SR 12 to Sebastopol Road Commercial 65.9
Sebastopol Road to W. Barham Avenue Residential 61.4
W. Barham Avenue to Hearn Avenue Residential 59.0
Duke Court to Bellevue Avenue Commercial & Light Industrial 53.6 W. Barham Avenue
Dutton Road to US 101 Corridor Residential & Commercial 56.1 Hearn Avenue
Stony Point Road to Burbank Avenue Residential & School 60.3 Burbank Avenue to Dutton Avenue Residential & School 61.7 Dutton Avenue to Corby Avenue Residential & Light Industrial 63.8 Bellevue Avenue
Stony Point Road to Dutton Meadow Residential & School 56.6 Dutton Meadow to Dutton Avenue Residential & Light Industrial 58.6 Dutton Avenue to Wiljan Court Commercial & Industrial 59.1 Burbank Avenue
Sebastopol Road to Hearn Avenue Residential & School 59.4 Dutton Meadow
Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue Residential & School 59.4 Dowd Drive
Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Commercial & Industrial 58.2
Note: Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHWA ro adway noise prediction model. Refer to Appendix 3.11 for noise modeling assumptions and results.
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-11
3.11.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL
Department of Housing and Urban Development
The US Department of Housing and Urban De velopment (HUD) environmental criteria and standards are presented in 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. New residential construction qualifying for HUD financing prop osed in high noise areas (exceeding 65 dBA L dn) must incorporate noise attenuation features to ma intain acceptable interior noise levels. A goal of 45 dBA L dn is set for interior noise levels, and attenuation requirements are geared toward achieving that goal. It is assumed that with standard construction, any building will provide sufficient attenuation to achieve an interior level of 45 dBA Ldn or less if the exterior level is 65 dBA Ldn or less. Approvals in a normally unacceptab le noise zone (exceeding 65 decibels but not exceeding 75 decibels) require a minimum of 5 decibels additional noise attenuation for buildings if the day-night average is greater than 65 decibels but does not exceed 70 decibels, or a minimum of 10 decibels of additional noise attenuation if the day-night average is greater than 70 decibels but does not exceed 75 decibels.
Federal Highway Administration
Proposed federal or federal-aid highway construction projects at a new location, or the physical alteration of an existing highway that significan tly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment, or increases the number of through-traffic lanes, requires an assessment of noise and consideration of noise abatement per 23 CFR Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. The Fede ral Highway Administration has adopted noise abatement criteria (NAC) for sensitive receivers such as picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sport areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals when “worst-hour” noise levels approach or exceed 67 dBA L eq. Caltrans has further defined approaching the NAC to be 1 dBA below the NAC for noise-sensitive receivers identified as Category B activity areas (e.g., 66 dBA L
eq is considered approaching the NAC) (Caltrans 2011).
Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has identified vibration impact criteria for sensitive buildings, residences, and institutional land uses ne ar rail transit and railroads. The thresholds for residences and buildings where people normally sleep (e.g., nearby residences) are 72 VdB for frequent events (more than 70 events of the same source per day), 75 VdB for occasional events (30 to 70 vibration events of the same source per day), and 85 VdB for infrequent events (less than 30 vibration events of the same source per day).
STATE
California Noise Insulation Standards
The State of California establishes minimum nois e insulation performance standards for hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings as set forth in the 2010 California Building Code (Chapter 12, Appendix Section 1207.11). The noise limit is a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA Ldn, a report must be submitted with the building plans describing the noise control measures that have been incorporated into the design of the project to meet the noise limit.
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-12
LOCAL
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan goals and policies most pertinent to the Specific Plan in regard to noise.
Noise and Safety Element
Goal NS-B: Maintain an acceptable communi ty noise level to protect the health and comfort of people living, working and/or visiting in Santa Rosa, while maintaining a visually appealing community.
Policy NS-B-1: Do not locate noise-sensitive uses in proximity to major noise sources, except residential is allowed near rail to promote future ridership.
Policy NS-B-2: Encourage residential developers to provide buffers other than sound walls, where practical. Allow sound walls only when projected noise levels at a site exceed land use compatibility standards in Figure 12-1.
In some established neighborhoods and subdivisions, sound walls may provide the only alternative to reduce noise to acceptable community standards. The Design Review process shall evaluate sound wall aesthetics and landscaping to ensure attractiveness along with functionality.
Policy NS-B-3: Prevent new stationary and transportation noise sources from creating a nuisance in existing developed areas. Use a comprehensive program of noise prevention through planning and mitigation, and consider noise impacts as a crucial factor in project approval.
The Land Use Compatibility Standards sp ecify normally acceptable levels for community noise in various land use areas.
Policy NS-B-4: Require new projects in the following ca tegories to submit an acoustical study, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant:
• All new projects proposed for areas with existing noise above 60 dBA DNL.
Mitigation shall be sufficient to reduce noise levels below 45 dBA DNL in habitable rooms and 60 dBA DNL in private and shared recreational facilities. Additions to existing housing units are exempt. • All new projects that could generate noise whose impacts on other existing uses would be greater than those normally acceptable (as specified in the Land Use Compatibility Standards).
Policy NS-B-5: Pursue measures to reduce noise im pacts primarily through site planning.
Engineering solutions for noise mitigation, such as sound walls, are the least desirable alternative.
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-13
Policy NS-B-8: Adopt mitigations, including reduced speed limits, improved paving texture, and traffic controls, to reduce noise to normally acceptable levels in areas where noise standards may be exceeded (e.g., where homes front regional/arterial streets and in areas of mixed use development.) Policy NS-B-9: Encourage developers to incorporate acoustical site planning into their projects. Recommended measures include:
• Incorporating buffers and/or landscaped earth berms;
• Orienting windows and outdoor living areas away from unacceptable noise exposure;
• Using reduced-noise pavement (rubberized asphalt);
• Incorporating traffic calming measures , alternative intersection designs, and lower speed limits; and
• Incorporating state-of-the-art structural sound attenuation and setbacks.
Policy NS-B-10: Work with private enterprises to re duce or eliminate nu isance noise from industrial and commercial sources that impact nearby residential areas. If progress is not made within a reasonable time, the city shall issue abatement orders or take other legal measures.
Policy NS-B-11: Work with Caltrans to assign a high pr iority to traffic noise mitigation programs.
Support construction of attractive sound walls, as necessary along Highway 101 and Highway 12.
Policy NS-B-14: Discourage new projects that have potential to create ambient noise levels more than 5 dBA DNL above existing background, within 250 feet of sensitive receptors.
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-14
FIGURE 3.11-2
CITY OF SANTA ROSA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY NOISE CRITERIA Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
(Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Interpretation
Residential – Low Density
Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
Normally Acceptable
Specified land use is satisfactory, based
upon the assumption that any buildings
involved are of normal conventional
construction, without any special noise
insulation requirements.
Residential – Multiple
Family
Transient Lodging – Motels,
Hotels
Conditionally Acceptable
New construction or development
should be undertaken only after a
detailed analysis of noise reduction
requirements and needed noise
insulation features included in the
design. Conventional construction with
closed windows and fresh air supply
systems or air conditioning will
normally suffice.
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Normally Unacceptable
New construction or development
should generally be discouraged. If new
construction or development does
proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise
reduction requirements must be made
and needed noise insulation features
included in the design.
Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Clearly Unacceptable New
construction or development should
generally not be undertaken
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and
Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing
Utilities, Agriculture
Source: Santa Rosa 2009
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-15
City of Santa Rosa City Code, Chapter 17-16
C i t y C o d e C h a p t e r 1 7 - 1 6 , N o i s e , s t a t e s t h a t i t i s u n l a w f u l f o r a n y p e r s o n t o w i l l f u l l y m a k e o r continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or caus es discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The standards considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists include:
The level of noise
The intensity of the noise
Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual
Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural The level and intensity of the background noise, if any The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates The time of the day or night the noise occurs
The duration of the noise
Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity Chapter 17-16 establishes ambient base noise leve l criteria and prohibits the operation of any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air-conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device in a manner that results in the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the applicable noise criteria by more than 5 decibels.
City of Santa Rosa City Code, Section 20-30.090
City Code Section 20-30.090, Ground Vibration, states that no ground vibration shall be generated that is perceptible without instruments by a reason able person at the property lines of the site, except for vibrations from temporary construction or demolition activities, and motor vehicle operations.
3.11.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G standards of si gnificance. An impact to noise is considered significant if the project would result in:
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-16
1) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or of applicable standards of other agencies. 2) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
3) Exposure of persons to or generation of an excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise level.
4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Criteria for determining the significance of nois e impacts were developed based on information contained in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and the City’s noise standards and guidelines. Santa Rosa’s land use compatibility noise standards for various land uses are shown in Figure 3.11-2. In addition to reviewing proposed development for compliance with these noise standards, the analysis takes into account the increases in nois e levels over the pre-project noise conditions.
General Plan Policy NS-B-14 states that the City will discourage new projects that have potential to create ambient noise levels more than 5 dBA L
dn above existing background, within 250 feet of
sensitive receptors. As described in the Human Response to Noise subsection above, a change in level of at least 5 dB is the change required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. Therefore, an increase of 5 dBA L dn over the pre-project noise conditions is considered significant.
METHODOLOGY
This analysis of the existing and future noise en vironments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. The residential uses in the project area and vicinity are considered noise-sensitive receptors. Policies contained in the Santa Rosa General Plan and regulations set forth in the Santa Rosa City Code summarized in the Regulatory Framework subsection establish local noise standards. Future noise levels resulting from development facilitated by the proposed project and cumulative growth in the area were modeled and used to evaluate the significance of impacts assessed with respect to the applicable criteria. The compatibility of new development is evaluated with respect to the future (2040) noise environment assuming the buildout of the project area and cumulative development, because this corresponds to the highest expected noise environment. The impact of increased traffic noise is assessed for the project (project area– facilitated development) and the future (2040) condition assuming the buildout of the project area and other cumulative development.
Impacts Not Evaluated in Detail
As previously described, the project area is outside of the Charles M. Shultz-Sonoma County Airport’s noise contours. Additionally, the project area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, this analysis does not further evaluate Standards of Significance 5 and 6.
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-17
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Exposure of Persons to or Generation of No ise Levels in Excess of Standards (Standard of Significance 1)
Impact 3.11.1 The proposed project would not expose residents to traffic noise or stationary sources of noise in excess of established standards. Impacts would be less than significant.
Automobile Traffic Noise
Future traffic noise levels throughout the project area were modeled based on the traffic volumes identified by W-Trans (2016) to determine the no ise level contours along project area roadways.
Table 3.11-5 shows the calculated roadway noise levels with existing traffic compared to the development potential allowed under the proposed project.
TABLE 3.11-5
PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVELS ALONG PROJECT ROADWAYS
Roadway Segment
Ldn at 75 Feet, dBA*
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions
Sebastopol Road
Stony Point Road to Dutton Avenue 64.7 65.2
Dutton Avenue to SR 12 Corridor 57.7 59.6
Stony Point Road
SR 12 Corridor to Sebastopol Road 66.9 67.5
Sebastopol Road to Northpoint Parkway 66.0 67.0
Northpoint Parkway to Hearn Avenue 66.6 65.4
Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue 65.7 65.3
Dutton Avenue
SR 12 to Sebastopol Road 65.9 66.9
Sebastopol Road to W. Barham Avenue 61.4 62.1
W. Barham Avenue to Hearn Avenue 59.0 60.3
Duke Court to Bellevue Avenue 53.6 53.6
W. Barham Avenue
Dutton Avenue to US 101 Corridor 56.1 58.3
Hearn Avenue
Stony Point Road to Burbank Avenue 60.3 59.6
Burbank Avenue to Dutton Avenue 61.7 62.0
Dutton Avenue to Corby Avenue 63.8 65.5
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-18
Roadway Segment
Ldn at 75 Feet, dBA*
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions
Bellevue Avenue
Stony Point Road to Dutton Meadow 56.6 58.8
Dutton Meadow to Dutton Avenue 58.6 60.5
Dutton Avenue to Wiljan Court 59.1 59.3
Burbank Avenue
Sebastopol Road to Hearn Avenue 59.4 60.5
Dutton Meadow
Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue 59.4 62.8
Dowd Drive
Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue 58.2 59.4
* Noise levels for highways and expressways are given at a distance of 75 feet from the center of the near direction of travel.
Residential and mixed-use residential developm ent is proposed along major roadways. Noise levels in these areas range from 53.6 to 67.5 dBA L dn, a conditionally acceptable noise environment for all land uses according to City noise provisions (see Figure 3.11-2). (As previously stated, in addition to reviewing proposed development for compliance with City noise standards, the analysis takes into account the increases in noise levels over the pre-project noise conditions.
The reader is referred to Impact 3.11.2 for an evaluation of traffic accounting for the increases in noise levels over the pre-project noise conditions.)
New Sensitive Receptors
The project provides for a mix of land uses that would result in a blend of residential and nonresidential uses. In some areas, the project would allow the development at higher densities than currently allowed. Development facilitated by the proposed project would include noise- sensitive land uses (residences) that would be located in varying noise environments, including adjacent to and in the vicinity of major roadwa ys, such as Stony Point Road, Sebastopol Road, and Dutton Avenue, and adjacent to and in the vicinity of the SMART corridor. Residential development is sensitive to community noise both outdoors and indoors during the daytime and nighttime. High-density/mixed-use residential, commercial, and office development is less noise sensitive because uses are primarily indoors and noise levels are mitigated with building design and construction. The placement of new resident ial development near major roadways and/or the railway corridors could result in noise exposures exceeding City standards for sensitive residential uses. For instance, as shown in Table 3.11-3, predicted cumulative train noise levels would be 75 dBA L
dn at 50 feet from the track, and the 65 and 70 L dn contours would extend to approximately 200 and 90 feet from the track centerline, respectively (Santa Rosa 2012).
Interior noise levels are about 12 to 17 dBA lower than exterior levels in residential units with the windows partially open and approximately 20 to 25 decibels lower than exterior noise levels with the windows closed, assuming typical California construction methods. Where exterior day-night average noise levels are 60 to 70 dBA Ldn, interior noise levels can typically be maintained below 45 dBA Ldn with the incorporation of an adequate forced air mechanical ventilation system in the residential units to allow residents the option of controlling noise by keeping the windows closed. (Standard office construction methods typically provide about 25 to 30 decibels of noise reduction in interior spaces. In all areas exceeding 70 dBA L
dn, the inclusion of windows and doors with high
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-19
Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings and the incorporation of forced-air mechanical ventilation systems would most likely be necessary to meet 45 dBA.) As previously stated, the State of California establishes minimum noise insulation performance standards for hotels, motels, dormitories, and apartment houses.
General Plan Policy NS-B-4 requires all new projects 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, project proponents would need to incorporate measures, such as adding buffers and/or landscaped earth berms, orienting windows and outdoor li ving areas away from unacceptable noise exposure, and/or incorporating state-of-the-art structural sound attenuation and setbacks, to reduce noise effects. In addition and more specific to train-related noise, General Plan Policy NS-B-1 prohibits noise-sensitive uses in proximity to major noise sources, except residential located near rail in order to promote future ridership.
The need for noise attenuation measures in buil ding construction and project design from any noise source and for all land uses will be determined on a project-by-project basis at the time development is proposed. The City land use compatibility noise standard for all sensitive receptors in the city is 60 dBA L dn, though noise levels up to 70 dBA are conditionally acceptable (General Plan noise standards for all land uses are summarized in Figure 3.11-2). The proposed project would not make any changes to current City noise standards. Compliance with existing regulations and City policies would ensure the proposed project would not expose residents to traffic noise or stationary sources of noise in excess of established standards. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Result in a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Above Levels Existing Without the Project (Standard of Significance 2)
Impact 3.11.2 Project 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.
As previously described, in addition to revi ewing proposed developmen t for compliance with specific noise thresholds, th is analysis accounts for the increases in noise levels over pre-project noise conditions. General Plan Policy NS-B-14 states that the City will discourage new projects that have potential to create ambient noise levels more than 5 dBA L dn above existing background,
within 250 feet of sensitive receptors. As described in the Human Response to Noise subsection above, a change in level of at least 5 dBA is the change required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. Therefore, an increase of 5 dBA over the pre-project noise conditions is considered significant.
The primary factor contributing to the ambient noise environment as a result of the project would be the increase in vehicular traffic from development in the project area. Table 3.11-6 shows the calculated roadway noise levels under existing traffic levels compared to the development potential of the project area. In comparison to existing traffic noise levels, the project’s predicted increase in traffic noise levels would be below the applicable noise leve l thresholds. Therefore, predicted traffic noise levels would not result in a substantial increase in traffic noise levels along other primarily affected roadways.
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-20
TABLE 3.11-6
PREDICTED INCREASES IN TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway Segment
Ldn at 75 Feet from
Near-Travel-Lane
Centerline1 Increase Threshold Impact Affected Land Use Without
Project
With
Project
Sebastopol Road
Stony Point Road to Dutton Avenue 64.7 65.2 0.5 >5.0 No Commercial & Residential
Dutton Avenue to SR 12 Corridor 57.7 59.6 1.9 >5.0 No Commercial, Industrial & Residential
Stony Point Road
SR 12 Corridor to Sebastopol Road 66.9 67.5 0.6 >5.0 No Commercial Sebastopol Road to Northpoint
Parkway 66.0 67.0 1.0 >5.0 No Residential
Northpoint Parkway to Hearn Avenue 66.6 65.4 -1.2 >5.0 No Residential Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue 65.7 65.3 -0.2 >5.0 No Residential Dutton Avenue
SR 12 to Sebastopol Road 65.9 66.9 1.0 >5.0 No Commercial Sebastopol Road to W. Barham
Avenue 61.4 62.1 0.7 >5.0 No Residential
W. Barham Avenue to Hearn Avenue 59.0 60.3 1.3 >5.0 No Residential Duke Court to Bellevue Avenue 63.8 65.5 1.7 >5.0 No Commercial & Light Industrial
W Barham Avenue
Dutton Avenue to US 101 Corridor 56.1 58.3 2.2 >5.0 No Residential & Commercial
Hearn Avenue
Stony Point Road to Burbank Avenue 60.3 59.6 -0.7 >5.0 No Residential & School Burbank Avenue to Dutton Avenue 61.7 62.0 0.3 >5.0 No Residential & School Dutton Avenue to Corby Avenue 63.8 65.5 1.7 >5.0 No Residential & Light Industrial
Bellevue Avenue
Stony Point Road to Dutton Meadow 56.6 58.8 2.2 >5.0 No Residential & School Dutton Meadow to Dutton Avenue 58.6 60.5 1.9 >5.0 No Residential & Light Industrial
Dutton Avenue to Wiljan Court 59.1 59.3 0.2 >5.0 No Commercial & Industrial
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-21
Roadway Segment
Ldn at 75 Feet from
Near-Travel-Lane
Centerline1 Increase Threshold Impact Affected Land Use Without
Project
With
Project
Burbank Avenue
Sebastopol Road to Hearn Avenue 59.4 60.5 1.1 >5.0 No Residential & School Dutton Meadow
Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue 59.4 62.8 3.4 >5.0 No Residential & School Dowd Drive
Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue 58.2 59.4 1.2 >5.0 No Commercial & Industrial
Notes:
1. Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model based on data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project (W-Trans 2016; Appendix 3.11).
2. For purposes of this analysis, a noise level increase of 5.0 or greater would typically be cons idered to result in increased levels of annoyance.
As shown in Table 3.11-6, predicted increases in traffic noise levels associated with the project would not be greater than the applicable noise level thresholds and therefore would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Exposure to Groundborne Vibration (Standard of Significance 3) Impact 3.11.3 Planned development under the proposed project would be required to comply with City noise standards set forth in the City Code. This impact would be considered less than significant.
Ground vibration spreads through the ground and diminishes in strength with distance. The effects of ground vibration can vary, with no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, an d slight damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. At the highest levels of vibration, damage to structures is primarily architectural (e.g., loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) and rarely results in structural damage. For most structures, a peak particle velocity (ppv) threshold of 0.5 inches per second (in/sec) is sufficient to avoid structure damage, with the except ion of fragile historic structures or ruins. For the protection of fragile, historic, and residential structures, Caltrans recommends a more conservative threshold of 0.2 inches per second ppv. This same threshold would represent the level at which vibrations would be potentially annoying to people in buildings (FTA 2006; Caltrans 2004).
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-22
Long-Term Exposure to Groundborne Vibration
Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed land uses are not anticipated to involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. Future industrial land uses, which are currently allowe d under existing General Plan land use designations (see Table 2.0-5 in Section 2.0, Project Description) and would not increase relative to the General Plan (see Table 2.0-6 in Section 2.0, Project Description),could potentially involve the use of a wide variety of equipment or processes that could produce ground vibration and could negatively affect adjacent properties. However, groundborne vibration is regulated in Santa Rosa by City Code Section 20-30.090, Ground Vibration, which states that no ground vibration that is perceptible without inst ruments by a reasonable person at the property lines of the site is permissible. This regulation will prevent future industrial land uses from instigating significant groundborne vibration-related impacts.
Future development would occur in proximity to the planned future SMART corridor associated with the operation of passenger rail trains. In addition, the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) recently resumed service along this corridor. Groundborne vibration impacts associated with the SMART trains were previously analyzed in the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Draft Environmental Impact Report (2005). Based on the analysis conducted for the SMART DEIR, groundborne vibration levels associated with SMART train op erations were determined to not result in groundborne vibration levels at land uses located along the SMART corridor that would exceed applicable impact significance thresholds. Concerning the two daily NCRA trains, the NCRA’s Russian River Division Freight Rail Project Draf t Environmental Impact Report prepared in November 2009 states that existing residential development within 100 feet of the corridor would experience significant levels of groundborne vibration.
The City General Plan considers potential groundborne vibration impacts from trains. Policy NS-B- 1 states that noise-sensitive uses shall not be lo cated in proximity to railways, except residential land uses are allowed in order to promote future ri dership. General Plan Policy NS-B-4 requires all new projects proposed for areas with existing noise above 60 dBA to submit an acoustical study.
Depending on the type and location of develo pment, an analysis of potential groundborne vibration impacts may be a component of an acoustical study. In the cases where potential groundborne vibration-related impacts could occur, project propon ents would need to incorporate measures, such as adding buffers and/or incorporating state- of-the-art structural design and setbacks, to reduce negative effects. Ci ty G en er al P lan Po li cy NS- B- 9 e nco ur ag es developers to incorporate acoustical site planning into new projects. Recommended measures include the incorporation of buffers and/or landscaped earth berms between incompatible uses such as sensitive residential land uses and railway corridors. The need for noise-related attenuation measures in building construction and project design from any noise source and for all land uses will be determined on a project-by-project basis at the time development is proposed. The proposed project would not make any changes to current City standards. Required compliance with existing regulations would address impacts. For these reasons, long-term exposure of sensitive receptors to groundborne vibration within the project area would be considered to have a less than significant impact.
Short-Term Exposure to Groundborne Vibration
Construction activities would require the use of off-road equipment such as tractors, jackhammers, and haul trucks. Groundborne vibr ation levels associated with representative construction equipment are summarized in Table 3.11-7 . As previously described, the Federal Transit Administration has identified vibration impa ct criteria. The FTA vibration impact threshold for construction activities is 85 VdB. Based on the vibration levels presented in Table 3.11-7, ground
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-23
vibration generated by construction equipment wo uld not be anticipated to exceed 85 VdB at 50 feet.
TABLE 3.11-7
REPRESENTATIVE VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment
Approximate VdB
50 Feet 100 Feet
Pile Driver (impact) 98 92
Pile Driver (sonic) 87 81
Vibratory Roller 88 82
Large Bulldozer 81 75
Caisson Drilling 81 75
Loaded Trucks 80 74
Jackhammer 73 67
Small Bulldozer 52 46
Source: FTA 2006
Notes: The vibration levels at the off-site sensitive uses are determined with the fo llowing equation from the FTA Transit Nois e and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report: Lv(D)=Lv(25 ft)–20log(D/25), where Lv = vibr ation level of equipment, D = distance from the equipment to the receiver, Lv(25 ft) = vibration level of equipment at 25 feet The majority of construction equipment does not result in VdB in excess of FTA thresholds, even at 50 feet. In addition, City Code Section 20-30.090, Ground Vibration, states that no ground vibration will be generated that is perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the property lines of the site, except for vibrations from temporary construction or demolition activities. Because construction noise would be temporary, intermittent, and short in duration, future projects in the project area would be considered insubstantial.
For the reasons described, this impact would be less than significant during construction and operation of the project.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Exposure to Short-Term Construction Noise (Standard of Significance 4) Impact 3.11.4 Construction activities could cause a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels at nearby noise-se nsitive land uses, which may result in increased levels of annoyance, activity interference, and sleep disruption. This impact is considered less than significant.
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sour ces and noise-sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), when cons truction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time.
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-24
Major noise-generating construction activities associated with new projects would include removal of existing pavement and structures, site grading and excavation, installation of utilities, the construction of building foundations, cores, and shells, paving, and landscaping. The highest noise levels would be generated during the demolition of existing structures when impact tools are used (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) and during the construction of building foundations when impact pile driving is required to support the st ructure. Site grading and excavation activities would also generate high noise levels, as these phases often require the simultaneous use of multiple pieces of heavy equipment such as dozers, excavators, scrapers, and loaders. Lower noise levels result from building construction activities when these activities move indoors and less heavy equipment is required to complete the tasks. Construction equipment would typically include but would not be limited to earth-moving equipment and trucks, pile driving rigs, mobile cranes, compressors, pumps, generators, paving equipment, and pneumatic, hydraulic, and electric tools. Noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are summarized in Table 3.11-8.
T
ABLE 3.11-8
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax)
50 Feet from Source
Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 81
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jackhammer 88
Loader 85
Truck 88
Paver 89
Pneumatic Tool 85
Roller 74
Saw 76
Source: FTA 2006
As depicted in Table 3.11-8, noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment typically range from approximately 74 dBA to 89 dBA L max at 50 feet (FTA 2006). Average-hourly noise levels associated with construction projects can vary, depending on the activities performed, reaching levels of up to approximately 83 dBA L eq at 50 feet. Short-term increases in vehicle traffic, including worker commute trips and haul truck trips, may also result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels at nearby rece ptors. During each stage of construction, there
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-25
would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment on-site and the location of the activity. Construction noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the noise source and the receptor.
Intervening structures or terrain would result in lower noise levels at distant receivers.
Existing and future land uses could be intermitte ntly exposed to substantial increases in ambient noise levels associated with future construction-related activities occurring in the project area.
However, 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 infill development projects, such as those allowed by the proposed project, would likely have relatively short overall construction durations, with the noisiest phases of construction (e.g., demolition, foundations, project infrastructure, building core and shell) li mited to a time frame of one year or less. As a standard condition of development approval, th e 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 minimize potential impacts to nearby noise-sensitive land uses. This impact would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.11.5 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The geographic extent of the cumulative setting for noise consists of the project area and vicinity.
Based on the Figure 12-2 in the Santa Rosa General Plan Noise and Safety Element, ambient noise levels in the project area are primarily affected by vehicle traffic on nearby area roadways. As a result, the primary factor for cumulative noise impact analysis is the consideration of future traffic noise levels along area roadways under buildout of the City’s General Plan.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Traffic Noise Impacts
Impact 3.11.5 The proposed project, 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.
Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the development potential allowed under the project and other projects in the vicinity. Therefore, cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of project area buildout to the future cumulative base traffic volumes in the project area and vicinity. The noise levels associated with cumulative base traffic volumes without the project and cumulative base traffic volumes with the project are identified in Table 3.11-9.
