Attachment 6a - Draft EIR — Santa Rosa City Council, March 15, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF SANTA ROSA

ROSELAND AREA /S EBASTOPOL ROAD

SPECIFIC PLAN AN D

ROSELAND AREA ANNEXATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse No. 2016012030
Prepared fo
r:

CITY OF SANTA ROSA

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
100 SANTA ROSA AVENUE, ROOM 3
SANTA ROSA, CA 95404
Prepared by:
2729 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE, SUITE 220
RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670
MAY 2016
At tachment 6a

CITY OF SANTA ROSA

R OSELAND AREA /S EBASTOPOL R OAD S PECIFIC

P LAN AND R OSELAND A REA A NNEXATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse No. 2016012030

Prepared for:

CITY OF SANTA ROSA

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
100 SANTA ROSA AVENUE, ROOM 3
SANTA ROSA, CA 95404

Prepared by:

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
2729 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE, SUITE 220
RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670

MAY 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.2 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Known Areas of Controversy and Issues Raised by Agencies and the Public .................. ES-2 ES.4 Project Altern atives Summary ................................................................................................... ES-2 ES.5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... ES-2

1.0 I NTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Purpose of the EIR ....................................................................................... 1.0-1

1.2 Type of Document ..................................................................................................................... 1.0-1

1.3 Intended Uses of the EIR ............................................................................................................ 1.0-1

1.4 Relationship to the City of Santa Rosa General Plan ........................................................... 1.0-2

1.5 Organization and Scope .................................................................................................... ...... 1.0-3

1.6 Environmental Review Process ................................................................................................. 1.0-4

1.7 Trustee and Known Resp onsible Agencies ............................................................................ 1.0-6

1.8 Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation ............................................................ 1.0-6

2.0 P ROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................................... 2.0-1

2.2 Project Background ................................................................................................................... 2.0-1

2.3 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 2.0-2

2.4 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 2.0-17

2.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals ............................................................ 2.0-36

3.0 I NTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

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

3.2 Agricultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.3 Air Qu ality .................................................................................................................................... 3.3-1

3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 3.4-1

3.5 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.6 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.8 Hazards and Hazar dous Materials ........................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 3.9-1

3.10 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................... 3.10-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ii

3.11 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 3.11-1

3.12 Population and Housing .......................................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.13 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 3.13-1

3.14 Traffic and Transportation ....................................................................................................... 3.14-1

3.15 Public Utilities ............................................................................................................................. 3.15-1

4.0 A LTERNATIVES

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4.0-1

4.2 Alternatives Considered But Rejected From Further Analysis .............................................. 4.0-2

4.3 Alternatives Anal yzed in the EIR ............................................................................................... 4.0-3

4.4 Comparative Impact Analysis................................................................................................ .. 4.0-4

4.5 Environmentally Su perior Alternative ...................................................................................... 4.0-9

5.0 O THER CEQA ANALYSIS

5.1 Significant Effects That Cannot Be Avoided .......................................................................... 5.0-1

5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ......................................................................................................... 5.0-1

5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .................................................................... 5.0-3

5.4 Energy Conservation ................................................................................................................. 5.0-4

6.0 R EPORT PREPARERS

APPENDICES
Appendix 1.0 - Notice of Preparation and Comments Received Appendix 2.0 - Infrastructure Plan
Appendix 3.0 – Air Quality
Appendix 3.4 – Biological Resources
Appendix 3.7 – Greenhouse Gas
Appendix 3.8 – Hazardous Materials
Appendix 3.11 – Noise
Appendix 3.14 - Traffic

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1 Exec utive Summary ......................................................................................................... ES-3 Table 1.0-1 Summary of Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation .......................... 1.0-7 Table 2.0-1 Proposed Roadway Modific ations and Configurations ......................................... 2.0-18 Table 2.0-2 Specific Plan Inters ection Improvements ................................................................. 2.0-27 Table 2.0-3 Proposed Plan Bicycl e and Pedestrian Network ..................................................... 2.0-31

TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
iii
Table 2.0-4 Summary of Proposed Annexations .......................................................................... 2.0-32 Table 2.0-5 Development Potential of Proposed Pr oject Compared to Existing Conditions 2.0-33 Table 2.0-6 Development Potential of Proposed Project Compared to Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ................................................................................................. 2.0-34 Table 3.3-1 Criteria Air Pollutants Summ ary of Common Sources and Effects .......................... 3.3-2 Table 3.3-2 Summary of Local Am bient Air Quality Data ............................................................. 3.3-3 Table 3.3-3 Federal and State Ambient Air Qual ity Attainment Status for Santa Rosa ........... 3.3-4 Table 3.3-4 Air Qu ality Standards ..................................................................................................... 3.3-6 Table 3.3-6 BAAQMD Basic and Additional Construction Mitigation Measures ....................... 3.3-9 Table 3.3-7 Consistency with Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Control Strategies ..................... 3.3-17 Table 3.3-8 Summary of Existing and 2040 Buildout Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled and Service Population in Project Area ............................................................................ 3.3-29 Table 3.3-9 US Highway 101 and State Route 12 Health Risk ..................................................... 3.3-38 Table 3.3-10 SMART Corridor Health Risk ......................................................................................... 3.3-40 Table 3.3-11 Stationary Source Health Risk ..................................................................................... 3.3-42 Table 3.4-1 Key to CNDDB Special-Status Wi ldlife and Plant Occurrences Shown in Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 ................................................................................................. 3.4-13 Table 3.7-1 Greenhouse Gases ......................................................................................................... 3.7-2 Table 3.7-2 California State Cl imate Change Legislation ............................................................ 3.7-6 Table 3.7-3 Greenhouse Gas Emission s – Project Development Potential (Metric Tons per Year ................................................................................................... 3.7-17 Table 3.11-1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms ................................................................................... 3.11-4 Table 3.11-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ......................... 3.11-7 Table 3.11-3 Railroad Corridor Noise Levels .................................................................................... 3.11-9 Table 3.11-4 Existing Traffic Nois e Levels ........................................................................................ 3.11-10 Table 3.11-5 Project Conditions Noise Levels Along Project Roadways ................................... 3.11-17 Table 3.11-6 Predicted Increases in Traffic Noise Levels Existing Plus Project Conditions ...... 3.11-20 Table 3.11-7 Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............... 3.11-23 Table 3.11-8 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels........................................................ 3.11-24 Table 3.11-9 Predicted Increases in Cu mulative Traffic Noise Levels ........................................ 311-26 Table 3.13-1 Total Current Enrollment in Public School Districts ................................................... 3.13-5 Table 3.14-1 Multimodal Level of Servic e Standards Analyzed by Corridor .............................. 3.14-1 Table 3.14-2 Roadway Segment Existing Pe ak-Hour Level of Service Summary ...................... 3.14-4 Table 3.14-3 Existing (No Project) Peak-Hour Freeway Operations ............................................. 3.14-7 Table 3.14-4 Existing PM Peak-Hou r Freeway Ramp Operations ................................................. 3.14-8 Table 3.14-5 Existing Multimod al Levels of Service ....................................................................... 3.14-11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
iv
Table 3.14-6 Project Area Transit Route s and Typical Service Levels ........................................ 3.14-17 Table 3.14-7 Automobile Leve l of Service Criteria ....................................................................... 3.14-23 Table 3.14-8 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria .................................................... 3.14-23 Table 3.14-9 Freeway Level of Service Criteria ............................................................................. 3.14-24 Table 3.14-10 Summary of Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled within Project Area ........................ 3.14-26 Table 3.14-11 Specific Plan and Annexation Areas Vehicular Trip Generation ........................ 3.14-27 Table 3.14-12 Roadway Segment AM Peak-Hour Level of Service Summary ........................... 3.14-28 Table 3.14-13 Roadway Segment PM Peak-Hour Level of Service Summary............................ 3.14-33 Table 3.14-14 Peak-Hour Freeway Operations ............................................................................... 3.14-34 Table 3.14-15 Existing plus Project PM Peak-Hour Freeway Ramp Operations ......................... 3.14-35 Table 3.14-16 Existing Plus Project Multimodal Levels of Service ................................................. 3.14-38 Table 3.14-17 Roadway Segment Future (No Project) Peak-Hour Level of Service Summary 3.14-45 Table 3.14-18 Future (No Project) Peak-Hour Freeway Operations ............................................ 3.14-45 Table 3.14-19 Future PM Peak-Hour Freeway Ramp Operations................................................. 3.14-46 Table 3.14-20 Future Plus Project Roadway Segment AM Peak-Hour Level of Service Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3.14-47 Table 3.14-21 Future Plus Project Roadway Segment PM Peak-Hour Level of Service Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3.14-47 Table 3.14-22 Future Plus Project Peak-Hour Freeway Operations .............................................. 3.14-48 Table 3.14-23 Future plus Project PM Peak-Hour Freeway Ramp Operations ........................... 3.14-50 Table 3.15-1 Water Demand Generated by the Proposed Project Above Existing Demand ........................................................................................................... 3.15-6 Table 3.15-2 Recycled Water — Wastew ater Collection and Treatment ................................. 3.15-8 Table 3.15-3 Wastewater Generation – Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 3.15-13 Table 3.15-4 Wastewater Generation – Proposed Project Compared to General Plan Buildout ................................................................................................................ 3.15-13 Table 4.0-1 Reduced Development Alternative Development Potential (Change from Existing Conditions) ...................................................................................................................... 4.0-4 Table 4.0-2 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Specific Plan by Impact ................. 4.0-9

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.0-1 Regional Vicinity ............................................................................................................. 2.0-5 Figure 2.0-2 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2.0-7 Figure 2.0-3 City of Santa Rosa Existing General Plan .................................................................... 2.0-9 Figure 2.0-4 City of Santa Rosa Existing Zoning ............................................................................. 2.0-11 Figure 2.0-5 Sonoma County GP ..................................................................................................... 2.0-13

TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
v
Figure 2.0-6 Sonoma County Existing Zoning ................................................................................. 2.0-15 Figure 2.0-7 Proposed Land Use Plan .............................................................................................. 2.0-21 Figure 2.0-8 Specific Pl an Roadway Network ................................................................................ 2.0-23 Figure 2.0-9 Proposed Burbank Avenue Street Designs ............................................................... 2.0-25 Figure 2.0-10 Specific Plan Bicycle Network .................................................................................... 2.0-29 Figure 3.1-1 Examples of Existing Resident ial Development within Project Area ....................... 3.1-3 Figure 3.1-2 Examples of Existing Commercial Development within Project Area .................... 3.1-5 Figure 3.1-3 Examples of Existing Industrial and Office Development within Project Area ...... 3.1-7 Figure 3.1-4 Examples of Vacant Parcels within Project Area ...................................................... 3.1-9 Figure 3.1-5 Examples of Rural Vi stas from Project Area .............................................................. 3.1-11 Figure 3.1-6 Examples of Roadway s within Project Area ............................................................. 3.1-13 Figure 3.2-1 Prime Farmland Classification for Sonoma County ................................................... 3.2-3 Figure 3.4-1 Vegeta tive Communities .............................................................................................. 3.4-3 Figure 3.4-2 CNDDB Occurrences of Special- Status Wildlife Species Within 5 Miles of Project Area ................................................................................................................ 3.4-9 Figure 3.4-3 CNDDB Occurrenc es of Special-Status Plant Species Within 5 Miles of Project Area .............................................................................................................. 3.4-11 Figure 3.9-1 FEMA Flood Zones ........................................................................................................... 3.9-5 Figure 3.10-1 Ex isting Land Use ........................................................................................................... 3.10-3 Figure 3.11-1 Typical Community Noise Levels ................................................................................ 3.11-3 Figure 3.11-2 City of Santa Rosa Land Use Compatibility Noise Criteria ................................... 3.11-14 Figure 3.14-1 Existi ng Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 3.14-5 Figure 3.14-2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes .................................................................. 3.14-9 Figure 3.14-3 Existi ng Transit Routes ................................................................................................. 3.14-15 Figure 3.14-4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 3.14-29 Figure 3.14-5 Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 3.14-31 Figure 3.14-6 Future No Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 3.14-43

ABBREVIATIONS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
vi

AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AEP Association of Environmental Professionals
AFY acre-feet per year
amsl above mean sea level
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP best management practice
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHP California Highway Patrol
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CIP Capital Improvement Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents
CPUC California Public Utilities Commissions
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency

ABBREVIATIONS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
vii
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOF California Department of Finance
DOT US Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DRRP Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
DSOD California Division of Safety of Dams
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EFZ Earthquake Fault Zone
EIR environmental impact report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act (biological resources)
ESA Environmental Site Assessment (hazards)
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FGC Fish and Game Code
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpm gallons per minute
GWP global warming potential
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
HUD US Department of Housing and Urban Development
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
in/sec inches per second
ISO Insurance Services Office
kV kilovolt
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn day-night average sound level
LID low impact development

ABBREVIATIONS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
viii
LOS level of service
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MM mitigation measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT million metric tons
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer
MTC Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Mw moment magnitude
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCRA North Coast Railroad Authority
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NIMS National Incident Management System
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOC Notice of Completion
NOP Notice of Preparation
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupation Safety and Health Administration
O3 ozone
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PHMSA US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PM particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PM10 coarse particulate matter
ppm parts per million
ppv peak-particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REF residential equivalency factor
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

ABBREVIATIONS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
ix
SB Senate Bill
SCREEN3 air quality pollutant dispersion model
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCTA Sonoma County Transportation Authority
SCWA Sonoma County Water Agency
SCWMA Sonoma County Waste Management Agency
SEMS Standard Emergency Management System
sf square feet
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMART Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SPCSD South Park County Sanitation District
SR State Route
SRFD Santa Rosa Fire Department
SRPD Santa Rosa Police Department
SRRE source reduction and recycling element
SSO sanitary sewer overflow
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCM traffic control measures
TIS traffic impact study
TMDL total maximum daily load
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UBC Uniform Building Code
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
US 101 US Highway 101
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USDA US Department of Agriculture
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS US Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB vibration decibel
VHFHS Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WSA water supply assessment
WTP wastewater treatment plant

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-1
ES.1 I NTRODUCTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (P ublic Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 15000, et seq.). The Draft EIR will be used by the City of Santa Rosa (City) in its consideration of the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the pr oposed Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects (proposed project). The City is the lead agency and has primary responsibility for preparing the Draft EIR.

ES.2 P ROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
A full description of the proposed project is prov ided in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.

ROSELAND AREA/SEBASTOPOL ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
The Roseland Specific Plan provides an overall vi sion for future development within the Plan Area. The Specific Plan provides a land use di agram, circulation plan, and infrastructure improvement plan as well as goals and policies to guide development and redevelopment. The proposed land use plan for the Plan Area is shown on Figure 2.0-6.

ANNEXATION AREAS
The proposed project incl udes annexation of five unincorpor ated County islands in southwest Santa Rosa. An unincorporated is land is defined as an area of unincorporated land that is substantially surrounded by City land. Two of the five islands are located within the Plan Area and three located outside the Plan Area. These areas encompass 1,614 parcels and approximately 714 acres (see Table 2.0-4 and Figure 2.0-2).

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The principle objectives of the proposed project are identified as follows:
 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.  New residents will receive the same level of service as current residents.  Existing service levels to current City residents will not be reduced in order to provide services to the Roseland Area.
 Make life and the physical environment better for plan area residents and employees.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-2
 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.  Promote economic vitality by maintaining and expanding small businesses and local services for residents.

ES.3 K NOWN AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES RAISED BY AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC Comments raised in response to the Notice of Preparation include concerns regarding increased traffic generated by the project, adequacy of water supplies, and the ability of schools to serve increased enrollment generated by the project.

ES.4 P ROJECT ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and reduce the degree of environmental impact. Sect ion 4.0, Alternatives, provides a qualitative analysis of two scenarios that include:
 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative: CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that a "no-project" alternative be evaluated in an EIR. Under this alternative, the project would not be approved and current land uses within the project area, as identified in the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035, would remain.
 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 existi ng 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 alte rnative assumes a reduction in development intensity in the project area to one-third of that proposed by the project.

The City of Santa Rosa is the lead agency for th e proposed project. In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the project on Janu ary 15, 2016. This notice was circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the proposed project. The NOP and comments on the NOP are included in Appendix A.

ES.5 S UMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table ES-1 provides a summary of project impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LTS – Less Than Significant PS - Potentially Significant SU – Significant and Unavoidable NI – No Impact LCC – Less Than Cumulatively Considerable PCC – Potentially Cumulatively Considerable CC – Cumulatively Considerable Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-3
TABLE ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance

3.1 Aesthetics
Impact 3.1.1 The proposed project would result in
development on previously
undeveloped parcels in the project
area that could block views of scenic
vistas from surrounding properties.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.1.2 The proposed project would not
substantially damage scenic
resources within a state scenic
highway.

NI None required NI
Impact 3.1.3 The proposed project could change
the existing visual character of the
project area by allowing new
development on currently vacant
and underutilized parcels.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.1.4 The proposed project would
introduce new sources of light or
glare.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.1.5 The proposed project, in
combination with other planned and
recently approved projects in the
project area, would result in a less
than cumulatively considerable
impact on the visual character of the
city.