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-26
TABLE 3.11-9
PREDICTED INCREASES IN CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Ldn at 75 Feet from
Near-Travel-Lane
Centerline1 Increase Threshold Impact Affected Land Use Without
Project
With
Project
Sebastopol Road
Stony Point Road to Dutton Avenue 65.2 65.5 0.3 >5.0 No Commercial & Residential
Dutton Avenue to SR 12 Corridor 58.8 59.5 0.7 >5.0 No Commercial, Industrial & Residential
Stony Point Road
SR 12 Corridor to Sebastopol Road 67.5 67.8 0.3 >5.0 No Commercial Sebastopol Road to Northpoint
Parkway 66.9 67.4 0.5 >5.0 No Residential
Northpoint Parkway to Hearn Avenue 68.3 66.6 -1.7 >5.0 No Residential Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue 66.0 66.7 0.7 >5.0 No Residential Dutton Avenue
SR 12 to Sebastopol Road 66.9 67.5 0.6 >5.0 No Commercial Sebastopol Road to W. Barham
Avenue 62.1 62.5 0.4 >5.0 No Residential
W. Barham Avenue to Hearn Avenue 59.9 58.3 -1.6 >5.0 No Residential Duke Court to Bellevue Avenue 53.7 56.6 2.9 >5.0 No Commercial & Light Industrial
W Barham Avenue
Dutton Avenue to US 101 Corridor 56.1 58.3 2.2 >5.0 No Residential & Commercial
Hearn Avenue
Stony Point Road to Burbank Avenue 60.7 60.4 -0.3 >5.0 No Residential & School Burbank Avenue to Dutton Avenue 61.2 62.7 1.5 >5.0 No Residential & School Dutton Avenue to Corby Avenue 64.8 65.7 0.9 >5.0 No Residential & Light Industrial
Bellevue Avenue
Stony Point Road to Dutton Meadow 60.1 60.1 0.0 >5.0 No Residential & School Dutton Meadow to Dutton Avenue 60.3 61.5 1.2 >5.0 No Residential & Light Industrial
Dutton Avenue to Wiljan Court 61.5 62.0 0.5 >5.0 No Commercial & Industrial Burbank Avenue
Sebastopol Road to Hearn Avenue 60.7 61.5 0.8 >5.0 No Residential & School
3.11 NOISE
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.11-27
Roadway Segment
Ldn at 75 Feet from
Near-Travel-Lane
Centerline1 Increase Threshold Impact Affected Land Use Without
Project
With
Project
Dutton Meadow
Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue 62.2 64.1 1.9 >5.0 No Residential & School Dowd Drive
Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue 59.4 60.1 0.7 >5.0 No Commercial & Industrial Notes:
1. Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model based on data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project (W-Trans 2016; Appendix 3.14).
2. For purposes of this analysis, a noise level increase of 5.0 or greater would typically be cons idered to result in increased levels of annoyance.
Cumulative noise levels in these areas range from 58.3 to 67.8 dBA Ldn, a conditionally acceptable noise environment for all land uses according to City noise provisions (see Figure 3.11-2 ). In addition, predicted increases in traffic noise le vels associated with the project would not be greater than 5 dB, which is the change required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. This impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.11 NOISE
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.11-28
REFERENCES
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations.
———. 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. ———. 2011. Division of Environmental Analysis. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. ———. 2012. IS/EA Annotated Outline.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec4/ch31ea/chap31ea.htm.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
NCRA (North Coast Rail road Authority). 2009. Russian River Division Freight Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2012. City of Santa Rosa, North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2011122034).
SMART (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit). 2005. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Draft Environmental Impact Report.
———. 2016. SMART Timetable Concepts for Inaugural Service . April 16, 2016. Available:
http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/TIMETABLE_CONCEPTS_4-6-16_1.pdf Sonoma County. 2016. Website: Update to the County’s Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan.
Accessed March 2016. http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/docs/calup/.
W-Trans. 2016. Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Annexation.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.12-1
This section evaluates the population and housing impacts of the proposed project on current and projected future conditions. The section also presents information regarding the proposed project’s relationship to adopted programs and plans.
3.12.1 E XISTING SETTING
SANTA ROSA
As of January 1, 2015, Santa Rosa had an estimated population of 173,071 (DOF 2015a). According to the City of Santa Rosa 2035 General Plan, by 2035 the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is expected to have a total population of 237,000 residing in a total of 96,295 housing units (Santa Rosa 2009a, p. 2-15).
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Currently there are 18,918 residents and 5,080 households in the Specific Plan area, which includes both incorporated and unincorporated areas. The Roseland area gained 8,147 new residents between 1990 and 2013, an increase of 76 percent. By comparison, the city grew by 49 percent and the county by 10 percent between 1990 and 2013 (Santa Rosa 2015).
The majority of the Specific Plan area’s housing units are single-family homes (63 percent), and this share has increased over time (Santa Rosa 2015). Between 1990 and 2013, there was a net increase of 1,609 single-family units in the Specific Plan area. During the same period, only 301 multi-family units were constructed. Just over half (54 percent) of the plan area’s housing units are renter-occupied. Renter-occupied housing represents a greater share of units in the plan area compared to the city and county overall (47 percent and 40 percent, respectively). However, the share of owner-occupied housing is on the rise, due to the addition of almost 600 owner-occupied units between 2000 and 2013 (Strategic Economics 2015).
ANNEXATION AREAS
The Annexation areas currently contain approxim ately 162 residential units (Santa Rosa 2015).
Based on an average rate of 2.61 persons per household (DOF 2015b), the Annexation areas have an estimated total population of 423, with approximately 78 residing in the Brittain Lane Annexation area, 125 in the West Hearn Annexation area, and 219 residing in the West Third Annexation area.
Housing units in the West Third Street Annexation area consist primarily of single-family detached units and some duplexes and are concentrated in a low-density, suburban neighborhood north of Third Street. Housing units in the Brittain La ne and West Hearn Avenue Annexation areas are largely detached, single-family units arranged in low-density, rural neighborhoods.
3.12.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL AND STATE
There are no federal or state regulations that apply to the topic of population and housing and the proposed project.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.12-2
LOCAL
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan go als and policies most pertinent to the proposed project in regard to population and housing.
Housing Element
Goal H-A: Meet the housing needs of all Santa Rosa residents.
Policy H-A-1: Ensure adequate sites are available for development of a variety of housing types for all income levels, throughout the City, such as single- and multifamily units, mobile homes, transitional housing, and homeless shelters.
Policy H-A-3: Promote conservation and rehabilitati on of the existing housing stock and discourage intrusion of incompatible uses into residential neighborhoods which would erode the character of establis hed neighborhoods or lead to use conflicts.
Goal H-B: Maintain and rehabilitate, as ne eded, the existing affordable housing supply.
Policy H-B-2: Encourage the preservation of mobile home parks consistent with state law.
Goal H-C: Expand the supply of housing available to lower-income housholds.
Policy H-C-7: Promote the development of second units. Discuss this option with residential developers during initial development application meetings.
3.12.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G standards. A population and housing impact is considered significant if the project would:
1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing ho using, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
3) Displace substantial numbers of people, nece ssitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.12-3
METHODOLOGY
The following impact analysis is based primarily on a review of available demographic data and projections for the city and the project area including California Department of Finance estimates and projections and the City’s 2035 General Plan.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Induce Substantial Population Growth (Standard of Significance 1) Impact 3.12.1 The proposed project would result in popu lation growth in the project area that is consistent with growth projections for the city. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Table 2.0-5 in Section 2.0 summarizes the development potential in the project area with implementation of the proposed project compared to existing conditions. As shown in the table, project implementation would result in an increase of 3,702 residential units. Based on a rate of
2.61 persons per household (DOF 2015b), the additional 3,702 residential units would provide housing for an estimated 9,662 persons. This represents a 5.5 percent increase over the city’s current population of 173,071. The City’s General Plan assumes population growth of 63,929 over the next 20 years, with a total population of 237,000 in 2035. Therefore, the proposed project represents 15.1 percent of planned population growth in the city over the next 19 years.
As shown in Tables 2.0-5 and 2.0-6 (see Section 2.0), compared to the growth potential for the project area under the General Plan, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 108 residential units and a net reduction of 51,756 square feet of nonresidential uses.
While buildout of the project area would include the development of a substantial number of new residential units that would increase the city’s overall population, the increases are consistent with the growth planned for and evaluated in the General Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 3.12.2 The proposed project 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.
Many of the parcels in the project area have been developed and would remain unchanged with project implementation. In the plan area, the currently vacant parcels would be developed consistent with the proposed Specific Plan and the General Plan 2035. In the three Annexation areas located outside of the Specific Plan boundary, vacant parcels would be developed consistent with the existing General Plan, with the exception of West Hearn Avenue, which is proposed to be redesignated to Very Low Density Residential as part of the project.
There may be some underdeveloped parcels where there are existing single-family residences on a large lot where the plan provides the development potential for higher-intensity land uses. These potential changes and land use or redevelopment could displace people or housing.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.12-4
The Land Use Chapter of the Specific Plan addresses the potential for displacement through affordable housing and anti-displacement goals and related policies. Goal AH-2 seeks to minimize displacement of existing residents. Under Policy AH-2.1, the city would continue to engage the community in developing new and refining existi ng affordable housing and anti-displacement strategies. To prevent displacement, the city would continue to preserve existing affordable housing in order to prevent displacement in the plan area, and identify funds to preserve units at risk of converting to market rate (Policy AH-2.2 ). Under Policy AH-2.4, the city would provide outreach and education to existing homeowners and offer resources and information to allow continued residence in their homes. Policy AH-2 .5 provides for homebuyer assistance programs including a first-time homebuyer down payment a ssistance program, the CalHFA loan program, and the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program to residents in the plan area.
Through implementation of Specific Plan policies , the proposed project would not result in an overall net loss of housing that could result in the displacement of people. Impacts would be less than significant.
3.12.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting consists of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary as defined in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 and includes all existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the City’s Urban Growth Boundary.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Population Growth (Standard of Significance 1) Impact 3.12.3 The proposed project, 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.
As shown in Tables 2.0-5 and 2.0-6 in Section 2.0, the proposed project would increase the residential development potential in the project area by approximately 108 units compared to the development scenario assumed under the General Plan 2035. As a result, the project has the potential to increase the city’s population by approximately 282 residents when compared to the General Plan 2035 projection, amounting to a 0.12 percent increase over the city’s projected 2035 population of 237,000.
The project’s anticipated population growth was therefore accounted for in the City’s General Plan 2035 EIR. The General Plan 2035 EIR determined that with policies included in the General Plan, the General Plan would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to population and housing. The proposed Specific Pl an policies regarding population and housing are intended to help the City better anticipate patterns of growth and focus development in the project area, consistent with the General Plan 2 035. The Specific Plan is also intended to help Santa Rosa meet its housing demand through focused urban development. The impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.12-5
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 3.12.4 The proposed project, along with other approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development, would not resu lt in cumulative loss of housing or displacement of people. The impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
As described in Impact 3.12.2, there is the potential the proposed project could displace people or housing. Through implementation of Specific Plan affordable housing and anti-displacement policies, the proposed project would not result in an overall net loss of housing. The plan establishes land uses and mechanisms to accommodate redevelopment-related housing. The General Plan 2035 EIR determined that with policies included in the General Plan, the result would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to population and housing. Any future development in the project area would also be required to comply with General Plan policies. The proposed project’s contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.12-6
REFERENCES
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2015a. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change – January 1, 2014 and 2015. ———. 2015b. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State – January 1, 2011–2015.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Dr aft Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2015. Existing Land Use GIS Layer.
Strategic Economics. 2015. Sebastopol Road/Roseland Area Specific Plan Priority Development Area Profile.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.13-1
3.13.1 F IRE PROTECTION, EMERGENCY MEDICAL, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
3.13.1.1 E XISTING SETTING
FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
The project area is served by the Santa Rosa Fire Department (SRFD), which is responsible for protecting life, property, and the environment from fire, explosion, and hazardous materials incidents. The SRFD, which comprises three divisi ons—Administrative, Fire Suppression, and Fire Prevention—is staffed with 138 sworn employees and 10 civilians (SRFD 2014). In 2015, the SRFD responded to 25,111 total incidents. The City Council has set a goal for the SRFD to respond to 90 percent of all calls for service within 5 minutes or less, and to all calls for service within 6 minutes or less. In 2015, the response times were within 5 minutes 72 percent of the time (Santa Rosa 2016).
Station 8 is located in the project area at 830 Burbank Avenue just south of Sebastopol Road. The Santa Rosa General Plan indicates that the City may relocate this station to a site near the Sebastopol Road/Timothy Road intersection to better serve the community (Santa Rosa 2009a).
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
The majority of the project area is currently se rved by the Santa Rosa Police Department (SRPD).
The unincorporated islands in the project area are currently served by the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and the California Highway Patrol; upon an nexation, these areas would be served by the SRPD only.
The SRPD provides neighborhood-oriented policing services via patrol operations and traffic enforcement. The SRPD has 256.75 employees (175 sworn officers and 81.75 civilians) organized into four divisions: Administrative; Field Services (patrol); Special Services (Investigations Bureau and Support Bureau); and Technical Services (Communications Bureau and Records Bureau).
Officers are assigned to eight patrol teams, which are divided among nine beats. The project area is located primarily in Beat 7 with the exceptio n of some areas north of Sebastopol Road, which are located in Beat 5. Under the Field Services Division, officers are assigned to a beat for six months at a time. The patrol teams are managed by a lieutenant and staffed with sergeants, patrol officers, community service officers and field and evidence technicians (Santa Rosa 2009b, 2015a; Santa Rosa 2016; SRPD 2014). In 2015, the SRPD received 55,273 calls for emergency response (Santa Rosa 2016).
3.13.1.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
California Fire Code
The 2013 California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against the hazards of fir e, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises . The Fire Code also es tablishes requirements intended to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure throughout California. The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistance-rated construction, fire protection systems
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.13-2
such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire services features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland-urban interface areas.
California Health and Safety Code
Additional state fire regulations are set forth in Se ction 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which include regulations for building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extingui shers, smoke alarms, high-rise building and child- care facility standards, and fire suppression training.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration In accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 1270, Fire Prevention, and 6773, Fire Protection and Fire Fighting Equipment, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.
LOCAL
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan go als and policies most pertinent to the proposed project in regard to fire protection and law enforcement services.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal PSF-E: Provide fire and police services that ensure the safety of the community.
Policy PSF-E-1: Provide for citizen safety through expedient response to emergency calls. 1.
The Fire Department shall achieve 90 percent performance of arrival of the first fire company at an emergency within 5 minutes of notification by the dispatch center. 2. The Fire Department shall achieve 90 percent performance of arrival of all units on first alarm fire suppression incidents within 9 minutes of notification by the dispatch center.
Policy PSF-E-2: Provide for the safety of Santa Rosa citizens by maintaining efficient, well trained, and adequately equipped police and fire personnel.
Policy PSF-E-3: Collaborate with other local jurisdictions in the provision of some police and fire services, if such collaboration can improve service levels and is cost effective.
Policy PSF-E-5: Assist neighborhoods and increa se community contact through the Neighborhood Oriented Policing Program.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.13-3
Policy PSF-E-7: To better serve the community, move the fire station on Parker Hill Road to a new location near Fountaingrove Parkway and Parker Hill Road and move the fire station on Burbank Avenue to a new location near Sebastopol Road and Timothy Road.
City of Santa Rosa Emergency Operations Plan
The Draft Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) identifies the City’s emergency planning, organization, and response policies and procedures. The plan also addresses the integration and coordination with other governmental levels and special districts as required.
This plan is based on the principles and func tions of the California-required Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which is based on the FIRESCOPE Incident Command System, and identifies how the City of Santa Rosa fits in the overall state SEMS structure. In addition, the plan incorporates the additional required elements of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as directed by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5, issued February 28, 2003.
3.13.1.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G standards. A public services impact is considered significant if the project would:
1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection, emergency medical, and law enforcement services.
METHODOLOGY
The following impact analysis is based on review of available SRFD and SRPD documents, the City’s General Plan 2035 and associated environmental impact report, the 2015 Annual Report for the 2035 General Plan (Santa Rosa 2016), as well as correspondence with agency staff.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Increase Demand for Fire Protection, Fire Preven tion, Emergency Medical, and Law Enforcement Services (Standard of Significance 1)
Impact 3.13.1.1 Development resulting from implementa tion of the proposed project 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.
Sonoma County provides services to those portions of the project area not currently in the city limits. While the majority of the project’s anticipated population growth was evaluated in the City’s General Plan 2035 EIR, as discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the proposed project would
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.13-4
increase the residential development potential of the project area by approximately 108 residential units while decreasing the nonresidential development potential by 51,756 square feet, compared to the growth assumed for the area in the City’s General Plan. The General Plan 2035 EIR determined that with policies included in the General Plan, buildout of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact on police and fire protection services.
The increase in service area and intensity of development under the proposed project would increase demand for fire protection, emergency medical, and law enforcement services beyond the demand evaluated in the General Plan 2035 EIR. Development in the project area would occur gradually over time as individual projects are proposed and constructed. Each project w o u l d b e e v a l u a t e d b y t h e S R F D a n d S R P D a s p a r t o f t h e C i t y r e v i e w p r o c e s s t o d e t e r m i n e whether additional resources (e.g., staff, equipment, and/or facilities) would be needed.
As discussed previously, the General Plan 2035 (Policy PSF-E-7) indicates that the City may relocate Station 8 from its current location at 830 Burbank Avenue to a site near the Sebastopol Road/Timothy Road intersection to better serve the community. The existing General Plan land use designations in the vicinity of this intersection would allow the development of a fire station with issuance of a minor use permit. Physical impacts of this relocation were already evaluated in the General Plan EIR; the proposed project would not alter those findings. Similarly, if future development in the project area requires the construction of emergency facilities, the impacts of that construction are considered as part of the project area’s overall development. There would be no further impact from development of emergency facilities. The proposed project would not change the existing land use designations in this area and would not interfere with the planned relocation of the station. The impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.13.1.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting for fire protection, emergency medical services, and law enforcement consists of the current service area boundaries of the SRFD and the SRPD, which include the current city limits.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Impacts on Fire Protection, Fire Prevention, Emergency Medical, and Law Enforcement Services
Impact 3.13.1.2 The proposed project, in combinatio n 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 impact s to the environment. The proposed project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.13-5
The General Plan 2035 EIR evaluated potential impact s to public safety services resulting from buildout of Santa Rosa and the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, including the project area. The EIR determined that with implementation of the goals and policies in the General Plan 2035, potential cumulative impacts to fire protection and law enforcement services would be less than significant.
As discussed previously, the proposed project may require increased fire, emergency medical, and police staffing and equipment, as implementation of the project would increase the number of residents in the area beyond that considered in the General Plan 2035 EIR. However, the increase in intensity of development in the project area would not result in an increase in demand for fire, emergency medical, and police services such that facilities beyond those envisioned in the General Plan EIR would be required. In addition, each individual development project in the project area would be reviewed by the SRFD and SRPD to determine potential impacts. Upon approval of the proposed annexation, the entire project area would be subject to the goals and policies in the General Plan 2035. Thus, the cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.13.2 S CHOOLS
3.13.2.1 E XISTING SETTING
The project area is located within the boundaries of four elementary school districts: Santa Rosa; Roseland; Bellevue Union; and Wright. There are four existing elementary schools in the project area: Meadow View Elementary School; Sheppard Accelerated Elementary School; Roseland Elementary School; and Roseland Creek Elementary School. Also located within the project area is Roseland Accelerated Middle School and Rosela nd University Prep, which is a small college preparatory high school. The project area is al so located in the Santa Rosa City High School District; Elsie Allen High School is located in the project area. Enrollment by school districts that serve the City of Santa Rosa for the 2014–2015 school year is shown in Table 3.13-1.
T
ABLE 3.13-1
TOTAL CURRENT ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
School District 2014–2015 Enrollment
Santa Rosa Elementary School District 5,466
Roseland Elementary School District 2,755
Bellevue Union Elementary School District 1,872
Wright Elementary School District 1,622
Elementary District Total 11,715
Santa Rosa City High School District 11,244
Total 22,959
Source: Education Data Partnership 2015
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.13-6
3.13.2.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
Leroy Green School Facilities Act
The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, also known as Senate Bill 50 (Stats. 1998, Ch. 407), governs a school district’s authority to levy school impact fees.
Senate Bill (SB) 50 prohibits local agencies from denying either legislative or adjudicative land use approvals on the basis that school facilities are inadequate and imposes school facility fee caps for legislative actions (e.g., general plan am endments, specific plan adoption, zoning plan amendments). According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be full and complete school facilities mitigation.
LOCAL
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan go als and policies most pertinent to the proposed project in regard to schools.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal PSF-C: Provide superior educational opportunities for children and all members of the community.
Policy PSF-C-1: Assist the various school districts in deve loping school sites and facilities to serve all neighborhoods in the city, and to respond to the educational needs of various sectors of the population.
Policy PSF-C-2: Maintain good communication with area school districts on all matters pertaining to the need for and the provision of school sites and facilities.
Integrate the planning efforts of the city and the school districts by:
Locating school facilities that allow safe pedestrian and bicycle access, as well as ensuring construction of traffic calming measures in the vicinity; and Designing attractive facilities that contribute to neighborhood identity and pride.
In response to projected demand for new middle and elementary schools over the next 25 years, the City’s General Plan identified sites for potential school facilities in Figure 6-2. Two middle school sites and four elementary school sites were identified in the event they are needed to accommodate Santa Rosa’s student population. With the exception of one middle school site, all of these school sites are located within the southwestern portion of the city with one elementary school site located in the project area. The school site locations are not specific; they indicate a school is needed in the vicinity. Since publication of the General Plan, Roseland Creek Elementary School and Roseland Accelerated Middle School have been developed within the plan area.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.13-7
3.13.2.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G standards. A public services impact is considered significant if the project would:
1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools.
METHODOLOGY
The following impact analysis is based on a review of the project description and existing state law regarding public school funding.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Generate Demand for New Schools (Standard of Significance 1) Impact 3.13.2.1 The proposed project 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.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of new residential uses in the project area, generating new student enrollments at local area schools. Project implementation would result in an increase of 3,702 residential units. Based on Santa Rosa City Schools’ generation factor of 0.4 students pe r housing unit (Santa Rosa 2007), buildout of the project area would result in a total 1,481 students. The General Plan 2035 EIR assumed development of the project area and found impact s on schools to be less than significant. As shown in Table 2.0-6 , the proposed project would increase the development potential of the project area by approximately 108 residential un its beyond the number assumed in the General Plan 2035. Based on Santa Rosa City Schools’ generation factor of 0.4 students per housing unit (Santa Rosa 2007), these additional residentia l units would generate approximately 44 new students.
New students generated as a result of development associated with the proposed project would attend various schools in and adjacent to the project area. It cannot be determined at this time which school(s) these students may attend or what grade levels would be affected. School districts routinely adjust attendance boundaries to ensure enrollment capacity is not exceeded at any one school. As stated previously, one el ementary school and on e middle school have recently been developed within the project area, and three additional elementary school sites are planned in southwest Santa Rosa that would provide additional school capacity.
Public school facilities and services are supported through the assessment of development fees in addition to funds from the state and from local school districts. All new development in the project area would be required to pay impact fees to offset the impact of new development on the school system. These fees would be assessed in accordance with the provisions of SB 50. Given that student generation expected to result from project implementation would be minor and
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.13-8
would develop over the next 25 years, could be managed through adjustments to school boundaries to ensure school capacity is not ex ceeded, would be funded by school impact fees pursuant to SB 50, and would be supported in existing and already planned educational facilities, the proposed project would not result in the need for new, unplanned facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.13.2.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting consists of the attendance areas of the Santa Rosa, Roseland, Bellevue Union, and Wright elementary school districts and the Santa Rosa City High School District.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Impacts on Schools
Impact 3.13.2.2 The proposed project, in combinatio n 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.
The General Plan 2035 EIR evaluated potential impacts to schools resulting from buildout of Santa Rosa and the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, including the project area, under the General Plan 2035. The EIR determined that, with implementation of the goals and policies in the General Plan 2035, potential cumulative impacts on schools would be less than significant.
As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the proposed project would increase the development potential of the project area beyond that assumed in the General Plan 2035 by 108 residential units. This additional development would generate approximately 44 more students than assumed in the General Plan EIR, which could be accommodated by existing and planned schools in and adjacent to the project area. Individual development projects in the project area would be subject to development impact fees ba sed on the number of units developed, which would be used to fund school site construction and/or expansion. Upon approval of the proposed annexations, the entire project area would be subject to the goals and policies contained in the General Plan 2035. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.13-9
3.13.3 P ARKS AND RECREATION
3.13.3.1 E XISTING SETTING
Two main types of parks exist in Santa Ros a—neighborhood parks and community parks.
Neighborhood parks are generally between 2 an d 10 acres in size and are located within approximately one-half mile of the residents they serve. Facilities at neighborhood parks often include picnic areas, playground equipment, an d basketball courts. At about 10 to 25 acres, community parks serve residents throughout the city and contain more space and cost-intensive recreational facilities, such as ball fields and tennis courts. Community parks are sited so that most residents will be no farther than 1 mile from a community park facility.
Currently, the Santa Rosa Recreation and Parks Department operates and maintains 69 parks totaling approximately 558 acres of developed park (Santa Rosa 2016). In the project area, there are four existing developed parks—Bayer Park, Bellevue Park, South Davis Park, and Southwest Community Park—totaling 30 acres. In addition, Roseland Creek Community Park is currently in the planning stages. The City has acquired two of the three sites needed for the park, located on Burbank Avenue, which will total approximately 19.4 acres. The City’s park acreage also includes 231.8 acres of acquired but undeveloped land, and 150 acres of golf course, for a total of 940 acres (Santa Rosa 2016). According to the Santa Rosa General Plan, the City plans to construct six additional neighborhood parks in the project area (Santa Rosa 2009a, Figure 6-1).
The City maintains a park standard of 6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City Council determines what ratio of neighborhood and community parkland, school playgrounds, and open space will satisfy this standard. Currently, this ratio is 3.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, plus
1.4 acres of school recreational land and 1.1 acres of public-serving open space (Santa Rosa 2016). As of January 2015, the city had an estimated population of 173,071 (DOF 2015) and therefore exceeded this standard with approximately 3.8 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
In addition to neighborhood and community parks, Santa Rosa has two community centers (Steele Lane Community Center and Finley Community Center), two aquatic facilities (Ridgeway Swim Center and Finley Swim Center), the Bennett Valley Golf Course, and the Senior Center on Bennett Valley Road. While none of these facilities are located in the project area, the County of Sonoma’s Community Development Commission recently opened the Roseland Village Neighborhood Center, which is located at the intersection of Sebastopol Road and West Avenue.
3.13.3.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
Quimby Act
The goal of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) was to require developers to help mitigate the impacts of property improvements by requiring them to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The act gave authority for passage of land dedication ordinances only to cities and counties, thus requiring special districts to work with cities and/or counties to receive parkland dedication and/or in-lieu fees. The fees must be paid and land conveyed directly to the local public agencies that provide parks and recreation services communitywide. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities (Westrup 2002).
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.13-10
Originally, the Quimby Act was designed to ensure “adequate” open space acreage in jurisdictions adopting Quimby Act standards (e .g., 3–5 acres per 1,000 residents). In some California communities, the acreage fee was very high where property values were high, and many local governments did not differentiate on their Quimby fees between infill projects and greenbelt developments.
In 1982, the act was substantially amended via A ssembly Bill (AB) 1600. The amendments further defined acceptable uses of or restrictions on Quimby funds, provided acreage/population standards and formulas for determ ining the exaction, and indicated that the exactions must be closely tied (nexus) to a project’s impacts as identified through traffic studies required by CEQA.
In other words, AB 1600 requires agencies to clearly show a reasonable relationship between the public need for the recreation facility or park land and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed (Westrup 2002).
Cities or counties with a high ratio of parkland to residents can set a standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents for new development. Cities or counties with a lower ratio can require only the provision of up to 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The calculation of a city’s or county’s parkland- to-population ratio is based on a comparison of the population count of the last federal census to the amount of city- or county-owned parkland.
LOCAL
City of Santa Rosa City Code
Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 19-70, Park and Re creation Land and Fees, requires that 6 acres of property for each 1,000 persons residing in Santa Rosa be devoted to local parks and recreational purposes. The 6-acre requirement can be satisfied by a combination of parkland and park development dedications, open space, and school recreational land. The acreage of each park type per 1,000 residents is determined by the City Council by resolution. Additionally, parkland and park development standards are required to meet the minimum ratio of parkland to residents as set forth in the Quimby Act.
Santa Rosa Recreation and Parks Business and Strategic Action Plan In 2008, the City of Santa Rosa developed th e Santa Rosa Recreation and Parks Business and Strategic Action Plan to identify and assess current and anticipated parks and recreation needs and priorities; provide practical and strategic di rection for meeting these needs; and prepare a financial plan for the financing and funding of parks and facilities. This plan outlines several goals and objectives that are relevant to the proposed project as follows:
Goal 1: Park Development Standards
Strategy 1.2: Pursuant to the General Plan, apply the standard of six acres of parkland per 1,000 residents to all development projects and ensure the following allocation is met:
3.5 acres of parkland designated as city parks
1.4 acres of parkland as accessible school recreational land; and 1.1 acres of public serving open space.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.13-11
Strategy 1.3: Redefine access to park and public spaces for all residents to meet the following:
within ¼ mile to public plazas and gathering spaces;
within ½ mile to neighborhood parks; and
within 1 mile to community parks.
Goal 4: Facilities
Strategy 4.2: Continue ongoing efforts to locate new facilities throughout the community and not concentrated in one planning area.
Strategy 4.3: Provide a balance of new facility types in all recreation and park planning area.
Goal 5: Connectivity
Strategy 5.1: Add trails and pathways to connect destinations throughout the city such as schools, libraries and parks.
Strategy 5.3: Integrate corridors and pathways into overall communit y design, planning and development decisions.