LCC None required LCC

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LTS – Less Than Significant PS – Potentially Significant SU – Significant and Unavoidable NI – No Impact LCC – Less Than Cumulatively Considerable PCC – Potentially Cumulatively Considerable CC – Cumulatively Considerable

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-4
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance

3.2 Agricultural Resources
Impact 3.2.1 The Specific Plan area and the
Annexation Areas do not contain any
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Therefore, the proposed project
would not convert any important
farmland.

NI None required NI
Impact 3.2.2 The proposed project would not
contribute to cumulative impacts on
agricultural resources.

LTS None required LTS

3.3 Air Quality
Impact 3.3.1 Subsequent land use activities
associated with implementation of
the proposed project would not
conflict with the Bay Area 2010 Clean
Air Plan.

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

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.3.3 The proposed project could result in
short-term construction emissions that
could violate or substantially
contribute to a violation of federal
and state standards.

PS MM 3.3.3 Where projects in the project area are subject to subsequent CEQA review, the City of Santa
Rosa must ensure that in addition to the
BAAQMD basic construction mitigation
measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA
LTS

1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a
frequency adequate to maintain
minimum soil moisture of 12 percent.

Moisture content can be verified by lab
samples or moisture probe.

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

3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be
installed on the windward side(s) of
actively disturbed areas of construction.

Wind breaks should have at maximum 50
percent air porosity.

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

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

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-6
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
at any one time.

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

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

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

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

10. The project shall develop a plan
demonstrating that the off-road
equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to
be used in the construction project (i.e.,
owned, leased, and subcontractor
vehicles) would achieve a project wide
fleet-average 20 percent NO
X reduction
and 45 percent PM reduction compared
to the most recent CARB fleet average.

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

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

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

Impact 3.3.4 The proposed project would not
contribute to localized
concentrations of mobile-source CO
that would exceed applicable
ambient air quality standards.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.3.5 The proposed project could result in
increased exposure of existing or
planned sensitive land uses to
construction-source toxic air
contaminant (TAC) emissions.

PS MM 3.3.5 Projects within the project area that have a construction area greater than 5 acres and
which are scheduled to last more than two
years shall be required to prepare a site-specific
construction pollutant mitigation plan in
consultation with Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) staff prior to
the issuance of gradin g permits. A project-
specific construction-related dispersion model
acceptable to the BAAQ MD shall be used to
identify potential toxic air contaminant impacts,
including diesel particulate matter. If BAAQMD
risk thresholds (i.e., probability of contracting
cancer is greater than 10 in one million) would
LTS

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-8
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
be exceeded, mitigation measures shall be
identified in the construction pollutant
mitigation plan to address potential impacts
and shall be based on site-specific information,
such as the distance to the nearest sensitive
receptors, project site plan details, and
construction schedule. The City shall ensure
construction contracts include all identified
measures. Construction pollutant mitigation
plan measures shall include but not be limited
to limiting the amount of acreage to be graded
in a single day, requiring the use of advanced
particulate filters on construction equipment,
and requiring the use of alternative fuels, such
as biodiesel, to power construction equipment.

PS MM 3.3.6 The following measures shall be utilized in site planning and building de signs to reduce TAC
and PM2.5 exposure where new receptors are
located within 1,000 feet of emissions sources:
 Future development in the project area that
includes sensitive receptors (such as
residences, schools, hospitals, daycare
centers, or retirement homes) located within
1,000 feet of US 101 and/or stationary
sources shall require site-specific analysis to
determine the level of health risk. This
analysis shall be conducted following
procedures outlined by the BAAQMD. If the
site-specific analysis reveals significant
exposures from all sources (i.e., health risk in
terms of excess cancer risk greater than 100
in one million, acute or chronic hazards with
a hazard Index greater than 10, or annual
PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.8 µg/m3),
measures shall be employed to reduce the
risk to below the threshold (e.g., electrostatic
filtering systems or equivalent systems and
location of vents away from TAC sources).
 Future nonresidential developments
projected to generate more than 100 heavy-
duty truck trips daily and/or include the
need for a BAAQMD permit to operate a
stationary source shall include measures to
protect public health to ensure they do not
cause a significant health risk in terms of
excess cancer risk greater than 10 in one
million, acute or chronic hazards with a
Hazard Index greater than 1.0, or annual
LTS

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-10
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 µg/m3.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building
permits
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning
and Economic Development
Department, Planning Division
Impact 3.3.7 Future development within the
project area would not result in
exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial odorous emissions.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.3.8 The proposed project, in
combination with cumulative
development in the SFBAAB, could
result in a significantly cumulative
increase of criteria air pollutants for
which the air basin is designated
nonattainment.

CC Implement mitigation measure MM 3.3.3 CC/SU

3.4 Biological Resources
Impact 3.4.1 Implementation of the proposed
project could result in adverse
effects, either directly or indirectly, on
species listed as endangered,
threatened, rare, proposed, and
candidate plant and wildlife species
as well as plant species identified by
the CNPS with a rating of List 1A or 1B.

PS MM 3.4.1a Implement General Plan Mitigation Measure4.F- 5: The City of Santa Rosa shall incorporate the
avoidance and mitigation measures described
in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy
and the USFWS Programmatic Biological
Opinion, as conditions of approval for
development in or near areas with suitable
habitat for California tiger salamander, Burke’s
goldfields, Sonoma sunshine, Sebastopol
meadowfoam, and manyflowered navarretia.

However, in accordance with the USFWS
Programmatic Biological Opinion, projects
LTS

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

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-12
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
to avoid harming individu als, and torpid bats
given time to completely arouse and fly away.

During the maternity season from April 1 to
September 30, prior to building demolition or
construction, a qualified biologist shall
determine if a bat nursery is present at any sites
identified as potentially housing bats. If an
active nursery is present, disturbance of bats
shall be avoided until the biologist determines
that breeding is complete and young are
reared.

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

Impact 3.4.2 Implementation of the proposed
project could result in direct and
indirect loss of habitat and individuals
of animal and plant species of
concern and other non-listed special-
status species.

PS Implement Mitigation Measures MM 3.4.1a. and MM 3.4.1b LTS Impact 3.4.3 Implementation of the proposed
project could result in disturbance
and degradation of riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural communities
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
CDFW or USFWS.

LTS None required LTS

PS MM 3.4.2a Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4.1a
MM 3.4.2b A formal wetland delineation shall be
conducted for areas that will be permanently or
temporarily impacted by the project. If
jurisdictional waters cannot be avoided, the
City shall apply for a CWA Section 404 permit
from the USACE and a Section 401 permit from
the RWQCB. These permits shall be obtained
prior to issuance of grading permits and
implementation of the proposed project.

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

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

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-14
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
usually within the same watershed as the
permitted impact (i.e., off-site mitigation). The
project proponent/permit applicant retains
responsibility for the implementation and
success of the mitigation project.

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

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

Impact 3.4.5 Implementation of the project could
interfere with movement of native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or establish migratory
corridor.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.4.6 Implementation of the project will not
result in a conflict with a local policy
or ordinance protecting biological
resources.

NI None required NI
Impact 3.4.7 Development in the project area
would not conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved
Conservation Plan.

NI None required NI

LCC None required LCC

3.5 Cultural Resources
Impact 3.5.1 Redevelopment within the project
area could affect historic properties
through modification of historic
character and though construction
activities.

LTS None required. LTS
Impact 3.5.2 If future projects constructed in the
project area involve ground
disturbance, implementation of the
proposed project could result in the
disturbance of known and
undiscovered archaeological
resources or cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074.

PS MM 3.5.2a Phase 1 Archaeological Resource Study. When specific projects are proposed within the
project area that involve ground-disturbing
activity, a site-specific Phase I archaeological
resource study shall be performed by a
qualified archaeologist or equivalent cultural
resources professional that will include an
updated records search, pedestrian survey of
the project area, development of a historic
context, sensitivity assessment for buried
prehistoric deposits, and preparation of a
technical report that meets federal and state
requirements. If significant or unique resources
are identified and cannot be avoided,
treatment plans will be developed in
consultation with the City and appropriate
Native American representatives to mitigate
potential impacts to less than significant based
on the provisions of Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2.

LTS

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-16
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
MM 3.5.2b Should any archaeological artifacts be
discovered during constr uction of any project
allowed under the Specific Plan, all construction
activities shall be halted immediately within 50
feet of the discovery, the City shall be notified,
and a professional archaeologist that meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and
Guidelines for Professional Qualifications in
archaeology and/or histor y shall be retained to
determine the significance of the discovery. The
professional archaeologist shall prepare a plan
to identify, record, report, evaluate, and
recover the resources as necessary, which shall
be implemented by the developer.

Construction within the area of the discovery
shall not recommence until impacts on the
archaeological resource are mitigated as
described in Mitigation Measure MM 3.5.2a.

Additionally, Public Resources Code Section
5097.993 stipulates that a project sponsor must
inform project personnel that collection of any
Native American artifacts is prohibited by law.

Impact 3.5.3 If future projects constructed under
the Specific Plan involve ground
disturbance, implementation of the
proposed project could result in the
disturbance of human remains.

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

MM 3.5.3b Should human remains be discovered during
construction of any project allowed under the
Specific Plan, all construction activities shall be
halted immediately within 50 feet of the
discovery, the City shall be notified, and the
Sonoma County Coroner shall be notified,
according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public
Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of
LTS

Impact 3.5.4 Implementation of the proposed
project, along with any foreseeable
development in the project vicinity,
could contribute to cumulative
impacts to cultural resources.

LCC None required LCC

3.6 Geology and Soils
Impact 3.6.1 Subsequent projects developed as a
result of implementation of the
proposed project could be at risk
from seismic hazards.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.6.2 Construction of subsequent projects
developed as a result of
implementation of the proposed
project could result in temporary
erosion impacts.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.6.3 Subsequent projects developed as a
result of implementation of the
proposed project could be
constructed on soils that are
expansive or have other physical
characteristics that could result in
unstable conditions.

LTS None required LTS

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-18
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
Impact 3.6.4 Subsequent projects developed as a
result of implementation of the
proposed project, in addition to
other proposed and approved
projects in the vicinity, would not
cumulatively create any new or
exacerbate any identified geological
or soils impacts.

LCC None required LCC

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 3.7.1 The project would not conflict with
an applicable plan adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

LCC None required LCC

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.8.1 Implementation of the proposed
project would result in the use,
storage, and transport of hazardous
materials. Accidental release of
these materials could constitute a
hazard to the public or the
environment.

LTS None required LTS
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 result in an
increased risk of accidental release
of hazardous materials.

LTS None required LTS

Hazardous materials or substances
may be handled in the vicinity of
these schools.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.8.4 Review of environmental hazards
databases conducted in association
with the proposed project identified
hazardous materials sites in the
project area.

PS MM 3.8.4 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

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

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-20
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
human health and the environment will be
provided in the plan. Requirements shall include
but not be limited to the following:
 Documentation of the extent of previous
environmental investigation and remediation
at the site, including closure reports for
underground storage tanks (USTs) and
contaminant concentrations.
 A site-specific health and safety plan to be
prepared by all contractors at the project
site, where applicable. This includes a plan
for 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

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LTS – Less Than Significant PS – Potentially Significant SU – Significant and Unavoidable NI – No Impact LCC – Less Than Cumulatively Considerable PCC- Potentially Cumulative Considerable CC – Cumulatively Considerable City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-21
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
and disposal measures for any
contaminated groundwater removed from
excavations, trenches, and dewatering
systems in accordance with local and
Regional Water Quality Control Board
guidelines.
 Sampling and testing plan for excavated
soils to determine suitability for reuse or
acceptability for disposal at a state-licensed
landfill facility.
 Restrictions limiting future excavation or
development of the subsurface by residents
and visitors to the proposed development,
and prohibition of groundwater
development should it be determined from
test results that contamination is present.

The
restrictions would be developed based on
site-specific conditions and would reflect the
requirements of the RWQCB and/or DTSC,
depending on which agency is responsible
for oversight of the particular site.

Restrictions, which are sometimes also
referred to as land use covenants, shall be
recorded with the parcel(s), shall run with the
land. The developer or 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.
 Completion of an approved remediation
plan should land use restrictions be
insufficient to allow development to

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-22
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
proceed safely. Remediation measures may
include excavation and replacement of
contaminated soil with clean fill, pumping
and treatment of groundwater, thermal
treatment, etc.

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

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
Impact 3.8.5 The proposed project could have an
i m p a c t o n a r e a r o a d w a y s u s e d t o respond to hazardous materials
incidents and/or for emergency
evacuations.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.8.6 Implementation of the proposed
project, in combination with other
existing and reasonably foreseeable
future projects, may result in
cumulative hazards and hazardous
materials impacts.

LCC None required LCC

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 3.9.1 Construction and operation of
subsequent projects in the project
area could generate stormwater
runoff containing pollutants from
construction sites and new
impervious surfaces, which could
affect water quality.

LTS None required LTS

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-24
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
Impact 3.9.2 Future development in the project
area would not significantly deplete
groundwater supplies or alter the
area available for recharge of the
groundwater aquifer.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.9.3 Future development in the project
area could increase impervious
surfaces and, as a result, alter
drainage pattern s and increase
drainage rates over existing
conditions.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.9.4 Future development in the project
area may result in increased runoff
and flows to the municipal storm
drain system.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.9.5 Future development in the project
area may occur in areas subject to
flooding hazards.

LTS None required LTS
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.

LCC None required LCC

3.10 Land Use and Planning
Impact 3.10.1 The proposed project would not
divide an established community.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.10.2 The proposed project would not
conflict with applicable land use
plans.

LTS None required LTS
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.

LCC None required LCC

3.11 Noise
Impact 3.11.1 The proposed project would not
expose residents to traffic noise or
stationary sources of noise in excess
of established standards.

LTS None required LTS
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.

LTS None required LTS
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.

LTS None required LTS

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-26
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
Impact 3.11.4 Construction activities could cause a
substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels at nearby noise-
sensitive land uses, which may result
in increased levels of annoyance,
activity interference, and sleep
disruption.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.11.5 The proposed project, when
considered in combination with other
past, existing, planned future
projects, would result in increased
noise levels.

LTS None required LTS

3.12 Population and Housing
Impact 3.12.1 The proposed project would result in
population growth in the project
area that is consistent with growth
projections for the city.

LTS None required LTS
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.

LTS None required LTS
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.

LCC None required LCC

3.13 Public Services
Impact 3.13.1.1 Development resulting from
implementation 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.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.13.1.2 The proposed project, in
combination with other reasonably
foreseeable development, would
increase the City’s population and
could contribute to the need for
expanded fire protection, fire
prevention, and emergency medical
services that could cause significant
physical impacts to the environment.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.13.2.1 The proposed project would result in
the development of new residential
and non-residential uses in the
project area which would increase
enrollment at local schools.

LTS None required LTS

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-28
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
Impact 3.13.2.2 The proposed project, in
combination with other reasonably
foreseeable development in the city,
would generate new student
enrollments at local area schools.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.13.3.1 Implementation of the proposed
project would increase demand for
parks and recreational facilities.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.13.3.2 Implementation of the proposed
project, in combination with other
reasonably foreseeable
development in the city, would
increase demand for parks and
recreational facilities.

LTS None required LTS

3.14 Traffic and Transportation
Impact 3.14.1 Project traffic would not degrade
corridor operations to unacceptable
levels of service under Existing plus
Project conditions.

LTS None required LTS
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.

PS None available SU
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.

PS None available SU

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.14.5 Implementation of the proposed
project would not interfere with
emergency access within the project
area.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.14.6 Implementation of the proposed
project would not conflict with any
alternative transportation policies or
plans.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.14.7 Implementation of the proposed
project would result in improvements
to pedestrian and bicycle circulation
in the project area that would
enhance connectivity and safety.

LTS None required LTS
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.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.14.9 Construction activities associated
with project implementation may
temporarily affect vehicular,
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
circulation.

PS MM 3.14.9 Prior to construction activities, applicants seeking to construct projects in the project area
shall submit a construction traffic control plan to
the City of Santa Rosa for review and approval.

The plan shall identify the timing and routing of
all major construction-related traffic to avoid
LTS

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-30
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
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

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).

LCC None required LCC
Impact 3.14.11 Project traffic, when considered
together with other past, present,
and future development, would
have the potential to degrade
PCC None available CC/SU

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).

PCC 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 shall monitor queuing
conditions on the ramp through field
observations and review 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
LCC

3.15 Public Utilities
Impact 3.15.1.1 The proposed project would exceed
the City’s projected water demand
compared to that identified in the
2010 Urban Water Management
Plan.

LTS None required LTS

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-32
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
Impact 3.15.1.2 Implementation of the proposed
project would not require any new or
expanded water treatment facilities.

NI None required NI
Impact 3.15.1.3 The proposed project, in
combination with other reasonably
foreseeable development in the
Sonoma County Water Agency
service area, would result in less than
cumulatively considerable water
supply impacts.

LCC None required LCC
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.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.15.2.2 Existing, planned, and reasonably
foreseeable 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.

LCC None required LCC
Impact 3.15.3.1 Implementation of the proposed
project would require the extension of
existing stormwater drainage facilities
to serve new development.

LTS None required LTS
Impact 3.15.3.2 Cumulative growth in the city would
increase the volume of stormwater
entering the City’s drainage system.

LCC None required LCC

LTS None required LTS
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.

LTS None required LTS
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.

LCC None required LCC

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
ES-34
This page intentionally left blank

1.0 I NTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

1.0-1
This section summarizes the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Annexation Projects (proposed project); describes the environmental procedures that are to be followed according to state law; discusses the intended uses of the EIR; discusses the project’s relationship to the City of Santa Rosa General Plan; describes the EIR scope and organization, contact pers on, and impact terminology; and summarizes comments received on the Notice of Preparation.

1.1 B ACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR
This Draft EIR has been prepared in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects (proposed project; project) in Santa Rosa.

The City of Santa Rosa (City), acting as the lead agency, has prepared this Draft EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with information about the proposed project’s potential environmental effects. As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is a public informational document that assesses potential environmental effects of a proposed project, as well as identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. Public agencies are charged with the duty to consider and minimize environmental impacts of proposed development where feasible, and are obligated to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors.

CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term project refers to the whole of an action that has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]). The City has determined that adoption and implementation of the Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Annexation Projects is a “project” within the definition of CEQA.

1.2 T YPE OF DOCUMENT
The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The analysis associated with a progra m EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would occur as a result of project implementation and examines all phases of the project.

Ultimately, the EIR will be used by the City as a tool in evaluating the proposed project’s environmental impacts and can be further used to modify, approve, or deny approval of the proposed project based on the analysis in the EIR.

1.3 I NTENDED USES OF THE EIR
This Draft EIR is intended to evaluate the project’s environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. This Draft EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, should be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all planning and permitting actions associated with the project. These actions include, but are not limited to, the following:
 General Plan Amendment
 Zoning Code Amendment

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

1.0-2
 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Amendment
 Annexation
The analysis included in this EIR may also be relied upon in conjunction with the City’s consideration of future development proposals, as summarized below.

As provided under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a) and (c), future projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified does not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. Upon adoption of the General Plan and zoning amendments, the City may rely upon this EIR to streamline the environmental review of future projects, provided they are consistent with the approved specific plan and zoning.

In addition, the City may also rely upon this EIR for certain projects (depending on the type of project and location) as provided by CEQA (P ublic Resources Code [PRC] Section 21155.4) pertaining to projects within a transit priority area , provided that the criteria set forth in Sections 21155.4(a)(1)-(3) are met.

Under Senate Bill 375, streamlined CEQA review and analysis may al so apply to future residential or mixed‐use residential projects that are consistent with an adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) pursuant to PRC Section 21159.28 (as included in Plan Bay Area 2013, approved in July 2013 by the Association of Bay Area Governments Executive Board and by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission). This consistency determination must be made the by the CEQA lead agency (in this case, the City of Santa Rosa). Environmental documents prepared for projects that are consistent with the MTP/SCS EIR are not required to reference, describe, or discuss the following in their GHG impact analysis: 1) growth ‐inducing impacts; 2) a reduced ‐density alternative to address impacts on transportation or climate change of increased car and truck VMT induced by the project; and 3) any project‐specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light‐duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network.

1.4 R ELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN AND EIR The City Council adopted the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 on November 3, 2009. The General Plan is the City’s overall guide for the use of Santa Rosa’s resources, expresses the development goals of the community, addresses issues related to the physical development and growth of Santa Rosa, and is the foundation upon which all land use decisions are made. According to the General Plan Land Use Diagram, the project area is designated for Low-, Medium- and Medium- H i g h R e s i d e n t i a l , M o b i l e H o m e P a r k , R e t a i l a n d Business Service, Office, Business Park, Light Industry, General Industry, Public/Institutional, Parks/Recreation, and Open Space uses.

Both the Roseland area and the Sebastopol Roa d transportation corridor are designated as Priority Development Areas in the General Plan. This designation is available to jurisdictions that are planning increased residential development around existing or planned transit (i.e., the Southside Bus Transfer Center) and enhances the Ci ty’s eligibility for funding to implement land use plans in these areas (e.g., the proposed Specific Plan). General Plan Goal LUL-X calls for the City to develop the Sebastopol Road area from Stony Point Road to Dutton Avenue with a mix of neighborhood uses, focusing on commercial activity and neighborhood services for the Roseland area.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

1.0-3
The City certified the General Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2008092114) on November 3, 2009.

The EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of buildout of the city in accordance with the General Plan. The proposed Roseland Area /Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects are within the planning area evaluated in the General Plan EIR. This Draft EIR uses technical information and analyses from the General Plan EIR that is relevant to the consideration of environmental effects of the proposed project, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 [Incorporation by Reference]).

1.5 O RGANIZATION AND SCOPE
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15122 through 15132 id entify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include a description of the environmental setting, an environmental impact analysis, mitigation measures, alternatives, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth- inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR were established through review of environm ental documentation developed for the site, environmental documentation for nearby projects, and public agency responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). Based on these comments, agency consultation, and review of the project application, the City determined the scope for this EIR.

This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner:

SECTION ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project and provides a concise summary matrix of the project’s environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures.

SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Section 1.0 provides an introduction and overview describing the intended use of the EIR.

SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including intended objectives, background information, and physical and technical characteristics.

SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Section 3.0 presents information pertaining to baseline conditions, development assumptions used in the analysis, and the approach to the cumulative impacts analysis. Sections 3.1 through 3.15 provide an integrated presentation of the setting, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures for each of the environmental issue areas addressed. Potential effects of implementing the proposed project are identified, including cumulative effects, along with mitigation measures recommended to lessen or reduce identified impacts. In cases where no mitigation is available or feasible, this fact is noted. This EIR provides an analysis of environm ental effects specifically associated with the proposed project, as well as an evaluation of project impacts in light of the environmental analysis provided in the General Plan EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, this EIR addresses environmental effects that are peculiar to the proposed project and utilizes mitigation measures that are based on adopted City development policies and standards to mitigate anticipated impacts.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

1.0-4
SECTION 4.0 – ALTERNATIVES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which could feasibly attain the ba sic objectives of the pr oject and avoid and/or lessen the environmental effects of the project. The alternatives analysis provides a comparative analysis between the project and the selected alternatives.

SECTION 5.0 – OTHER CEQA ANALYSIS
This section identifies significant unavoidable im pacts, growth-inducing effects, and significant irreversible changes that would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project.

SECTION 6.0 – REPORT PREPARERS
This section lists all authors and agencies that as sisted in the preparation of the report by name, title, and company or agency affiliation.

APPENDICES
This section includes all notices and other procedur al documents pertinent to the EIR, as well as all technical material prepared to support the analysis.

1.6 E NVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR will involve the following procedural steps:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the project on January 15, 2016. The City of Santa Rosa was identified as the lead agency for the proposed project. The NOP was circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on what should be addressed in the scope of the EIR. A scoping meeting was held on February 1, 2016, to solicit input from interested agencies and the public. Concerns raised in response to the NOP and at the scoping meeting were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The 30-day comment period for the NOP closed on February 16, 2016. The NOP and responses are presented in Appendix 1.0, which includes a summary of the comments and indicates where issues raised in the comments are addressed in the Draft EIR.

DRAFT EIR
This document constitutes the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City will file the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code Section 21161).

1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

1.0-5

PUBLIC NOTICE/PUBLIC REVIEW
Concurrent with the NOC, the City will provide public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review and will invite comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The review period is 45 days. Public comment on the Draft EIR will be accepted in written form via common carrier or via electronic mail. All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

City of Santa Rosa
Planning and Economic Development Department
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Attn: Jessica Jones, Senior Planner
Phone: (707) 543-3410
Fax: (707) 543-3269
E-mail: [email protected]

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to written comments received during the public review period.

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
The City will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete,” the City may certify the Final EIR at a public hearing. The rule of adequacy generally holds that the EIR can be certified if it shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information and provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the project in contemplation of its environmental consequences.

Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City may take action to approve, revise, or reject the project. A decision to approve the project would be accompanied by written findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and, if applicable, Section 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as described below, would also be adopted for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. This MMRP will be designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during project implementation.

MITIGATION MONITORING
CEQA Section 21081.6(a) requires lead agencies to adopt an MMRP to describe measures that have been adopted or made a condition of proj ect approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The specific “reporting or monitoring” program required by CEQA is not required to be included in the EIR; however, it will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration and adoption in connection with the proposed project. Throughout the EIR, mitigation measures have been clearly identified and presented in language that will facilitate establishment of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Any mitigation measures adopted by the City will be included in the MMRP to verify compliance.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

1.0-6

1.7 T RUSTEE AND KNOWN RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
For the purposes of CEQA, a trustee agency has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of California (CEQA Guidelines Section 15386). For example, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is a trustee agency with regard to the state’s fish and wildlife and designated rare or endangered native plants. The CDFW is the only trustee agency for the proposed project. The term responsible agency includes all public agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). The following agencies are identified as potential responsible agencies:
 Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)  Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
 Sonoma County Department of Health Services
 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

1.8 C OMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City received comment letters on the NOP for the proposed project. A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix 1.0. A summary of the letters is included in Table 1.0-1. The environmental issues raised in the comment letters are addressed in the applicable technical sections of this Draft EIR (Sections 3.1 through 3.15).

1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

1.0-7
TABLE 1.0-1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION Date Signatory Agency or Organization Comments
12/30/2015 Katy Sanchez, Associate
Government Program
Analyst
Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC)
 A sacred lands file record search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area.  Other sources of cultural resources should be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites, including those on the Native American Tribal Consultation List provided.
1/8/2016 Brenda L. Tomaras Tomaras & Ogas, LLP, on behalf of the Lytton Rancheria
 The Lytton Rancheria acknowledges receipt of the request for consultation on the project per Assembly Bill (AB) 52.
 Requests that cultural resources be evaluated in the EIR.  Requests that once a cultural survey report has been prepared, a copy be sent to Lytton Rancheria for review.
1/19/2016 Rick Coates, Executive
Director
EcoRing  Questions where traffic and public transit are addressed in the NOP.  Recommends that the EIR evaluate a project alternative in which an electric streetcar serves the Roseland area along Sebastopol Road. 1/25/2016 Reg Elgin Dry Creek Rancheria  The Dry Creek Rancheria is not aware of any historic properties in the project area.
 Requests that he be contacted if any new information or historic remains are found.
2/9/2016 Joshua Standing Horse,
Associate Governmental
Program Analyst
Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC)
 Provides a summary of the various requirements for cultural resources assessment and tribal consultation under CEQA, AB 52, and Senate Bill (SB) 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for cultural resources assessments. 2/14/2016 Annette Ball  The EIR should consider project traffic volumes in relation to the proposed rezoning of property near the Hearn Avenue/Dutton Avenue intersection to business uses in addition to existing traffic congestion.  Questions the availability of adequate water supplies to support the proposed higher-density zoning along Hearn Avenue from Burbank Avenue to Stony Point Road.
 Expresses the opinion that increased traffic along Hearn Avenue would exacerbate existing traffic congestion and increase air pollution and noise. 2/16/2016 Victoria Drive Reside nts Victoria Drive Residents  Question availability of adequate water supplies to serve the proposed development given the current drought and water shortage measures in place.  Question how Hearn Avenue could accommodate increases in traffic resulting from the project given the existing congestion and two-lane roadway.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

1.0-8
Date Signatory Agency or Organization Comments
 Request that any planned bicycle or pedestrian paths connect only to the SMART train path and not terminate onto Victoria Drive, as Victoria Drive does not have bicycle lanes or sidewalks and could not safely accommodate increased bicycle or pedestrian traffic.
 Ask which schools would serve new residents and whether those schools could accommodate the increased enrollments.

2.0 P ROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

2.0-1
This section describes the proposed Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects (project; proposed proj ect), depicts the location of the project area both regionally and locally, and describes the existing conditions of the Specific Plan area and Annexation areas (collectively, project area), as well as the project objectives and a general description of the project’s technical and enviro nmental characteristics. A detailed list of the approvals required to implement the project is also provided. As the City of Santa Rosa would make a number of decisions on th is project, all decisions subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are listed and the implementation process is described in the order that it would occur. This includes actions the City would take now and actions that may be taken in the future.

For a description of the background, purpose, inte nded use, and type of EIR, please refer to Section 1.0, Introduction. This Project Description has been prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124.

2.1 P ROJECT LOCATION
The project site includes the Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan area (plan area). The specific plan area encompasses approximately 1,860 acres (1,220 acres of incorporated city land and 640 acres of unincorporated county land) located in southwestern Santa Rosa. The plan area is generally bounded by State Route (SR) 12 to the north, Bellevue Avenue to the south, US Highway 101 (US 101) to the east, and Stony Point Road to the west (see Figure 2.0-1).

The project site also includes three Annexation areas located in southwestern Santa Rosa but outside of the plan area (see Figure 2.0-2 ). The West Third Street Annexation Area is located immediately north of the Specific Plan area, encompasses approximately 22.7 acres, and is generally bounded by Santa Rosa Creek to the north, Dutton Avenue and Iowa Street to the west, Pierson Street to the east, and West Third Street and SR 12 to the south. The Brittain Lane Annexation area is located west of the plan area, encomp asses approximately 17 ac res, and is generally bounded by SR 12 to the north, Brittain Lane to the west, Lombardi Court to the east, and Sebastopol Road to the south. The West Hearn Av enue Annexation area is located west of the plan area, encompasses approximately 33.8 acre s, and generally consists of those parcels located immediately north, south, and west of We st Hearn Avenue. These areas are in addition to the 640 acres of unincorporated land in the Specific Plan area that is proposed for annexation.

2.2 P ROJECT BACKGROUND
The Santa Rosa City Council and Sonoma County Board of Supervisors identified the Roseland area annexation as a priority in 2013 because of the need to unify the areas in southwest Santa Rosa, which are completely surrounded by the city . As part of Santa Rosa, these areas of the community would be provided services by one jurisdiction, rather than multiple jurisdictions.

In 2014, the City of Santa Rosa was awarded a grant from the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) for development of a specific plan for the southwestern portion of the city, which is commonly known as Roseland, and the area to its south. The Specific Plan area includes the Roseland Priority Development Area (PDA) and part of the Sebastopol Road PDA. PDAs are locally identified areas that can accommodate residentia l growth near transit and jobs. The planning process for the proposed project commenced in December 2014.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

2.0-2

SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ASSUMPTIONS
The Santa Rosa City Council adopted the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 and certified the associated EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2008092114) on November 3, 2009. The General Plan addresses issues related to the physical development and growth of Santa Rosa. The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of buildout of the city in accordance with the General Plan.

Both the Roseland area and the Sebastopol Roa d transportation corridor are designated as Priority Development Areas. This designation is available to jurisdictions that are planning increased residential development around existing or planned transit (i.e., the Southside Bus Transfer Center) and enhances the City’s eligibility for funding to implement land use plans in these areas (e.g., the proposed Specific Plan). Furthermore, General Plan Policy LUL-X calls for the City to develop the Sebastopol Road area from Stony Point Road to Dutton Avenue with a mix of neighborhood uses, focusing on commercial activity and neighborhood services for the Roseland area. In accordance with the City’s vision for these areas, the General Plan planned for future development and redevelopment in the project area as shown in Figure 2.0-3. Existing City zoning for the project area is shown in Figure 2.0-4. Figure 2.0-5 and Figure 2.0-6 show Sonoma County General Plan designations and zoning, respectively. The City’s General Plan serves as the overall guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The entire project area, including unincorporated areas, was included in the General Plan planning area, and buildout of the project area in accordance with General Plan 2035 was evaluated in the a ssociated EIR. The proposed project would be generally consistent with the General Plan 2035 with a few exceptions, which are shown on the proposed land plan (see Figure 2.0-7) as “areas of change.”

2.3 P ROJECT OBJECTIVES
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires that a project description be accompanied by a statement of objectives sought by the proposed pr oject. The guidelines go on to state that the “objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in pr eparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.”
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.  New residents will receive the same level of service as current residents.  Existing service levels to current City residents will not be reduced in order to provide services to the Roseland Area.
 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.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

2.0-3
 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.  Promote economic vitality by maintaining and expanding small businesses and local services for residents.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

2.0-4
This page intentionally left blank

FIGURE 2.0-1
Regional Vicinity
Petaluma
Windsor
Rohnert Park
Healdsburg
Cotati
Sebastopol
Santa Rosa
SONOMA
COUNTY
IÆ
IÆ
?ÝE
?ÝE
AÜE
AÜE
Piner Rd
Guerneville Rd
Hall Rd
Occidental Rd
Ludwig Ave
T odd Rd
Stony Point Rd
Snyder Ln
Petaluma Hill Rd
Bennett Valley Rd
Roblar Rd
Kennedy Rd
Adobe Rd
Skillman Ln
Bodega Ave
Pepper Rd
Meacham Rd
Sebastopol Rd
College Ave
Hearn Ave
Bellevue Ave
Fulton Rd
Llano Rd
Bodega Hwy
Valley Ford Rd
Canfield Rd
Grange Rd
Summerfield Rd
Y ulupa Ave
Washington St
Corona Rd
McDowell Blvd
Porter Creek Rd
River Rd
Airport Blvd
Shiloh Rd
Windsor River Rd
Arata Ln
Pleasant Ave
Eastside Rd
Chalk Hill Rd
Olivet Rd
Mirabel Rd
Matheson St
Healdsburg Ave
Westside Rd
Fountaingrove Pky
Pacific AveMendocino Ave
Brookwood Ave
Santa Rosa Ave
Graton Rd
Slusser Rd
Railroad Ave
Cotati Ave
Millbrae Ave
Mountain View Ave
Coffey Ln
SONOMA
COUNTY
SONOMA
COUNTY
T:\_GIS\Sonoma_County\MXDs\Santa_Rosa\SRRASP\EIR_Figures\Regional Vicinity_v2.mxd (5/5/2016) Source: Sonoma County, 2016; City of Santa Rosa, 2016
Map Detail
Sonoma
County
Legend
Project Area
Santa Rosa City Limits
City
County Boundary
0 1 2
MILES

FIGURE 2.0-2
Project Location
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\Project Location.mxd (5/4/2016) 0 1,000 2,000
FEET
Source: City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.