Strategy 5.4: Encourage new development to include a system of internal trails and pathways within developments and identify opportunities to connect with established trails and pathways.
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan go als and policies most pertinent to the proposed project in regard to parks.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal PSF-A: Provide recreational facilities and parks for all sectors of the community.
Policy PSF-A-1: Provide recreation and park facilities and services needed by various segments of the population – including specific age groups, persons with special physical requirements, and groups interested in particular activities – and make these facilities and services easily accessible and affordable to all users.
Policy PSF-A-2: Acquire and develop new park facilities to achieve a citywide standard of 6 acres of parkland per thousand residents:
3.5 acres of city park land;
1.4 acres of publicly accessible school recreational park land (defined as parkland that is open to the public during standard park hours when school is not in session);
1.1 acres of public serving open space.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.13-12
This will require a total of 1,401 acres of city parks, publicly accessible school recreation areas, and open space to be available in 2035.
Policy PSF-A-5: Developing areas of the city (e.g., southwest Santa Rosa) should be given a higher priority for new park develo pment, and underser ved neighborhoods should be given priority during rede velopment and renovation of the park system. Priority for park development should also be given to areas of greatest density and areas that allow for safe an d easy access and visibility. Priority should also be given to locations that minimize impacts to sensitive environmental resources that could require extensive and expansive mitigation; the most sensitive environmental resource areas should generally be preserved for more passive recreation that assures their protection.
Policy PSF-A-15: Require the provision of private play space and/or recreation centers for children, families, and older adults in small lot subdivisions, multifamily developments, and gated communities, on each lot or in common open space areas as part of the development project.
Policy PSF-A-18: Develop multi-use pathways and linear parks along creeks designated by the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan. Create a system of interconnected linear parks that provide access to parks used for active recreation as well as to open space preserve areas that are used primarily for more passive recreation such as hiking and wildlife viewing.
Policy PSF-A-19: Provide recreational opportunities and establish bike and pedestrian paths along Santa Rosa Creek through implemen tation of the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan.
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal OSC-A: Maximize the benefits of open space.
Policy OSC-A-1: Cooperate with various public and private entities to create new public access trails and parks, open spaces, and draina ge ways with the city, as well as to trail systems outside the UGB. Priorities for trail access outside of the UGB should include:
Joe Rodota Trail (from Santa Rosa to Sebastopol);
Bay Area Ridge Trail;
Santa Rosa Creek Trail;
Laguna Trail;
Roseland Creek Trail;
Colgan Creek Trail; and
Paulin Creek Trail.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.13-13
3.13.3.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G standards. A parks and recreation impact is considered significant if the project would:
1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks.
2) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. 3) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
METHODOLOGY
The following impact analysis is based on a review of available information from the City of Santa Rosa Recreation and Parks Depart ment as well as the General Plan 2035 and associated environmental impact report.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Increase Demand for New Parks and Use of Existing Developed Parks (Standards of Significance 1, 2, and 3)
Impact 3.13.3.1 Implementation of the proposed project would increase demand for parks and recreational facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
Development projects have the potential to impact parks and recreational facilities in two ways.
First, development introduces new residents to an area and increases the use of existing developed parks and other recreational facilities in the vicinity, thereby accelerating and/or escalating their physical deterioration requiring increased maintenance activities and renovation.
Second, development results in demand for new pa rks and recreational facilities requiring the construction of new facilities or proposes the construction of new faci l i t i e s a s p a r t o f t h e development.
The proposed project is anticipated to increase the population of the project area by approximately 9,662 residents compared to existing conditions. Such a population increase could result in the physical deterioration of existing developed parks. In addition, based on the City’s current park standards described above, the proj ect’s growth compared to existing conditions would require an additional 33.8 acres of city parkland, 13.5 acre s of school recreational land, and 10.6 acres of public-serving open space, or a collective total of 57.9 acres. To accommodate this anticipated growth, the General Plan 20 35 Land Use Diagram shows eight proposed community and neighborhood parks in the project area. Individual development projects would be subject to the City’s Park Development Fees ordinance, under Chapter 19-70 (Park and
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.13-14
Recreation Land and Fees) of the City Code, which would provide funding for the development of new parks as needed.
As described previously, the majority of the anticipated growth in the project area was considered in the General Plan 2035. Compared to buildout of the General Plan, the proposed project would increase the population of the project area by approximately 282 residents. While the additional residents could increase the use of existing developed parks and recreational facilities in the project area, the increase would be minimal and would not be expected to substantially contribute to the facilities’ deterioration.
Based on the City’s park standards, the project’s growth compared to General Plan buildout would require an additional 1.0 acre of city park land, 0.4 acre of school recreational land, and
0.3 acre of public-serving open space, or a collective total of 1.7 acres. As shown on Figure 2.0-7, the project proposes to amend the General Plan land use designation in two areas totaling 16.4 acres from Residential to Parks/Recreation. This redesignation would allow the development of sufficient additional parkland in the projec t area to accommodate future growth with development funded through the City’s Park Development Fees ordinance. The Roseland Creek Community Park is already in the planning stages within one the areas proposed for redesignation.
Because a sufficient number of new parks are pla nned in the project area to serve anticipated growth and funding for development of these parks is available, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.13.3.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting for parks and recreation consists of the Santa Rosa Recreation and Parks Department service area boundaries, which includes the entire city.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Impacts on Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact 3.13.3.2 Implementation of the prop osed project, 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
The General Plan 2035 EIR evaluated potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities resulting from buildout of Santa Rosa and the City’s Urba n Growth Boundary, including the project area, under the General Plan 2035. The EIR determined that, with implementation of the goals and policies in the General Plan 2035, potential cumulative impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.
The proposed project would increase the populati on of the project area by approximately 282 residents beyond the number considered in the General Plan 2035 EIR, requiring the construction of additional parkland. The proposed project would provide sufficient new land zoned for park and recreation use to accommodate the anticipated population increase, and park construction
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.13-15
would be funded via existing City fee programs. In addition, Roseland Creek Community Park is currently in the planning stages. The City has acquired two of the three sites needed for the park, located on Burbank Avenue, which will total appr oximately 19.4 acres. Upon approval of the proposed annexation areas, the entire project area would be subject to the goals and policies in the General Plan 2035. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute significantly to this cumulative impact. The cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.13-16
REFERENCES
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2015. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change – January 1, 2014 and 2015.
Education Data Partnership. 2015. Accessed November 9. http://www.ed-data.org/.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2007. Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Program EIR. ———. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035.
———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Dr aft Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2016. Annual Review 2015, General Plan 2035, Growth Management Ordinance, and Housing Allocation Plan Ordinance, City Council & Planning Commission Joint Session, March 29.
SRPD (Santa Rosa Police Department). 2014. Santa Rosa Police Department 2014 Annual Report.
Westrup, Laura. 2002. Quimby Act 101: An Abbreviated Overview.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-1
This section is based on a traffic impact study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project by W-Trans dated April 19, 2016 (see Appendix 3.14). The TIS evaluated traffic data; intersection, roadway, and freeway ramp capacity; level of service; an d traffic impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the requirements of the City of Santa Rosa and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The study also includ ed an evaluation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, transit operators, air traffic, desi gn features, emergency access, and construction traffic impacts.
3.14.1 E XISTING SETTING
STUDY AREA
Study Corridors
Auto corridor levels of service were analyzed on four arterial streets for both the weekday AM and P M p e a k h o u r s , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e C i t y ’ s G e n e r a l P l a n . M u l t i m o d a l l e v e l s o f s e r v i c e f o r pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes on seve ral additional corridors were assessed for informational purposes for existing conditions as well as for project buildout conditions. These additional corridors were selected to obtain a representative sample of the types of streets present in the project area. Transit levels of service were analyzed for the corridors (and individual corridor segments) where transit services currently operate. Pedestrian and bicycle levels of service on all corridors were analyzed. The list of study corridors, along with travel modes analyzed, is shown in Table 3.14-1.
TABLE 3.14-1
MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ANALYZED BY CORRIDOR Study Corridor
Travel Mode
Auto Transit Pedestrian Bicycle
1. Stony Point Road – SR 12 to Bellevue X X X X
2. Sebastopol Road – Stony Point to Olive X X X X
3. Dutton Avenue – SR 12 to Hearn X X X
4. Hearn Avenue – Stony Point to Santa Rosa Avenue X X X X
5. Olive St-Corby Avenue – Sebastopol to Bellevue X X X
6. West Avenue – Sebastopol to Hearn X X X
7. Dutton Meadow – Hearn to Bellevue X X X
8. Bellevue Avenue – Dutton to Corby X X X
9. Burbank Avenue – Sebastopol to Hearn X X
10. Barham Avenue – Dutton to Olive X X
Source: W-Trans 2016
Freeway Analysis
In addition to the analysis of local streets, two bidirectional freeway segments were studied to determine the project’s impact on freeway operations. These include State Route (SR) 12 between Stony Point Road and US Highway 101 (US 101), and US 101 between Todd Road and SR 12.
Mainline freeway operations were studied for only the mixed-flow lanes of traffic and excluded
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-2
traffic using the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) carpool lanes. Intersection operation and projected off-ramp queue lengths were also analyzed at the following interchanges:
SR 12 at Stony Point Road
SR 12 at Dutton Avenue
US 101 at Baker Avenue
US 101 at Hearn Avenue
Study Periods and Scenarios
The traffic analysis focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The following scenarios were analyzed:
Existing Conditions – reflects current traffic levels and roadway configurations Existing plus Project Conditions – includes buildout of the Specific Plan and Annexation areas, as well as implementation of circul ation network improvements outlined in the proposed Specific Plan
Future (No Project) Conditions – includes regional buildout and planned regional roadway improvements, except that development within the project area is assumed to remain unchanged (remain at current levels), wi thout implementation of plan-specified circulation improvements
Future plus Project Conditions – includes buildout of the region and project area as well as all planned circulation improvements
Corridor Descriptions
Following are descriptions of the auto travel characteristics of the four arterial study corridors.
Stony Point Road
Stony Point Road is a major north–south corridor th at extends nearly 13 mi les from Petaluma to Santa Rosa, roughly paralleling the US 101 corridor. In the northernmost portion of the study area, Stony Point Road has an interchange at SR 12 an d is a major six-lane street from SR 12 to Sebastopol Road. The remainder of the study corridor narrows to the south of Sebastopol Road to a predominantly two-lane arterial with turn pockets at select locations, with the exception of the segment between Northpoint Parkway and Hearn Avenue, where the corridor has been widened to include two southbound lanes and a landsc aped median. A project is currently under construction to widen Stony Point Road between Sebastopol Road and Hearn Avenue to two lanes in each direction plus a center left turn lane or median.
Sebastopol Road
Sebastopol Road is an approximately 2.75-mile-lon g arterial in west Sa nta Rosa that generally parallels the south side of SR 12. In the western portion of the project area between Stony Point Road and Burbank Avenue, Sebastopol Road is a five-lane roadway including two lanes in each direction plus a center turn lane. The corrido r transitions to a three-lane roadway between
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-3
Burbank Avenue and Dutton Avenue and to a two-lane roadway between Dutton Avenue and Olive Street.
Dutton Avenue
Dutton Avenue is a 3-mile-long north–south corridor that runs from northern to southern Santa Rosa, passing through predominantly business park–t ype uses to the north of SR 12 and through neighborhoods to the south of SR 12 and through the project area. Dutton Avenue includes a freeway interchange at SR 12 and is a five-lane street between SR 12 and Sebastopol Road. To the south of Sebastopol Road, the corridor narrows to a single lane in each direction with on-street parking all the way to Hearn Avenue.
Hearn Avenue
Almost the entire 1.5-mile length of Hearn Avenue is located within the boundaries of the Specific Plan area, running between Santa Rosa Avenue on the east and Stony Point Road on the west.
Hearn Avenue includes a freeway interchange at US 101 near the western plan area boundary.
The interchange is currently constrained from a capacity perspective by the Hearn Avenue freeway overpass, which only includes one lane in each direction, creating a bottleneck that results in congestion in the area.
Between US 101 and the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) tracks, the street includes two lanes in each direction plus a center turn lane. Between the SMART tracks and Stony Point Road, which comprises the majority of the corridor, the street generally includes one lane in each direction plus a center turn lane.
BASELINE (NO PROJECT) CONDITIONS
Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes on select roadway segments throughout the project area are shown in Figure 3.14-1.
Existing Corridor Operational Analysis
Automobile levels of service were determined using existing traffic volumes, current roadway configurations, phasing and timing of all traffic signals along each of the corridors, and analysis in the software application Synchro, and by conducting multiple traffic simulation runs using the software application SimTraffic to determine average speeds along each corridor and its individual segments. Automobile level of service (LOS) on roadways is intended to be analyzed at the corridor level, typically on segments that are at least 1 mile in length, rather than on shorter segments between signalized intersections. The co nsideration of corridor-based LOS is called for in the Santa Rosa General Plan, with operation at LOS D considered to be the minimum acceptable.
Automobile roadway segment levels of service are currently at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. A summary of the corridor level of service results is shown in Table 3.14-2.
Appendix 3.14 includes copies of the segment-based speed projections in Appendix B and copies of individual intersection level of service calculations in Appendix C.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-4
TABLE 3.14-2
ROADWAY SEGMENT EXISTING PEAK-HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Corridor Existing AM Peak Hour Existing PM Peak Hour
Direction Class Free-Flow Speed Avg. Speed % FFS LOS Avg. Speed % FFS LOS Stony Point Road – SR 12 to Bellevue Avenue
NB II 40 23 58% C 21 53% C
SB II 40 26 65% C 18 45% D
Sebastopol Road – Stony Point Road to Olive Street
EB III 35 23 66% C 21 60% C
WB III 35 21 60% C 18 51% C
Dutton Avenue – SR 12 to Hearn Avenue
NB IV 30 22 73% B 24 80% B
SB IV 30 20 67% C 18 60% C
Hearn Avenue – Stony Point Road to Santa Rosa Avenue
EB III 35 25 71% B 24 69% B
WB III 35 24 69% B 26 74% B
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Avg. Speed = average corridor speed in miles per hour; % FFS = percent of free-flow speed; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound All four of the arterial corridors operate acce ptably at LOS D or better, meeting the City’s operational standards. It should be noted that the short segment of Stony Point Road between SR 12 and Sebastopol Road encounters delays th at are indicative of LOS F even though the corridor overall operates at LOS C and D. The bottleneck created by the narrowing of southbound Stony Point Road south of Sebastopol Road is a major factor to this congestion, though some relief is expected upon the completion of the Stony Point Road widening project that is currently under way. Similarly, the segment of Hearn Avenue near US 101 typically operates poorly during peak hours due to the bottleneck created by the existi ng two-lane overpass even though the overall segment operates acceptably.
Existing US 101 Operation
Mainline Operation
The US 101 study freeway segment between Todd Road and SR 12 currently operates unacceptably at LOS D or E during the peak hours. It is noted that while LOS D operation is acceptable under the City’s standards, the Caltrans standard of operation remaining above the LOS C/D threshold was applied. The SR 12 freeway segment between Stony Point Road and US 101 i s o p e r a t i n g a c c e p t a b l y a t L O S C o r b e t t e r d u r i n g b o t h p e a k h o u r s . F r e e w a y o p e r a t i o n s a r e summarized in Table 3.14-3 and calculations are provided in Appendix D of Appendix 3.14.
Source: W-Trans
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures FIGURE 3.14-1
Existing Traffic Volumes
377(233)
325(440)
296(182)
253(239)
319(400)
440(340)
135(89)
115(180)
878(827)
717(1003)
67(218)
195(93)
1353(1616)1329(1497)
681(616)
692(762)
200(200)
175(175)
275(269)
158(274)
547(849)
376(530)
437(703)587(579)
733(1033)769(830)
266(312)353(249)
308(340)
794(933)884(1028)
578(444)
459(544)
156(145)256(152)
548(585)
480(781)
307(307)405(227)
394(334)390(389)
0(0)
863(712)
665(898)
263(155)221(451)
774(412)348(589)
1119(1293)
720(830)
193(312)339(183)
659(1155)
1120(1101)
353sro 2016.ai 2/16
North
Not to Scale
LEGEND
xx
(xx)
A.M. Peak Hour Volume
P .M. Peak Hour Volume
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-7
TABLE 3.14-3
EXISTING (NO PROJECT) PEAK-HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS
Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
US 101 North – Todd Road to SR 12
Density 38.4 32.5
LOS E D
US 101 South – SR 12 to Todd Road
Density 31.0 32.25
LOS D D
SR 12 East – Stony Point Road to US 101
Density 21.8 21.3
LOS C C
SR 12 West – US 101 to Stony Point Road
Density 16.3 24.9
LOS B C
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane; LOS = level of service Ramp Operation
Ramp intersections on SR 12 at the Stony Po int Road and Dutton Avenue interchanges and on US 101 at the Baker Avenue and Hearn Avenue interchanges currently operate acceptably at LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Vehicle queues at off-ramps are also generally accommodated within available storage. It should be noted that while queues on the Hearn Avenue southbound off-ramp are shown to be accommodated, observations during select peak periods (particularly the times when retail activity is highest, such as the holiday season) indicate that queues extend onto the mainline freeway. The existing freeway ramp level of service queuing projections are summarized in Table 3.14-4, and calculations are provided in Appendices C and E in Appendix 3.14.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-8
TABLE 3.14-4
EXISTING PM PEAK-HOUR FREEWAY RAMP OPERATIONS
Freeway Interchange
Intersection Operations Off-Ramp Queuing
Delay LOS Available Storage Maximum Queue
SR 12/Stony Point Road
Westbound 30.1 C 930 466
Eastbound 10.6 B 710 243
SR 12/Dutton Avenue
Westbound 23.1 C 990 409
Eastbound 14.1 B 770 126
US 101/Baker Avenue
Northbound 31.4 C 810 152
Southbound 9.9 A 340 163
US 101/Hearn Avenue
Northbound 33.0 C 960 183
Southbound 16.7 B 620 495
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Delay is measured in seconds; LOS = level of service; Maximum Queue is the averaged maximum queue observed in 10 SimTraffic model runs measured in feet
EXISTING MULTIMODAL LEVELS OF SERVICE
Existing bicycle and pedestrian volumes on select roadway segments throughout the project area are shown on Figure 3.14-2. Based on analysis of the existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit conditions on the study corridors, level of service was determined for each travel mode. The results are summarized in Table 3.14-5 , and multimodal level of service score sheets are provided in Appendix A in Appendix 3.14.
Source: W-Trans
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures FIGURE 3.14-2
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes
Hwy 101 S
Hwy 101 N
Tracks
Hwy 12 W
Santa Rosa Ave
Corby Ave
W 3Rd St
Hearn Ave
Sebastopol Rd
West Ave
Rodota Trl
Olive St
Bellevue Ave
Dutton Ave
Burbank Ave
Yuba Dr
Dowd Dr
Primrose Ave
Leo Dr
Gloria Dr
Dutton Meadow
Colgan Creek Trl
Oasis Dr
Burt St
Butler Ave
Boyd St
Mcminn Ave
Ludwig Ave
Tuxhorn Dr
Mill S
W Hearn Ave
di Ln
Els
Juniper Ave
Rose Ave
Pkwy
Lazzini Ave
Beachwood Dr
Victoria Dr
Edgewater Dr
Burgess Dr
Sunset Ave
Gardner Ave
Campbell Dr
Pear Ln
Funston Dr
Silver Spur Dr
Yo
Apple Ln
Barham Ave
Wilder Rd
Weber Ln
Arrowhead Dr
Southwood Dr
Comalli St
Demeo St
Marble St
Aileen Ave
Flower Ave
S Davis St
Cass Rd
Hughes Ave
Poplar St
Wiljan Ct
Liana Dr
Wheeler S
Pearblossom Dr
Barndance Ln
Janero Dr
Liscum St
Earle St
Blue Sky Ln
Dixie Pl
W
Baker Ave
Bellevue Rnch
El Porta
Ricardo Ave
Goodman Ave
Keegan Dr
Wb 12 To Nb 101
South Ave
Hazel St
Whitewood Dr
Nb Yolanda Av Offramp
r Dr
Surrey Dr
St
Newmark Dr
Boron Ave
Timothy Rd
Kenmore Ln
Talmadge Dr
Red Tail St
Westwood Dr
Mesa Way
Kawana Springs R
Gallop Dr
k Dr
Banjo Dr
Park Meadow Dr
James Ct
West Ct
Muledeer Ln
El Crystal Dr
Court St
Mojave Ave
Trombetta St
Connie S
r Downtown Onramp
Terrimay Ln
Nb 101 To 12
Roseland Ave
Delport Ave
Maureen Dr
Bosley St
Powderhorn Ave
Romani Ct
Gio Dr
Sb 101 To Wb 12 Sebastopol Ave
W Barham Ave
Lotus Ct
Rain Dance Way
Kenton Ct
Avalon Ave
Cavendish Ave
Goldpan Way
Ave
Inglewood Dr
Hampton Way
Nb 101 To Eb 12
Odell Ln
Javore Dr
Debbie Dr
Baker Ov
Buss Dr
Pebblecreek Dr
Shady Ln
Coachman Ln
Orange St
Homestead Ln
Greenwood Dr
Valerie Way
Eddy Dr
Myrtlewood Dr
Gorel Ct
St
Hogrefe Way
Wild Bill Way
Be
Education Dr
Stroven Ln
Elk Ln
Westland Dr
Roundelay Ln
Laurel Grove Cir
El Centro W
Santini Ct
Duke Ct
Walkham Pl
Page Ct
Colgan Ave
No Name
Naify Ln
Metaxa Ct
Palm St
Rcop
Courtyard
Lathrop Dr
Cottonwood Dr
Apple Creek Ln
Smokewood Dr
El Capitan W
Rosevine Ln
12 to nb 101
Wall Pl
Peach St
Emmy Lou Ct
Wb Dutton Av Offramp
Bighorn Sheep St
Tara Dr
Old Stony Point Rd
in Ln
Winston Dr
Alamo Ln
Neville Way
Dutton Av Onramp
Shay Ave
Harmonica Ln
Ashwood Dr
Anteeo Way
Ironstone Cir
Wb Stony Point Rd Offramp
Primrose Ct
Barbara Dr
Butterfly Ln
Ohair Ct
Peach Ct
Thistle Ln
Pinewood Dr
Covelline St
St
Freitas Ct
Corby Avenue Ext
Castro Ct
Barnett St
Mancini St
Iowa St
Theresa St
Blythewood Pl
Nb 101 To Wb 12
Juilliar
dP a r k
Montevino Dr
berts Ave
E Jasmine Cir
Tupelo Ave
W Jasmine Cir
Canyonlands Ave
Hazelnut Ln
y
Spruce St
Grandberg Ct
Faletto Ct
Cranbrook Way
Cherrywood Dr
Goldpan Cir
Nb Baker Av Onramp
Oak Manor Ct
Nathan Ln
Lilac Dr
Harves
t Ln
Commercial Ct
Ln
Holbrook St
Coors CtBlack Tail St
Sugar Bear Ln
Carrington St
Milicent Way
Deep Rose Pl
Mcmaster Ln
Redwood Cir
Camellia Ct
Richardson Ct
pricot Ln
Wisteria Ln
Darlyn Way
Rusch Ct
Wild Bill Cir
Joseph Ct E
Wayside Dr
Gold Dust Way
Ce
Quillco Ct
Robin Way
Stephanie Ct E
Oldfield Way
Victoria Ct
Halwood Ct
Daniel Ct
Emerald Ct
Meekland Ct
Malin Pl
Dillon Ln
Trombetta St
Dutton Ave
Mesa Way
S A St
Bellevue Ave
Earle St
Baker Ave
Giffen Ave
Barham Ave
Lazzini Ave
Yuba Dr
Ludwig Ave
W Hearn Ave
Moorland Ave
Stony Point Rd
Santa Rosa Ave
Corby Ave
Hearn Ave
Sebastopol Rd
West Ave
Bellevue Ave
Dutton Ave
Burbank Ave
Dowd Dr
Leo Dr
Dutton Meadow
Barham Ave
Wiljan Ct
Talmadge Dr
Dutton Ave
Burgess Dr
Bayer
Park &
Gardens
Southwest
Community
Park
Bellevue Ranch
Lower
Colgan
Colgan Creek
Roseland Creek
Southside Bus
Transfer Center
Meadow View
Elementary School
Sheppard
Elementary
School
Roseland
Elementary
School
Lawrence Cook
Middle School
Elsie Allen
High School
Joe Rodota Trail
Stewart ErwinStewart Erwin
SchoolSchool
Baker Ave
Dutton Ave/Joe Rodota Trail
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
41 58
720
1020
Stony Point Rd/Sebastopol Rd
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
48 27
980
560
Sebastopol Rd/Burbank Ave
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
33 18
680
360
Sebastopol Rd/West Ave
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
111
12 2280
250
Sebastopol Rd/Dutton Ave
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
92 36
1480
580
Sebastopol Rd/Olive St
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
14 15
290
320
Baker Ave/Corby Ave
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
19 13
390
270
Stony Point Rd/Giffen Ave
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
23 27
480
550
Hearn Ave/Burbank Ave
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
5 9
100
190
Hearn Ave/Dutton Ave
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
30 6
490
100
Hearn Ave/Corby Ave
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
18 6
410
150
Bellevue Ave/Burgess Dr
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
25 1
510
30 Bellevue Ave/Dutton Ave
Peak Hour
of Day
Daily Average
19 7
390
140 353sro 2016.ai 1/16
North
Not to Scale
Butler Ave
B LEGEND
Project Boundary
Creeks
Schools
Parks
Railroad
Transit Station
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-11
TABLE 3.14-5
EXISTING MULTIMODAL LEVELS OF SERVICE
Corridor Segment Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS Transit LOS
1. Stony Point Road
SR 12 to Sebastopol Rd E C C
Sebastopol Rd to Hearn Ave F F C
Hearn Ave to Bellevue Ave F F E
2. Sebastopol Road
Stony Point Rd to Burbank Ave F C C
Burbank Ave to Dutton Ave C E C
Dutton Ave to Olive St F F C
3. Dutton Avenue
SR12 to Sebastopol Rd E E —
Sebastopol Rd to Barham Ave D F —
Barham Ave to Hearn Ave D F —
4. Hearn Avenue
Stony Point Rd to Dutton Meadow E D C
Dutton Meadow to Dowd Dr E D C
Dowd Dr to Santa Rosa Ave F F C
5. Olive Street-Corby Avenue
Sebastopol Rd to Barham Ave D F —
Barham Ave to Baker Ave D F D
Baker Ave to Hearn Ave D F D
Hearn Ave to Bellevue Ave F F E
6. West Avenue
Sebastopol Rd to South Ave C F —
South Ave to Hearn Ave C F D
7. Dutton Meadow
Hearn Ave to Bellevue Ave E F E
8. Bellevue Ave
Stony Point Rd to Dutton Meadow E F E
Dutton Meadow to Corby Ave F F —
9. Burbank Avenue
Sebastopol Rd to Roseland Cr D D —
Roseland Creek to Hearn Ave E E —
10. Barham Avenue
Dutton Ave to S Davis St E F —
Source: W-Trans 2016
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-12
Pedestrian and bicycle levels of service are poor along several corridors and for numerous segments. In many cases, operation in the LOS F range is attributable to sidewalks and bike facilities that are discontinuous or not present at all. LOS E conditions typically occur where limited facilities exist, but pedestrian and/or bicyclist comfort is generally not good due to factors such as vehicle speeds, lack of crossing enhancements, few amenities, and limited connectivity to other facilities. One area that fares better for pedestrians is Sebastopol Road between Burbank Avenue and Dutton Avenue, where a reasonably good pe destrian LOS C has been achieved through streetscape and crossing improvements. Bicycle LOS C is achieved on Sebastopol Road between Stony Point Road and Burbank Avenue through the combination of bike lanes, good pavement condition, bicycle detection at signals, and lack of on-street parking.
Transit levels of service were determined on the study corridors (or portions of corridors) where fixed-route transit currently operates. Transit levels of service are relatively good in the northern portion of the Roseland area along Sebastopol Road, Stony Point Road, and Hearn Avenue, all of which are currently operating at transit LOS C. The portions of Corby Avenue and West Avenue north of Hearn Avenue that are served by transit operate at LOS D. Transit operations are not as good to the south of Hearn Avenue, where all streets with transit service operate at LOS E, largely attributable to less-frequent service and less-robust pedestrian accessibility.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
The 2010 Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan classifies bikeways into three categories:
Class I Bike Path – provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross-flow minimized
Class II Bike Lane – provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway Class III Bike Route – provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic The plan also describes and depicts the future vision for bicycle facilities throughout the city. In 2014, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) prepared updated maps showing existing and planned bikeways throughout the county and in Santa Rosa, including the Roseland area, in the draft SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. In collaboration with the City, the SCTA completed updates to the Santa Rosa bike plan, which serves as the city’s official bicycle plan. Following is a summary of existing and key planned bicycle facilities in the project area.