Legend
City Limits
Annexation Areas
Specific Plan Area

FIGURE 2.0-3
City of Santa Rosa Existing General Plan
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\City General Plan.mxd (5/4/2016) 0 1,000 2,000
FEET
Source: City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.

Legend
City Limits
Annexation Areas
Project Area
General Plan Land Use
General Industry
Light Industry
Low Residential
Low/Open Space
Med Residential
Med-High Residential
Med-Low Residential
Mobile Home Park
Office
Parks/Recreation
Public/Institutional
Retail and Business Service
Retail/Med Residential
Transit Village Medium

FIGURE 2.0-4
City of Santa Rosa Existing Zoning
IÆ
IÆ
?ÝE
?ÝE
West 3rd St
Brittain Ln
West Hearn Ave
Roseland
Victoria Dr
PD
IL
PD
PD
PI
PI
CV
CV
PD
PD
IL
PD
PD
CG
IL
PD
R-1-6
CV
R-3-18
R-3-18
R-1-6
R-1-6
IL
PD
CG
R-1-6
PD
RR-40

TV-R-SA
PD
RR-40
CG
R-1-6
R-2
R-1-6
CG
R-3-18
RR-40
R-1-6
RR-40
RR-40
PD
CG
PD
RR-20
IL
R-3-18
RR-40R-1-6R-3-18
PD
OSC
RR-40
R-3-15
R-3-18
RR-40
R-1-6
R-3-30
R-3-10
PD
RR-40
CG-SA
R-3-18
R-1-6
R-1-6
RR-40
IL
R-3-18R-3-18
R-1-6
R-3-10
TV-R
R-1-15
RR-40
RR-40
RR-40

TV-R-SA
RR-20
RR-40
CN
RR-40
RR-20
R-1-9
TV-R
RR-40
RR-40
R-1-6
R-2
RR-20
R-1-6-H
R-1-15
PD
R-2
RR-20
TV-R
RR-20-G
R-1-15
RR-20
R-1-6
R-1-6
R-3-10-SA
R-3-18
T:\_GIS\Sonoma_County\MXDs\Santa_Rosa\SRRASP\EIR_Figures\City Zoning.mxd (5/4/2016) 0 1,000 2,000
FEET
Source: City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.

Legend
City Limits
Annexation Areas
Project Area
City of Santa Rosa Zoning
CG - General Commercial
CN - Neighborhood Commercial
CV - Motor Vehicle Sales
IL - Light Industrial
RR-X - Rural Residential
R-1-X - Single Family Residential
R-2 - Multi Family Residential
PD - Planned Development
OSC - Open Space Conservation
PI - Public Institutional
TV-R - Transit Village - Residential

FIGURE 2.0-5
Sonoma County Existing General Plan
IÆ
IÆ
?ÝE
?ÝE
West 3rd St
Brittain Ln
West Hearn Ave
Roseland
Victoria Dr
5 5
5 10
10 5
15 5
5 10
5 15
5 5
10 15
5 5 5
5 5
5 5
5 55
5 5
5 5
5 5
55 155
10 5 5
5 5
10 15
13 13
13 1312
12 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5 5
5 10
55 10
T:\_GIS\Sonoma_County\MXDs\Santa_Rosa\SRRASP\EIR_Figures\County General Plan.mxd (5/4/2016) 0 1,000 2,000
FEET
Source: City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.
* Numbers on map indicate maximum density in Units/Acre Legend
City Limits
Project Area
General Plan Land Use
Urban Residential*
Public/Quasi-Public
General Commercial
Limited Commercial
General Industrial

FIGURE 2.0-6
Sonoma County Existing Zoning
IÆ
IÆ
?ÝE
?ÝE
West 3rd St
Brittain Ln
West Hearn Ave
Roseland
Victoria Dr
RR
RR
R3
RR
RR
R3
R2
RR
PF
PC
R3
R2
R3
RR PF
R1
R3
C2
R2
M2
R3
RR
R1
R2
M1
R1
C2
R1
R1
R2
R1
R2
C2
C2R3
R1
R1
R1
R1 CO
R3
C2 C2
R2
R1
AR
R1
C2
R1
R3
C2
R1
C2
R1 M1
R2
R2
R3
RR
C1
C2
R2
C1
R2
R2
C1
M1
R1
T:\_GIS\Sonoma_County\MXDs\Santa_Rosa\SRRASP\EIR_Figures\County Zoning.mxd (5/4/2016) 0 1,000 2,000
FEET
Source: City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.

Legend
City Limits
Project Area
Sonoma County Zoning
CO - Administrative and Professional Office District
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial District
C2 - Retail Business and Service District
M1 - Limited Urban Industrial District
M2 - Heavy Industrial District
PF - Public Facilities District
AR - Agriculture and Residential District
RR - Rural Residential District
R1 - Low Density Residential District
R2 - Medium Density Residential District
R3 - High Density Residential District
PC - Planned Community District

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

2.0-17

2.4 P ROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
As described previously, the project consists of the proposed Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and annexation of multiple parcels in southwestern Santa Rosa, described in detail in the following subsection.

ROSELAND AREA/SEBASTOPOL ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
The Specific Plan provides an overall vision for future development in the plan area. The Specific Plan provides a land use diagram, circulation pl an, and infrastructure improvement plan as well as goals and policies to guide development and redevelopment. The proposed Specific Plan is organized into six chapters: (1) Introduction; (2) Vi sion; (3) Land Use and Housing; (4) Circulation; (5) Public Services; and (6) Implementation and Financing.

Proposed Land Use Plan
The proposed land use plan for the plan area is shown in Figure 2.0-7. As shown, the proposed land use plan is substantially the same as the current Santa Rosa General Plan Land Use Diagram, with several exceptions. These exceptions are described below.  West of Burbank Avenue and south of Hugh es Avenue, 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 surrounding residential areas will retain their low, medium low and medium density residential designations.  East of Burbank Avenue and south of Hugh es Avenue, land use designations would change from Medium Density Residential and Retail/Medium Density Residential to Parks/Recreation and Medium-Low Reside ntial. The parcels to be designated 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. The parcels to be designated Medium-L ow Residential are surrounded by the same designation and are currently vacant or developed as residential.  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.
 Change of land use designation at Colgan Creek Park site from Medium Density Residential to Parks and Recreation.
 Change of land use designation along the so uth side of Hearn Avenue, just east of Southwest Community Park, from Medium and Medium Low Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential/Public Institutional.
 Change of land use designation on Du tton Meadow, across from Meadow View Elementary School, from Medium Density/Reta il and Business Services to Medium Low Density Residential.
 Within the West Hearn Annexation area, the ex isting land use designation of Low Density Residential would be changed to Very Low Density Residential.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

2.0-18
Proposed Circulation Plan
Roadway Network
The proposed roadway network is shown in Figure 2.0-8, and the roadway and corridor configurations included in the proposed Specific Plan are summarized in Table 2.0-1. Many of the planned circulation network changes are the result of community input received during development of the Specific Plan. Others reflect the results of past adopted plans including the Santa Rosa General Plan and the Sebastopol Road Urban Vision Plan. Several roadway and intersection modifications were identified as being necessary to accommodate traffic volumes at project and regional buildout (approximately year 2040).

T
ABLE 2.0-1

PROPOSED ROADWAY MODIFICATIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS
Roadway Description General Plan Consistency
Sebastopol Road East of Burbank Avenue: Provide one travel lane in each direction plus center turn lane or median consistent
with the Sebastopol Road Urban Vision Plan
General Plan indicates two lanes
in each direction; Specific Plan
maintains regional/arterial
classification but represents
decrease in planned capacity
West of Burbank Avenue: Maintain two lanes in each
direction plus center turn lane or median consistent
with the Sebastopol Road Urban Vision Plan
Consistent with General Plan and
Sebastopol Road Urban Vision
Plan
New east–west road
between SR 12 and
Sebastopol Road
Create two-lane local street north of Joe Rodota Trail
between Hampton Way and West Avenue, extending
southward to Sebastopol Road just west of Hampton
Way and at West Avenue
Consistent with General Plan and
Sebastopol Road Urban Vision
Plan
Roberts Avenue Maintain current limits of street on either side of SR 12 Change from General Plan, which shows street extension and
connection under SR 12
Corby Avenue from Baker
Avenue to Hearn Avenue
Maintain two-lane street configuration and redesignate
as a transitional/collector (reclassification also includes the short segments of Boyd Street and Earle Street
identified as arterials in the GP)
General Plan indicates four-lane
arterial; Specific Plan changes
classification to
transitional/collector and
decreases planned capacity
Campbell Drive extension Extend Campbell Dr ive eastward from Stony Point Road to Burbank Avenue, including a new bridge over
Roseland Creek, and designate as a two-lane
transitional/collector
Segment from Stony Point Road
to Trombetta Street is consistent;
segment from Trombetta Street to
Burbank Avenue is not identified
in General Plan; bridge is not
shown in the Citywide Creek
Master Plan
Northpoint Parkway Extend Northpoint Parkway eastward as a new regional/arterial street with one travel lane in each
direction plus center turn lane or median from Stony
Point Road to Burbank Avenue, including a new bridge
over Roseland Creek
Road extension is consistent;
General Plan indicates a four-lane
regional/arterial; Specific Plan
maintains classification but
represents decrease in planned
capacity
Hearn Avenue Widen to two lanes in each direction plus center turn lane from just west of Dutton to the east side of the
SMART railroad crossing
Consistent with General Plan
roadway network and lane
assumptions

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

2.0-19
Roadway Description General Plan Consistency
Once the Northpoint Parkway extension is in place, on
the section of Hearn Avenue between Burbank Avenue
and Stony Point Road, retain existing one lane in each
direction plus center turn lane, but reclassify this
segment as a transitional/collector street
Classification changed from
regional/arterial to
transitional/collector
Stony Point Road Widen to two lanes in each direction plus center turn lane or median from Sebastopol Road to West Hearn
Avenue (under construction)
Consistent with General Plan
roadway network and lane
assumptions
Widen to two lanes in each direction plus center turn
lane or median from West Hearn to Bellevue (only
needed at buildout)
Consistent with General Plan
roadway network and lane
assumptions
Bellevue Avenue Realign western end of corridor to align with Ludwig Avenue
Consistent with General Plan
roadway network diagram
Provide one travel lane in each direction plus center
turn lane or median from Stony Point Road to US 101
and maintain regional/arterial classification
General Plan indicates a four-lane
regional/arterial; Specific Plan
maintains classification but
represents decrease in planned
capacity
Dutton Avenue extension Provide one travel lane in each direction plus center turn lane or median from Hearn Avenue to new bridge
over Colgan Creek, maintaining regional/arterial
classification
Extension is consistent; General
Plan indicates four-lane
regional/arterial; Specific Plan
maintains classification but
represents decrease in planned
capacity
Dutton Meadow southern
extension to Dutton
Provide one travel lane in each direction plus center
turn lane or median, maintaining regional/arterial
designation
Extension and classification are
consistent; General Plan does not
specify number of lanes
Dutton Meadow northern
extension to Dutton
Provide one travel lane in each direction plus center
turn lane or median, maintaining transitional/collector designation (aka "Northern New Street")
Extension and classification are
consistent; GP does not specify
number of lanes
Old Stony Point Road Change designation from transiti onal/collector to local Roadway classification differs from what is shown on the
General Plan roadway network
diagram
Corby Avenue Extension Change designation from local to transitional/collector Roadway classification differs from what is shown on the
General Plan roadway network
diagram
Local street extensions
identified in General Plan
Extend Leo Drive to Burbank Avenue; extend Westland
Drive toward Roseland Creek; connect segments of
Trombetta Street; connect segments of Barndance Lane;
extend Liscum Street to Barndance Lane; extend Liscum
Street to Bellevue Avenue
Consistent with General Plan
roadway network diagram; all
classification remain as local
streets
Local street extensions by
approved projects
Extend Liana Drive westward to Burbank Avenue;
extend Leo Drive eastward to SMART and connect to
Vanderford Drive; create grid network of streets
between Dutton Meadow and Rain Dance Way-Burgess
Drive (These streets are identified here only for clarity; they are already approved and are not considered
Specific Plan improvements.)
General Plan is non-specific with
respect to these local street
extensions and modifications;
roadways reflect local streets
proposed by approved
development projects

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

2.0-20
Roadway Description General Plan Consistency
Specific Plan new local
street extensions
Create new east–west street connecting Burbank
Avenue to the north end of Westland Drive extension;
extend Liscum Street from Barndance Lane to West
Hearn Avenue; extend Tuxhorn Drive to Dutton
Avenue
Not identified in the General Plan
roadway network diagram
Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: GP = General Plan
For new and improved streets throughout the proj ect area, adopted City standards in place at the time of preparation of construction document s would be applied. As of the preparation of this Draft EIR, the applicable standards are outlin ed 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 2.0-9.

Table 2.0-2 summarizes the intersection modificatio ns associated with the above roadway modifications and identified as being needed to support buildout of the project area.

Source: W-Trans
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures FIGURE 2.0-7
Proposed Land Use Plan

Source: W-Trans
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures FIGURE 2.0-8
Specific Plan Roadway Network

STREET DESIGN NORTH OF
ROSELAND CREEK1
2 DISEÑO DE LA CALLE AL NORTE DE

ROSELAND CREEK
Derecho-de-paso de 44-50’ (derecho-
de-paso de 44-50’ disponible)
44-50’ Right-of-Way (44-50’ Right-of-
way available)

STREET DESIGN SOUTH OF

ROSELAND CREEK
62’ Right-of-Way (42–46’ right-of-way
available; requires easement and/or ac-
quisition of private land)
From the unadopted Burbank Ave Scenic Roadway
Guidelines
1 2
DISEÑO DE LA CALLE AL SUR DE

ROSELAND CREEK
Derecho-de-paso de 62’ (derecho-de-paso de
42-46’ disponible; (requiere servidumbres y/o adquisición de tierras privadas)
De las aun no adoptadas Directrices de la Calzada Escénica de la Avenida Burbank
Source: W-Trans, Shared Spaces, and the City of Santa Rosa.

FIGURE 2.0-9
Proposed Burbank Avenue Street Designs
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures Not To Scale

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

2.0-27
TABLE 2.0-2

SPECIFIC PLAN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection Improvement
Stony Point Road/SR 12 Eastbound
Ramps/Joe Rodota Trail
Eliminate free (uncontrolled) northbound right turn and bring it under signal operation; add second southbound left turn lane from Stony Point Road onto the eastbound freeway ramp (requires no further widening)
Dutton Avenue/SR 12 Westbound
Ramps
Lengthen westbound right turn pocket from 350 feet to 550 feet (only needed at buildout)
Sebastopol Road/Burbank Avenue Modify to create three-lane section on east leg consistent with Vision Plan:
eliminate outer westbound through lane and convert eastbound lanes from left turn, through, through/right turn (L-T-R) to left turn, through/right turn (L-TR) Sebastopol Road/Roseland-McMinn Signalize, eliminate eastbound and westbound right turn lanes Sebastopol Road/Olive Street Si gnalize, permitted phasing with west and north legs running as a through street (only needed at buildout)
Corby Avenue/Baker Avenue Signalize; add nort hbound right turn pocket and southbound left turn pocket; coordinate with adjacent signal at Baker/US 101 southbound ramps Baker Avenue/US 101 Southbound
Ramps
Coordinate with new signal at Corby Avenue/Baker Avenue Dutton Avenue/Barham Avenue Signalize when warranted if desired by surrounding neighborhood Stony Point Road/Northpoint
Parkway
Add westbound Northpoint Parkway leg with left turn, through, and right turn (L-T-R) lanes
Add southbound left turn lane
Add left turn pocket in median on eastbound approach and convert lanes to left turn, through, right turn (L-T-R)
Add second left turn lane eastbound (only needed at buildout) Hearn Avenue-Northpoint
Parkway/Burbank Avenue
Signalize; northbound create left turn, through, right turn (L-T-R) lanes; on remaining approaches, create left turn and through/right turn (L-TR) lanes Hearn Avenue/Dutton Meadow Add eastbound right turn lane Hearn Avenue/Dutton Avenue Create le ft turn and through/right turn (L-TR) lanes southbound; left turn, through, right turn (L-T-R) lanes northbound; left turn, through, through/right turn (L-TR) lanes eastbound with second eastbound through lane beginning just upstream of intersection
Stony Point Road/W Hearn Avenue Change northbound from left tu rn, through, right turn (L-T-R) to left turn, through, through/right-turn (L-T-TR) with the widening of Stony Point Road to five-lane section
Stony Point Road/Ludwig Avenue-
Bellevue Avenue Realigned
Intersection
Create left turn, through, and right turn (L-T-R) lanes eastbound and westbound; left turn and through/right turn (L-TR) in near term and left turn, through, and through/right turn (L-T-TR) with widening of Stony Point Road to a five-lane section in the future

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

2.0-28
Intersection Improvement
Bellevue Avenue/Dutton Meadow Lengthen southbound right turn lane including bridge modification/widening (including bike lanes and sidewalks); add westbound right turn lane, add eastbound left turn lane in median
Bellevue Avenue/Dutton Avenue Signalize; add left turn pockets on all four approaches; add westbound right turn lane
Bellevue Avenue/Corby Avenue Signalize (only in future with construction of Bellevue overcrossing of US 101) Source: W-Trans 2016
Notes: GP = General Plan
Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
All existing and planned bicycle facilities identified in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Citywide Creek Master Plan, would be maintained in the Specific Plan, and several new and/or upgraded facilities would be added. The existing and planned bicycle facilities are shown in Figure 2.0-10. The planned pedestrian and bicycle network modifications are summarized in Table 2.0-3.

Source: W-Trans
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures FIGURE 2.0-10
Specific Plan Bicycle Network

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

2.0-31
TABLE 2.0-3

PROPOSED PLAN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
Facility Description
City of Santa Rosa
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan Paths
(Class I)
Maintain or establish the following pathway facilities:
 Joe Rodota Trail
 SMART multi-use pathway (MUP)
 Roseland Creek path from Stony Point Road to McMinn Avenue  Colgan Creek path along Bellevue Avenue from Burgess Drive, extending east and then north to Dutton Avenue extension
City of Santa Rosa
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan Bike Lanes
(Class II)
Maintain or establish the following bike lane facilities:
 Sebastopol Road
 Stony Point Road
 Olive Street (north of Sebastopol Road)
 Burbank Avenue
 West Avenue
 Dutton Avenue (and extensions)
 Dutton Meadow (and extensions)
 Northpoint Parkway
 Hearn Avenue
 Bellevue Avenue
City of Santa Rosa
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan Bike
Routes (Class III)
Maintain or establish the following bike route facilities:
 Corby Avenue/Dowd Drive north–south route (includes portions of Olive Street and Corby Avenue extension)
 Earle Street between Olive Street and US 101 pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing  East–west route including Lazzini Avenue, Comalli Street, Hughes Avenue, McMinn Avenue, Delport Avenue, and South Avenue
New Paths (Class I)
designated by Specific
Plan
Establish the following newly identified pathway facilities:
 Create a new path along the north side of Bellevue Avenue between the Colgan Creek path and Stony Point Road
 Colgan Creek Path north extension: extend from new Dutton Avenue bridge over creek to Hearn Avenue along Dutton Avenue extension
 Connect Beachwood Drive to SMART multi-use path through an existing maintenance access (consistent with the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan)  Establish an off-street pathway along the east side of Rain Dance Way, and extend southward from Rain Dance Way to the Colgan Creek path
 Adjust path alignments in Southwest Community Park to create a seamless pedestrian- bicycle connection between Hearn Avenue and the new Rain Dance Way path  Create path through Bellevue Ranch Park to link adjacent planned bike routes New Bike Lanes
(Class II) designated by
Specific Plan
Establish the following newly identified bike lane facilities:
 West Avenue from Sebastopol Road to Joe Rodota Trail
 Barham Avenue between Dutton Avenue and Olive Street (represents an upgrade from previously planned bike route)
New Bike Routes
(Class III) designated
by Specific Plan
Establish the following newly identified bike routes:
 Roseland Avenue between Sebastopol Road and the Joe Rodota Trail  Entire length of Leo Drive and its extension to Burbank Avenue  New north–south route designated on Old Stony Point Road and Liscum Street (including future Liscum Street extensions to Bellevue Avenue)
 Burgess Drive including easterly extension to Dutton Meadow  New east–west route designated on Barndance Lane, Blacksmith Way, Lone Star Court, and Tuxhorn Drive (integrates with planned path connections) Source: W-Trans 2016

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

2.0-32

ANNEXATIONS
The Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission’s (2014) adopted Policies, Procedures and Guidelines include policies specific to annexation s in southwestern Santa Rosa. Consistent with these policies, the project includes annexation of all existing unincorporated islands in southwestern Santa Rosa. An unincorporated island is defined as an area of unincorporated land that is substantially surrounded by city land. There are five such areas in southwestern Santa Rosa, two located in the Specific Plan area and thre e located outside the plan area. These areas encompass 1,614 parcels and approximately 714 acres (see Table 2.0-4 and Figure 2.0-2).

TABLE 2.0-4

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS
Annexation Area Location Acres Parcels
Inside Specific Plan Area
Roseland Northern portion of plan area 621.1 1,417
Victoria Drive Southeastern portion of plan area 19.4 47 Inside Plan Area Subtotal 640.5 1,464
Outside Specific Plan Area
West Third Street North of plan area 22.7 80
Brittain Lane West of plan area 17 21
West Hearn Avenue West of plan area 33.8 49
Outside Plan Area Subtotal 73.5 150
Total 714 1,614

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Many of the parcels in the project area have been developed and are assumed to remain unchanged with project implementation.

In the plan area, it is assumed that the currently vacant parcels would be developed in the future consistent with the proposed Specific Plan land use diagram. In the Annexation areas, vacant parcels are assumed to be developed in the future consistent with the existing City of Santa Rosa General Plan land use designations, with the exception of West Hearn Avenue, which is proposed to be redesignated to Very Low Density Residential as part of the project.

Tables 2.0-5 and 2.0-6 summarize the average “mid-range” development potential in the project area that could result with implementation of the proposed project.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

2.0-33
TABLE 2.0-5

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF PROPOSED PROJECT COMPARED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS

Residential (units) Nonresidential (square feet)
Single-Family Multi-
Family
Mobile
Home Office Retail Institutional Industrial
Roseland Specific Plan Area
Existing Condition 3,401 1,849 125 38,203 963,332 79,576 1,949,718 Specific Plan Buildout 5,759 3,093 125 41,300 1,497,898 99,576 2,270,732 Change in Development Potential Compared to
Existing Conditions 2,358 1,244 0 3,097 534,566 20,000 321,014 Annexation Areas
Existing Condition 140 18 1 0 6,090 0 47,719
Project Buildout 207 40 1 0 9,292 0 47,719
Change in Development Potential Compared to
Existing Conditions 67 22 0 0 3,202 0 0
Total Development Potential 2,425 1,266 0 3,097 537,768 20,000 321,014

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

2.0-34
TABLE 2.0-6

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF PROPOSED PROJECT COMPARED TO EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Residential (units) Nonresidential (square feet)
Single-
Family
Multi-
Family
Mobile
Home Office Retail Institutional Industrial
Roseland Specific Plan Area
General Plan Buildout 6,014 2, 719 125 41,300 1,601,589 79,576 2,270,732 Specific Plan Buildout 5,759 3, 093 125 41,300 1,497,898 99,576 2,270,732 Change in Development Potential Compared to
General Plan -255 374 0 0 -103,691 20,000 0
Annexation Areas
General Plan Buildout 229 40 1 0 9,292 0 47,719
Project Buildout 207 40 1 0 9,292 0 47,719
Change in Development Potential Compared to
General Plan -22
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Development Potential -277 374 0 0 -103,691 20,000 0 Note: 1. Assumes General Plan Amendment changing land use designation for certain parcels from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR)

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

2.0-35

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
A Draft Infrastructure Report has been prepared for the project area to identify existing infrastructure and determine necessary im provements to acco mmodate anticipated development in the project area within the planning horizon of the proposed project. This report is provided as Appendix 2.0 of this Draft EIR.

Water
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 and the proposed project’s water demand would be less than that projected in the City’s 2014 Water Master Plan Update. According to the Draft Infrastructure Report, a series of water pipe replacements are recommended based on the age of existing infrastructure.

However, the report concluded that the net water demand anticipated from project implementation would be lower than that anticipated under the General Plan 2035 and that no additional system improvements would be required to serve the project (Michael Baker International 2016).

Wastewater
Development of the project area was already considered in terms of generating wastewater in the City’s General Plan 2035 and 2014 Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Update. Further, according to the Draft Infrastructure Report, a series of wastewater pipe replacements are recommended based on the age of existing infrastructure. However, modeling of future wastewater flows indicated that no upsizing or other improvements would be required to accommodate the proposed project (Michael Baker International 2016).

Storm Drainage
According to the Draft Infrastructure Report, no upgrades to the existing storm drain lines in the project area would be required to accommodate the proposed project (Michael Baker International 2016).

2.5 R EGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
Potential permits and approvals required by the City of Santa Rosa include:
 Certification of the Environmental Impact Report and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
 Approval of the Specific Plan
 Rezoning and Pre-Zoning
 General Plan Amendments
 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Amendments
The EIR will be used to support subsequent actions, including but not necessarily limited to:
 Approval of annexations by the Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

2.0-36

REFERENCES
Michael Baker International. 2016. Draft Infrastructure Report for City of Santa Rosa.

W-Trans. 2016. Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Annexation.

3.0 I NTRODUCTION TO THE

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

3.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.0-1
The following is an introduction to the environmen tal analysis for the proposed project, including a discussion of general assumptions used in the environmental analysis and a discussion regarding the cumulative analysis. The reader is referred to the individual technical sections of this Draft EIR (Sections 3.1 through 3.15) for further information on the specific assumptions and methodologies used in the analysis for each particular technical subject.

ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS USED TO EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT

BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ASSUMED IN THE DRAFT EIR Section 15125(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an EIR include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The CEQA Guidelines also specify that this description of the physical en vironmental conditions will normally serve as the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether impacts of a project are considered significant. The NOP for the prop osed project EIR was published on January 15, 2016. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, each technical section of this EIR (Sections

3.1 through 3.15) contains a description of the physical setting at the time of the NOP. For most issue areas, impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are measured against the existing conditions at the time the NOP was published.

As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the proposed project does not propose specific development projects but proposes land use design ations that are, in most cases, the same as those included for the project area in the City’s General Plan (General Plan 2035). Thus, development of the project area as currently proposed was largely evaluated in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 EIR. Although the impacts asso ciated with implementation of the proposed project are measured against the existing conditions at the time the NOP was published, where appropriate, impacts resulting fr om implementation of the propos ed project under buildout of General Plan 2035 are also disclosed for comparison.

General Plan Policy LUL-A-3 requires development in unincorporated areas within the Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to be built to City of Santa Rosa standards to ensure consistency upon annexation. In addition, Santa Rosa City Council Policy Number 300-02, Utility Certificates for the Extension of Water or Sewer Service to Unincorporated Areas, stipulates that unincorporated parcels within the City’s planning boundary must be consistent with the City’s General Plan in order to receive utility services from the City (i.e., water and sewer service). Much of the unincorporated portions of the project area is currently provided such services by the City. Thus, when describing and/or analyzing future conditions, the Draft EIR assumes that these areas have been developed consistent with the Santa Rosa General Plan.

DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR EIR ANALYSIS
The Specific Plan includes a range of densities and/or development intensity for each proposed land use designation. The Specific Plan assume s a future development based on a calculated average “mid-range” capacity, and the analysis in this Draft EIR is based on that capacity. The calculated average reflects historic and recent development patterns in Santa Rosa for similar land use categories. The buildout assumptions for residential density are consistent with those used for the General Plan 2035 update (Michael Bake r International 2015). The specific development assumptions for the specific plan and annexation s areas compared to existing conditions and existing General Plan designations, respectively, are listed in Table 2.0-5 and Table 2.0-6 in Section

2.0, Project Description.

3.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.0-2
A mixed-use development project, referred to as the Roseland Village Neighborhood Center Project, is being planned north of Sebastopol Road at the proposed West Avenue extension.

However, the project is in the early stages of planning and an application for the project has not been submitted to the City or the County, as of April 2016. The conceptual plan includes 100 affordable apartments, 100 market-rate apartments, 40,000 square feet of commercial uses including retail, a child-care center, and a library, and a 1-acre public plaza. This project would be consistent with the proposed Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan land use plan.

Because an application for this project has not been submitted, the project is not analyzed in this EIR.

STRUCTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Sections 3.1 through 3.15 of this Draft EIR contain an evaluation of the direct and indirect environmental effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed project. These Sections describe feasible mitigation measures and ident ify whether significant environmental effects of the project would remain after application of th e feasible mitigation measures. The individual technical sections of the Draft EIR include the following information:

Existing Setting
This subsection includes a description of the physical setting associated with the technical area of discussion, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The setting includes a description of local conditions and regional conditions. Environm ental resources that are rare or unique to the region also are identified, where appropriate to the analysis.

Regulatory Framework
This subsection identifies applicable federal, stat e, regional, and local plans, policies, laws, and regulations that apply to the technical area of discussion.

The City’s General Plan serves as the overall guiding policy document for Santa Rosa. The entire project area, including unincorporated areas, was included in the General Plan planning area, and buildout of the project area in accordance with General Plan 2035 was evaluated in the associated EIR. The proposed project would be ge nerally consistent with the General Plan 2035 with a few exceptions, which are described in Section 2.0, Project Description. While the proposed project would include a General Plan amendment to ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan in these areas of change, the City of Santa Rosa City Council will make the ultimate determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This subsection identifies direct and indirect environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project. Standards of significance are identified and used to determine whether the environmental effects are considered “significant” and require the application of mitigation measures. Each environmental impact is identified numerically (e.g., Impact 3.10.1 – Divide an Established Community), and the associated analysis is supported by substantial evidence.

The proposed project consists of two components: the Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation, which is collectively referred to as the proposed project. The impact analysis evaluates the combined effects of both components, which comprise the “whole of an action” in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 153778(a) pertaining to the definition of a project.

3.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.0-3
For most resource topics, there is no difference in impacts between the two components. In that case, the analysis and impact conclusions apply to both the specific plan and annexation. If an impact would occur for the specific plan but not for the annexation areas or vice versa, those impacts are specifically noted.

This Draft EIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental effects of the proposed project:
 Standards of Significance: A set of criteria used by the lead agency to determine at what level or “threshold” an impact would be considered significant. Significance criteria used in this EIR include the CEQA Guidelines; fa ctual or scientific information; regulatory performance standards of local, state, and fe deral agencies; and City goals, objectives, and policies.
 No Impact: This is an impact for which there is clearly no environmental effect. There would be no difference in the environment between the existing condition and conditions with the project.
 Less Than Significant Impact: A less than significant impact would cause no substantial change in the environment. No mitigation is required.
 Significant Impact (or Potentially Significant Impact): A significant impact would cause, or would potentially cause, a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions of the environment. Significant impacts are identified by the evaluation of project effects using specified standards of significance. Mitigation measures and/or project alternatives are identified to reduce project effects to the environment.  Significant and Unavoidable Impact: A significant and unavoidable impact would result in a substantial change in the environment that cannot be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level if the project is implemented.
 Cumulatively Significant Impact: A cumulatively significant impact would result in a new substantial change in the environment from effects of the project when evaluated in the context of reasonably foreseeable development in the surrounding area.

Mitigation measures for the proposed project were developed through a review of the environmental effects of the project by consultants with technical expertise, as well as by environmental professionals. In some cases, the mitigation measures identified consist of “performance standards” that identify clear requirements that would avoid or minimize significant environmental effects (the use of performance standard mitigation is allowed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a) and is supported by case law Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. City of Solano ([1st Dist. 1992] 5 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 371, 375–376 [7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 307]).

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
This Draft EIR uses technical information and anal yses from previously prepared EIRs that are relevant to the consideration of environmental e ffects of the proposed project, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 [Incorporation by Reference]). The following EIR has been utilized in this Draft EIR:
 Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2008092114. Certified November 2009.

3.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.0-4
By utilizing provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, the City, in preparing this Draft EIR, has been able to make maximum feasible and appropriate use of the technical information in the above- referenced EIR. This EIR and othe r referenced materials are availa ble for review upon request at the City of Santa Rosa Planning and Econom ic Development Department, 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3, Santa Rosa, California, and ar e also available on the City’s website at www.srcity.org/roseland.

APPROACH TO THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Definition of Cumulative Setting
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires that EIRs include an analysis of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is considered cumulatively considerable. The project area was included in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 planning area, and its development was considered in the cumulative context of the General Plan 2035 EIR. Thus, this document generally uses the same cumulative context as the General Plan (i.e., the City of Santa Rosa and its UGB). However, the cumulative setting varies for each environmental issue area, depending on the resources affected and any re levant boundaries, such as the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) for air quality resources or the service area of the Laguna wastewater treatment plant for sewer services. Each technical section of the Draft EIR (Sections 3.1 through

3.15) includes a description of the geographic extent of the cumulative setting for that resource based on the characteristics of the environmental issues under consideration as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b).

Consideration of Cumulative Impacts
Each technical section in the Draft EIR considers whether the project’s effect on anticipated cumulative setting conditions is cumulatively considerable (i.e., a significant effect). The determination of the project’s im pact on cumulative conditions is based on applicable public agency standards, consultation with public agencies, and/or expert opinion. Each technical section of the EIR provides a summary of the cu mulative impacts associated with development of the project for that topic area.

EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires an EIR to briefly describe any possible significant effects that were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.

For purposes of this Draft EIR, the following topi c was eliminated from further evaluation in the scoping phase of the environmental analysis:
 Mineral Resources: The Santa Rosa General Plan designates land in the city on which known deposits of commercially viable mineral or aggregate deposits exist. None of the parcels in the project area are designated as such, and there are no active mineral resource extraction operations in the project area. Therefore, it was determined that the proposed project would have no potential to re sult in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important minera l resource recovery site. This topic is not addressed further in the EIR.

3.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.0-5

CHANGES TO THE PROJECT SINCE CIRCULATION OF THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION The City has been conducting workshops where the community was encouraged to share their views and develop a shared vision and plan for the Specific Plan and Annexation Areas. As the environmental process had begun, the City continued to engage the public regarding the Specific Plan and Annexation Areas. At the time the Notice of Preparation for the EIR for the project was circulated, the Specific Plan contemplated a change to the land use of five parcels located on the south side of Hearn Avenue, west of Victoria Drive, from the existing designations of Medium Low Residential and Office to a mixed-use designation of Medium Density Residential/Retail and Business Services. However, based on community input, the City amended the land use plan to retain the existing Santa Rosa General Plan land use designations. The change would result in approximately two fewer single-family residential units, nine fewer multi-family residential units, and 31,935 fewer square feet of retail use in the project area than originally anticipated at the time of the NOP.

Because the technical studies used to determine impacts for the Draft EIR had been completed when this change was made, the technical sections in the Draft EIR reflect the more intense use previously assumed. However, Chapter 2.0, Project Description, was revised to reflect the change back to the existing General Plan designation. Because the existing designation is less intense than that previously contemplated in the Specific Plan, the physical impacts of the project are less than disclosed in the technical sections. For instance, the land use designations currently proposed for this site would generate 1,492 fewer automobile trips on a daily basis at buildout compared to the original use assumed for the site. This equates to 37 fewer a.m. peak-hour trips and 95 fewer p.m. peak-hour trips on area roads. There would be proportional reductions in impacts associated with traffic-related air quality and greenhouse gas emissions as well as traffic-generated noise. Similarly, reductions in residential units and retail spac e would bring about reductions in demand for services and utilities. Because the EIR overstates the potential impacts of the proposed project related to this change, there would be no additional impacts beyond those identified and no changes are required.

3.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.0-6

REFERENCES
Michael Baker International. 2015. Memorandum from Jeanine Cavalli to Jessica Jones, City of Santa Rosa RE: Land Use Assumptions and Build-Out Scenario.

W-Trans. 2016. Memorandum from Zack Matley to Patrick Hindmarsh and Jeanine Cavalli of Michael Baker International RE: SRRASP Traffic Analysis Implications of Retaining Current General Plan Designations on Five Parcels.

3.1 AESTHETICS

3.1 AESTHETICS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.1-1
This section describes the visual conditions and resources of the project area, summarizes existing landscape characteristics, and discusses the im pacts associated with implementation of the proposed project.

3.1.1 E XISTING SETTING

REGIONAL SETTING
Santa Rosa’s downtown area serves as the city’s primary activity node and comprises primarily mixed office and retail uses. The city’s residential neighborhoods are diverse, ranging from the traditional—such as the Junior College, Burbank Ga rdens, and West End—with grid street patterns and moderately high densities to low-density hillside neighborhoods such as Chanate/Hidden Valley, Rincon Valley, and Fountaingrove.

Rural vistas on the edges of Santa Rosa contribute to the city’s identity. Old farmhouses and ranches provide reminders of local agricultural history. Views of the Sonoma Mountain foothills in the eastern portion of the city are available from most parts of Santa Rosa.

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
In the Specific Plan area, there are residential, commercial, office, and industrial uses. Residential neighborhoods are compact in development patter n. Most residential development in the plan area is well established and either low or medium density. Commercial and industrial uses have large building footprints and large open spaces between buildings.

Residential Development
Most residential development in the plan ar ea was constructed between 1950 and 1990.

Residential development that occurred between 1950 and 1970 was neighborhoods of single- family homes. The years between 1970 and 1990 were characterized mostly by higher-density, multi-family infill residential developments. Figure 3.1-1 illustrates examples of existing residential development in the project area.

Commercial Development
Commercial space in the plan area consists of retail and business services. Prominent commercial development includes an auto mall with numerous dealerships located along Corby Avenue, which runs parallel to US Highway 101 (US 101) as well as strip retail along Sebastopol Road. Most buildings are one or two stories in height (under 35 feet). Figure 3.1-2 illustrates examples of existing commercial space in the area.

Industrial and Office Development
Industrial uses in the plan area are concentrated along US 101 and the rail corridor, south of Hearn Avenue, with some additional industrial land located along the rail corridor between Sebastopol Road and Barham Avenue. Types of industrial uses include self-storage, goods distribution centers, manufacturing, wholesale suppliers, and auto repair and tire shops. Most buildings are one or two stories in height (under 35 feet) with some surrounded by fenced storage yards.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.1-2
Office uses in the plan area are limited. The most prominent office building is a two-story building with large reflective glass windows located on Talmadge Drive behind the auto mall. The remainder of the office uses are generally characterized as older one-story buildings. Figure 3.1-3 shows examples of industrial and office development.

Vacant Areas
A number of vacant properties are located thro ughout the plan area. The largest vacant areas (totaling nearly 200 acres) are lo cated south of Hearn Avenue (see Figure 3.10-1 in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning). Figure 3.1-4 shows examples of vacant areas in the Specific Plan area.

Scenic Views
Santa Rosa is framed by the Sonoma Mountain f oothills that are prominently visible from many locations in the flatland areas of the city. While the City has not officially designated any scenic vistas, General Plan 2035 Policies UD-A-1 and UD-A-8 direct the City to protect views of natural hillsides and natural ridgelines such as Taylor Mountain and Bennett Mountain (Santa Rosa 2009a).

Figure 3.1-5 shows examples of views of the foothills from the area.

Scenic Roads and Local Roads
A scenic road is defined as a highway, road, drive, or street that, in addition to its transportation function, provides opportunities for the enjoyment of natural and human-made scenic resources.

Scenic roads direct views to areas of exceptiona l beauty, natural resources, or landmarks or of historic or cultural interest.

The City’s General Plan designates Burbank Avenue and State Route (SR) 12, from its interchange with US 101 west to Fulton Road, as scenic roads. US 101 throughout the city is designated as a scenic road. These roadways have unique scenic qualities because of their natural setting and/or historic and cultural features and are subject to General Plan policies intended to preserve and enhance the roads. Portions of the plan area are visible from US 101 and SR 12.

Local roads in the plan area include a wide variet y of street types, from two-lane neighborhood roads to wide, multiple-lane arterial s with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Figure 3.1-6 shows examples of some of the roadways in the Specific Plan area.

Lighting and Glare
Lighting and glare are commonly found throughout the plan area, due to the area’s existing developed urban character. Existi ng sources of light include streetlights, parking lot lighting, storefront and signage lighting, vehicle headlights, residential porch lights, and interior lights from homes and buildings that spill over to the exterior of buildings through windows. Glare can also be created by reflection of sunlight and artificial light off windows and building surfaces.

FIGURE 3.1-1
Examples of Existing Residential Development within Project Area T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures

FIGURE 3.1-2
Examples of Existing Commercial Development within Project Area T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures

FIGURE 3.1-3
Examples of Existing Industrial and Office Development within Project Area T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures

FIGURE 3.1-4
Examples of Vacant Parcels within Project Area
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures

FIGURE 3.1-5
Examples of Rural Vistas from Project Area
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures

FIGURE 3.1-6
Examples of Roadways within Project Area
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures

3.1 AESTHETICS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.1-15

ANNEXATION AREAS
The following describes the existing setting for the three annexation areas located outside of the Specific Plan boundaries.

West Third Street
The West Third Street Annexation area north of Third Street is primarily developed as a low-density, suburban residential neighborhood with few va cant lots. Close-range views are dominated by older single-family homes and duplexes, small yard s with turf and trees, narrow roadways with unimproved shoulders, low fencing, and overhead utility lines. South of Third Street, the area is developed with primarily industrial uses including automotive and other repair shops, contractors and wholesale warehouses, and manufacturing. Several single-family homes also front Third Street.

Close-range views in this area are dominated by single-story industrial buildings with roll-up garage doors and few windows, large paved parking areas, fenced and screened storage areas, overhead utility lines, and limited landscaping. Because of the flat terrain, long-range views are obscured by nearby buildings and trees. The West Third Street Annexation is not visible from US 101 but is adjacent to and visible from SR 12. Existing light sources include street lights, porch lights on residences, building-mounted parking lot and security lighting, vehicle headlights, and interior light emanating from doors and windows.

Brittain Lane
The Brittain Lane Annexation area is primaril y developed as a low-density, rural residential neighborhood with scattered vacant parcels. Close-range views are dominated by older single- family homes, large yards with turf and trees, narrow roadways with unimproved shoulders, low fencing, and overhead utility lines. Long-range views are largely obscured by the abundant mature trees and vegetation present throughout the area. The Joe Rodota Trail and adjacent SR 12 corridor are partially visible to the north wher e existing vegetation is thin. The area is not visible from US 101. Existing light sources are limited to typical residential lighting including porch lights, vehicle headlights, and interior light emanating from doors and windows.

West Hearn Avenue
The West Hearn Avenue Annexation area is developed as a low-density, rural residential neighborhood with scattered vacant parcels. Close-range views are dominated by older single- family homes, large yards with turf and trees, narrow roadways with unimproved shoulders, low fencing, farm animals and associated accessory buildings and overhead utility lines. Long-range views are largely obscured by the abundant mature trees and vegetation present throughout the area. The area is not visible from US 101 or SR 12. Existing light sources are limited to typical residential lighting including porch lights, vehicl e headlights, and interior light emanating from doors and windows.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.1-16

3.1.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
State Scenic Highway Systems
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers the California Scenic Highway Program. The program’s goal is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would affect the aesthetic value of the land adjacent to the highways. US Highway 101 runs along the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area and State Route 12 is along the northern part, but neither is identified as a state scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2014).

Nighttime Sky – Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards
The California Energy Commission (CEC) Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Parts 1 and 6) regulate outdoor lighting for both the public and private sectors. The standards regulate lighting characteristics, such as maximum power and bright ness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off, and are intended to improve the quality of outdoor lighting and help to reduce the impacts of light pollution, light trespass, and glare. Different lighting standards are set by classifying areas by lighting zone. The classificat ions are based on population figures of the 2010 Census, with ambient illumination defined as LZ1 (d ark), LZ2 (low), or LZ3 (medium). The City of Santa Rosa, including the project area, is an urban area as defined by the 2010 Census and therefore the applicable classification is LZ3.

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 in regard to aesthetics.

Transportation Element
Goal T-G: Identify, preserve, and enhance scenic roads throughout Santa Rosa in both rural and developed areas.

Policy T-G-1: Develop protective standards for the scenic roads identified below so that they may be added to the Scenic Roads Overlay zone. Roads marked with an asterisk (*) should be paid special attention as they provide a transition between the rural countryside and the city’s Urban Growth Boundary.
 Fountaingrove Parkway
 Bennett Valley Road (south of Farmers Lane)
 Farmers Lane Extension (planned south of Bennett Valley Road)*  Montgomery Drive (from Mission Boulevard to Melita Road)  Chanate Road (from Mendocino Avenue to Fountaingrove Parkway)

3.1 AESTHETICS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.1-17
 Petaluma Hill Road (from Colgan Avenue to UGB)*
 Highway 12 (from Farmers Lane to Calistoga Road)
 Highway 12 (from Highway 101 west to Fulton Road)
 Highway 101 (contiguous from northern to southern city limit)  Newanga Avenue
 Channel Drive
 Francisco Avenue*
 Wright Road South*
 Ludwig Avenue*
 Burbank Avenue
Policy T-G-5: Retain existing trees and vegetation along scenic roads, as possible. Enhance roadway appearance through landscaping, using native plant material.

Policy T-G-6: Provide large setbacks from scenic roads, as possible, to avoid encroachment of buildings on the view of the roadway.

Policy T-G-10: Ensure any signage along scenic roads does not detract from the area’s scenic character.

Policy T-G-11: Underground utility line s along scenic roads.

Policy T-G-13: Plant graded areas to avoid erosion and maintain a pleasing appearance.

Policy T-G-14: Use of natural materials such as stone, brick, and wood is preferable to metal posts and rails for roadside appurtenances.

Policy T-G-15: Require that scenic road rights-of-way are wide enough to preserve natural vegetation. Provide appropriate construction setbacks to retain views along the corridor.

Urban Design Element
Goal UD-A: Preserve and enhance Santa Rosa’s scenic character, including its natural waterways, hillsides, and distinctive districts.

Policy UD-A-1: Maintain view corridors to natural ridg elines and landmarks, such as Taylor Mountain and Bennett Mountain.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.1-18
Policy UD-A-2: Strengthen and emphasize community focal points, visual landmarks, and features that contribute to the identity of Santa Rosa using design concepts and standards implemented through the Zoning Code, Design Guidelines, Preservation District Plans, Scenic Roads policies, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, and the Citywide Creek Master Plan.

Examples of landmarks and community focal points are Old Courthouse Square, DeTurk Round Barn, the Railroad Square water tower, St. Rose School, Hotel La Rose, Santa Rosa Creek, Luther Burbank Home and Gardens, and views to the hills.

Policy UD-A-3: Use changes in tree species, scale, color and spacing to define neighborhoods and to differentiate street types. Update the Master Street Tree Planting Plan to accomplish this.

Street trees should relate to scale, function, and visual importance of the street, as well as the character of the neighborhood or district in which they are located.

Policy UD-A-4: In new developments, minimize overall gr ading by limiting site grading to the minimum necessary for driveways, parking areas, and understructure areas.

Policy UD-A-5: Require superior site and architectural design of new development projects to improve visual quality in the city.

Policy UD-A-7: Continue the city’s program of utility undergrounding.

Policy UD-A-10: Relate landscape design to the natural setting. Require that graded areas within new development be revegetated.

Goal UD-C: Enhance and strengthen the visual quality of major entry routes into the city, as well as major corridors that link neighborhoods with downtown.

Policy UD-C-4: Work with Caltrans to beautify Highwa y 101 and Highway 12. Encourage Caltrans to incorporate more landscaping, planting of trees, and soundwall mitigation into any improvements planned for these highways. Lessen the impact of new soundwalls through the use of vegetation.

Policy UD-C-6: Require that buildings, soundwalls, and other structures highly visible from Highway 101 or Highway 12 and adjoining neighb orhoods be designed to enhance and improve scenic character.

Goal UD-D: Avoid strip patterns of commercia l development. Improve the appearance and functioning of existing commercial strip corridors, such as Santa Rosa Avenue and Sebastopol Road.

Policy UD-D-2: Maintain a uniform setback of structures from the street. Require parking areas to be placed to the side or rear of structures, not in front.

3.1 AESTHETICS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.1-19
Policy UD-D-5: Provide planting strips with large canopy trees between the road and sidewalk to buffer pedestrians from traffic, an d help define the street space along commercial streets. Install pedestrian amenities in the planting strip such as:
 Street lighting;
 Seating;
 Bus stop shelters;
 Bicycle racks; and
 Mail boxes.

Goal UD-F: Maintain and enhance the diverse character of Santa Rosa’s neighborhoods.

Promote the creation of neighborhoods—not subdivisions—in areas of new development.

Policy UD-F-2: Protect natural topographic features such as hillsides, ridgelines and mature trees and stands of trees. Minimize grading of natural contours in new development.

Land Use and Livability Element
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.

Policy LUL-K-2: Require that outdoor storage areas be screened from any public right-of-way.

City of Santa Rosa Design Guidelines and Design Review
Santa Rosa’s Design Guidelines and design review process ensure that new or remodeled development in the city will enhance the city’s environment and blend into the style of the surrounding area. All nonresidential and multi-family developments are subject to design review.

Projects are reviewed for site planning, circulat ion, architectural design , quality and type of materials, colors, and landscaping. The Zoning Administrator reviews minor projects, as defined by the Santa Rosa Zoning Code, and the Design Review Board reviews major projects, such as those that are proposing 10,000 square feet or more of new floor area and projects located in visually sensitive areas.

The City has adopted Design Guidelines to implement the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. The guidelines strive to achieve superior design in all developments. They incorporate such traditional development patterns as pedestrian-oriented residential neighborhoods organized around centers that include mixed uses and open space, interconnected street systems, housing variety, and mixed uses in the downtown.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.1-20

3.1.3 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. An ae sthetics impact is considered significant if the project would:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

METHODOLOGY
The following impact analysis is based on information provided in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 and its associated Environmental Impact Re port; Chapter 2 of the proposed Specific Plan (Existing Conditions and Opportunities); and aerial and street view photography of the area, as well as site visits with associated photographs.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Scenic Vistas (Standard of Significance 1)
Impact 3.1.1 The proposed project would result in development on previously undeveloped parcels in the project area that could block views of scenic vistas from surrounding properties. Compliance with existing City policies and Design Guidelines would protect scenic vi stas and ensure this impact is less than significant.