Off-Street Trails
A major regional pathway facility, the Joe Rodot a Trail, passes through the Specific Plan area, running in an east–west alignment between SR 12 and Sebastopol Road. The trail is a paved pathway connecting the city of Sebastopol to Railroad Square in Santa Rosa and to other major regional trails, including the West County Regi onal Trail and the Santa Rosa Creek Path. The Joe Rodota Trail crosses Stony Point Road at the si gnalized Stony Point Road/SR 12 East Ramps intersection and crosses Dutton Avenue at a dedicated mid-block signal that is coordinated with upstream and downstream signals.
Another existing off-street (Class I) pathway in the study area is a portion of the Colgan Creek Trail, which runs along the north side of Bellevue Avenue between Juniper Avenue and the western boundary of Elsie Allen High School and then turns southward and extends along the creek to Todd Road.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-13
Several additional planned pathways are designated in the project area. SMART Multi-Use Pathway – The pathway will run north–south along the commuter rail corridor in the eastern portion of the project area. Through a combination of off-street and on-street facilities, the SMART path is ultimately planned to run the entire length of the commuter rail system from Cloverdale to Larkspur. A segment of the pathway has been completed between Joe Rodota Trail and Hearn Avenue.
Colgan Creek Trail – This trail is planned to be extended northward to a future extension of Dutton Avenue, and southward is planned to be extended to the future Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail.
Roseland Creek Trail – A portion of this trail has been completed, extending westward from Stony Point Road approximately 0.55 miles. Like the Colgan Creek Trail, this trail is planned to extend westward to the Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail. In the project area, the trail is planned to run alongside Roseland Cree k between Stony Point Road and McMinn Avenue.
On-Street Bicycle Lanes
In the project area, bike lanes currently exist on Sebastopol Road between Stony Point Road and Dutton Avenue, on Stony Point Road between Bellevue Ranch Road and Bellevue Avenue, on Hearn Avenue between Stony Point Road and the SMART rail line, and on Sebastopol Road between North Dutton Avenue and Olive Street.
Future bike lanes are planned on the following segments:
Sebastopol Road – North Dutton Avenue to Olive Street Dutton Avenue – SR 12 to Hearn Avenue, and eventually to the potential future Dutton Road extension
Stony Point Road – SR 12 to Bellevue Ranch Road (the segment from Sebastopol Road to Hearn Avenue started construction in 2015)
West Avenue – Sebastopol Road to Hearn Avenue
Northpoint Parkway – along future extension of Northpoint Parkway from Stony Point Road to Burbank Avenue
Dutton Meadow – Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue
Dutton Avenue Extension – Dutton Meadow to Bellevue Avenue Bellevue Avenue – Stony Point Road to Santa Rosa Avenue Bike Routes
The segment of Dutton Avenue to the north of Sebastopol Road is a signed bike route, as is the entire length of Burbank Avenue. Future bike routes in the project area are designated on the following streets:
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-14
Boyd Street
Earle Street
Corby Avenue Extension
Dowd Drive – Corby Avenue Extension to Bellevue
Corby Avenue – Barham to Corby Avenue Extension
Barham Avenue
South Avenue
Delport Avenue
McMinn Avenue – Delport to Hughes
Hughes Avenue
Lazzini Avenue
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswal ks, pedestrian signals, curb ramps, crosswalk warning devices, and streetscape amenities. The entire Sebastopol Road corridor within the project boundaries has a significant amount of pedestrian activity throughout the day, particularly in commercial areas between Burbank Avenue and Dutton Avenue. In this core commercial segment, pedestrian-scale street lighting, street trees, 6- to 10-foot-wide sidewalks, and ADA- accessible curb ramps exist. Extending west from the commercial core, pedestrian facilities are continuous but lack added streetscape amenities. Extending east from the core, the sidewalk infrastructure is aging, and some gaps in the sidewalk network exist near the SMART rail crossing.
Schools have a major influence on pedestrian activity levels in the project area. Roseland Creek Elementary School on Burbank Avenue, Sheppard Elementary School on West Avenue, Roseland Elementary School on Sebast opol Road, Meadow Elementary School on Dutton Meadow, Roseland University Prep on Sebastopol Road, and Elsie Allen High School on Bellevue Avenue all generate school-age pedestrian traffic on sc hool days. Bayer Park and Southwest Community Parks are also generators of pedestrian activity.
TRANSIT
Transit Operators
Transit service in the project area is provided by Santa Rosa CityBus and Sonoma County Transit.
Existing transit routes are shown on Figure 3.14-3. Table 3.14-6 summarizes routes, operating times, and headways.
Source: W-Trans
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures FIGURE 3.14-3
Existing Transit Routes
Hwy 101 S
Hwy 101 N
Tracks
Hwy 12 W
Santa Rosa Ave
Corby Ave
W 3Rd St
Hearn Ave
Sebastopol Rd
West Ave
Rodota Trl
Olive St
Bellevue Ave
Dutton Ave
Burbank Ave
Yuba Dr
Dowd Dr
Primrose Ave
Leo Dr
Gloria Dr
Dutton Meadow
Colgan Creek Trl
Oasis Dr
Burt St
Butler Ave
Boyd St
Mcminn Ave
Ludwig Ave
Tuxhorn Dr
Mill S
W Hearn Ave
di Ln
Els
Juniper Ave
Rose Ave
Pkwy
Lazzini Ave
Beachwood Dr
Victoria Dr
Edgewater Dr
Burgess Dr
Sunset Ave
Gardner Ave
Campbell Dr
Pear Ln
Funston Dr
Silver Spur Dr
Yo
Apple Ln
Barham Ave
Wilder Rd
Weber Ln
Arrowhead Dr
Southwood Dr
Comalli St
Demeo St
Marble St
Aileen Ave
Flower Ave
S Davis St
Cass Rd
Hughes Ave
Poplar St
Wiljan Ct
Liana Dr
Wheeler S
Pearblossom Dr
Barndance Ln
Janero Dr
Liscum St
Earle St
Blue Sky Ln
Dixie Pl
W
Baker Ave
Bellevue Rnch
El Porta
Ricardo Ave
Goodman Ave
Keegan Dr
Wb 12 To Nb 101
South Ave
Hazel St
Whitewood Dr
Nb Yolanda Av Offramp
r Dr
Surrey Dr
St
Newmark Dr
Boron Ave
Timothy Rd
Kenmore Ln
Talmadge Dr
Red Tail St
Westwood Dr
Mesa Way
Kawana Springs R
Gallop Dr
k Dr
Banjo Dr
Park Meadow Dr
James Ct
West Ct
Muledeer Ln
El Crystal Dr
Court St
Mojave Ave
Trombetta St
Connie S
r Downtown Onramp
Terrimay Ln
Nb 101 To 12
Roseland Ave
Delport Ave
Maureen Dr
Bosley St
Powderhorn Ave
Romani Ct
Gio Dr
Sb 101 To Wb 12 Sebastopol Ave
W Barham Ave
Lotus Ct
Rain Dance Way
Kenton Ct
Avalon Ave
Cavendish Ave
Goldpan Way
Ave
Inglewood Dr
Hampton Way
Nb 101 To Eb 12
Odell Ln
Javore Dr
Debbie Dr
Baker Ov
Buss Dr
Pebblecreek Dr
Shady Ln
Coachman Ln
Orange St
Homestead Ln
Greenwood Dr
Valerie Way
Eddy Dr
Myrtlewood Dr
Gorel Ct
St
Hogrefe Way
Wild Bill Way
Be
Education Dr
Stroven Ln
Elk Ln
Westland Dr
Roundelay Ln
Laurel Grove Cir
El Centro W
Santini Ct
Duke Ct
Walkham Pl
Page Ct
Colgan Ave
No Name
Naify Ln
Metaxa Ct
Palm St
Rcop
Courtyard
Lathrop Dr
Cottonwood Dr
Apple Creek Ln
Smokewood Dr
El Capitan W
Rosevine Ln
12 to nb 101
Wall Pl
Peach St
Emmy Lou Ct
Wb Dutton Av Offramp
Bighorn Sheep St
Tara Dr
Old Stony Point Rd
in Ln
Winston Dr
Alamo Ln
Neville Way
Dutton Av Onramp
Shay Ave
Harmonica Ln
Ashwood Dr
Anteeo Way
Ironstone Cir
Wb Stony Point Rd Offramp
Primrose Ct
Barbara Dr
Butterfly Ln
Ohair Ct
Peach Ct
Thistle Ln
Pinewood Dr
Covelline St
St
Freitas Ct
Corby Avenue Ext
Castro Ct
Barnett St
Mancini St
Iowa St
Theresa St
Blythewood Pl
Nb 101 To Wb 12
Juilliar
dP a r k
Montevino Dr
berts Ave
E Jasmine Cir
Tupelo Ave
W Jasmine Cir
Canyonlands Ave
Hazelnut Ln
y
Spruce St
Grandberg Ct
Faletto Ct
Cranbrook Way
Cherrywood Dr
Goldpan Cir
Nb Baker Av Onramp
Oak Manor Ct
Nathan Ln
Lilac Dr
Harves
t Ln
Commercial Ct
Ln
Holbrook St
Coors CtBlack Tail St
Sugar Bear Ln
Carrington St
Milicent Way
Deep Rose Pl
Mcmaster Ln
Redwood Cir
Camellia Ct
Richardson Ct
pricot Ln
Wisteria Ln
Darlyn Way
Rusch Ct
Wild Bill Cir
Joseph Ct E
Wayside Dr
Gold Dust Way
Ce
Quillco Ct
Robin Way
Stephanie Ct E
Oldfield Way
Victoria Ct
Halwood Ct
Daniel Ct
Emerald Ct
Meekland Ct
Malin Pl
Dillon Ln
Trombetta St
Dutton Ave
Mesa Way
S A St
Bellevue Ave
Earle St
Baker Ave
Giffen Ave
Barham Ave
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
Bayer
Park &
Gardens
Southwest
Community
Park
Bellevue Ranch Colgan Creek
Roseland Creek
Southside Bus
Transfer Center
Meadow View
Elementary School
Sheppard
Elementary
School
Roseland
Elementary
School
Lawrence Cook
Middle School
Elsie Allen
High School
Joe Rodota Trail
Stewart ErwinStewart Erwin
SchoolSchool
Lazzini Ave
Yuba Dr
Ludwig Ave
W Hearn Ave
Moorland Ave
Stony Point Rd
Santa Rosa Ave
Corby Ave
Hearn Ave
Sebastopol Rd
West Ave
Bellevue Ave
Dutton Ave
Burbank Ave
Dowd Dr
Leo Dr
Dutton Meadow
Barham Ave
Wiljan Ct
Talmadge Dr
Dutton Ave
353sro 2016.ai 1/16
North
Not to Scale
Primrose Ave
Colgan
Creek
Trl
Oasis Dr
Butler Ave
Junipe
rAve
Wilder Rd
Webe
r Ln
in
Ln
Primrose Ct
Dutton Ave
e
SANTA ROSA CITY BUS ROUTES
22 42
SONOMA COUNTY
TRANSIT ROUTES5
6 9
12 15
18 17
19 Bus Stops
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Creeks
Schools
Parks
Railroad
Transit Station
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-17
TABLE 3.14-6
PROJECT AREA TRANSIT ROUTES AND TYPICAL SERVICE LEVELS
Transit Operator Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
Santa Rosa CityBus
Route 9 – Sebastopol Road 6:20 AM–8:25 PM
30 minutes
7:20 AM–7:25 PM
30 minutes
10:35 AM–5:10 PM
hourly
Route 12 – Roseland 6:05 AM–8:10 PM
30 minutes
7:35 AM – 7:10 PM
hourly
10:00 AM–4:40 PM
hourly
Route 15 – Stony Point Road 6:15 AM–8:05 PM
hourly
8:15 AM – 5:05 PM
hourly
No Sunday service
Route 19 – South City Circulator 6:05 AM–8:10 PM
30 minutes
7:30 AM – 7:10 PM
hourly
10:30 AM–5:10 PM
hourly
Sonoma County Transit
Route 22 – Sebastopol, Santa Rosa 2 each direction during commute No Saturday service No Sunday service
Route 42 – Industry West Park 6:20 AM–5:40 PM
8 daily each direction No Saturday service No Sunday service Source: W-Trans 2016
Santa Rosa CityBus
Santa Rosa CityBus is the primary transit provid er in Santa Rosa. CityBus provides regularly scheduled fixed-route service to residential neig hborhoods, major activity centers, and transit hubs within the city limits. Seventeen fixed routes are operated with wheelchair-accessible, low- floor buses that can accommodate up to two bikes on bike racks attached to the front of each bus. CityBus routes are designed around a time d-transfer method where buses serving different routes arrive and depart at designated transfer locations at routine periodic intervals.
CityBus Routes 9, 12, 15, and 19 serve portions of the project area. Routes 12, 15, and 19 serve the Southside Bus Transfer Center, which is located on Hearn Avenue at Southwest Community Park.
The center includes shelters and lighting, and facilitates timed transfers among the Routes 12, 15, and 19.
Paratransit, also known as dial-a-ride or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to independently use the transit system because of a physical or mental disability. Individuals must be registered and certified as ADA eligible before using the service. CityBus currently contracts out paratransit service, which provides curb-to-curb transportation for disabl ed riders within city limits and in the project area. Service hours are Monday through Saturday from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM and Sunday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Ride reservations can be scheduled daily.
Sonoma County Transit
Sonoma County Transit (SC Transit) provides regional transit service throughout the county. The primary transfer location in Santa Rosa is located at the downtown transit mall, where transfers to local CityBus routes can take place. Two SC Transit routes pass directly through the project area.
Route 22 provides commute period service between Sebastopol and Santa Rosa, traveling along Sebastopol Road. Route 42 serves south Santa Rosa and the Industry West Business Park, traveling on Corby Avenue south of Hearn Avenue and the easternmost portion of Bellevue Avenue.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-18
Golden Gate Transit
Golden Gate Transit is a regional operator th at serves communities along the US 101 corridor between Santa Rosa and San Francisco. Golden Gate Transit has no stops in the project area, but is accessible via transfer from CityBus at the downtown transit mall.
SMART Rail Transit
The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) commut e r r a i l s y s t e m i s a 7 0-mile rail line that is planned to run from Cloverdale, at the north end of Sonoma County, to Larkspur, where the Golden Gate Ferry connects Marin County with San Francisco. Along the way, SMART will have stations at the major population and job centers of the North Bay, including the downtown Santa Rosa station, which is located approximately one-half mile from Sebastopol Road in the northeastern portion of the project area. Train service will be provided by an estimated 14 round- trip trains on weekdays. Headways during the morning and evening commute periods will be 30 minutes, with longer headways during midday, evening, and weekend periods. SMART plans to initiate rail service between Airport Boulevard in northern Santa Rosa and downtown San Rafael in late 2016.
3.14.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
Caltrans Traffic Operation Standards
The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002) includes criteria for evaluating the effects of land use development and changes to the circulation system on state highways. Caltrans maintains a target level of service at the transition between LOS C and LOS D for freeway facilities, which translates to a service flow rate of approximately 1,680 passenger cars per hour per lane.
LOCAL
Multimodal Operation Standards
The City of Santa Rosa has no established criteria for multimodal levels of service. For this Draft EIR, the multimodal level of service standard is LOS D.
City of Santa Rosa Traffic Operation Standards
General Plan Policy T-D-1 states that the City will maintain LOS D or better along all major corridors.
Exceptions to meeting this standard are allowed in downtown, where attainment would result in significant environmental degradation, where to pography or environmental impacts makes the improvement impossible, or where attainment woul d result in the loss of an area’s unique character.
For the purposes of this analysis, the LOS D standard was also applied to the US 101 ramp intersections, which are part of the Guerneville Road-Steele Lane and College Avenue adaptive traffic control signal timing systems maintained by the City.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-19
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan go als and policies most pertinent to the proposed project in regard to traffic and transportation.
Transportation Element
Goal T-A: Provide a safe and sustainable transportation system.
Policy T-A-5: Pursue cooperation between local and regional transportation agencies to coordinate multi-modal connections throughout the city.
Goal T-D: Maintain acceptable motor vehicle traffic flows Policy T-D-1: Maintain a Level of Service (LOS) D or better along all major corridors.
Exceptions to meeting the standard include:
Within downtown;
Where attainment would result in significant environmental degradation; Where topography or environmental impact makes the improvement impossible; or
Where attainment would ensure loss of an area’s unique character.
The LOS is to be calculated using the average traffic demand over the highest 60-minute period.
Goal T-F: Develop a viable solution for region al through traffic on north-south and east- west corridors.
Policy T-F-3: Explore alternative circulation network improvements to accommodate regional through-traffic, focusing on re gional/arterial str eet circulation and regional transportation routes.
Goal T-H: Expand the existing transit network to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to provide convenient and efficient public transportation to workplaces, shopping, SMART stations, and other destinations.
Policy T-H-3: Require new development to provide transit improvements, where a rough proportionality to demand from the project is established. Transit improvements may include:
Direct and paved pedestrian access to transit stops;
Bus turnouts and shelters; and
Lane width to accommodate buses.
Goal T-I: Support implementation of rail service along the Northwest Pacific Railroad.
Policy T-I-1: Support efforts to implement rail service along the NWPRR.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-20
Policy T-I-2: Preserve options for future rail stations along the NWPRR corridor by zoning land in proximity to the potential station sites for higher residential densities and/or mixed use development.
Goal T-J: Provide attractive and safe streets for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy T-J-3: Strengthen and expand east-west link ages across the Highway 101 corridor.
Policy T-J-4: Provide street trees to enhance the City ’s livability and to provide identity to neighborhoods and districts.
Goal T-K: Develop a safe, convenient and cont inuous network of pedestrian sidewalks and pathways that link neighborhoods with schools, parks, shopping areas and employment centers.
Policy T-K-2: Allow the sharing or parallel developmen t of pedestrian walkways with bicycle paths, where this can be safely done, in order to maximize the use of public rights-of-way.
Goal T-L: Develop a citywide system of designated bikeways that serves both experienced and casual bicyclists and which maximizes bicycle use for commuting, recreation and local transportation.
Policy T-L-8: Require new development to dedicate land and/or construct/install bicycle facilities, and provide bicycle parking as specific in the Zoning Code, where a rough proportionality to demand from the project is established. Facilities such as showers and bicycle storage shall also be considered.
Policy T-L-9: Maintain and update, as appropriate, the city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
City of Santa Rosa Parking Requirements
The Santa Rosa Zoning Code establishes residentia l parking requirements for multi-family units of
1.0 covered space plus half a visitor space per studio or 1-bedroom unit. Units with 2.0 or more bedrooms are required to provide 1.0 covered space plus 1.5 visitor spaces per unit. On-street spaces fronting the development may be counted toward the supply of visitor spaces. General retail and general office uses are required to pr ovide 1.0 parking space per 250 square feet of building space. Parking requirements for public an d institutional uses vary by specific use (e.g., meeting facility, library, museum, park/playground, school).
3.14.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following standards of significance are base d on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as well as criteria establis hed by the City of Santa Rosa and Caltrans. Under these applied standards, the project would result in a significant impact on transportation if it would:
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-21
1) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinanc e, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the ci rculation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. a. City of Santa Rosa Corridors: General Plan Policy T-D-1 states that the City will maintain LOS D or better along all major corridors. Exceptions to meeting this standard are allowed in downtown, where attainment would result in significant environmental degradation, where topography or environmental impacts makes the improvement impossible, or where atta inment would result in the loss of an area’s unique character.
For the purposes of this analysis, the LOS D standard was also applied to the US 101 and SR 12 ramp intersections.
b. Freeway Operation: A significant freeway impact would occur if:
i. Operation on US 101 or SR 12 fails to be maintained at or above the LOS C/D threshold, or in cases where the freeway is already projected to operate deficiently without the project, a significant impact would occur if the project increases freeway density by greater than 1 percent.
ii. Intersection level of service at the fr eeway ramp terminal intersections falls below LOS D.
iii. Vehicle queues on freeway off-ramps extend onto the mainline freeway. 2) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. 3) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. 4) Result in inadequate emergency access.
5) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. a. Consistency with alternative transportation policies: A significant impact would occur if the project violates alternative transportation policies set forth in the City of Santa Rosa General Plan or the Sono ma County Transportation Authority’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
b. Consistency with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: A significant impact would occur if the project precludes pedestrian and bicycle improvements identified in the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan from being successfully implemented.
c. Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities: The project would have a significant impact if it would result in unsafe conditions for bicyclists and/or pedestrians, including creation of unsafe bicycle/pedestrian or bicycle/motor vehicle conditions.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-22
d. Transit: The project would have a significant impact if it would cause a substantial delay in transit service or increase demand for transit beyond existing or planned service capacity, or create barriers to travel for pedestrians walking to transit terminals and bus stops.
METHODOLOGY
Data
Field visits in the study area surveying pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities took place several times between the fall of 2014 and early 2015. Inte rsection traffic volume data was obtained for most signalized study intersections in the study area (and all signals along the study corridors) as well as at key unsignalized intersections. All traffic data was collected between December 2013 and January 2015, with some data collected specifically for this analysis and other data supplied by the City of Santa Rosa.
Pedestrian and bicycle counts were obtained at 15 locations throughout the study area in 2014 and early 2015, and one count was conducted by the SCTA at the Joe Rodota Trail crossing of Dutton Avenue in 2013. All data collection occurred while area schools and colleges were in session and while weather conditions were good. Bicycle and pedestrian volumes were normalized using count adjustment factors obtain ed from the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project published in 2009. The resulting pedestrian and bicycle volumes are shown on Figure 3.14-2.
Freeway traffic volumes were obtained from the Ca ltrans website as well as from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS).
Level of Service Methodologies
Roadway Segment Level of Service Methodology
The roadway segment level of service methodology found in Chapter 17, Urban Street Segments, of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Transportation Research Board 2010) (HCM) is the basis of the automobile level of service analysis. This method does not directly focus on the capacity of a facility, but rather determines a level of serv ice based on the calculated percentage of the street’s base free-flow speed. In essence, congestion occurs as traffic volumes increase and the overall travel speed is reduced due to increased delay. Therefore, the slower the speed, the lower that speed is as a percentage of free-flow speed and the lower the level of service. Corridor levels of service were assessed using the software appl ications Synchro and SimTraffic. Synchro is used to analyze operation at each of the signalized intersections along a segment, which is where the majority of delay is encountered. SimTraffic is an extension of Synchro that simulates vehicle progression along a corridor, considering the operatio n of individual signals as well as influences such as interactions among signals, queue spillb ack, and merging activity. The average of 10 randomly seeded SimTraffic runs was determined in order to determine average travel speeds along the study corridors.
The relationship between level of service and percentages of free-flow speed is presented in Table
3.14-7.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-23
TABLE 3.14-7
AUTOMOBILE LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
Level of Service Travel Speed as a Percentage of Base Free-Flow Speed (%) A >85
B >67–85
C >50–67
D >40–50
E >30–40
F ≤30
Source: Transportation Research Board 2010
Intersection Level of Service Methodology
The traffic signals located along the roadway segments, including freeway ramp study intersections controlled by traffic signals, were evaluated using the signalized methodology from the HCM. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether the signals are coordi nated, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity.
Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this level of service methodology. The range of delay associated with signalized intersection level of service criteria is provided in Table 3.14-8.
TABLE 3.14-8
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
LOS A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arri ve during the green phase, so do not stop at all.
LOS B Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to stop.
LOS C Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through without stopping.
LOS D Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles have to stop.
LOS E Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicl es must stop and drivers consider the delay excessive.
LOS F Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait th rough more than one cycle to clear the intersection.
Source: Transportation Research Board 2000
Freeway Level of Service Methodology
The freeway analysis methodology contained in HCM Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities, was used to determine levels of service. The method analyzes extended lengths of freeway composed of continuously connected basic freeway, weaving, merge, and diverge segments, which are collectively referred to as a freeway facility. For each individual segment, the analysis methodologies from the relevant chapters of the HCM, including Chapter 11, Basic Freeway Segments, Chapter 12, Freeway Weaving Segm ents, and Chapter 13, Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments, were used. The method uses variables such as traffic volumes, geometric configuration of the freeway (i.e., number of lanes, presence of auxiliary lanes, distance between merges and diverges, widths of lanes and shoulders), topography, the percentage of heavy vehicles, and free-flow speeds. The data is used to determine the density of the segment, which is the criterion used for determining freeway level of service. Density is indicative of the travel
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-24
speed service flow rates and travel demand on a freeway facility and is measured in the number of passenger cars per mile per lane. The ranges of vehicle density associated with the various levels of service are presented in Table 3.14-9.
TABLE 3.14-9
FREEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
Level of Service Freeway Segment Vehicle Density (passenger cars per mile per lane) A ≤11
B >11–18
C >18–26
D >26–35
E >35–45
F >45
Source: Transportation Research Board 2010
This methodology was applied to mixed-flow travel lanes on US 101, with the reported density and level of service reflecting overall operation of the freeway segment.
Queuing Methodology
Vehicle queuing was assessed at the freeway off-ramps directly serving the study area. This assessment was done to determine the likelihood for queues created by the ramp terminal intersection signals to extend onto the mainline freeway, indicating potential capacity problems as well as safety concerns. Maximum queue length s were analyzed using traffic simulation as performed in SimTraffic, which uses the same signal timing, phasing, and geometric data included in Synchro for intersection analysis. Ten separa te randomly seeded si mulation “runs” were performed, with the maximum observed queues on the freeway ramps averaged and presented as the estimated maximum queue.
Multimodal Level of Service
The 2010 HCM includes a set of methodologies to determine pedestrian, bicycle, and transit levels of service. Recognizing limitations of the HCM methodology, several jurisdictions have developed their own multimodal level of service methods. The methods developed by the City of Carlsbad (which is located in northern San Diego County) translate particularly well to the project area since they are tailored to work in areas beyond the downtown core and use a scoring approach which considers the types of physical and operational improvements that are both relevant and likely to be successful in the project area. In coordinati on with City of Santa Rosa staff, the Carlsbad multimodal level of service scoring criteria were refined slightly to reflect local conditions and produce results that will be useful to the co mmunity and decision-makers as various plan alternatives are considered.
Following are brief descriptions of the data and ph ysical factors used in the multimodal level of service methodology for each mode. A list of the inputs and potential score ranges for individual scoring components is provided for each study segment in Appendix A of Appendix 3.14. Some of the scoring inputs reflect a range of potential scores (such as wider streets receiving fewer points toward pedestrian level of service than narrower streets), whereas others are simply counted if the
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-25
amenity is present (such as the presence of pedestrian-scale lighting). Where certain criteria were met for only a portion of the segment, partial scores were allocated. Pedestrian LOS – The methodology considers factors such as the presence of pedestrian facilities, number of vehicle lanes, quality of and amenities used at crossings, streetscape components (including sidewalk widths, st reet trees, lighting, and buffers between pedestrians and moving vehicles), and urban context.
Bicycle LOS – Factors such as the type of bicycle facility present, connectivity to other bike facilities, presence of amenities (bike racks, bike signage), use of bicycle detection at signals, use of innovative bike facility striping techniques, vehicle speeds, and type of on- street parking are considered in the bicycle LOS scoring. Transit LOS – The transit methodology considers factors such as the frequency of service, pedestrian accessibility to transit stops, ability to access regional routes (including SMART) with a single transfer, use of innovative techniques to aid bus progression (“queue jumps,” dedicated lanes, signal priority), on-time performance and seat availability, and bus stop amenities (benches, shelters, bike parking, lighting).
Traffic Operation Standards
City of Santa Rosa
General Plan Policy T-D-1 states that the City will maintain LOS D or better along all major corridors.
Exceptions to meeting this standard are allowed in downtown, where attainment would result in significant environmental degradation, where to pography or environmental impacts makes the improvement impossible, or where attainment would ensure loss of an area’s unique character.
The General Plan does not provide a standard for roadways other than major corridors.
Caltrans
The Caltrans (2002) Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies includes criteria for evaluating the effects of land use development and changes to the circulation system on state highways. Caltrans maintains a target level of service at the transition between LOS C and LOS D for freeway facilities.
Multimodal Operation Standards
The City of Santa Rosa has no established criteria for multimodal levels of service. The multimodal level of service results for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes provided in this analysis are therefore considered informational, though they ar e useful in discerning potential impacts that project implementation may have on these modes.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law creating a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. Specifically, SB 743 requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to level of service for evaluating transportation impacts. Particularly in areas served by transit, those alternative criteria must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networ ks, and a diversity of land uses” (new Public
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-26
Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1)). According to the bill, measurements of transportation impacts may include vehicle miles traveled (VMT), VMT per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. Once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include those alternative criteria, auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA (OPR 2016).
On January 20, 2016, OPR released for public revi ew its most recent proposal for changes to the CEQA Guidelines in response to SB 743. These recommended changes include the use of VMT as the primary metric of transportation impact across the state. These proposed changes have not yet been approved, and there are currently no adopted standards for use in determining the significance of a project’s VMT impacts.
As shown in Table 3.14-10, implementation of the proposed project would increase the annual VMT in the project area to 299,998,474, an increase of 99,292,227 or approximately 49.4 percent above existing conditions. However, when compared to annual VMT anticipated to result from buildout of the project area under the General Plan 2035, project implementation would reduce annual VMT by 16,041,919 or approximately 5.1 percent.
T
ABLE 3.14-10
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED WITHIN PROJECT AREA Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled
Existing Conditions 200,706,247
General Plan Buildout 316,040,393
Specific Plan Buildout 299,998,474
Source: CalEEMod 2013 Appendix 3.3
Proposed Project
Buildout associated with the proposed project would include modifications to the circulation network as well as some changes to allowed land uses in the area. Many of the circulation network changes are the result of community input received during development of the Specific Plan and Annexation areas. Others reflect the results of past adopted plans including the City’s General Plan and Sebastopol Road Urban Vision Plan . Finally, several roadway and intersection modifications were identified as being necessary to accommodate traffic volumes at project and regional buildout (approximately year 2040). Th e Specific Plan roadway network is shown on Figure 2.0-7 (see Section 2.0, Project Description), and a summary of the proposed roadway modifications and configurations included in the Specific Plan as well as proposed intersection improvements are shown in Tables 2.0-1 and 2.0-2 in Section 2.0.
Trip Generation and Assignment
The traffic generation and travel pattern ch aracteristics associated with the increased development levels allowed by the project were determined through use of the regional travel demand model maintained by the SCTA. Dedicated model “runs” were developed to reflect the land use and circulation changes associated with the project under both near-term and buildout conditions. Through use of this type of regional model, intricacies such as the proximities among different types of land uses and the effects of the nearby and extended jobs-housing balance can be estimated. The regional model is also able to account for the effects of future infrastructure changes beyond the project area, such as a future Bellevue Avenue freeway overcrossing and
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-27
even more distant regional projects such as the future widening of US 101 in southern Sonoma County, that may affect travel patterns in the project area,. Finally, while not detailed at the local level, the model is able to consider future upgrad es to regional transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks and their effects on vehicular trip generation and mode choice.
The vehicular trip generations of the project area under both near-term (Existing plus Project) and long-range (Future plus Project) conditions are shown in Table 3.14-11 for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as used in the roadway, intersection, and freeway capacity analyses conducted.
TABLE 3.14-11
SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION AREAS VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION Peak Hour Existing plus Project Buildout with Project
AM Peak Hour 4,200 4,260
PM Peak Hour 4,309 4,433
Source: W-Trans 2016
Note: Values are vehicular tr ips generated by the incremental increase from existing conditions in total development in the project area, as estimated by the SCTM/10 regional travel demand model.
Circulation Changes Associated with the Specific Plan
For new and improved streets throughout the Specific Plan area, adopted City standards in place at the time of preparation of construction documents would be applied. At the time this Draft EIR was prepared, the applicable standards are outlined in the City of Santa Rosa Street Design and Construction Standards, adopted January 13, 2004. The City’s standards specify roadway cross- section criteria such as the widths of travel la nes, medians, landscape buffers, bicycle lanes, on- street parking, and sidewalks. The City would make the determination of appropriate street standards, including any modifications necessary to suit existing physical constraints. One exception to application of these standards is Burbank Avenue, for which the Specific Plan establishes a separate set of criteria including single 10-foot-wide vehicular travel lanes in each direction, 6-foot-wide bicycle lanes, and no on-street parking. On the segment north of Roseland Creek, a landscape buffer would be provided as allowed within the existing right-of-way, while south of Roseland Creek vegetated swales would be established between the roadway and sidewalks. The proposed Burbank Avenue street designs are shown on Figure 2.0-8.
Table 2.0-2 in Section 2.0 summarizes the intersection modifications associated with the above roadway modifications and identified as being needed to support buildout of the project area.
All existing and planned bicycle facilities identified in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan would be maintained, and several new and/or upgraded facilities would be added. The existing and planned bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 2.0-9 in Section 2.0. The planned pedestrian and bicycle network modifications are summarized in Table 2.0-3 in Section 2.0.
Project Traffic Volumes
The traffic volume projections on key roadway segments throughout the project area as obtained through use of the SCTM/10 travel demand model are shown on Figure 3.14-4 for Existing plus Project conditions and in Figure 3.14-5 for Future plus Project buildout conditions. Volumes are shown for the weekday AM and PM peak hours and reflect total traffic volumes including traffic
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-28
generated from existing uses within the project area, traffic passing through the project area, and traffic associated with the project’s added development potential.
Impacts Not Evaluated in Detail
The project area is located approximately 5.25 miles southeast of Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport. Buildout of allowed uses within the project area and implementation of the Specific Plan’s policies would be expected to have no impact on air safety or operation of the airport other than providing additional potential passengers. Therefore, Standard of Significance 2 is not discussed further in this section.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Corridor Operations (Standards of Significance 1 and 2) Impact 3.14.1 Project traffic would not degrade corridor operations to unacceptable levels of service under Existing plus Project conditions. This impact would be less than significant.
Automobile roadway segment levels of service are projected to remain at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours under Existing plus Project conditions. Corridor level of service results are summarized in Tables 3.14-12 and 3.14-13.
TABLE 3.14-12
ROADWAY SEGMENT AM PEAK-HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Corridor Existing Existing plus Project
Direction Class Free-Flow
Speed
Avg.
Speed
%
FFS LOS Avg.
Speed
%
FFS LOS
Stony Point Road–SR 12 to Bellevue
NB II 40 23 58% C 22 55% C
SB II 40 26 65% C 25 63% C
Sebastopol Road–Stony Point to Olive
EB III 35 23 66% C 18 51% C
WB III 35 21 60% C 19 54% C
Dutton Avenue–SR 12 to Hearn
NB IV 30 22 73% B 21 70% B
SB IV 30 20 67% C 18 60% C
Hearn Avenue–Stony Pt to Santa Rosa
EB III 35 25 71% B 17 49% D
WB III 35 24 69% B 19 54% C
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Avg. Speed = average corridor speed in miles per hour; % FFS = percent of free-flow speed; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound
Source: W-Trans
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures FIGURE 3.14-4
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
460(432)
474(596)
342(353)
388(431)
580(652)434(639)
263(442)
267(442)
799(796)
648(898)
74(170)
138(140)
573(833)
1045(824)433(419)
459(415)
271(288)242(308)
702(699)
653(761)
342(429)442(455)
509(392)265(584)
1209(1085)
1076(1312)
292(277)227(517)
771(435)353(589)
1248(1415)
856(1045)
580(906)
418(583)
373(386)170(317)
200(298)
538(803)672(690)
312(230)439(201)
333(404)
297(432)
888(1295)
1101(1142)
834(677)
734(893)
1504(1880)1543(1660)
944(1202)1122(1221)
338(425)437(429)
588(521)
550(557)
135(114)211(174)
371(322)
277(337)
353sro 2016.ai 2/16
North
Not to Scale
LEGEND
xx
(xx)
A.M. Peak Hour Volume
P .M. Peak Hour Volume
Source: W-Trans
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures FIGURE 3.14-5
Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes
308(584)
614(718)
676(759)
698(698)
623(655)536(679)
346(576)
384(603)
802(1191)
985(1141)
172(329)
244(291
689(1178)
1219(1028)525(465)
462(537)
309(377)349(382)
758(864)
731(853)
363(588)527(594)
501(558)455(633)
1274(1194)
1097(1272)
321(325)237(615)
808(487)361(528)
1253(1411)
851(1023)
650(925)
509(721)
435(477)317(317)
248(298)
571(900)737(736)
318(286)484(262)
419(421)
336(406)
978(1508)
1206(1212)
890(744)
811(938)
1571(19781742(1827
1030(1280)1270(1360)
379(535)502(476)
592(701)
568(667)
149(108)198(158)
436(416)
359(528)
353sro 2016.ai 2/16
North
Not to Scale
LEGEND
xx
(xx)
A.M. Peak Hour Volume
P .M. Peak Hour Volume
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-33
TABLE 3.14-13
ROADWAY SEGMENT PM PEAK-HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Corridor Existing Existing plus Project
Direction Class Free-Flow
Speed
Avg.
Speed
%
FFS LOS Avg.
Speed
%
FFS LOS
Stony Point Road–SR 12 to Bellevue
NB II 40 21 53% C 19 48% D
SB II 40 18 45% D 23 58% C
Sebastopol Road–Stony Pt to Olive
EB III 35 21 60% C 18 51% C
WB III 35 19 54% C 16 46% D
Dutton Avenue–SR 12 to Hearn
NB IV 30 24 80% B 19 63% C
SB IV 30 18 60% C 17 57% C
Hearn Avenue–Stony Pt to Santa Rosa
EB III 35 24 69% B 16 46% D
WB III 35 26 74% B 19 54% C
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Avg. Speed = average corridor speed in miles per hour; % FFS = percent of free-flow speed; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound As shown in the preceding tables, vehicular traffic on all study corridors is expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS D or better with the addition of project-generated traffic and roadway improvements identified with the proposed project. Incorporation of the roadway improvements identified in the specific plan into the City’s traffic impact fee program or another appropriate long-range funding mechanism, and continued monitoring of corridor operation over time through review of traffic impact studies conducted for proposed development will ensure this impact is less than significant. The City will continue to work to identify funding mechanisms and monitor corridor operations over time through review and implementation of individual development projects in the project area.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Mainline Freeway Operations (Standards of Significance 1 and 2) Impact 3.14.2 Project 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.
The incremental changes to traffic on US 101 associated with the proposed project were added to current freeway traffic volumes to obtain Existing plus Project volumes. As shown in Table
3.14-14, both directions of US 101 operate below the LOS C/D threshold considered by Caltrans to be acceptable under Existing and Existing plus Project conditions during one or both peak hours.
Freeway operations calculations are provided in Appendix D of Appendix 3.14.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-34
TABLE 3.14-14
PEAK-HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS
Freeway Segment
Existing Existing plus Project
AM PM AM PM
US 101 North – Todd Rd to SR 12
Density 38.4 32.5 37.3 33.5
LOS E D E D
US 101 South – SR 12 to Todd Rd
Density 31.0 32.2 30.5 30.0
LOS D D D D
SR 12 East – Stony Point Rd to US 101
Density 21.8 21.3 22.7 22.1
LOS C C C C
SR 12 West – US 101 to Stony Point Rd
Density 16.3 24.9 16.9 25.4
LOS B C B C
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane; LO S = level of service; bold values = Project increases density by greater than 1% on segment operating unacceptably at LOS D or worse.
The proposed project is considered to create a significant impact to freeway operation if it increases the density on segments operating unacceptably (below the LOS C/D threshold) by more than 1 percent. As shown in Table 3.14-14 , this level of impact is projected to occur under Existing plus Project conditions on northbound US 101 between Todd Road and SR 12. This impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
The projected unacceptable operation on US 101 could be mitigated by widening the freeway to include additional through lanes in each direction. However, further widening of US 101 is not included in the SCTA’s Comprehensive Transpor tation Plan, nor do any financing mechanisms currently exist to fund the improvement. Widening the freeway would require major reconstruction of multiple freeway structures, right-of-way ac quisition including many homes and businesses, closure or relocation of city streets paralleling the freeway corridor, and the likely creation of additional secondary environmental impacts. As a result, such improvements to US 101 are considered infeasible.
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 and that there will be no further major capacity enhancements, su ch as expansions or new freeways. All three jurisdictions concur in various planning and policy documents that long-range solutions to regional mobility must focus on better land use planning that supports transit and alternative transportation modes; stronger jobs-housing balance; and increased support of transportation demand measures. The proposed Specific Plan emphasizes each of these goals. Because there are no known physical improvements that would result in acceptable freeway operation in the future, however, and subsequently no means for development within the project area to contribute fair- share payments to projects such as a freewa y expansion, the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-35
Degrade Freeway Ramp Operations (Standards of Significance 1 and 2) Impact 3.14.3 Project traffic would have the potential to degrade freeway ramp operations to an unacceptable level of service at the southbound US 101 freeway off- ramp at Hearn Avenue under Existing plus Project conditions. This impact would be potentially significant.
Freeway ramp operations were analyzed at the eastbound and westbound ramps of SR 12 at Stony Point Road and Dutton Avenue and at the northbound and southbound US 101 ramps at Hearn Avenue and Baker Avenue. Under Existing pl us Project conditions, all eight ramp terminal intersections are projected to operate acceptably at LOS C or better with changes in traffic patterns associated with buildout of the project area. The freeway ramp data for AM and PM scenarios is included in Appendix 3.14. The PM represented the worst case and the only time frame where impacts occurred, so the analysis below is focused on PM peak-hour conditions.
As shown in Table 3.14-15, under Existing plus Project, vehicle queues on seven of eight freeway off-ramps under PM peak-hour conditions are projected to remain within the available storage.
On southbound US 101 at Hearn Avenue, off-ramp queues are projected to extend onto the mainline freeway. These queues are the result of spillback from upstream signals and capacity constraints created by the existing two-lane Hearn Avenue freeway overpass. The City of Santa Rosa is currently in the envi ronmental 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. Because the project would not be complete under Existing plus Project conditio ns, the proposed project’s impacts would be considered significant in the near term. A summary of the Existing plus Project freeway ramp levels of service and queuing projection s is contained in Table 22 and calculations are provided in Appendices C and E of Appendix 3.14. This impact would be significant.
T
ABLE 3.14-15
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK-HOUR FREEWAY RAMP OPERATIONS Freeway Interchange
Intersection Operations Off-Ramp Queuing
Existing
Delay/LOS
Plus Project
Delay/LOS
Available
Storage
Existing
Max. Queue
Plus Project
Max. Queue
SR 12/Stony Point Road
Westbound 30.1/C 29.0/C 930 466 332
Eastbound 10.6/B 15.8/B 710 243 229
SR 12/Dutton Avenue
Westbound 23.1/C 31.2/C 990 409 909
Eastbound 14.1/B 16.6/B 770 126 148
US 101/Baker Avenue
Northbound 31.4/C 30.6/C 810 152 144
Southbound 9.9/A 18.0/B 340 163 132
US 101/Hearn Avenue
Northbound 33.0/C 33.7/C 960 183 190
Southbound 16.7/B 22.3/C 620 495 1059
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Delay is measured in se conds; LOS = level of service; Max Queue is the averaged maximum queue observed in 10 SimTraffic model runs measured in feet; bold = queuing exceeds available storage
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-36
Mitigation Measures
The City of Santa Rosa is working collaboratively with Caltrans to approve and fund construction of a widened Hearn Avenue freeway overpass an d associated intersection improvements. This project is identified in the City’s General Plan an d is projected to alleviate both congestion and adverse queuing onto the freeway in the future. However, because the widening project would not be complete under Existing plus Project near-term conditions, the adverse queuing conditions would remain and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Note that under Future plus Project conditions (see Impact 3.14.12), the He arn Avenue overpass widening and interchange project would be completed and the impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Design Features (Standard of Significance 3)
Impact 3.14.4 The proposed project includes variou s roadway improvements that would be designed and constructed according to City-approved design standards to ensure safety. This impact would be less than significant.
Improvements to the transportation and circulation system within and surrounding the project area would be implemented over time. Any such improvements would be designed and constructed to local, regional, and federal stan dards, and as such, would not be expected to introduce any hazardous design features. New development allowed within the project area would include new streets, access points, pathwa ys, and other circulation improvements that would be checked for compliance with these standards as part of the entitlement process conducted by the City of Santa Rosa. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Emergency Access (Standard of Significance 4)
Impact 3.14.5 Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with emergency access within the project area. This impact would be less than significant.
The proposed Specific Plan includes new street s that would improve connectivity within the project area, creating new routes for all users, including emergency responders. Roadway improvements included as part of the proposed project have been conceived to balance the mobility needs of all users, maintaining the flow of traffic at regulated speeds through core activity areas. Lower vehicle speeds in major activity areas translate to less severe collisions, when collisions do occur. Plans submitted for individual developments to be constructed in the project area would be reviewed for compliance with em ergency access requirements by public safety officials as part of the City’s entitlement process. Overall, implementation of the proposed project would be expected to have a beneficial impact on emergency access.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-37
Consistency with Alternative Transportation Policies and Plans (Standards of Significance 5a and 5b) Impact 3.14.6 Implementation of the prop osed project would not conflict with any alternative transportation policies or plans. This impact would be less than significant.
The proposed project has been developed to bo th support and expand upon current policies regarding alternative transportation. It meets the goals of the SCTA Comprehensive Transportation Plan through policies designed to increase transit use through intensification of development around transit hubs, improve accessibility for pe destrians around activity centers, and support completion of the planned facilities outlined in the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Specific Plan also supports and/or strengthens the alternative transportation policies set forth in the City’s General Plan and incorporat es new alternative transportation facilities designated in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The proposed annexations would not result in any improvements to roadways or alte rnative transportation facilities and would not c o n f l i c t w i t h a n y a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p o l i c i e s o r p l a n s . T h i s i m p a c t w o u l d b e less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation (Standard of Significance 5c) Impact 3.14.7 Implementation of the proposed proj ect would result in improvements to pedestrian and bicycle circulation in the project area that would enhance connectivity and safety. This impact would be less than significant.
Implementation of the pr oposed project would result in a be neficial impact to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The proposed project incl udes 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 Colg an creeks as well as the SMART corridor. The proposed mix of land uses, combined with current uses, also creates a diverse environment with a concentration of housing, jobs, and shopping a ll within walking and bicycling distance of one another. As shown in Table 3.14-16, multimodal levels of service for pedestrian and bicycle modes improve on at least a portion of every corridor analyzed with implementation of the project, and in many cases along the entire corridor.
Based on analysis of the pedestrian, bicycle, an d transit conditions for the study corridors upon buildout of the project, including implementation of proposed Specific Plan policies, each of the modes was assigned a level of service using the applied criteria and methods. Results comparing existing conditions to project buildout conditions are summarized in Table 24 and multimodal level of service score sheets are provided in Appendix A of Appendix 3.14.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-38
TABLE 3.14-16
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT MULTIMODAL LEVELS OF SERVICE
Corridor Segment
Pedestrian Bicycle Transit
Existing Plus
Project Existing Plus
Project Existing Plus
Project
1. Stony Point Road
SR 12 to Sebastopol Rd E D C C C B
Sebastopol Rd to Hearn Ave F D F D C B
Hearn Ave to Bellevue Ave F D F D E C
2. Sebastopol Road
Stony Point Rd to Burbank Ave F C C B C A
Burbank Ave to Dutton Ave C A E B C A
Dutton Ave to Olive St E A F B C A
3. Dutton Avenue
SR 12 to Sebastopol Rd E D E B — —
Sebastopol Rd to Barham Ave D B F C — —
Barham Ave to Hearn Ave D B F C — —
4. Hearn Avenue
Stony Point Rd to Dutton Meadow E D D C C C
Dutton Meadow to Dowd Dr E D D C C B
Dowd Dr to Santa Rosa Ave F E F C C B
5. Olive Street-Corby Avenue
Sebastopol Rd to Barham Ave D B F C — —
Barham Ave to Baker Ave D C F D D C
Baker Ave to Hearn Ave D C F D D C
Hearn Ave to Bellevue Ave F E F F E D
6. West Avenue
Sebastopol Rd to South Ave C C F C — —
South Ave to Hearn Ave C C F C D C
7. Dutton Meadow
Hearn Ave to Bellevue Ave E C F C E C
8. Bellevue Avenue
Stony Point Rd to Dutton Meadow E C F B E C
Dutton Meadow to Corby Ave F C F D — —
9. Burbank Avenue
Sebastopol Rd to Roseland Cr D B D B — —
Roseland Creek to Hearn Ave E A E A — —
10. Barham Avenue
Dutton Ave to S Davis St E B F C — —
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Mode does not exist on segments denoted with a dash. Because Multimodal LOS is not time dependent, the LOS will be the same for all “plus project” scenarios and a separate future analysis is not required.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-39
As shown in Table 3.14-16, on almost every roadway segment analyzed, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit levels of service are expected to improve compared to existing conditions. Pedestrian circulation would be enhanced by upgrades such as constructing new sidewalks and filling sidewalk gaps, enhancing and increasing the visibility of pedestrian crossings, activating corridors through building frontages with “eyes on the str eet” and pedestrian-scale street lighting, and providing buffers (parking or landscaping) between moving traffic and sidewalks on major streets.
Bicycle circulation would be enhanced by such upgrades as new bicycle lanes, routes, and paths, as well as increased connectivity among bike rout es, including directional signage. While transit routes and service frequencies would adapt over time to meet demand and are under current study by CityBus, overall, the proposed projec t would help to enhance transit modes through increases in pedestrian accessibility to stops, ad ding transit shelters and lighting at stops where none currently exist, and adding bike parking at transit stops.
The proposed project includes new pedestrian and bicycle connections, supporting and expanding upon the improvements identified in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The transit-oriented development pattern creates a diverse mix of land uses, resulting in a concentration of housing, jobs, and shopping a ll within walking and bicycling distance of one another. The plan emphas izes multimodal circulation, accommodating vehicular through traffic but at a slower pace that substantially improves safety for pedestrians and cyclists compared to traditional higher-speed roadway systems. Pedestri an and bicycle activity is likely to increase proportionately to increases in traffic volumes in the project area. Prim ary pedestrian street crossings on major streets would occur at controlled intersections (i.e., signalized), which include specific provisions to minimize conflicts between vehicular traffic and non-motorized transportation users.
All planned new streets in the project area would include full sidewalk facilities at buildout, supplemented by a network of off-street mixed-use pedestrian and bicycle paths. Completion of the SMART multi-use pathway and extensions of the Roseland Creek and Colgan Creek paths, as well as several shorter off-street path linkages identified in the Specific Plan, would also significantly enhance pedestrian and bicycle ci rculation throughout the project area even though they are not directly reflected in the multimodal level of service results. Similarly, crossing enhancements on the Joe Rodota Trail and increased “eyes on the street” created by future development along the trail would enhance both pedestrian and bicycle circulation in the northern project area. The SMART multi-use path would also provide a key connection to the downtown Santa Rosa station.
SMART trains are being designed to accommodate bicycles on board, so the existing and proposed network of bicycle facilities would allow for the “last-mile” connection between the train and a rider’s origin or destination.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Transit Operations (Standard of Significance 5d)
Impact 3.14.8 Implementation of the proposed project 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.
By concentrating jobs, housing, and shopping in a transit-oriented development pattern along Sebastopol Road and near the Southside Bus Transfer Center, the project is by design intended to increase transit ridership and reduce dependence on private automobile travel. The plan also emphasizes improvements to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to transit, further increasing the
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-40
convenience and utility of using transit. Santa Rosa CityBus is in the midst of a comprehensive planning project called “Rei magining Santa Rosa CityBus,” which, through an extensive community outreach process, seeks to reassess the entire transit system at the network level, leading to potential route and service modifications intended to boost ridership and improve ease of using transit. A key component of this plan will be to increase transit accessibility to areas where transit usage and dependence are highest, such as the Roseland area. The project also calls for transit-related improvements including bus shelte rs and lighting at transit stops, as well as pedestrian network enhancements near bus st ops and along transit corridors. As shown in Table
3.14-16, at buildout the proposed project would also improve transit-related multimodal levels of service on all corridors analyzed.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Construction Impacts (Standard of Significance 1)
Impact 3.14.9 Construction activities associated with project implementation may temporarily affect vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation. This impact would be potentially significant.
Construction projects generate truck traffic for a variety of purposes throughout the construction schedule, including material and equipment deliveries, earthwork, etc. The construction workforce also generates auto commute trips, th ough most such trips occur during non-peak traffic hours. Construction projects may periodically require traffic detours to allow heavy equipment movements or to facilitate construction activities directly adjacent to the street, or during upgrades of the utilities infrastructure needed to support growth in the project area. The detours may temporarily affect traffic circulation, as well as redirect pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Therefore, construction of new development and infrastructure resulting from the proposed project could potentially adversely affect traffic flows and accessibility. This impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
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 sh all 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 Transportation and Public Works Department and Planning and Economic
Development Department.
With implementation of this mitigation, the impact would be reduced to less than significant.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-41
3.14.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
Future (No Project) Conditions
Future Traffic Projections
The modeling for the proposed project was completed using the Sonoma County Transportation Authority’s SCTM/10 travel demand model. Special runs of the model were completed for the Future (No Project) scenario in which regional buildout was assumed to occur but land uses within the project area would remain unchanged from curr ent conditions. It is important to note that while this “No Project” scenario assumes no change to existing development levels in the project area, in reality the City’s currently adopted General Plan land use designations would allow future development to occur at intensities the same as or similar to the proposed project (see Table 2.0-6 in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, for a comparison between development levels under General plan designations and the proposed project). Therefore, if the proposed project is not approved, the area would continue to experience growth as allowed under the City’s current General Plan.
However, comparison of this No Project scenario and a plus Project scenario provides an assessment of the project’s potential impacts compared to the existing conditions in the project area.
T h e S C T A y e a r 2 0 4 0 b u i l d o u t n e t w o r k i n c l u d e s m a n y r e g i o n a l i m p r o v e m e n t s t h r o u g h o u t t h e county, including two major roadway projects on the periphery of the project area that are assumed to be in place under future (buildout) conditions either with or without the project. The first is the widening of the Hearn Avenue overpass and interchange improvements, based on draft interchange layouts dated October 2015. The second is a new Bellevue Avenue overpass of US 101. These two projects will influence traffic patterns in both the immediate and extended areas, increasing volumes in some locations and decreasing them in others.
Existing plus Project and Future plus Project runs include the roadway extensions/realignments depicted in the project area as well as the development (and traffic generating) potential of the plan’s proposed land uses. For all scenarios, segment volumes from the model were translated to turning movement volumes at intersections throughout the study area using existing traffic counts and the “Furness” procedure. This procedure is an iterative process that employs existing turn movement data, model-obtained baseline link volumes, and model-obtained future link volumes to project likely turning future movement volumes at intersections.
The projected AM and PM peak-hour volumes on key roadway segments throughout the project area under Future (No Project) conditions are shown on Figure 3.14-6.
Planned Roadway Improvements
The following roadway improvements are included in the long-range future modeling conducted for buildout conditions both with and without the project.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project
Stony Point Road Widening – This CIP project is currently under construction and will widen Stony Point Road to four lanes between Sebastopol Ro ad and Hearn Avenue. The project will include on-street bicycle lanes, curb, gu tter, sidewalks, and turn pock ets. The widening project is
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-42
anticipated to significantly improve multimodal circulation along the western boundary of the project area and is projected to be completed in 2017.
Long-Range Circulation Projects and Plans
Hearn Avenue Interchange Reconstruction – Preparation of a Caltrans Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) to replace an d widen the Hearn Avenue overcrossing at US 101, along with associated intersection and ramp improvements, is currently under way.
Caltrans’ acceptance of this document is one of several steps required in the planning and pursuit of funding to complete the project. Ultimately, the new overpass is anticipated to include four lanes plus turn pockets, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and signal upgrades. The project is needed to address existing congestion issues including queues on the southbound off-ramp that extend onto the mainline freeway and will also result in significantly improved east–west pedestrian and bicycle circulation over the freeway.
Bellevue Avenue Improvements at US 101 – Figure 5-1 of the City’s General Plan 2035 depicts a potential freeway interchange at US 101 and Bellevue Avenue. Because the separation between the Hearn Avenue and Bellevue Avenue intercha nges would be noncompliant with Caltrans mandates, Caltrans has determined that a future Bellevue Avenue overcrossing without freeway ramps to and from US 101 (in other words, without an interchange) is the appropriate long-range vision to maintain. This type of configuration would still improve vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connectivity between east and west Santa Rosa.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The SCTA’s 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan for Sonoma County includes several projects adjacent to the project area that are likely to affect traffic flow characteristics. The plan is a long- range planning document used to program transportation improvements over the coming 25 years, and these improvements are assumed to be complete only under future (buildout) conditions.