Scenic views and vistas, including long-range vi ews of the Sonoma Mountain foothills and the foothills to the west of Santa Rosa, contribute to the overall visual character of the project area.

Views of rolling hills are visible to the north, northeast, east, and southeast. Buildings in some locations, such as the area near the Burbank Avenue/Hearn Avenue intersection and the Southside Bus Transfer Center, could be taller th an existing buildings in the project area. The proposed project thus has the potential to result in taller buildings that could obstruct scenic views and vistas.

Although the Specific Plan would change the land use designations of some properties, allowing for increase in development in some locations, it would integrate existing General Plan goals, policies, and guidelines that seek to preserve scenic views and vistas. Upon annexation, the Annexation areas would be subject to these same goals, policies, and guidelines.

General Plan Goal UD-A requires the preservation and enhancement of Santa Rosa’s scenic character. Policy UD-A-1 supports this goal by re quiring the City to maintain view corridors to natural ridgelines and landmarks. Policy UD-A-2 requires the City to strengthen and emphasize

3.1 AESTHETICS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.1-21
community focal points, visual landmarks, and features that contribute to the city’s identity. Taken together, the existing goals, policies, and those proposed by the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Scenic Resources (Standard of Significance 2)
Impact 3.1.2 The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. There would be no impact.

Caltrans does not identify the portion of US 101 that runs along the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area as a state scenic highway. Because the proposed project does not include portions of a state scenic highway, it would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway.

Segments of US 101 and SR 12 that adjoin the plan area, Burbank Avenue within the plan area, as well as the West Third and Brittain Lane Annexati on areas, are identified by the City as scenic roadways. General Plan Goal T-G requires the City to identify, preserve, and enhance scenic roads throughout Santa Rosa. Several policies requiring preservation and enhancement of scenic roads support this goal.

To avoid encroachment of buildings on the views of scenic resources from scenic roadways, Policy T-G-6 requires large setbacks from City-desig nated scenic roads, as possible, to avoid encroachment of buildings on the view of the roadway. Policy UD-C-6 requires that buildings, soundwalls, and other structures highly visible fr om US 101 or SR 12 and adjoining neighborhoods be designed to enhance and improve scenic character. Implementation of the City’s Design Guidelines and Zoning Code would preserve an d protect scenic resources along these locally designated highways in the project area.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Visual Character (Standard of Significance 3)
Impact 3.1.3 The proposed project could change the existing visual character of the project area by allowing new de velopment on currently vacant and underutilized parcels. This impact would be less than significant.

Currently, the majority of the project area is developed with residential, retail, office, institutional, and industrial uses. Neither the Specific Plan area nor the Annexation areas contain visual features that would be considered unique or out of character within the built environment. Future development that would occur under the Specific Pl an or in the Annexation areas would be in areas that are currently undeveloped. The introduction of new uses on vacant lands has the potential to alter the visual char acter and quality of those places , which could potentially result in degradation of the community’s aesthetic ch aracter if the uses are not developed in an appropriate manner.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.1-22
Future development projects proposed in the pr oject area would be subject to the goals and policies of the General Plan 2035 Urban Design Element. For example, Policy UD-A-1 requires the maintenance of view corridors to natural ridgelines and landmarks. Policy UD-A-5 requires superior site and architectural design of new development projects to improve visual quality in the city.

Adherence to the City’s adopted Design Guidelines would also prevent development from having significant impacts on the existing visual quality and character by regulating site design and layout, building heights and stepbacks, bu ilding form and materials, landscaping, and lighting. Upon annexation, the Annexation areas would also be subject to these existing City policies and guidelines.

With continued adherence to applicable General Plan policies and City Design Guidelines, as well as with the implementation of Specific Plan, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the project area.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Light and Glare (Standard of Significance 4)
Impact 3.1.4 The proposed project would introduce new sources of light or glare. This impact would be less than significant.

Future development in the project area would introduce new sources of light associated with residential, retail, parking lot, and street lighting, as well as glare from vehicles.

Section 20-30.080 of the City’s Zoning Code regulates outdoor lighting in new development. Per this code section, the Zoning Code specifies that no permanently installed lighting may blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness, as determined by the City. The code regulates the height and shielding of lighting fixtures. The code specifies that an outdoor light fixture is limited to a maximum height of 17 feet in single-family residential, 14 feet in multi-family residential, 16 feet in business and light industrial parks, and 16 feet in retail centers and commercial districts. The Zoning Code further specifies that lighting fixtures should confine glare and reflections within the boundaries of the site to the maximum extent feasible.

The City’s Design Guidelines, which contain numero us standards limiting the intensity, direction, and height of lighting fixtures, would further limit new sources of light, as well as glare, when specific projects are developed in the projec t area. With adherence to the Zoning Code regulations and Design Guidelines, the project’s impacts from increased outdoor lighting would be less than significant.

At some locations, construction of taller buildings than those that currently exist and are currently allowed could result in new sources of glare, depending on the building’s orientation and the materials used. The City’s Design Guidelines discourage the use of highly reflective building materials, and the use of such materials would be evaluated during the design review process to ensure that a project would not result in glare on adjacent uses. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.1 AESTHETICS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.1-23

3.1.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting for aesthetics includes the project area and all surrounding properties that have views of the project area, along with future development anticipated in the City of Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), as identified in the General Plan 2035.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Visual Impacts
Impact 3.1.5 The proposed project, in combinat ion with other planned and recently approved projects in the project area, would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact on the visual character of the city.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in changes to the city’s urban visual character and that with implementation of General Plan goals and policies, potential visual impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Overall, the proposed project would maintain the existing urban development pattern of the surrounding area. The majority of the project area is currently developed with residential, retail, office, institutional, and industrial uses. The proj ect area does not contain visual features that would be considered unique or out of character in the built environment. However, the project would potentially alter the visu al characteristics of the project area by allowing denser development and taller building heights in some locations than currently exist or are planned in those locations under the General Plan. This development would also introduce additional sources of light and glare.

Development of vacant parcels in the project area would not contribute to an overall shift in Santa Rosa’s visual character. Development in some areas of the Specific Plan area would result in increased density of residential land uses compared to existing and currently allowed under the General Plan. However, with adherence to the General Plan policies and proposed Specific Plan policies intended to protect and enhance the visual character of the city, existing City Design Guidelines, and Santa Rosa Zoning Code regulations, cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.1-24

REFERENCES
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2014. Eligible (E) and Officially Designated (OD) Routes. Accessed October 26, 2015.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/gis/datalibrary/Metadata/ScenicHwys.html.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Dr aft Environmental Impact Report.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.2-1
This section addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project on agriculture and forest resources. The impact analysis focuses on potential direct and indirect conversion of agriculture resources as well as potential conflic ts with existing zoning for agricultural uses.

Information used in the preparat ion of this section was obtained primarily from the California Department of Conservation and the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035.

3.2.1 E XISTING SETTING

FARMLAND MAPPING
The Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) maps important farmlands throughout California. Important farmlands are divided into the following five categories based on their suitability for agriculture:
 Prime Farmland: Has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming methods.
 Farmland of Statewide Importance: Similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to hold and store moisture.  Unique Farmland: Does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance but has been used for the production of specific high-economic-value crops.  Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committees.  Grazing Land: Land on which the existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock.

REGIONAL SETTING
Rural residential, open space and resource prot ection, and agricultural uses constitute the majority of activities outside of the city. The ag ricultural resources found in Santa Rosa primarily consist of Farmland of Local Importance (9,657 acres). Additionally, 3,121 acres of Prime Farmland and 3,203 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance are located in the vicinity, a majority of which is located outside of Santa Rosa’s Urban Growth Boundary. Such farmland is focused along the western edge of the city, adjacent to Laguna de Santa Rosa (Santa Rosa, 2009, p. 4.L-3).

IMPORTANT FARMLAND IN PROJECT AREA
Figure 3.2-1 illustrates the current FMMP designations in the project area. As shown, the majority of the Specific Plan area is designated Urban and Built-Up Land and Other Land, with three areas totaling 94.7 acres designated Farmland of Local Importance. Each of the three Annexation Areas located outside of the Specific Plan boundaries are designated Urban and Built-Up Land.

Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county’s local advisory committee and adopted by its Board of Supervisors. In Sonoma County, Farmland of Local Importance is defined as the hayland-producing areas of the Santa Rosa Plains, Petaluma Valley, and Tubbs Island Naval Reservation. Farmland of Local Importance is also

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.2-2
defined as those lands that are classified has having the capability for producing locally important crops such as grapes, corn, etc., but may not be planted at the present time (DOC 2000).

WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT LANDS
The Williamson Act is a mechanism for protecti ng agricultural and open space land from premature and unnecessary urban development. For lands under Williamson Act contract, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal, in exchange for restricting the land to agricultural or related open space use for a defined period of time (see subsection 3.2.2, Regulatory Framework for further details). There are no active Williamson Act contracts in the project area (DOC 2013b).

FOREST RESOURCES
The project area does not contain any forest resources. None of the parcels in the project area are zoned for forest resource production.

3.2.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is a federal agency in the US Department of Agriculture that is primarily responsible for implem entation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The act’s purpose is to minimize federal programs’ contribution to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local, and private programs designed to protect farmland. The NRCS provides technical assistance to federal agen cies, state and local governments, tribes, or nonprofit organizations that desire to develop farmland protection programs and policies. The FPPA also established the Farmland Protection Program and Land Evaluation and Site Assessment.

The NRCS summarizes Farmland Protection Policy Act implementation in an annual report to Congress.

Farmland Protection Program
The NRCS administers the Farmland Protection Program, a voluntary program aimed at keeping productive farmland in agricultural uses. Under the program, the NRCS provides matching funds to state, local, or tribal government entities and nonprofit organizations with existing farmland protection programs to purchase conservation easements. The goal of the program is to protect between 170,000 and 340,000 acres of farmland per year (USDA-NRCS 2007). Participating landowners agree not to convert the land to nonagricultural use and retain all rights to use the property for agriculture. A minimum of 30 years is required for conservation easements and priority is given to applications with perpetual easements. The NRCS provides up to 50 percent of the fair market value of the easement being conserved (USDA-NRCS 2007).

FIGURE 3.2-1
Prime Farmland Classification For Sonoma County
IÆ
IÆ
?ÝE
?ÝE
D
X
L
L
L
L
X
D
L
L
D
X
D
L
L
D
P
X
L
D
L
L
L
U
S
L
U
L
S
S
L
X
T:\_GIS\Sonoma_County\MXDs\Santa_Rosa\SRRASP\EIR_Figures\FMMP.mxd (1/4/2016) 0 1,000 2,000
FEET
Source: FMMP, CA Dept of Conservation (2012); City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.

Legend
City Limits
Annexation Areas
Project Area
FMMP Classification
P - Prime Farmland
S - Farmland of Statewide Importance
L - Farmland of Local Importance
G - Grazing Land
X - Other Land
D - Urban and Built-Up Land

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.2-5
To qualify for a conservation easement, farmland must meet several criteria. The land must be:
 Prime, unique, or other productive soil, as de fined by the NRCS based on factors such as water moisture regimes, available water capacity, developed irrigation water supply, soil temperature range, acid-alkali balance, water table, soil sodium content, potential for flooding, erodibility, permeability rate, rock fragment content, and soil-rooting depth.  Included in a pending offer to be managed by a nonprofit organization, state, tribal, or local farmland protection program.
 Privately owned.
 Placed under a conservation plan.
 Large enough to sustain agricultural production.
 Accessible to markets for the crop that the land produces.  Surrounded by parcels of land that can support long-term agricultural production.

STATE
California Environmental Quality Act Definition of Agricultural Lands Public Resources Code Section 21060.1 defines agricultural land as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, as defined by the US Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for Ca lifornia. This Draft EIR uses this definition to evaluate impacts associated with the loss of agricultural lands as a result of the project.

California Department of Conservation
The Department of Conservation administers and supports a number of programs, including the Williamson Act, the California Farmland Conservancy Program, the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program, and the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. These programs are designed to preserve agricultural land and provide data on conversion of agricultural land to urban use. The Department of Conservation is responsible for approving Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program agreements.

Important Farmland Inventory System and Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program The Important Farmland Inventory System initiated in 1975 by the US Soil Conservation Service (now the NRCS) classifies land based on 10 soil and climatic characteristics. The Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) is a similar system of mapping and monitoring for California, started in 1980.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the lead agency is required to evaluate agricultural resources in environmental assessments at least in part based on the FMMP. The state’s system was designed to document how much agricultural land in California was being converted to nonagricultural land or transferred into Williamson Act contracts. The definitions of important farmland types are provided in the Farmland Mappi ng discussion in subsection 3.2.1, Existing Setting.

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.2-6
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. There are no Williamson Act contracts in the project area.

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 are the applicable General Plan goals an d policies most pertinent to the project with regard to agricultural resources.

Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal OSC-C: Conserve agricultural soils.

Policy OSC-C-3: Preserve and enhance agriculture within the Planning Area as a component of the economy and as a part of Santa Rosa’s environmental quality.

3.2.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on State CEQA Guid elines Appendix G. An impact to agriculture and forest resources is considered significant if the project would:
1) Result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use. 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberla nd (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).
4) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use. 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use, or conversion of forestland to non-forest use.

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.2-7

METHODOLOGY
This analysis of agriculture and forest resources was based on review of current uses in the project area, soil characteristics of the project area, an d the project area’s farmland classifications per the USDA-NRCS and the FMMP. This information was used to determine the proposed project’s specific agriculture-related impacts, paying part icular attention to the potential direct and indirect conversion of farmland and whether existing regulations would mitigate impacts.

Impacts Not Evaluated in Detail
No parcels in the project area are zoned for agricultural use or are subject to an active Williamson Act contract. Therefore, there would be no impact s relative to Standard of Significance 2, and these issues are not further evaluated.

The Specific Plan area and the Annexation Areas do not contain forestlands as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) or timberland as defined in the Public Resources Code Section 4526, nor are they currently designated or zone d for timberland production or other forestry- related uses nor are they in a designated Timberland Production Zone. Therefore, there would be no impacts relative to Standards of Significance 3 or 4, and these issues are not further evaluated.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Convert Important Farmland (Standards of Significance 1 and 5) Impact 3.2.1 The Specific Plan area and the Annexa tion Areas do not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert any important farmland. There would be no impact.

Neither the Specific Plan area nor the Annexation Areas contain land designated by the FMMP as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, there would be no impact related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses.

The Specific Plan area contains approximately 94.7 acres designat ed by the FMMP as Farmland of Local Importance and additional acreage that is designated by the FMMP as Urban and Built- Up Land or Other Land that is currently used fo r agricultural production, but has soils of poorer quality that are not afforded state protection. While these properties would be annexed into the City these areas were previously designated for urban uses in the Santa Rosa General Plan. With respect to the West Hearn Annexation area, the project only proposes a change in land use designation from low-density residential to very low-density residential. This would not involve physical changes in land use, and the prop osed actions would not preclude continued agricultural operations on existing agricultural prop erties or directly result in their conversion to non-agricultural use.

Because the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use or otherwise convert agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.2-8

3.2.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

CUMULATIVE SETTING
Agriculture resources are of statewide importance. Consequently, the cumulative setting consists of all agriculture resources in California. Throughout the state, development pressures are resulting in the conversion of thousands of acres of agri cultural land. According to the latest statewide study by the DOC (2013a), approximately 107,798 acres of agricultural land were converted to nonagricultural use between 2008 and 2010.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Impacts on Agricultural Resources
Impact 3.2.2 The proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on agricultural resources. This impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 EIR identified that with implementation of the policies included in the General Plan, buildout of the General Plan planning area, which includes the project area, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to agricultural resources.

Development of the project area was considered as part of the General Plan. As indicated in Impact 3.2.1, the proposed project would result in no impact related fa rmland conversion. Thus, the proposed project would not result in any additional impact related to agriculture resources, and the cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.2-9

REFERENCES
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2000. Farmland of Local Importance . Accessed December 14, 2015. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents /Local_definitions_00.pdf.
———. 2013a. California Farmland Conversion Summary 2008–2010 Land Use Conversion. ———. 2013b. Sonoma County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014 . Accessed December 22, 2015. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Sonoma_13_14_WA.pdf. ———. 2014. Sonoma County Important Farmland 2012.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Dr aft Environmental Impact Report.

USDA-NRCS (US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2007.

National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-1
This section examines the air quality for the pr oposed project area in Santa Rosa, includes a summary of applicable air qual ity regulations, and analyzes potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures are recommended, as necessary, to reduce significant air quality impacts.

3.3.1 E XISTING SETTING

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
The project area is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regi onal air quality agency for the SFBAAB, which comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, the southern portion of Sonoma County, and the southwestern portion of Solano County.

The air basin’s topography is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays. This complex terrain, especially the higher elevations, distorts the n o r m a l w i n d f l o w p a t t e r n s i n t h e a i r b a s i n . A tmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants. The climate of the Bay Area is determined largely by a high-pressure system that is often present over the eastern Pacific Ocean. High-pressure systems are characterized by an upper layer of dry air that warms as it descends, restricting the mobility of cooler marine-influenced air near the ground surface, resulting in subsidence inversions.