Hearn Avenue – US 101 interchange reconstruction
Fulton Road – new interchange and widening at SR 12
Stony Point Road – widening between Santa Rosa and Petaluma Bellevue Avenue – extension to Santa Rosa Avenue via US 101 freeway overpass and interchange (as noted above, the City no longer intends to pursue a full interchange with ramps to and from US 101)
US 101 – completion of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes between Santa Rosa and Marin County
Corridor Operational Analysis
The automobile corridor level of service results for future conditions without added development in the project area are summarized in Table 3.14-17. With regional growth in the remainder of the city, county, and region, in addition to nearby projects including the Hearn Avenue interchange widening and Bellevue Avenue overcrossing, corridor level of service is projected to remain at LOS D or better. Copies of the corridor level of service calculations, as well as LOS calculations for individual signalized intersections along the corridors, are included in Appendix B of Appendix
3.14. Source: W-Trans
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures FIGURE 3.14-6
Future No Project Traffic Volumes
623(393)
529(597)
640(680)
682(608)
207(330)
201(431)
802(991)
900(967)
67(226)
194(95)
1028(1853)
1375(1421)618(511)
472(566)
161(276)312(208)
502(604)
519(594)
287(432)431(334)
446(541)358(360)
0(0)
897(1056)
733(977)
259(318)216(475)
787(476)353(488)
1132(1258)
693(830)
596(929)
457(687)
376(515)200(200)
175(175)
597(849)654(636)
274 382
194(312)455(284)
332(368)
199(325)
809(1392)898(961)
701(702)
709(841)1415(1819)1544(1710)
856(1139)1037(1217)
353sro 2016.ai 2/16
North
Not to Scale
LEGEND
xx
(xx)
A.M. Peak Hour Volume
P .M. Peak Hour Volume
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-45
TABLE 3.14-17
ROADWAY SEGMENT FUTURE (NO PROJECT) PEAK-HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Corridor Future AM Peak Hour Future PM Peak Hour
Direction Class Free-Flow Speed Avg. Speed % FFS LOS Avg. Speed % FFS LOS Stony Point Road–SR 12 to Bellevue
NB II 40 22 55% C 18 45% D
SB II 40 25 63% C 21 53% C
Sebastopol Road–Stony Point to Olive
EB III 35 20 57% C 19 54% C
WB III 35 19 54% C 17 49% D
Dutton Avenue–SR 12 to Hearn
NB IV 30 23 77% B 21 70% B
SB IV 30 19 63% C 18 60% C
Hearn Avenue–Stony Pt to Santa Rosa
EB III 35 28 80% B 25 71% B
WB III 35 25 71% C 22 63% C
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Avg. Speed = average co rridor speed in miles per hour; % FFS = percent of free-flow speed; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound Future Freeway Operation
Mainline Operation
The incremental growth of traffic on US 101 betwee n existing and future (no project) conditions was obtained from the SCTM/10 model and added to existing freeway traffic volumes. It is projected that all study freeway segments would operate unacceptably at LOS D or worse in at least one direction during peak hours. Freeway operations are summarized in Table 3.14-18, and calculations are provided in Appendix D of Appendix 3.14.
TABLE 3.14-18
FUTURE (NO PROJECT) PEAK-HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS
Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
US 101 North – Todd Rd to SR 12
Density 49.0 41.8
LOS F E
US 101 South – SR 12 to Todd Rd
Density 32.8 36.2
LOS D E
SR 12 East – Stony Point Rd to US 101
Density 35.2 29.6
LOS E D
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-46
Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
SR 12 West – US 101 to Stony Point Rd
Density 20.2 28.8
LOS C D
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane; LOS = level of service Ramp Operation
The study area freeway ramp intersections are expected to operate acceptably at LOS D or better. Vehicle queues at the off-ramps are projected to remain within available storage. The future freeway ramp level of service and queuing projections are summarized in Table 3.14-19, and calculations are provided in Appendices C and E of Appendix 3.14.
TABLE 3.14-19
FUTURE PM PEAK-HOUR FREEWAY RAMP OPERATIONS
Freeway Interchange
Intersection Operations Off-Ramp Queuing
Delay LOS Available Storage Maximum Queue
SR 12/Stony Point Road
Westbound 30.0 C 930 325
Eastbound 12.8 B 710 422
SR 12/Dutton Avenue
Westbound 24.5 C 990 478
Eastbound 16.7 B 770 250
US 101/Baker Avenue
Northbound 35.4 D 810 254
Southbound 13.8 B 340 164
US 101/Hearn Avenue
Northbound 36.5 D 960 205
Southbound 11.9 B 620 157
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Delay is measured in seconds; LOS = level of service; Maximum Queue is the averaged maximum queue observed in 10 SimTraffic model runs measured in feet
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Corridor Operations (Standards of Significance 1 and 2) Impact 3.14.10 Project 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.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-47
Several improvements to roadways and key intersections throughout the project area (listed in Tables 13 and 14 in Appendix 3.14) have been incorporated into the project in order to achieve acceptable corridor operation at buildout. Automobile roadway segment levels of service are projected to remain at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours under Future plus Project conditions. Corridor level of service results are summarized in Tables 3.14-20 and 3.14-21.
T
ABLE 3.14-20
FUTURE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT AM PEAK-HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Corridor Future (No Project) Future plus Project
Direction Class Free-Flow
Speed
Avg.
Speed
%
FFS LOS Avg.
Speed
%
FFS LOS
Stony Point Road–SR 12 to Bellevue
NB II 40 22 55% C 18 45% D
SB II 40 25 63% C 25 63% C
Sebastopol Road–Stony Point to Olive
EB III 35 20 57% C 16 46% C
WB III 35 19 54% C 17 49% C
Dutton Avenue–SR 12 to Hearn
NB IV 30 23 77% B 18 60% C
SB IV 30 19 63% C 19 63% C
Hearn Avenue–Stony Pt to Santa Rosa
EB III 35 28 80% B 17 49% D
WB III 35 25 71% C 21 60% C
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Avg. Speed = average co rridor speed in miles per hour; % FFS = percent of free-flow speed; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound TABLE 3.14-21
FUTURE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT PM PEAK-HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Corridor Future (No Project) Future plus Project
Direction Class Free-Flow
Speed
Avg.
Speed
%
FFS LOS Avg.
Speed
%
FFS LOS
Stony Point Road–SR 12 to Bellevue
NB II 40 18 45% D 18 45% D
SB II 40 21 53% C 21 53% C
Sebastopol Road–Stony Pt to Olive
EB III 35 19 54% C 18 51% C
WB III 35 17 49% C 15 43% D
Dutton Avenue–SR 12 to Hearn
NB IV 30 21 70% B 18 60% C
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-48
Corridor Future (No Project) Future plus Project
Direction Class Free-Flow
Speed
Avg.
Speed
%
FFS LOS Avg.
Speed
%
FFS LOS
SB IV 30 18 60% C 18 60% C
Hearn Avenue–Stony Pt to Santa Rosa
EB III 35 25 71% B 18 51% C
WB III 35 22 63% C 18 51% C
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Avg. Speed = average co rridor speed in miles per hour; % FFS = percent of free-flow speed; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound As shown in the preceding tables, vehicular traffic on all study corridors is expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS D or better with the addition of project-generated traffic and roadway improvements identified as part of the project. Incorporation of the roadway improvements identified in the specific plan into the City’s traffic impact fee program or another appropriate long-range funding mechanism, and continued monitoring of corridor operation over time through review of traffic impact studies conducted for proposed development will ensure this impact is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Mainline Freeway Operations (Standards of Significance 1 and 2) Impact 3.14.11 Project 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.
The incremental changes to traffic on US 101 a ssociated with implementation of the proposed project were added to current and projected freeway traffic volumes to obtain Future plus Project volumes. As shown in Table 3.14-22, under Future and Future plus Project conditions, both US 101 and SR 12 are projected to have segments operating below the LOS C/D threshold during one or both peak hours. Freeway operations calculations are provided in Appendix D of Appendix 3.14.
T
ABLE 3.14-22
FUTURE PLUS PROJECT PEAK-HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS
Freeway Segment
Future Future plus Project
AM PM AM PM
US 101 North – Todd Rd to SR 12
Density 49.0 41.8 49.3 42.3
LOS F E F E
US 101 South – SR 12 to Todd Rd
Density 32.8 36.2 32.8 36.1
LOS D E D E
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-49
Freeway Segment
Future Future plus Project
AM PM AM PM
SR 12 East – Stony Point Rd to US 101
Density 35.2 29.6 42.0 31.1
LOS E D E D
SR 12 West – US 101 to Stony Point Rd
Density 20.2 28.8 20.5 29.4
LOS C D C D
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane; LOS = level of service; bold values = Plan increases density by greater than 1% on segment operating unacceptably at LOS D or worse.
The proposed project is considered to create a significant impact on fr eeway operations if it increases the density on segments operating unacceptably (below the LOS C/D threshold) by more than 1 percent. This level of impact is projected to occur under Future plus Project conditions on northbound US 101, eastbound SR 12, and westbound SR 12.
The freeway study segments of US 101 and SR 12 are expected to operate unacceptably both without and with traffic changes associated with the proposed project. The increases in freeway density that are attributable to the project would exceed 1 percent on northbound US 101, eastbound SR 12, and westbound SR 12, and would be considered cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
As described previously, the projected unacceptable operation on US 101 could be mitigated by widening the freeway to include additional through lanes in each direction. However, further widening of US 101 is not included in the SCTA’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, nor do any financing mechanisms currently exist to fund the improvement. Widening the freeway would require major reconstruction of multiple freewa y structures, right-of-way acquisition including many homes and businesses, closure or relocation of city streets paralleling the freeway corridor, and the likely creation of additional secondary environmental impacts. The projected unacceptable operation on SR 12 is largely attr ibutable to the freeway ramp spacing and tight merge operations between Dutton Avenue and US 101, and would require ramp closures or reconstruction of the US 101/SR 12 freeway interchange to alleviate the congestion. Closure of the Dutton Avenue interchange is considered infeasible due to local access impacts and inability to increase the capacity of adjacent intersections and streets to accommodate the resulting shifts in traffic. Reconstruction of the US 101/SR 12 freeway interchange would likely require implementation of multilevel freeway structures in order to create a “braided” ramp system, requiring significant right-of-way acquisition and likely creating secondary environmental impacts.
As a result, the environmental, social, and fina ncial impacts of making such improvements to US 101 and SR 12 are considered infeasible.
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 and that there will be no further major capacity enhancements su ch as expansions or new freeways. All three jurisdictions concur in various planning and policy documents that long-range solutions to regional mobility must focus on better land use planning that supports transit and alternative transportation modes; stronger jobs-housing balance; and increased support of transportation demand measures. The proposed Specific Plan emphasizes each of these goals. Because there are no known physical improvements that would result in acceptable freeway operation in the future,
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-50
however, and subsequently no means for development within the project area to contribute fair- share payments to projects such as a freeway expansion, this impact would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
Freeway Ramp Operations (Standards of Significance 1 and 2) Impact 3.14.12 Project 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.
As shown in Table 3.14-23, under Future plus Project conditions, all eight ramp terminal intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. Freeway off-ramp queues are projected to remain within available storage on seven of the eight ramps, but would exceed storage and extend onto mainline SR 12 at the Dutton Av enue off-ramp. This adverse queuing could be alleviated by widening the off-ramp to extend the right turn lane to a length of at least 550 feet.
With this widening, queues are projected to remain within the available storage at all locations.
Note that the queuing impact at the southbound US 101 Hearn Avenue off-ramp identified under Existing plus Project conditions (see Impact 3.14.3) is no longer shown to be an impact since the planned overpass widening would be in place under buildout conditions. A summary of the Future plus Project freeway ramp levels of service and queuing projections is contained in Table 23, and calculations are provided in Appendices C and E of Appendix 3.14.
T
ABLE 3.14-23
FUTURE PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK-HOUR FREEWAY RAMP OPERATIONS Freeway Interchange
Intersection Operations Off-Ramp Queuing
Future
Delay/LOS
Plus Project
Delay/LOS
Available
Storage
Future
Max Queue
Plus Project
Max Queue
SR 12/Stony Point Road
Westbound 30.0/C 30.5/C 930 325 361
Eastbound 12.8/B 19.6/B 710 422 318
SR 12/Dutton Avenue
Westbound 24.5/C 30.0/C 990 478 1,037
Mitigated1 990 689
Eastbound 16.7/B 17.7/B 770 250 431
US 101/Baker Avenue
Northbound 35.4/D 38.6/D 810 254 185
Southbound 13.8/B 17.2/B 340 164 239
US 101/Hearn Avenue
Northbound 36.5/D 36.1/D 960 205 210
Southbound 11.9/B 12.2/B 620 157 174
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: 1 Off-ramp widening lengthens right turn lane storage to 550 feet.
Delay is measured in seconds; LOS = level of service; Max Queue is the averaged maximum queue observed in 10 SimTraffic model runs measured in feet; bold = queuing exceeds available storage
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.14-51
Mitigation Measures
MM 3.14.12 The City shall widen the Dutton Avenue westbound off-ramp to extend the right turn pocket to a minimum length of 550 feet to alleviate the adverse queuing onto the mainline freeway. The City sh all monitor queuing conditions on the ramp through field observations and re view of development traffic impact studies and add the widening project to the Capital Improvement Program once it is determined that queues are likely to exceed storage within a five- year time frame. The City shall collaborate with Caltrans in obtaining approvals to complete the widening project.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to adverse queuing onto the mainline freeway
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Transportation and Public Works Department
With widening of the off-ramp as required by mitigation measure MM 3.14.12, queues are projected to remain within the available storage, lessening this cumulative impact to less than cumulatively considerable.
3.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.14-52
REFERENCES
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2016. Updating the Analysis of Transportation Impacts under CEQA. Accessed February 26. https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php.
Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. ———. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual 2010.
W-Trans. 2016. Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Annexation.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-1
3.15.1 W ATER
3.15.1.1 E XISTING SETTING
The project area includes several unincorporated areas that would be incorporated into the city as a result of the proposed project. Although these areas are not currently a part of Santa Rosa, they are within the City’s water service area and are currently provided municipal water service by the City.
WATER SUPPLIES
Surface Water Supply
The City of Santa Rosa receives the majority of its potable water supply from water stored in Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino. Water is convey ed into and through the Russian River system where it is extracted from subsurface Ranney well collectors owned and operated by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). From its headwate rs in central Mendocino County, the Russian River drains a 1,485-square-mile area.
Principal tributaries of the Russian River are the Ea st Fork of the Russian River, Big Sulphur Creek, Mark West Creek, Maacama Creek, and Dry Creek. Two major reservoir projects located in the Russian River watershed (Lake Mendocino on the East Fork of the Russian River, and Lake Sonoma on Dry Creek) provide water supply storage. A third reservoir project, Lake Pillsbury, indirectly contributes to the water supply through releases into the Eel River, a portion of which are diverted into the East Fork of the Russian River, through the Potter Valley project.
The SCWA collects water from the Russian River from two intake sites at Wohler and Mirabel located near Forestville. Infiltration ponds surroun d the SCWA river collectors, and an inflatable dam on the Russian River assists in raising the water level during periods of low flow. The dam serves to divert water from the river into the infiltration ponds and also raises water levels upstream that supply the intake sites (Santa Rosa 2009b).
Groundwater Supply
Santa Rosa is located in the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin of the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin, located at the confluence of the Santa Rosa, Bennett, and Rincon valleys.
The City’s groundwater supply is derived exclusively from the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin. The City maintains a total of six municipal groundwater wells in the subbasin, two of which are production wells permitted for regular production of up to 2, 300 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable supply.
Three of the City’s remaining wells provide emergency stand-by supply and one provides a minor amount of landscape irrigation water supply. Th e SCWA also has three groundwater wells in the subbasin. Although there are no legal constraints to the SCWA’s ability to use groundwater supplies, the amount of groundwater expected to be pumped by the agency is projected to remain stable until 2035, at 2,300 acre-feet annually.
Since the mid-1990s, Santa Rosa has had an ad opted Capital Improvement Program for the development of the City’s groundwater resources to provide an additional 12.0 million gallons per day (mgd) emergency groundwater supply suitable for potable use by the City (Santa Rosa 2015).
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-2
Wholesale Water Rights and Supply
The City currently receives the majority of its potable water supply from the SCWA under the provisions of the Restructured Agreement for Water Supply (Restructured Agreement) dated June 2006. The remaining potable water supply is prov ided by the City’s own groundwater wells. The City’s contractual entitlement under the Restructured Agreement is 29,100 acre-feet annually.
Should the SCWA at any time not be able to provide the City its full entitlement, shortage provisions are outlined in Section 3.5 of the Restructured Agreement and the SCWA’s adopted Water Shortage Allocation Methodology (adopted pe r the requirements of Section 3.5 of the Restructured Agreement). Based on the City’s aggressive water conservation implementation, under the Water Shortage Allocation Methodology, it is anticipated that the City’s allocation would be 29,100 AFY, the full entitlement in the Restructured Agreement (Santa Rosa 2011).
Historical and Projected Water Use
The increase in Santa Rosa’s water use has been relatively slow and can be attributed to various factors, including aggressive conservation practices implemented by the City and above-normal and wet rain years through the latter part of the 1990s. In August 2014, the City enacted mandatory water restrictions to comply with the State’s drought emergency regulations and manage reduction in water supplies to achieve a 20 percent citywide reduction in water use (Santa Rosa 2016). Under the Restructured Agreement, the City’s monthly water entitlement from the SCWA is an average-day peak month supply of 56.6 mgd and its supply is limited to a total of 29,100 AFY (Santa Rosa 2009b).
In 2010, the City had 43,494 single-family accounts, 3,129 multi-family accounts, 2,573 commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts combined , and 1,695 landscape irrigation accounts. The metered projections for 2035 without implementation of the proposed project are 12,244 AFY single- family residential, 4,273 AFY multi-family, 4,521 AFY commercial, industrial, and institutional, 3,913 AFY landscape, and 5,932 AFY new single-family, totaling 30,883 AFY. The City anticipates an additional 3,735 AFY of water required by year 2035 to acco unt for system water losses and recycled water use, bringing the total water demand to 33,518 AFY (Santa Rosa 2011).
Existing Infrastructure
The City’s primary water supply source (approx imately 95 percent) is purchased treated water from the SCWA. SCWA supplies potable water to the city via turnouts off of two aqueducts: the Kawana Pipeline (West Santa Rosa Pipeline) and the Petaluma Aqueduct. The project area lies entirely within one pressure zone and is gravity-fed from the SCWA aqueduct systems. The City has five potable groundwater wells, two of which can supplement supply from SCWA and three of which are used for emergency purposes only. The City currently owns, operates, and maintains all of the water infrastructure distribution network within the city limits and the unincorporated areas of the project area. The majority of the pipelines in the project area are constructed of PVC, asbestos cement, cast iron, or steel (Michael Baker International 2016).
WATER TREATMENT
Groundwater underlying the City’s service area generally meets primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal use. The City’s two production well s have historically exhibited slightly elevated concentrations of both iron and manganese, exceeding secondary drinking water standards. A treatment system for iron and manganese removal has been constructed at the site of the City’s production wells to treat groundwater before it enters the City’s distribution system (Santa Rosa 2011).
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-3
3.15.1.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL
Environmental Protection Agency
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency assigned to maintain safe air and water throughout the country. Santa Rosa is in EPA Region 9, which includes Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and over 140 Tribal Nations. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) works with the EPA to control and reduce pollutants from entering drinking water sources.
STATE
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Sections 10610–10656) requires every urban water supplier that either provides over 3, 000 acre-feet of water annually or serves more than 3,000 connections to assess the reliability of its water sources over a 20-year planning horizon considering normal, dry, and multiple dry years. This assessment is to be included in an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP); these plans are required to be prepared every five years and submitted to the Department of Water Resources (DWR 2012).
Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221
Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 (Water Code Section 10910(c)(2)) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and coun ties. SB 610 and SB 221 seek to promote more collaborative planning between lo cal water suppliers and cities and counties by requiring that detailed information regarding water availability be provided to decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. SB 610 requires that detailed information be included in a water supply assessment (WSA), which is then included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by a city or county. SB 221 requires that the detailed information be included in a verification of water supply.
Under SB 610, W SAs must be furnished to loca l governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects (as defined in Water Code Section 10912(a)) subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A WSA was adopted for the Santa Rosa General Plan that addresses the current and planned fu ture water demand of the water supplier, the projected demand of the propos ed project area, and the projected water supply of the water supplier, and makes a determination of the sufficiency of its water supplies for the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses.
LOCAL
Santa Rosa 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan was prepared according to the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act and includes details about Santa Rosa’s projected water supply and demand through 2035 during an average water year, a single dry year, and multiple dry years; current and projected recycled water use; water conservation program details;
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-4
and detailed information about regional water su pply. The City’s 2010 UWMP also includes an update to the City’s Urban Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The City is currently in the process of developing the 2015 UWMP.
Santa Rosa Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance
The City adopted a Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance No. 3925; City Code Chapter 14-30) in 2010. It applies to all of the following new and rehabilitated landscape projects that require a building or grading permit, plan check, design review or utilities certificate:
commercial, industrial and institutional landscaping, park and greenbelt landscaping, multi-family residential, and single-family residential landscaping. The City amended the ordinance, effective December 1, 2015, to comply with the state’s updated water efficiency requirements.
Santa Rosa Fire Flow Requirements
City standards provide a guide to fire flow requirements for development within the Urban Growth Boundary. In general, single- and two-family residential lots require 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) of flow. Schools, commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential (three or more units) typically require 2,500 gpm from two hydrants to conform to the City Fire Code. Mid-rise and high-rise structures require higher flows. All fire flows mentioned above must maintain a residual of 20 pounds per square inch while providing the required flow. Compliance with fire flow requirements noted above is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Santa Rosa Fire Department.
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan goals and policies most pertinent to the project in regard to water supply.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal PSF-F: Ensure that an adequate supply of wa ter is available to serve existing and future needs of the city.
Policy PSF-F-1: Utilize high quality water from the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) aqueduct system as the primary water supply.
Policy PSF-F-2: Ensure that water supply capacity and infrastructure are in place prior to occupancy of new development.
Policy PSF-F-3: Develop available groundwater resour ces for the purpose of providing a supplemental source of water in the event of an emergency.
Policy PSF-F-4: Maintain existing levels of water service by preserving and improving infrastructure, replacing water mains as necessary, and improving water transmission lines.
Policy PSF-F-5: Decline requests for extension of water beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, except in cases of existing documented health hazards and in areas where the city has agreements to provide services.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-5
Policy PSF-F-6: Evaluate the city’s long-term water supply strategies, including development of new sources of water supply, improved water conservation and re-use, and implementation of appropriate growth control measures if necessary.
3.15.1.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G standards. An impact to public utilities is considered significant if the project would:
1) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, thus requiring new or expanded entitlements. 2) Require or result in the cons truction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
METHODOLOGY
The following evaluation of potential water serv ice impacts for the proposed project was based on a review of the following documents:
City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 and as sociated environmental impact report and water supply assessment
City of Santa Rosa 2014 Water Master Plan Update
City of Santa Rosa 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
Infrastructure Report prepared for the project area (see Appendix 2.0) Technical memorandum re: Proposed Roselan d Specific Plan Annexation: Water System Evaluation for Areas of Change (West Yost Associates 2015)
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Require New or Expanded Water Entitlements (Standard of Significance 1) Impact 3.15.1.1 The proposed project 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.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in substantial new development within the project area compared to existing conditions. As shown in Table 2.0-5 in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project would add 3,702 residential units and 913,814 square feet of nonresidential uses.
The proposed project’s water demand above existing conditions was estimated using residential equivalency factors (REFs) consistent with the project and Zoning Code land use classifications for retail, office, industrial, and public/institutional uses. These REFs translate nonresidential square footages into equivalent residential use in detached buildings (see Table 3.15-1).
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-6
TABLE 3.15-1
WATER DEMAND GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT ABOVE EXISTING DEMAND Land Use Area per REF
(sf)
Development Potential
of Proposed Project (sf)
Residential
Dwelling Units
Residential
Equivalency Factors
Residential Detached n/a n/a 2,449 2,449
Residential Attached n/a n/a 1,253 1,253
Retail/Commercial 1,000 569,703 n/a 570
Office 500 3,097 n/a 6
Light/General Industrial 1,300 321,014 n/a 247
Institutional 500 20,000 n/a 40
Total REFs 4,565
Source: Santa Rosa 2012, p. 42
The projected residential water use is 100,000 gallons per detached residential unit per year, based on the average of the last 10 years of annual single-family residential water use. Water use for attached residential units includes minimal landsc ape irrigation and averages two-thirds of the water use for detached residential units. This conclusion is based on an analysis of the past 10 years of actual water use in detached and attached residential units. The REFs for the nonresidential use categories are based on land use categories and equivalent water use per California Water Code Section 10912(a).
Therefore, the annual water demand associated with the proposed project’s development potential in the project area is 100,000 gallons per REF multiplied by 4,565 REFs for the project, or a total of 456.5 million gallons per year (4,565 x 100,000 gallons), or approximately 1,401 AFY.
Because development of the project area was already considered in terms of generating demand for potable water in the City’s General Plan, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, and 2014 Water Master Plan Update, this analysis considers the change in demand based on the changed land uses in the project area described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description. Based on this assumption, the water supply analysis technical memorandum prepared for the proposed project (West Yost Associates 2015) determined that the proposed project’s water demand would be approximately 0.02 million gallons per day (mgd) or 22.4 acre-feet per year (AFY) less than that projected in the City’s 2014 Water Master Plan Update. Thus, the project would not meet the criteria for requiring preparation of a water supply assessment per SB 610.
The project area would be served by the City of Santa Rosa’s water system, and the City receives its water primarily from the SCWA as well as from local groundwater supplies. The source of SCWA water is the Russian River, which is a component of the Russian River Project. The source of local groundwater supplies is the Santa Rosa Plain subbasin of the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin.
According to the City’s 2010 UWMP, 34,878 AFY of water would be available to the City in the year 2035 (Santa Rosa 2011, p. 4-2). The UWMP projec ted total demand at 33,518 AFY in 2035. Given that the City anticipates having surplus water supply in year 2035 and the proposed project would r e d u c e w a t e r d e m a n d c o m p a r e d t o t h a t a s s u m e d i n t h e C i t y ’ s l o n g - r a n g e w a t e r p l a n n i n g documents, there would be adequate supply to meet existing demands and planned future demands, and no new or expanded wa ter entitlements would be required. Since the proposed water demand in the project area would decrease as a result of the proposed project relative to
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-7
the demand assumed in the UWMP, no new system improvements are required. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Require New or Expanded Water Treatment Facilities (Standard of Significance 2) Impact 3.15.1.2 Implementation of the proposed pr oject would not require any new or expanded water treatment facilities. There would be no impact.
As described previously, groundwater pumped fr om the City’s two production wells requires treatment to remove iron and manganese before the water enters the City’s distribution system.
As discussed in Impact 3.15.1.1, the project would not require the expansion of existing water supplies. Therefore, no expansion of the City’s groundwater treatment facilities would be required and there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.15.1.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative water supply setting consists of the SCWA water service area, which includes a majority of Sonoma County as well as the northern portion of Marin County. The cumulative setting includes the full buildout of the project area, whic h for this analysis is assumed to occur by 2035, as well as all existing, planned, proposed, a pproved, and reasonably foreseeable development within the SCWA service area that currently places demand on these water supplies or is expected to place demand on them in the future.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Water Impacts
Impact 3.15.1.3 The proposed project, in combinatio n with other reasonably foreseeable development in the Sonoma County Water Agency service area, would result in less than cumulatively considerable water supply impacts.
According to the SCWA’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the agency would have sufficient water to meet projected demand through 2035 during normal water years. Under both single dry year and multiple dry year conditions, the SCWA projects that demand would exceed supply, but anticipates that implementation of water conservation measures would reduce demand sufficiently to eliminate shortages (SCWA 2011). Ther efore, with cumulative growth in the region, including buildout of Santa Rosa General Plan 20 35, sufficient water supplies would be available and this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-8
As discussed in Impact 3.15.1.1, the proposed project would result in an overall reduction of water demand within the project area compared to the water demand anticipated from buildout of the General Plan. Furthermore, as discussed in Impact 3.15.1.2, the proposed project would not contribute to the need for new or expanded water supply or treatment infrastructure. Therefore, with implementation of the proposed project, this cumu lative impact would remain less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.15.2 W ASTEWATER
3.15.2.1 E XISTING SETTING
EXISTING WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT FACILITIES The wastewater collection system in the project area is a gravity flow system owned and operated by either the City of Santa Rosa or the County of Sonoma. The County-owned system is known as the South Park County Sanitation District (SPCSD). The City has an agreement to maintain SPCSD (County-owned) wastewater pipes (Michael Baker International 2016).
Sewage generated from residential, commercial, and industrial uses in Santa Rosa is collected and transported to the Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP), located southwest of the city on Llano Road. The Laguna WTP, managed by the City of Santa Rosa, provides wastewater treatment and disposal services for the city as well as for Rohnert Park, Cotati, Sebastopol, and the South Park Sanitation District. Wastewater is tertiary treated and, depending on the amount of rainfall received in any given year, between 90 and 100 percent is recycled for urban and agricultural irrigation and for the Geysers Recharge Project. Six thousand acres of crops are irrigated with recycled water to grow hay, pasture, vegetables, and wine grapes and for landscaped areas (Santa Rosa 2009b).
The Laguna WTP is a tertiary‐level treatment facility that has an average daily dry weather flow of
15.5 mgd and is permitted for 21.34 mgd average daily dry weather flow. Projects under Santa Rosa’s Subregional Water Reuse System Increm ental Recycled Water Program, which was originally undertaken in 2001, will be implemented as growth occurs, eventually increasing the plant’s capacity to 25.79 mgd, 18.25 mgd of which would be allocated to Santa Rosa. This expanded capacity will be sufficient to meet the city’s wastewater needs up to 2020 (Santa Rosa 2009b). Over 500 miles of underground pipes bring wastewater to the treatment plant, where water goes through three stages of treatment prior to disinfection, storage, and reuse. The water is treated to the highest level recognized in state water recycling regulations (Title 22).
The current
and projected volume of collected and treate d wastewater and the amount that meets the recycled water standard from the Laguna WTP are shown in Table 3.15-2. Santa Rosa contributes approximately 75 percent of these wastewater quantities (Santa Rosa 2011).
TABLE 3.15-2
RECYCLED WATER — WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Type of Wastewater 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Wastewater collected & treated in
service area (AFY) 24,858 23,047 24,882 26,718 28,553 30,388 32,223 Source: Santa Rosa 2011
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-9
Existing Wastewater Collection Facilities within the Project Area The City owns and operates a wastewater collection system that consists of approximately 590 miles of sanitary sewer lines, ranging in size from 6 to 66 inches in diameter, and includes 18 lift stations. Wastewater flow is generally routed fr om northeast to southwest and delivered to the Laguna WTP. According to the City’s 2014 Sewer System Master Plan Update, the project area does not include any lift statio ns. All wastewater flow generated within the project area is collected and conveyed in a gravity sewer system and delivered to the Laguna WTP. Within the project area, the City of Santa Rosa operates and maintains approximately 158,000 linear feet (30 m i l e s ) o f g r a v i t y s a n i t a r y s e w e r l i n e s , r a n g i n g i n d i a m e t e r f r o m 6 t o 2 4 i n c h e s , a s w e l l a s 8 3 7 manholes. The County’s SPCSD owns approximately 59,000 linear feet (11 miles) of gravity sewer main in the project area, ranging in diameter from 6 inches to 12 inches (Michael Baker International 2016).
3.15.2.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Under the CWA, the EPA has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry and water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters.
The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source (direct discharge) into navigable waters. The EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls direct and non-point discharges through the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (EPA 2016).
STATE
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of the state’s water resources. The act established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) as the principal state agencies with th e responsibility for controlling water quality in California. Under the act, water quality policy is established, water quality standards are enforced for both surface water and groundwater, and th e discharges of pollutants from point and nonpoint sources are regulated. The act authorizes the North Coast RWQCB to establish water quality principles and guidelines and permits for long-range resource planning including groundwater and surface water management programs and control and use of recycled water (USDOE 2016).
State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The SWRCB allocates water rights, adjudicates water right disputes, develops statewide water protection plans, establishes water quality standards, and guides the nine
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-10
RWQCBs located in the major watersheds of the state. The SWRCB also issues NPDES permits to cities and counties through the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (SWRCB 2016a).
Waste Discharge Requirements Program
State regulations pertaining to the treatment, stor age, processing, or disposal of solid waste are found in Title 27, California Code of Regulations, Section 20005 et seq. In general, the waste discharge requirements (sometimes referred to as the Non Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program) regulate point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Title 27 Subsection 20090 and not subject to the federal Clean Water Act. Exemptions from Titl e 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g., sewage, wastewater) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The program’s scope also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to Section 20230 of Title 27. Several SWRCB programs are administered under the waste discharge requirements program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs (SWRCB 2016b).
If the operation or discharges from a property or business affect Cali fornia’s surface waters, coastal waters, or groundwater, the discharger is required to obtain a permit from the appropriate RWQCB to discharge waste. For those dischargin g or proposing to discharge pollutants into surface waters, a federal NPDES permit must be obtained. For other types of discharges, such as those affecting groundwater or in a diffused manner (e.g., erosion from soil disturbance or waste discharges to land), a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Program
A sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) is any overflow, spill, release, discharge, or diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. Sanitary sewer overflows often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oil, and grease and can pollute surface waters and groundwater, threaten public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters. To provide a consistent, statewide regulatory approach to address sanitary sewer overflows, the SWRCB adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water Quality Order No. 2006-0003 (Sanitary Sewer Order) on May 2, 2006. The Sanitary Sewer Order requires public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement sewer system management plans and report all sanitary sewer overflows to the SWRCB’s online SSO database. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system that comprises more than 1 mile of pipes or se wer lines which convey wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility must apply for coverage under the Sanitary Sewer Order (SWRCB 2016c).
LOCAL
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast RWQCB) is the regional governing agency for water quality. The North Coast RWQCB is a state department that provides a definitive program of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses of water in the north coast region. The RWQCB issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-11
Santa Rosa Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan
The purpose of the Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan is to evaluate the adequacy of the City’s sewer collection system, identify system deficiencies both present and future, and develop prioritized lists of improvement projects that will be needed to meet the City’s collection system needs based on General Plan buildout projections.
Stormwater Requirements
The EPA mandate of the federal Clean Water Act 1987 amendment brought the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and the SCWA together in 1997 to jointly obtain a Phase I municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) NPDES permit from the North Coast RWQCB.
As part of the MS4 permit requirements, the County and the City joined efforts to publish stormwater management guidelines. The Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual) provides technical guidance for project designs that require the implementation of permanent stormwater best management practices (BMPs). This manual supersedes the 2005 Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan Guidelines. The manual’s goal of is to reduce pollution and runoff for all new and redevelopment capital improvement programs and development projects meeting certain defined criteria.
As new developments are planned, measures for treatment of erosion and stormwater are addressed at the source. As sites are developed, each site must establish acceptable source control methods.
Development in the project area will need to comply with the LID Manual to control runoff quality and quantity. These requirements wi ll need to be handled on an area ‐wide integrated basis or individually on each parcel as development or redevelopment occurs. Low impact development practices consist of such measures as green roofs, tree canopies, vegetated swales and buffer strips, permeable paving, and rain gardens.
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan goals and policies most pertinent to the project in regard to wastewater.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal PSF-G: Ensure that adequate sewer capacit y is available to serve existing and future needs of the city.
Policy PSF-G-1: Continue to explore and develop new uses for treated wastewater, including expanding existing programs such as urban and agricultural irrigation, consistent with objectives adopted by the Board of Public Utilities and the City Council. Examples of urban reuse include park and landscaping irrigation.
Policy PSF-G-3: Decline requests for extension of sewer services beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, except in cases of existing documented health hazards and in areas where the city has agreements to provide services.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-12
3.15.2.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G standards. An impact to public utilities is considered significant if the project would:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
2) Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 3) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
METHODOLOGY
The following impact analys is is based on a review of the infrastructure report prepared for the proposed project by Michael Baker International dated May 2016 (see Appendix 2.0) and the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 and associated environmental impact report, as well as the water supply analysis included above.
The infrastructure report was based in part on a Sewer System Master Plan (SSMPU) completed for the City in 2014 by Arcadis, which analyzed the overall capacity of the existing and future sewer collection systems. The SSMPU included a hydraulic model analysis of the collection system. The City contracted with Arcadis to perform hydraulic model updates and a hydraulic model analysis of the wastewater collection system in the project area to determine if the existing system has adequate capacity to serve the proposed land use changes. Section 3 of the infrastructure report includes a summary of the wastewater collecti on system analysis an d results and discusses whether the proposed land use changes require additional system improvements in order to provide adequate wastewater service.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment (Standards of Significance 1, 2, and 3) Impact 3.15.2.1 Wastewater flows generated as a result of the proposed project 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.
The City of Santa Rosa is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and regulatory compliance of the Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant. Discharges to the Russian River and other water bodies from the Laguna WTP are required to comply with North Coast RWQCB permitting requirements. It is assumed that as long as the plant is adequately maintained and development does not occur at a rate that exceeds the plant’s capacity, the WTP will continue to comply with permitting requirements.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-13
As shown in Table 2.0-5 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in substantial new development compared to existing conditions. Specifically, the project would result in an increase of 3,702 residential units. Based on a rate of 2.61 persons per household (DOF 2015), these additional units would provide housing for an estimated 9,662 people. In addition, the project would result in an increase of 913,814 square feet of nonresidential uses compared to existing conditions. Based on the permitted densities/intensities provided in Table 2-1 of the General Plan, the additional 913,814 square feet of nonresidential uses would generate approximately 2,782 new employees.
According to the City’s (2014a) Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Update, wastewater would be generated at an approximate rate of 50 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for residential uses and 30 gpcd for nonresidential uses. As shown in Table 3.15-3, based on these assumptions, the proposed project’s planned development compared to existing conditions would generate an additional 566,560 gpd (0.57 mgd) of wastewater.
As described previously, the Laguna WTP has an average daily dry weather flow of 15.5 mgd and is permitted for 21.34 mgd average daily dry weather flow. Therefore, the WTP has excess capacity of approximately 5.84 mgd. The proposed projec t’s anticipated wastewater volume compared to existing conditions would represent less than 10 percent of this excess capacity.
T
ABLE 3.15-3
WASTEWATER GENERATION – PROPOSED PROJECT COMPARED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS Units/Square
Feet
Population
Generated
Wastewater
Generation Rate (gpcd)
Projected Wastewater
Volume (gpd)
Residential Development 3,702 9,662 50 483,100
Nonresidential Development 913,814 2,782 30 83,460
566,560
However, development of the project area has already been considered in terms of generating wastewater in the City’s General Plan 2035 and 2014 Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Update.
The proposed project’s actual change in wastewater generation is based on the changed land uses in the project area described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description. Based on this assumption, the proposed project is projected to generate approximately 8,910 gpd (0.009 mgd) more wastewater than assumed in the General Plan EIR, as shown in Table 3.15-4.
T
ABLE 3.15-4
WASTEWATER GENERATION – PROPOSED PROJECT COMPARED TO GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT Units/Square
Feet
Population
Generated
Wastewater
Generation Rate (gpcd)
Projected Wastewater
Volume (gpd)
Residential Development 108 282 50 14,100
Nonresidential Development -51,756 -173 30 -5,190
8,910
The City’s modeling of the anticipated wastewater flows in the project area indicates that the proposed project would not worsen existing capacity issues in the City’s conveyance system and would not require any pipe upsizing or other improvements beyond those previously identified in
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-14
the City’s 2014 Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Update. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.15.2.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting for wastewater conveyance and treatment services is the service area of the Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Impacts
Impact 3.15.2.2 Existing, planned, and reasonably fore seeable development in the cumulative setting, when considered together with the proposed project, 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.
The General Plan 2035 EIR determined that, with implementation of the City’s Incremental Water Reuse Program and the policies contained in the General Plan 2035, the Laguna WTP would have sufficient treatment capacity to serve anticipated growth in the region, including buildout of the General Plan 2035, and the cumulative impact wo uld be less than significant. As discussed in Impact 3.15.2.1, the proposed project would resu lt in a negligible increase in wastewater compared to the growth identified in the Genera l Plan and would not exceed the capacity of the Laguna WTP. Furthermore, wastewater modeli ng conducted by the City indicates that the proposed project would not contribute to existing conveyance system capacity issues and would not require any system improvements beyond those previously identified in the City’s 2014 Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Update. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.15.3 S TORMWATER DRAINAGE
3.15.3.1 E XISTING SETTING
EXISTING STORMWATER FACILITIES
The Santa Rosa Transportation and Public Works Department maintains over 338 miles of underground stormwater pipes and over 18,000 stormwater structures in the city. The public storm drain system in the project area consists of a series of pipes, culverts, creeks, and surface drainage features that are owned and operated by one of three public agencies: the City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, or the Sonoma County Water Agency.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-15
The existing storm drain network in the project area is primarily owned, operated, and maintained by the City. These facilities constitute approximately 22.9 miles of pipe or 76 percent of the overall system in the project area. Approximately 2,500 feet of the City-maintained pipes are of unknown diameter.
The County maintains approximately 6.2 miles of pipe or 21 percent of the overall system in the project area, of which 6 miles are located within the Specific Plan area and 1,328 linear feet are located outside the Specific Plan area. The Coun ty keeps maintenance records on most of its pipe inventory, and most of the pipes in the project area have been serviced within two years of the date of this writing.
SCWA owns and operates approximately 1.2 miles of pipe or 4 percent of the overall system in the project area, ranging from 15 to 48 inches in diameter.
The City’s stormwater Phase 1 MS4 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Co ntrol Board regulates both stormwater and non- stormwater discharges out of the Santa Rosa st orm drain system with the intent to reduce stormwater pollution, protect the water quality of creeks and waterways, and promote infiltration (Santa Rosa 2012a).
3.15.3.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
LOCAL
Stormwater Requirements
The EPA mandate of the federal Clean Water Act 1987 amendment brought the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) together in 1997 to jointly obtain a Phase I MS4 NPDES permit from the North Coast RWQCB.
The Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual), developed by the County and the City, provides technical guidance for project designs that require the implementation of permanent stormwater BMPs to reduce pollution and runoff for all new and redevelopment capital improvement programs and development projects meeting certain defined criteria. As sites are developed, each site must establish acceptable source control methods. Development in the project area will need to comply with the LID Manual to control runoff quality and quantity for small frequent rain events. Low impact development practices consist of such measures as green roofs, tree canopies, vegetated swales and buffer strips, permeable paving, and rain gardens.
Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Design Criteria The SCWA works cooperatively with incorporated cities, unincorporated communities, and the state and federal governments to oversee flood control channel modifications and flood control revenue collection in the six active zones. Santa Rosa is located in Flood Zone 1A-Laguna de Santa Rosa-Mark West Creek Watershed.
Storm drainage infrastructure in unincorporated Sonoma County is designed using the SCWA Flood Control Design Criteria. In compliance with the criteria, all culverts and drainage systems must be designed to accommodate the runoff fr om a 25-year recurrence interval storm event and protect finished floors from the 100-year recurrence interval storm. The SCWA reviews project
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-16
plans for proposed drainage improvements. In addi tion, the agency is in the process of revising and updating the Flood Control Design Criteria.
Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual The LID Manual, adopted by the City of Santa Rosa in October 2011 and implemented in 2012, applies to both privately sponsored projects and municipal capital improvement projects. The manual requires applicable projects to design and implement post-development measures to reduce stormwater pollution. Per the LID Manual, applicable projects are required to design and implement post-development measures for the management of stormwater quality and stormwater volume for the entire development site. The manual emphasizes managing stormwater runoff through landscape-based treatment methods to reduce potential impacts to local drainage systems.
The goal of the manual is to reduce pollution and runoff flows to the best practicable extent for all new capital improvement programs and development projects meeting the following criteria:
Development that creates or replaces a co mbined total of 1 acre or more of new impervious surface.
Street, road, highway, or freeway construction or reconstruction, creating or replacing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface.
All development that includes four or more dwelling units. Industrial parks, commercial strip malls, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, or automotive service facilities creating or replacing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface.
Parking lots with 25 or more spaces or 10,000 square feet not associated with other projects. Parking lots with 25 or more spaces or 10,000 square feet not associated with other projects.
As new developments are planned, measures for treatment of erosion and stormwater are addressed at the source. As sites are developed, each site must establish acceptable source control methods. Varied methods can be employed to satisfy the requirements set forth by the LID Manual. The City of Santa Rosa works in conjunction with the County of Sonoma and the SCWA to ensure the requirements are met.
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan go als and policies most pertinent to the proposed project in regard to storm water drainage.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal PSF-1: Manage, maintain, and impr ove stormwater drainage and capacity.
Policy PSF-I-1: Require dedication, improvement, and maintenance of stormwater flow and retention areas as a condition of approval.
Policy PSF-I-2: Require developers to cover the costs of drainage facilities needed for surface runoff generated as a result of new development.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-17
Policy PSF-I-3: Require erosion and sedimentation control measures to maintain an operational drainage system, preserve drainage capacity, and protect water quality.
Policy PSF-I-4: Require measures to maintain and improve the storm drainage system, consistent with goals of the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan, to preserve natural conditions of waterways and minimize paving of creek channels.
Policy PSF-I-5: Cooperate with the Sonoma County Water Agency and the Northern California Regional Water Quality Control Board to conduct regular assessment of stormwater drainage facilities, to ensure that adequate drainage capacity is maintained throughout the system to accommodate increases in residential and commercial development.
Policy PSF-I-6: Require implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce drainage system discharge of non-point source pollutants originating from streets, parking lots, residential areas, businesses, industrial operations, and those open space areas involved with pesticide application.
Policy PSF-I-7: Prepare and distribute information to increase awareness of businesses and residents about the need to reduce drainage system discharge of non- pollutants.
Policy PSF-I-8: Implement the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) in order to reduce pollutants and runoff s flows from new development and significant redevelopment projects.
Policy PSF-I-9: Consider installation of creekside path ways, consistent with the Citywide Creek Master Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, when possible as part of stormwater improvement projects along the city’s creek corridors.
City of Santa Rosa City Code
Chapter 17-12, Stormwater, of the City Code regulates modifications to the natural flow of storm waters, as well as discharges to the City’s stormwater system in compliance with applicable NPDES stormwater discharge permits.
3.15.3.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G standards. An impact related to stormwater facilities is considered significant if the project would:
1) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
METHODOLOGY
The following impact analysis is based on a review the infrastructure report prepared for the proposed project by Michael Baker International dated May 2016 (see Appendix 2.0), as well as the City of Santa Rosa 2035 General Plan and associated environmental impact report.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-18
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Require New and Expanded Stormwater Drainage Facilities (Standard of Significance 1) Impact 3.15.3.1 Implementation of the proposed project would require the extension of existing stormwater drainage facilities to serve new development. This impact would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, areas of potential development in the project area are primarily vacant and underutilized parcels surrounded by existing development.
Thus, major stormwater drainage infrastructure already exists in the vicinity. Pursuant to the City’s Storm Water Low Impact Development (LID) Technical Design Manual and City Code Chapter 17- 12, the City would require future individual development and redevelopment projects to mitigate the stormwater runoff generated by the project so that no net increase in runoff for the 85 th
percentile 24-hour rain event woul d occur. Thus, localized effects related to storm drain facilities would be included with any future development projects, and future development projects would require minor on-site improvements to tie into exis ting storm drainage facilities. Compliance with General Plan Policy PSF-I-1 would ensure that such improvements are completed prior to occupancy of future development. The infrastructure report prepared for the proposed project concluded that the proposed project would not require any improvements to existing infrastructure outside the project area (Michael Baker International 2016; see Appendix 2.0).
Impacts associated with construction of improvements within the project area, which are identified in Section 4, Storm Drainage System, in Appendix 2.0, are assumed as part of the project and are addressed in the technical analysis sections of this EIR (Sections 3.1 through 3.15). Potential impacts include disturbance of biological and/or cultural resource, temporary air emissions, soil erosion and water quality degradation, handling of hazardous materials, temporary construction noise, and temporary construction traffic. Where necessary, mitigation measures are provided to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, no further mitigation is necessary and this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.15.3.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting for stormwater drainage services is Santa Rosa and the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, including buildout under the General Plan 2035.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Stormwater Impacts
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.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-19
Development in the city has the potential to result in a cumulative impact related to stormwater.
However, the General Plan 2035 EIR identified that, with implementation of the goals and policies included in the General Plan, impacts to stormwater services would be less than significant. Thus, the cumulative impact related to storm drainage would be less than significant.
As discussed above, the proposed project would result in development types and intensities that are similar to those assumed in the General Plan. Thus, storm drain impacts would not substantially differ from those assumed in the General Plan EIR. Upon approval of the proposed annexations, the entire project area would be subject to the goals and policies of the General Plan 2035.
Furthermore, as discussed in Impact 3.15.3.1, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a net increase in stormwater volumes in the project area and would not require any major improvements to the City’s drainage system. Therefore, compliance with the City’s General Plan goals and policies as well as the City’s requ ired low impact development requirements would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.15.4 S OLID WASTE
3.15.4.1 E XISTING SETTING
The City of Santa Rosa contracts with the North Bay Corporation to provide solid waste collection and curbside recycling for residential and commercial uses in the city. The North Bay Corporation is the licensed hauler and recycler for the project area. For residential customers, North Bay Corporation provides recycling and green wast e containers and weekly collection of these materials. The North Bay Corporation currently provides a single-stream recycling program (all recyclables in one container) (Santa Rosa 2009b).
Solid waste management in the project area is the responsibility of the City of Santa Rosa through a franchise agreement with the County of Sonoma. The County owns the Central Disposal Facility, which includes the landfill as well as the recycling and reuse facility and household toxics facility which are operated by the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA). The SCWMA fulfills the solid waste planning and reporting requirements for the region. Solid waste is collected and hauled to the Central Disposal Facility for appropriate disposal, with green waste hauled to a separate processing center operated by a contractor for the SCWMA and recyclable materials are taken to be processed at any of several materials recovery facilities (SCWMA 2011).
The Central Disposal Facility has a maximum permitted daily throughput for the solid waste facility of 2,500 tons per day, an estimated remaining capacity of 9,470,629 cubic yards, and no estimated closure year (CalRecycle 2016).
All businesses, including but not limited to nonprofits, strip malls, government offices, and schools, that generate four or more cubic yards of waste per week are required to recycle. The law also applies to multi-family dwellings of five units or more, regardless of the amount of waste generated. Businesses and multi-family dwellings are required to separate recyclable materials from their garbage and self-haul, subscribe to hauler service, and/or otherwise arrange for the pickup of recyclables. Sonoma County’s and th e City of Santa Rosa’s recycling efforts target single-stream recycling where cardboard, paper, bottles, and cans are mixed together (SCWMA 2011).
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-20
3.15.4.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
California Integrated Waste Management Act
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or Assembly Bill (AB) 939 (Public Resources Code, Section 42900–42927), required all California cities and counties to reduce the volume of waste deposited in landfills by 50 perc ent by the year 2000 and continue to maintain that 50 percent reduction or more each subsequent year. The act’s purpose is to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible.
AB 939 requires each California city and county to prepare, adopt, and submit to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Reco very (CalRecycle) a source reduction and recycling element that demonstrates how the jurisdiction will meet the Integrated Waste Management Act’s mandated diversion goals. Each jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element must include specific components, as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 41003 and 41303. In addition, the source reduction and recycling element must include a program for management of solid waste generated in the jurisd iction that is consistent with the following hierarchy: (1) source reduction, (2) recyclin g and composting, and (3) environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. Included in this hierarchy is the requirement to emphasize and maximize the use of all feasible source reduction, recycling, and composting options in order to reduce the amount of solid waste that must be di sposed of by transformation and land disposal (Public Resources Code Sections 40051, 41002, and 41302).
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now CalRecycle) to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency re lating to adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own, governing adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials in developm ent projects. The intent of the act is to require development projects to include advanced planning that focuses on solid waste issues at the beginning of a project and implement an adequate recycling program for the development project.
LOCAL
Sonoma County Waste Management Agency
The SCWMA, formed in 1992, is the joint powers authority of the County of Sonoma and the nine cities in the county. The specific focus of the agency’s efforts is the implementation of regional waste diversion programs as required by AB 939. As such, the agency is tasked with operating various residential and commercial recycling, hazardous waste, composting, and green building programs throughout the county.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-21
Sonoma County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan Direction for the county’s solid waste management system is provided by state law (AB 939 and subsequent legislation), the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, and regulations adopted by CalRecycle. The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan regulations serve as the primary tool for satisfying the county’s solid waste management needs for the next 50 years in a manner that is cost-effective and is operated to follow the State of California’s solid waste management hierarchy. The hierarchy consists of waste prevention (source reduction), reuse, recycling, composting, and disposal. The solid waste management system for the county protects public health, safety, and well-being; preserves the environment; and provides for the maximum feasible conservation of natural resources and en ergy. The plan contains four elements: Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Household Hazardous Waste Element, Siting Element, and the Non-Disposal Facility Element.
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2035 serves as the over all guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The following is a list of applicable General Plan goals and policies most pertinent to the project related to solid waste.
Land Use and Livability Element
Goal LUL-A: Foster a compact rather than a scattered development pattern in order to reduce travel, energy, land, and materials consumption while promoting greenhouse gas emission reductions citywide.
Policy LUL-A-3:
Require development in county areas within the Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary to be built to City of Santa Rosa standards to ensure consistency upon annexation.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal PSF-H: Meet the city’s solid waste disposal needs, while maximizing opportunities for waste reduction and recycling.
Policy PSF-H-1: Continue contracting for garbage and recycling collection services. Expand the single-stream recycling program (all recyclables in one container) to all users.
Policy PSF-H-2: Work with Sonoma County to identify alternatives to meet the need for solid waste disposal.
Policy PSF-H-3: Expand recycling efforts in multifamily residential and commercial projects, and continue to encourage recycling by all residents.
Policy PSF-H-4: Require provision of attractive, convenient recycling bins and trash enclosures in residential and non-residential development.
Policy PSF-H-5: Continue public education progra ms about waste reduction, including recycling, yard waste, wood waste, and household hazardous waste.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-22
Policy PSF-H-6: Consider development of a resi dential and commercial food waste composting program.
3.15.4.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G standards. An impact to public utilities is considered significant if the project would:
1) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
2) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
METHODOLOGY
The following impact analysis is based on a review of available solid waste generation data from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), as well as a review of the City of Santa Rosa General Plan and associated environmental impact report.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Increased Demand for Solid Waste Services (Standard of Significance 1) Impact 3.15.4.1 Future development resulting from im plementation of the proposed project would increase demand for solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal services. This impact would be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in increa sed production of solid waste generated by residential occupancy and business/retail operations. Buildout of the project area is anticipated to contribute 4.1 pounds of soli d waste per capita per day, based on the most recent regional data reported to CalRecycle (S anta Rosa 2012a). As disc ussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would result in a population increase of 9,662. Such an increase in population would result in the generation of approximately 39,614 pounds of solid waste per day, or 7,230 tons per year. The Central Disposal Facility has an estimated remaining capacity of 9,470,629 cubic yards and a maximum permitted daily throughput for the solid waste facility of 2,500 tons per day. The increase in solid waste anticipated to be generated by the proposed project represents approximately 1 percent of the facility’s daily permitted throughput. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the landfill’s permitted capacity or require its expansion.
Under the City of Santa Rosa General Plan, Polici es PSF-H-3 and PSF-H-4 establish and actively encourage residential and nonresidential recyc ling programs. The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires areas to be se t aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. Furthermor e, all new and redevelopment projects must comply with Santa Rosa’s Construction and Demolition Debris Franchise Agreement and prepare and implement recycling plans for their construction phase. This recycling plan will address the major materials generated by a construction project and will identify the means to divert these materials away from landfill disposal. These efforts allow the City to meet the AB 939 diversion requirements and Chapter 22 of the County Code (Section 22-7A), which explicitly bans the
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-23
disposal at County disposal sites of yard de bris, recyclable wood waste, scrap metal, and corrugated cardboard. Complian ce with these existing regulations would further reduce operational and construction waste generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to solid waste capacity and disposal.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Solid Waste Regulation Conflict
Impact 3.15.4.2 Implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to result in conflicts with any federal, state, or local solid waste regulations. This impact would be less than significant.
The proposed project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations related to the disposal of solid waste. Future development in the project area would also need to participate in recycling efforts to assist the City in complying with AB 939 diversion rate requirements. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that this impact remains less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.15.4.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting for solid waste services consists of the SCWMA service area, which includes all of Sonoma County. Future development in the county would further increase the amount of waste disposed of at SCWMA landfills.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts (Standards of Significance 1 and 2) Impact 3.15.4.3 The proposed project, 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.
Development in Sonoma County has the potential to result in a cumulative impact related to solid waste service and disposal. The General Plan 2035 states that landfill capacity for the City may not accommodate solid waste disposal needs th rough buildout in 2035. Sonoma County and Santa Rosa focus increasingly on waste diversio n and recycling through public education and new services and facilities. These factors help accommodate the growing need for solid waste disposal, while decreasing per capita waste disposal demand. With implementation of the policies contained in the General Plan 2035, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to landfills would be less than significant.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-24
As discussed in Impact 3.15.4.1, the anticipated in crease in solid waste generation resulting from the proposed project would not have a substantial effect on landfill capacity. Development of the project area has already been considered in terms of generating solid waste in the City’s General Plan 2035 and associated EIR. Compared to development intensity for the project site in the General Plan, the proposed project is projected to increase the residential population of the project area by 282, who would generate approx imately 1,156 pounds of solid waste per day or 211 tons per year. This increase would be offset by a net reduction in nonresidential development potential compared to that anticipated in the General Plan, as well as by current and expanded waste recycling efforts.
Furthermore, future development resulting from project implementation would be required to comply with General Plan policies regarding so lid waste disposal and would be conditioned to participate in the recycling prog rams offered through the City’s franchised waste collection company. Therefore, cumulative solid waste impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.15-25
REFERENCES
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2011. Solid Waste Facility Permit Facility Number 49-AA-0001.
———. 2016. Facility/Site Summary Details: Centra l Disposal Site (49-AA-0001). Accessed March 8. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/49-AA-0001/Detail/.
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2015. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State – January 1, 2011–2015.
DWR (California Department of Water Resource s). 2016. Urban Water Management. Accessed January 29. http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/.
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. Summary of the Clean Water Act. Accessed January 29. http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act.
Michael Baker International. 2016. Infrastructure Report for City of Santa Rosa.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Dr aft Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2011. Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
———. 2012a. North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2011122034).
———. 2012b. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment for North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan . ———. 2014a. Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Update.
———. 2014b. Water Master Plan Update.
———. 2016. Drought. Accessed May 10.
http://srcity.org/departments/utilities/conserve/Pages/watershortage.aspx.
SCWA (Sonoma County Water Agency). 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
SCWMA (Sonoma County Waste Management Agency). 2011. Sonoma Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, Non-Disposal Facility Element.
http://www.recyclenow.org/pdf/coiwmp_ndfe_20110801.pdf.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2016a. About the Water Board. Accessed January
29. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/about_us/.
———. 2016b. Waste Discharge Requ irements. Accessed January 29. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/land_disposal/waste_discharge _requirements.shtml.
———. 2016c. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Re duction Program. Accessed January 29. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/.
USDOE (US Department of Energy). 2016. Regulations. Accessed January 29. http://www.etec.energy.gov/About/Regulations.html.
3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3.15-26
West Yost Associates. 2015. Technical memora ndum re: Proposed Roseland Specific Plan Annexation: Water System Evaluation for Areas of Change.
4.0 A LTERNATIVES
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.0-1
4.1 I NTRODUCTION
GENERAL CEQA REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of this section is to identify and describe alternatives to the proposed project. Project alternatives are developed to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant adverse environmental effects identified as a result of the proposed project, while still meeting most if not all of the basic project objectives.
An EIR must evaluate a reasonable range of alte rnatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the proposed project, that could feas ibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternat ives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). An EIR need not evaluate the environmental effects of alternatives in the same level of detail as the proposed project, but must include enough information to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.
The primary intent of the alternatives analysis is to disclose other ways that the objectives of the Project could be attained while reducing the magnitude of, or avoiding, the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives that are included and evaluated in the EIR must be feasible alternatives. However, the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines direct that the EIR need “set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” The CEQA Guidelines provide a definition for “a range of reasonable alternatives” and, thus, limit the number and type of alternatives that need to be evaluated in a given EIR. An EIR is not required to analyze alternatives when the effects of the alternativ e “cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative” (Section 15126.6(f)(3)).
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the City has established the following objectives for the proposed project for purposes of CEQA:
Comply with Sonoma Local Agency Formatio n Commission (LAFCO) policy to create a more logical City boundary and provide more e f f e c t i v e d e l i v e r y o f C i t y s e r v i c e s b y annexing all existing unincorporated islands in southwest Santa Rosa. Make life and the physical environment better for plan area residents and employees. Establish a land use and policy framework to guide future development in the area toward transit supportive land uses.
Balance the preservation of the existing uses and the development of new uses while maintaining the cultural diversity that makes this area special and unique in Santa Rosa. Improve connections, particularly for bicycling and walking, to the Southside Bus Transfer Center, to the downtown SMART station, and to Sebastopol Road, the main commercial area (within the plan area and beyond).
Enhance livability by promoting community health and equity. Establish the Plan Area as a place where people want to live, work, shop, and visit.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4.0-2
Promote economic vitality by maintaining and expanding small businesses and local services for residents.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
The analysis presented in the technical sections of this Draft EIR (Sections 3.1 through 3.15) concluded the following significant and unavoidabl e impacts would result from implementation of the proposed project:
Impact 3.14.2 Project traffic would have the potential to degrade mainline freeway operations to unacceptable levels of service under Existing plus Project conditions (US 101 North – Todd Rd to SR 12).
Impact 3.14.3 Project traffic would have the potential to degrade freeway ramp operations to an unacceptable level of service at the southbound US 101 freeway off- ramp at Hearn Avenue under Existing plus Project conditions.
Impact 3.14.11 Project 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.
4.2 A LTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) states that an EIR should identify any alternatives considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (1) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (2 ) infeasibility, or (3) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
The land use development alternatives that were considered but rejected from further analysis in this Draft EIR consist of the following:
Alternative Site – The possibility of placing the proposed project on an alternative site within the Santa Rosa Planning Area is not feasible. No off-site alternatives were identified during the Specific Plan development stage, nor are any included in this EIR because the proposed project is specifically intend to unify and guide future redevelopment within the Roseland community. As a result, there are no other sites in the city that would be able to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
No Build Alternative – This alternative considered eliminating further development in the Specific Plan area and Annexation Areas entirely. All land uses would remain in their current state, and land uses under the General Plan would not be implemented. As development in the project areas have already been considered and approv e d a s p a r t o f t h e G e n e r a l P l a n 2 0 3 5 , a n alternative that prevents implementation of a substantial portion of the General Plan would be infeasible. In addition, a no build alternativ e would prevent the project from attaining the objectives outlined for the project. For these reasons, a no build alternative was determined to be infeasible and is not addressed further.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.0-3
Smaller Footprint Alternative – In determining potential alternat ives to the proposed project, a smaller footprint alternative was considered. Such an alternative would develop a smaller portion of the project area, leaving portions of it undeveloped.
While a reduced footprint alternative would have fewer impacts associated with ground disturbance, such as potential biological or cultural impacts, with less developable land available for development in the project area, land elsewhere in the City or region would have to be developed in order to accommodate the growth projected to occur in the City. Development to offset the reduction in the project area would resu lt in off-site impacts for the development that would occur elsewhere in the City. It could also result in increases in vehicle miles traveled, which would result in increases in criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Depending on the location for the off-site improvements, it is po ssible that footprint impacts (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, ag ricultural resources) could be more severe than they would be under the proposed project. Further, developi ng only a portion of the Specific Plan and Annexation Areas with the remainder being developed at an off-site location would limit comprehensive planning and would leave portions of the area as undeveloped “islands,” which is similar to the current conditions. CEQA Guidelin es Section 15126.6(b) states that the discussion of alternatives to the proposed pr oject “shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project.” Therefore, this alternative does not meet the criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines concerning alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and is not considered in further detail.
4.3 A LTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE EIR
Two alternatives to the proposed project are analyzed in this Draft EIR and are described below.
Significant impacts associated with the proposed project (as described above) were used to determine the range of these alternatives.
Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative. Under this alternative, none of the proposed annexations would be approved and no ch anges to the project area would occur b e y o n d w h a t i s c u r r e n t l y d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e C i t y o f S a n t a R o s a G e n e r a l P l a n 2 0 3 5 . T h i s alternative would consist of a continuation of the General Plan 2035 policies into the future with the current land use designations in the project area remaining unchanged. This alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project. The analysis of the No Project Alternative is included in this Draft EIR consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A).
Alternative 2 – Reduced Development Alternative. This alternative is intended to eliminate the impact on freeway operations on US 101 North between Todd Road and SR 12. The traffic study for the project determined that development in the project area would result in an increase in delays from existing conditions by approximately 3 percent; an increase of greater than 1 percent is considered significant. In order to reduce the impact to less than significant, this alternative assumes a reduction in development intensity in the project area to one-third of that proposed by the project. This alternative would increase development in the project area as shown in Table 4.0-1.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4.0-4
TABLE 4.0-1
REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(CHANGE FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS)
Residential Units Non-residential Square Footage
Single Family Multi Family Mobile home Office Retail Institutional Industrial 816 418 0 1,032 189,901 6,667 107,005
4.4 C OMPARATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
For each project alternative, the significant envi ronmental impacts are identified, as well as the impacts of the proposed project that would be avoided. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the proposed project, the significant effects of the alternative are discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d)). The discussion of alternatives considers potential impacts on each of the enviro nmental issues presented in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR. If a potential impact under an alternative is similar to that under the proposed project, the discussion will so note and no further analysis of the potential impact is conducted.
As described above, each of the alternatives would include development throughout the Specific Plan and Annexations Areas, the same as assumed for the proposed project. Consequently, the footprint-related effects of the alternatives would not differ from that disclosed for the proposed project in the technical sections of this Draft EI R. For the purposes of this analysis, because the footprint of the alternatives would not differ from the proposed project, impacts related to agricultural, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality would be the same as those identified for the proposed project. The following discussion considers impacts related to the type and intensity of development, rather than effects related to the location of development.
The environmental effects of each of these alte rnatives are identified and compared with those resulting from the proposed project. A table at the end of this section provides a summary of the comparisons and, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), an “environmentally superior” alternative is identified.
AESTHETICS
The effects of the proposed project related to ae sthetics were found to be less than significant due to the existing developed nature of the project area and because future projects would be subject to General Plan policies, the City’s Design Guidelines, and Zoning Code requirements.
Alternative 1 – Similar Impact
General Plan Policy LUL-A-3 requires development in county areas within the Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary to be built to City of Santa Rosa standards to ensure consistency upon annexation. The No Project Alternative is assumed to allow development of the project area consistent with the existing General Plan land use diagram. As described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the proposed project is consistent with the existing land uses with only a few exceptions. Development in these areas identified for changes in land use would not substantially
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.0-5
change the character of the area compared to that assumed for the prop osed project. This impact would be the same as the proposed project.
Alternative 2 – Less Severe Impact
The Reduced Development Alternative would include the same type of development as the proposed project, but at a redu ced density. The reduction in density could result in smaller building footprints or shorter buildings, which could reduce the visual effects of future development. For this reason, this alternative would result in a less severe impact than the proposed project.
AIR QUALITY
Given the uncertainty of timing and extent of construction activities of future projects under the proposed project, construction -phase emissions cannot be quantified. Therefore, it was conservatively assumed that construction emissions could exceed applicable BAAQMD thresholds, which would be a potentially significant impact. However, compliance with BAAQMD construction emissions reduction measures and mitigation measure MM 3.3.3 would reduce the proposed project’s contribution to emissions of criteria air pollutants for which the air basin is designated nonattainment to levels that would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Alternative 1 – Similar Impact
Alternative 1 would still allow for new development and redevelopment within the project area, and implementation of BAAQMD requirements would reduce emissions. Because the No Project Alternative would have a similar amount of development as the proposed project, this alternative’s contribution to cumulative construction and operational emissions would also be less than cumulatively considerable and slightly less than the proposed project.
Alternative 2 – Less Severe Impact
This alternative would reduce the intensity of planned residential development, but it would still allow for new development and redevelopment thro ughout the project area. This alternative’s development potential is substantially less than that of the proposed project, so it would result in a proportional decrease in emissions relative to the project. This alternative would have the same potential to exceed applicable emission thresholds during construction and these impacts would also be potentially significant, although with less development, there would be fewer construction emissions. Like the proposed project compliance with BAAQMD construction emissions reduction measures and mitigation measure MM 3.3.3 would reduce this alternative’s impacts to less than significant. Similarly, compliance with BAAQMD construction emissions reduction measures and mitigation measure MM 3.3.3 would reduce this alternative’s contribution to emissions of criteria air pollutants for which the air basin is designated nonattainment to levels that would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, although this project would contribute substantially less operational emissions, the contribution to the cumulative impact is considered considerable.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The proposed project would be generally consiste nt with the land uses assumed in the General Plan and, like any development in the City, would be required to comply with applicable measures in the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason, the project was found to have a less than considerable contribution to impacts related to climate change.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4.0-6
Alternative 1 – Similar Impact
Because the No Project Alternative would result in development consistent with land uses identified in the General Plan, this alternativ e would be consistent with the GHG inventory contained in the CAP and would result in greenhouse gas emissions that are similar to the proposed project.
Alternative 2 – Less Severe Impact
The Reduced Development Alternative would result in a substantial reduction in development compared to the proposed project and, theref ore, a substantial in overall greenhouse gas emissions compared to the proposed project. While this alternative would generate less greenhouse gas emissions on the project site, because this reduced density alternative may not be able to take full advantage of the greenhou se gas-reducing advantages of higher-density, transit-oriented, and mixed land use developmen t that is assumed as part of the proposed project. While this alternative may result in lower greenhouse gas emissions at the project site, the per capita emissions of greenhouse gases would likely be higher under this alternative.
Nonetheless, this alternative would generate fewer emissions than the proposed project.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HUMAN HEALTH
The proposed project would encourage mixed-use development within the Plan Area including office, residential, commercial, and light industri al uses. The project would also allow for more dense residential development. As a result, it is anticipated that the transport, use and storage of hazardous materials would increase within the project area. This was determined to be a less than significant impact with implementation of existing regulations.
Alternative 1 – Less Severe Impact
The No Project Alternative would not result in any new development beyond that evaluated in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. Therefore, the volumes and frequency of use of hazardous materials would not be increased over that anticipated in the General Plan 2035 EIR. The No Project Alternative would not result in signific ant impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials. This impact would be reduced compared to the proposed project.
Alternative 2 – Similar Impact
Alternative 2 would include less development than the proposed project, so the transport, use and storage of hazardous materials within the project area would be less. Compliance with existing regulations related to the handling, stor age, and disposal of hazardous materials would also ensure that impacts of this alternative wo uld be less than significant, but because this alternative would have less development that would use hazardous materials, this impact would be less severe than the proposed project.
NOISE
Land uses for the project area under the proposed project would not result in substantial increases in noise levels in the project area or vicinity or expose residents to traffic noise or stationary sources of noise in excess of established standards. Noise and vibration impacts were found to be less than significant with compliance with applicable City Code sections and implementation of construction best management practices.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.0-7
Alternative 1 – Similar Impact
The No Project Alternative would result in similar types and intensities of land uses as the proposed project. Like the proposed project, the timing and location of projects is not known, but any future development project would be required to comply with applicable regulations that are intended to reduce construction noise and vibration. Because the types of land uses under this alternative do not substantially differ from the proposed project, it is assumed operational noise would be the same. Impacts related to construction and oper ational noise under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project.
Alternative 2 – Less Severe Impact
The Reduced Development Alternative would result in less traffic and associated noise and fewer stationary sources with the potential to generate noise. Because there would be less development under this alternative, construction and vibration effects would be proportionately reduced. Therefore, this alternative would result in less severe noise impacts than the proposed project.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed project would increase demand for fire protection, emergency medical, and law enforcement services, but there would be no significant impacts due to the construction of new or additional fire protection, emergency medical, or law enforcement facilities to serve the project area. Existing and planned schools in the project vicinity would be able to accommodate students generated by new development and payment of development fees would ensure a less than significant impact on schools. Similarly, ex isting and planned parks would be adequate to serve the proposed project.
Alternative 1 – Similar Impact
The No Project Alternative would result in a similar amount of development as the proposed project. Like the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would require additional fire protection, emergency medical, or law enforcement services, additional school capacity, and more developed park land. Because the level of development is very similar to that of the proposed project, the physical impacts associated with providing these services for development under the No Project Alternative such as new or altered facilities would not substantially differ from the proposed project.
Alternative 2 – Less Severe Impact
Because the Reduced Development Alternative would include approximately one third of development as the proposed project, the demand for public services would be proportionately reduced compared to the proposed project. Although new facilities may still be required for this alternative, facilities may be smaller or the reduced development under this alternative may be able to be served by existing facilities, eliminating effects of developing some facilities. For these reasons, the physical effects of providing public fa cilities for this alternative would be less severe than the proposed project.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4.0-8
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
The traffic impact study for the proposed projec t determined that the proposed project would degrade mainline freeway operations to unacceptable levels of service, degrade freeway ramp operations at US 101 North from Todd Road to State Route 12, and contribute to cumulative impacts on mainline freeway operations. Th ese impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
Alternative 1 – Similar Impact
The No Project Alternative would result in development that is similar in intensity to the proposed project and would generate traffic at similar leve ls. The threshold for dete rmining an impact on the freeway mainline is whether the project would increase cars per mile (“density”) by more than 1 percent over conditions without the project. The proposed project would result in an increase in density of approximately 3 seconds. Because the traffic generated under this alternative would not substantially differ from the proposed project, it would likely result in a similar increase in density per mile. Therefore, the impact would be similar under this alternative and would also be significant and unavoidable.
Alternative 2 – Less Severe Impact
The Reduced Development Alternative is intended to reduce the development potential in the project area to reduce the amount of traffic on roadways to ensure that the automobile density would not increase by more than 1 percent. Specifically, this alternative would allow for an increase in development in the project area over existing conditions that is one third of the new development that could occur under the project as proposed. Because the reduction in development under the Reduced Development Alternative relative to the proposed project was determined specifically to reduce traffic impact s, project-specific and cumulative impacts on freeway mainlines under this alternative would be less than significant and it is likely that impacts related to freeway ramp operations would also be less than significant. Impacts on traffic operations would be less severe under this alternative than the proposed project.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to water supply and treatment, wastewater treatment, wastewater conveyance, or stormwater infrastructure. There is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project’s solid waste generation at the landfill that currently serves the project area and the rest of the City.
Alternative 1 – Similar Impact
Because the No Project Alternative would have a similar amount of development as the proposed project, this alternative’s impacts related to utilities would not substantially differ from that of the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not result in any new development beyond that evaluated in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035, which found effects related to utilities to be less than significant. The impact would be similar under this alternative.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.0-9
Alternative 2 – Less Severe Impact
The Reduced Development Alternative would result in approximately one third of the development as the proposed project. Consequently, the demand for utilities would be proportionately reduced. Impacts on utilities would be less severe under this alternative than the proposed project.
4.5 E NVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Table 4.0-1 provides a summary of the potential impacts of the alternatives evaluated in this section, as compared with the potential impacts of the proposed project.
TABLE 4.0-2
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN BY IMPACT Impact
Proposed
Project
(Significance)
Alternative 1
No Project
(Comparison)
Alternative 2
Reduced Development
Potential
(Comparison)
Aesthetics LS LS= LS+
Agricultural Resources NI NI= NI=
Air Quality LS LS= LS+
Biological Resources LS LS= LS=
Cultural Resources LS LS= LS=
Greenhouse Gas LS LS= LS+
Geology and Soils LS LS= LS=
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LS LS= LS=
Hydrology and Water Quality LS LS= LS=
Land Use LS LS= LS=
Noise LS LS= LS+
Public Services LS LS= LS+
Population and Housing LS LS= LS=
Traffic and Transportation (freeway operations only,
all others LS or NI) SU SU= LS++
Public Utilities LS LS= LS+
Notes: Significance is identified by the following: NI: no impact, LS: less than significant, SU: significant and unavoidable.
Comparisons identified by the following:
+: improvement compared to the proposed project
++: improvement compared to the proposed project and avoids a significant impact =: similar impact as proposed project
Based upon the evaluation described in this section, Alternative 2, the Reduced Development Alternative, is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 2 was determined to have the fewest negative impacts on the physical environment and would have less adverse environmental impacts than the proposed project. However, given the substantial reductions in development intensity required to achieve the reductions in impacts to a less than significant level, the resulting development may not achieve densities required to meet the project objectives related to transit-supportive land uses. In addition, although the reduced
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4.0-10
densities in the project area would result in fewer impacts generated in the project area, the inability to accommodate planned growth in this portion of the City may induce growth in other areas and result in similar impacts elsewhere in the City or region. The extent to which impacts outside the project area cannot be determined at this time.
5.0 O THER CEQA ANALYSIS
5.0 OTHER CEQA ANALYSIS
City of Santa Rosa Sebastopol Road/Roseland Area Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
5.0-1
This section discusses additional topics statutorily required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including significant impacts that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented, growth-inducing impacts, significant irreversible environmental effects. CEQA also requires evaluation of cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts of the proposed project are evaluated in each of the technical sections of this Draft EIR (Sections 3.1 through 3.15). This section also addresses CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy Conservation).
5.1 S IGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
The analysis presented in the technical sections of this Draft EIR (Sections 3.1 through 3.15) concluded the following significant and unavoidabl e impacts would result from implementation of the proposed project:
Impact 3.14.2 Project traffic would have the potential to degrade mainline freeway operations to unacceptable levels of service under Existing plus Project conditions (US 101 North – Todd Rd to SR 12).
Impact 3.14.3 Project traffic would have the potential to degrade freeway ramp operations to an unacceptable level of service at the southbound US 101 freeway off- ramp at Hearn Avenue under Existing plus Project conditions.
Impact 3.14.11 Project 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.
5.2 G ROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed action. A growth-inducing impact is defined by the CEQA Guidelines as:
The way in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth. It is not assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
A project can have direct and/or indirect grow th-inducement potential. For example, direct growth inducement potential would result if a pr oject involved construction of new housing. A project would have indirect growth-inducemen t potential if it established substantial new permanent employment opportunities or if it involv ed a construction effort with substantial short- term employment opportunities that would indire ctly stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand.
Similarly, a project would indirectly induce growth if it removed an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. A project providing an increased water supply in an area where water service historically limited growth could be considered growth-inducing.
CEQA Guidelines further explain that the environmental effects of induced growth are considered indirect impacts of the proposed action. These indirect impacts or secondary effects of growth may result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. Potential second ary effects of growth
5.0 OTHER CEQA ANALYSIS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5.0-2
include increased demand on other community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, and adverse environmental im pacts such as degradation of air and water quality, degradation or loss of plant and animal habitat, and conversion of agricultural and open space land to developed uses.
Growth inducement may constitute an adverse im pact if the growth is not consistent with, or accommodated by, the land use plans and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local land use plans provide for land use development patterns and growth policies that allow for the orderly expansion of urban development supported by adequate urban public services, such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer service, and solid waste service.
COMPONENTS OF GROWTH
The timing, magnitude, and location of land development and population growth in a community are based on various interrelated land use and economic variables. Key variables include regional economic trends, market demand for residential and nonresidential uses, land availability and cost, the availability and quality of transportation facilities and public services, proximity to employment centers, the supply and cost of housing, and regulatory policies or conditions. Since the general plan of a community defines the loca tion, type, and intensity of growth, it is the primary means of regulating development and growth in California.
GROWTH EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
The proposed project would guide future development in the project area. While the project does not, in itself, mandate or propose any specific development, future development would be required to meet the design, land use, and other requirements of the Specific Plan. By utilizing the allowed land uses and densities delineated in th e General Plan and proposed Specific Plan, an assumed amount of development that would likely occur in the project area has been formulated (see Tables 2.0-5 and 2.0-6).
Population Growth
Buildout of the project area would allow for a net increase of 108 residential units housing approximately 282 more people compared to what is currently planned for the project area under the General Plan 2035. This development represents direct growth in the project area and in the city as a whole but would be offset by the net reduction in non-residential development anticipated under the proposed project. The direct growth inducement of the project is described below. The associated secondary effects of this growth are discussed in the various technical sections of this Draft EIR (Sections 3.1 through 3.15). The reader is also referred to Section 3.12, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR for furt her discussion of the project’s population growth affects.
Growth Effects Associated with Annexation
The project would result in the annexation of several unincorporated islands. Annexation of unincorporated land into a city’s boundaries could promote growth by providing city serves to a previously underserved area. These areas were considered in the General Plan 2035 and planned land uses within these areas would remain largely unchanged. Therefore, annexation of these areas would not extend public serves to underser ved areas or result in land use changes which could result in substantial new development.
5.0 OTHER CEQA ANALYSIS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
5.0-3
Growth Effects Associated with Infrastructure Improvements The potential to indirectly induce growth is assumed to exist if a project would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service or if construction of additional infrastructure or resources resulted in excess capacity that would allow additional growth to occur. In the case of the proposed project, all infrastructure and utilities are located immediately adjacent to or within the project area. Land uses in the project area would utilize existing capacity for all services and utilities and would connect to existing networks. In addition, the project area was considered for development in the General plan 2035 at levels that are generally consistent with the development intensity proposed for the project. As no excess capacity would be created by the project, indirect growth effects are not anticipated.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF GROWTH
As described previously, the intent of the proposed project is to accommodate anticipated growth through compact, walkable, infill, transit-oriented, and mixed-use development. The City’s General Plan provides for this anticipated growth, as does planning by service and utility providers.
Thus, growth accommodated under the proposed project would be confined to the immediate project area and would avoid growth effects on parcels adjacent to the project area. The environmental effects of buildout of the project area, both direct and cumulative, are addressed in Sections 3.1 through 3.15 of this Draft EIR.
5.3 S IGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
CEQA Guidelines Sections 21100(b)(2) and 21100.1(a) require that EIRs prepared for the adoption of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public ag ency must include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that would re sult from project implem entation. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) describes irreversible environmental changes in the following manner:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a larg e commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement wh ich provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit futu re generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from envi ronmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the conversion of a small portion of undeveloped and/or underutilized properties zoned for low and medium density residential and mixed residential and retail uses to medium low an d high density residential, public/institutional, parks and recreation and a mixed residential and public institutional uses. Subsequent development under the Specific Plan would constitute a long-term commitment to these uses.
Development of the Specific Plan area would irretrievably commit building materials and energy to the construction and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure. Renewable, nonrenewable, and limited resources that would likely be consumed as part of the development of the proposed Specific Plan would include, but are not limited to, oil, gasoline, lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, water, steel, and similar materials. In addition , implementation of the project would result in increased demand on public services and utilit ies (see Section 3.13, Public Services, and 3.15, Public Utilities).
5.0 OTHER CEQA ANALYSIS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5.0-4
5.4 E NERGY CONSERVATION
Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 require EIRs to describe, where relevant, the wasteful, ineffic ient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. In 1975, largely in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s, the State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1575, which created the California Energy Commission (CEC). The statutory mission of the CEC is to forecast future energy needs, license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or larger, develop energy technologies and renewable energy resources, plan for and direct State responses to energy emergencies, and—perhaps most importantly—promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards. AB 1575 also amended Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) to require EIRs to consider the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. Thereafter, the State Resources Agency created Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory docu ment that assists EIR preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
For the reasons set forth below, this EIR conclude s that the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy and therefore would not create a significant impact on energy resources.
The Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Environmental Impact Report (EIR; SCH# 2008092114) disclosed that growth under the General Plan 2035 would increase energy use in the city by nearly 40 percent, while population would increase by 30 percent in the same time period. However, the EIR found existing city code, the green building requirements of Resolution 27001, as well as several objectives and policies in the General Plan 2035 would support energy efficiency in new and retrofit construction. These policies exceed common energy conservation policies, and can be expected to result in at least a 5 percent reduction in energy use in existing residential structures, and a 10 percent reduction in existing non-residential uses. For these reasons, the EIR determined implementation of the policies in the General Plan 2035 would reduce energy consumption and emphasize the efficient use of energy sources, resulting in a less than significant impact related to energy consumption and inefficient use of energy.
With respect to increased reliance on natural ga s and oil, the EIR found that implementation of objectives and policies in the General Plan 20 35 would support energy efficiency by reducing non-renewable energy use, thus reducing reliance on natural gas and oil. This was also found to be a less than significant impact. The EIR also fo und that although transportation energy usage would continue to increase overall as population increases, General Plan 2035 policies would reduce per capita transportation energy consumption, achieving a roughly five percent decrease in per capita energy use. For this reason, the EIR determined General Plan 2035 policies would reduce energy consumption to a less than significant level.
As described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in similar development intensities in the project area as analyzed in the General Plan 2035 EIR.
Table 2.0-6 shows that while the proposed project would result in a net increase of 99 residential units in the project area, the non-residential square footage in the project area would decrease by over 80,000 square feet. Development in the project area would be required to comply with all General Plan 2035 objectives and policies assumed for energy reduction in the General Plan 2035 EIR. Because the level of development in the proposed project is similar to that assumed in the General Plan 2035 EIR and the proposed project would be subject to the energy conserving policies identified in the General Plan 2035 EIR, the proposed project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy or substantially increase energy consumption compared to that assumed in the General Plan 2035 EIR.
6.0 R EPORT PREPARERS
6.0 REPORT PREPARERS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
6.0-1
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
Project Planner .............................................................................................. Jessica Jones, Senior Planner
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
Project Director ........................................................................................................................ Patrick Angell Project Manager ...............................................................................................................Patrick Hindmarsh Environmental Planner ............................................................................................................... Kristin Faoro Environmental Planner ................................................................................................................. Seth Myers Environmental Planner ............................................................................................................. Alice Tackett GIS ..................................................................................................................................... Brian Schretzmann Technical Review ............................................................................................................................. Bob Stark Technical Editor ...................................................................................................................... Suzanne Wirth
TECHNICAL SUBCONSULTANTS
Traffic Analysis ..................................................... Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W-Trans) Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... Peak & Associates