During summer and fall, locally generated emissi ons can, under the restraining influences of topography and subsidence inversions, cause conditions that are conducive to the formation of photochemical pollutants, such as ozone and secondary particulates, such as nitrates and sulfates.

In the winter, the Pacific high pressure system shifts southward, allowing storms to pass through the area. (Santa Rosa 2009).

Cotati Valley Climatological Subregion
The project area is located within the Cotati Valley, a subregion in the SFBAAB that stretches from Santa Rosa to the San Pablo Bay. The Petaluma Va lley to the south comprises the other part of the subregion. Wind patterns in the Cotati Vall ey are strongly influenced by the Petaluma Gap, with winds flowing predominantly from the west. As marine air travels through the Petaluma Gap, it splits into northward and southward paths moving into the Cotati and Petaluma valleys. The southward path crosses San Pablo Bay and moves eastward through the Carquinez Strait. The northward path contributes to Santa Rosa’s prevailing winds from the south and southeast.

When the ocean breeze is weak, strong winds from the east can predominate, carrying pollutants from the Central Valley and the Carquinez Strait. During these periods, up valley flows can carry the polluted air as far north as Santa Rosa and the proposed project area.

Winds are usually stronger in the Petaluma Valley than in the Cotati Valley because the former is directly in line with the Petaluma Gap. Average annual wind speed at Petaluma Airport is 7 miles per hour (mph). The Cotati Valley, being slightly north of the Petaluma Gap, experiences lower wind speeds. The annual average wind speed in Santa Rosa is 5 mph.

Air temperatures are very similar in the two valleys. Summer maximum temperatures for this subregion are in the low to mid 80s (in degrees Fahrenheit), while winter maximum temperatures are in the high 50s to low 60s. Summer minimum temperatures are around 50 degrees, and winter minimum temperatures are in the high 30s.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-2
The Cotati Valley has a higher pollution potentia l than does the Petaluma Valley. The Cotati Valley’s high pollution potential is a function of its lack of a gap to the sea, large population, and natural barriers at its northern and eastern ends. There are also industrial facilities in and around Santa Rosa. Population and motor vehicle use are increasingly significant, and housing costs and the suburbanization of employment are leading to more and longer commutes traversing the subregion (BAAQMD 2011).

AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. These regulated air pollutan ts are known as criteria air pollutants and are categorized into primary and secondary pollut ants. Primary air pollutants are those emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), coarse particulate matter (PM 10) and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), lead, and fugitive dust are primar y air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO 2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NO X are criteria pollutant precursors an d go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O 3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Presented in Table 3.3-1 are descriptions of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects.

T
ABLE 3.3-1

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS SUMMARY OF COMMON SOURCES AND EFFECTS Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
An odorless, colorless gas formed when
carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and nervous
system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can
lead to unconsciousness or death.

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO
2)
A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and
industrial sources. Sources include motor
vehicles, electric utilities, and other sources
that burn fuel.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to ozone. Contributes to global
warming and nutrient overloading which
deteriorates water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.

Ozone (O3)
Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrous
oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.

Common sources of these precursor
pollutants include motor vehicle exhaust,
industrial emissions, gasoline storage and
transport, solvents, paints, and landfills.

Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous
membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing,
coughing, and pain when inhaling deeply;
decreases lung capacity; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Damages plants; reduces crop yield.

Particulate Matter
(PM10 & PM2.5)
Produced by power plants, chemical
plants, unpaved roads and parking lots,
wood-burning stoves and fireplaces,
automobiles and others.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of
the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing;
asthma; chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat;
nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in
people with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility.

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
A colorless gas formed when fuel
containing sulfur is burned and when
gasoline is extracted from oil. Examples are
petroleum refineries, cement
manufacturing, metal pr ocessing facilities,
locomotives, and ships.

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart
problems. In the presence of moisture and oxygen,
sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid which can
damage marble, iron and steel. Damages crops and
natural vegetation. Impairs visibility. Precursor to
acid rain.

Source: CAPCOA 2011

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-3

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Ambient air quality in Santa Rosa can be infe rred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at nearby air quality monitoring stations. Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in Santa Rosa are documented by measurements made by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the air pollution regulatory agency in the SFBAAB that maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements.

As described in more detail under the Regulatory Framework subsection below, ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 are the primary pollutants affecting the SFBAAB. The Santa Rosa–5 th Street air quality monitoring station is the closest station to the project area, approximately 1 mile to the northeast.

This station monitors ambient concentrations of ozone and PM 2.5. PM10 ambient concentrations are monitored at the Healdsburg-133 Matheson Street monitoring station, approximately15 miles from the project area. Ambient emission concentrations will vary due to localized variations in emission sources and climate and should be considered “generally” representative of ambient concentrations in Santa Rosa. Table 3.3-2 summarizes the published ozone and PM 2.5 data since 2012 from the Santa Rosa-5 th Street air quality monitoring station for each year that monitoring data is provided. PM10 data from the Healdsburg-133 Matheson Street air quality monitoring station is also included.

TABLE 3.3-2

SUMMARY OF LOCAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA
Pollutant Standards 2012 2013 2014
Ozone
Max 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.064 0.074 *
Max 8-hour concentration (ppm) (state/federal) 0.052 / 0.051 0.065 / 0.064 * / * Number of days above state 1-hour standard 0 0 *
Number of days above state/federal 8-hour standard * / * * / * * / * Respirable (Course) Particulate Matter (PM10)
Max 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) (state/federal) 38.0 / 35.0 55.0 / 54.0 45.6 / 42.9 Number of days above state/federal standard * / * * / 0 0 / 0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Max 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) (state/federal) 25.7 / 25.7 28.1 / 28.1 * / * Number of days above federal standard * * *
Source: CARB 2015
Notes: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million * = No data is currently available from CARB to determine the value.

Areas with air quality that exceed adopted air quality standards are designated as nonattainment areas for the relevant air pollutants, while area s that comply with air quality standards are designated as attainment areas for the relevant air pollutants. The attainment status for the Santa Rosa portion of the SFBAAB is shown in Table 3.3-3. The region is nonattain ment for state ozone, PM
10, and PM2.5 standards in addition to federal ozone and PM2.5 standards (BAAQMD 2015a).

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-4
TABLE 3.3-3

FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT STATUS FOR SANTA ROSA Pollutant Federal State
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Unclassified Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Source: BAAQMD 2015a
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are cons idered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogenic TACs are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur, and cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes, such as petroleum refining; commercial operations, such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners; and motor vehicle exhaust. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as from accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset conditions. The health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally are assessed locally rather than regionally.

To date, the California Air Resources Board (C ARB) has designated ne arly 200 compounds as TACs. Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective co ntrol. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to a relatively few compounds.

Most recently, CARB identified diesel particulat e matter (diesel PM) as a toxic air contaminant.

Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. Diesel PM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. Diesel PM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of diesel PM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine (EPA 2002, pp. 1-1 and 1-2). Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can ca use coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. Diesel PM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs; due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually tr apped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-5
Toxic air contaminant sources in the project area are identified under Impact 3.3.6 and include US Highway 101 (US 101), State Route (SR) 12, and stationary sources in the area.

Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others because of the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases.

Residential areas are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Ch ildren are considered more susceptible to the health effects of air pollution due to their immature immune systems and developing organs (OEHHA 2007). As such, schools are also considered sensitive receptors, as children are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities.

3.3.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
During construction and operation of uses in the proposed project area (e.g., residential, commercial, and industrial uses), there is potential that gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air would be emitted; therefore, development activities under the project fall under the ambient air quality standards promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels.

The federal Clean Air Act of 1971 and the Clean Air Act Amendments (1977) required the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). (TACs could be emitted as well. TAC-related regulations are discussed below.) The State of California has also adopted its own Californ ia ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), which are promulgated by CARB. Implementation of the project would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is under the air quality regu latory jurisdiction of the BAAQMD and is subject to the rules and regulations adopted by the air district to achieve the national and state ambient air quality standards. Federal, st ate, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, and guidelines are summarized below.

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
The Clean Air Act established NAAQS, with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollu tion types. The State of Califo rnia has exercised that option.

These standards, both federal and state, are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy ad ults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

Both the State of California and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards for six air pollutants. As shown in Table 3.3-4 , these pollutants include ozone, CO, NO
2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. As noted above, these standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-6
TABLE 3.3-4

AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards Ozone (O3)
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137µg/m 3) 0.075 ppm
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) —
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m 3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m 3)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m 3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m 3) 100 ppb
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m 3) 53 ppb (100 µg/m 3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m 3) N/A
3 Hour — N/A
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (665 µg/m3) 75 ppb
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m 3 N/A
24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Particulate Matter – Fine (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m 3 15 µg/m3
24 Hour N/A 35 µg/m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 N/A
Lead
Calendar Quarter N/A 1.5 µg/m 3
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3) N/A
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) N/A
Vinyl Chloride (chloroethene) 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) N/A Visibility-Reducing Particles 8 Hour
(10:00 to 18:00 PST) — N/A
Source: BAAQMD 2015a
Notes: mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter; ppm=parts per million; ppb=parts per billion; µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter

AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLANS
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is responsible for preparing plans to attain ambient air quality standards in the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD prepares ozone attainment plans for the national ozone standard and clean air plans for the California standard, both in coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission an d the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

With respect to applicable air quality plans, the BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan to primarily address nonattainment of the na tional 1-hour ozone standard in the air basin.

However, the Clean Air Plan defines a control st rategy that the BAAQMD and its partners will implement to (1) reduce emission s and decrease ambient concentrations of multiple types of harmful pollutants; (2) safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and (3) reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to protect the climate. It is important to note that, in addition to updating the previously prepared ozone plan, the Clean Air Plan also serves as a multipolluta nt plan to protect public health and the climate. This effort to

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-7
develop its first ‐ever multipollutant air quality plan is a voluntary initiative by the BAAQMD. The district believes that an integrated and comprehensive approach to planning is critical to respond to air quality and climate protection challenges in the years ahead. In its dual roles as an update to the state ozone plan and a multipollutant plan, the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan addresses four categories of pollutants (BAAQMD 2010):
 Ground‐level ozone and its key precursors, ROG and NOX  Particulate matter: primary PM2.5, as well as precursors to secondary PM2.5  Air toxics
 Greenhouse gases
The Clean Air Plan provides local guidance for State Implementation Plans (SIP), which provide the framework for air quality basi ns to achieve attainment of th e state and federal ambient air quality standards (CAAQS and NAAQS). Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. Areas for which there is insufficient data available are designated unclassified.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT REGULATIONS
The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987).

The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as toxic air contaminants. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. CARB has, to date, established formal control measures for eleven TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold.

Air toxics from stationary sources are also regula ted in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district.

High-priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. Stationary sources of air toxics in Santa Rosa include gasoline fuel stations, diesel- powered backup generators, and dry cleaning facilities.

California Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
CARB has adopted the Diesel Risk Reduction Pl an (DRRP), which recommends many control measures to reduce the risks associated with diesel PM and achieve a reduction goal of 85 percent by 2020. The DRRP incorporates measures to reduce emissions from diesel-fueled vehicles and stationary diesel-fueled engines. CARB’s ongoing efforts to reduce diesel-exhaust emissions from these sources include the development of specific statewide regulations, which are designed to further reduce diesel PM emissions. The goal of each regulation is to make diesel engines as clean as possible by establishing state-of-the-art technology requirements or emission standards to reduce diesel PM emissions.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-8
Since the initial adoption of the DRRP in Se ptember 2000, CARB has adopted numerous rules related to the reduction of diesel PM from mobile sources as well as the use of cleaner-burning fuels. Transportation sources addressed by thes e rules that pertain to projects in Santa Rosa include public transit buses, school buses, on-r oad heavy-duty trucks, and off-road heavy-duty construction equipment.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD seeks to improve air quality condit ions in the SFBAAB through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The BAAQMD’s clean air strategy includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, an d issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution. The BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by the federal Clean Air Act, the Clean Air Act Amendments, and the California Clean Air Act.

Rules and Regulations
The BAAQMD develops regulations to improve air quality and protect the health and welfare of Bay Area residents and their environment. BAAQMD rules and regulations most applicable to the project area include but are not limited to the following:
 Regulation 2, Rule 2: New Source Review. Requires any new source resulting in an increase of any criteria pollutant to be evaluated for adherence to best available control technology. For compression internal combustion engines, best available control technology requires that the generator be fired on California diesel fuel (fuel oil with a sulfur content less than 0.05 pe rcent by weight and less than 20 percent by volume of aromatic hydrocarbons). All stationary in ternal combustion engines larger than 50 horsepower must obtain a Permit to Operate. If the engine is diesel fueled, it must also comply with the BAAQMD-administered Statewide Air Toxics Control Measure for Stationary Diesel Engines.
 Regulation 7: Odorous Substances. Establishes general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds.  Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings . Limits the quantity of volatile organic compounds in architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within the district.  Regulation 8, Rule 15: Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts. Limits the emissions of volatile organic compounds caused by the use of emulsified an d liquid asphalt in paving materials and paving and maintenance operations.
 Regulation 14: Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Measures. Includes measures to reduce emissions of air pollutants from mobile so urces by reducing motor vehicle use and/or promoting the use of clean fuels and low-emission vehicles.

The above list represents rules and regulations most applicable to the project area. Additional rules and regulations may apply, depending on the sources proposed and the activities conducted.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-9
BAAQMD Construction Mitigation Measures
The BAAQMD recommends quantifying a proposed project’s construction-generated emissions and implementing the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as mitigation for dust and exhaust construction impacts in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance documentation. If additional construction measures are required to reduce construction- generated emissions, the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures should be applied to mitigate construction impacts, according to the BAAQMD. Table 3.3-6 identifies the air district’s Basic and Additional Construction Mitigation Measures. In addition, all projects must implement any applicable air toxic control measures. For example, projects that have the potential to disturb asbestos (from soil or building materials) must comply with all the requirements of CARB’s air toxic control measures for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations.

T
ABLE 3.3-6

BAAQMD BASIC AND ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION MEASURES BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shal l be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting e quipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained an d properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number an d person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective acti on within 48 hours. The air district’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

BAAQMD Additional Construction Mitigation Measures

1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency ade quate to maintain minimum so il moisture of 12 percent.

Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.

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

3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction.

Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.

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

5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, a nd ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Ac tivities shall be phased to reduce the am ount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.

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

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

8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be inst alled to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-10

9. Minimize the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to 2 minutes.

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

Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, lo w-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit tec hnology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available.

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

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

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

Source: BAAQMD 2011
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 in regard to air quality.

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 emissions reductions citywide.

Policy LUL-A-1: As part of plan implementation – including development review, capital improvements programming, and preparat ion of detailed area plans – foster close land use/transporta tion relationships to promote use of alternative transportation modes and discourage travel by automobile.

Urban Design Element
Goal UD-D: Avoid strip patterns of commerc ial development. Improve the appearance and functioning of existing commercial strip corridors, such as Santa Rosa Avenue and Sebastopol Rod.

Policy UD-D-4: Provide continuous sidewalks and bi cycle lanes on both sides of major regional/arterial streets.

Policy UD-E-4: Enhance pedestrian activity and safety by designing streets, buildings, pathways, and trails to provide a visual connection with public spaces such as parks and Santa Rosa Creek. Review and revise the Zoning Code and Subdivision Guidelines to support this policy.

Policy UD-G-2: Locate higher density residential uses adjacent to transit facilities, shopping, and employment centers, and link thes e areas with bicycle and pedestrian paths.

Policy UD-G-3: Design new residential streets to be in scale with the adjacent structures and uses, and appropriate to their intended purpose. Neighborhood streets should

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-11
be scaled for slow moving traffic, pedestrian and bicycle access, and children’s play.

Policy UD-G-4: Provide through-connections for pedestrians and bicyclists in new developments. Avoid cul-de-sac streets, unless public pedestrian/bikeways interconnect them.

Policy UD-G-8: Promote personal safety in projec t design, particularly in multifamily development, by locating windows and walkways to assure visual access to common areas. Locate children’s play space within view of the nearest units, and discourage designs with unutilized open space.

Policy UD-G-9: Encourage pedestrian-oriented village character, rather than strip malls, in neighborhood centers for local shops and services. Shops should front on streets rather than parking lots. Parking areas should be located in less visible locations behind buildings and away from the street edge.

Transportation Element
Goal T-B: Provide a safe, efficient, free-flowing circulation system.

Policy T-B-1: Require site design to focus through-tra ffic on regional/arterial streets. Employ the following design techniques to increase driver safety and traffic efficiency:
 Reduce the number of driveways and intersections;
 Combine driveways to serve numerous small parcels;
 Avoid residential access;
 Install and facilitate timing of traffic signals; and  Ensure continuous sidewalks.

Policy T-B-2: Locate uses generating heavy traffic so that they have direct access or immediate secondary access to regional/arterial streets or highways.

Policy T-B-4: Promote the use of roundabouts in lieu of stop/signal controlled intersections to improve safety, reduce delay and idling time, and lower vehicle emissions at new/existing intersections.

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.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-12
traveled vehicular traffic lanes, as well as through and to parking lots. Include pedestrian amenities to encourage and facilitate walking.

Policy T-L-8: Require new development to dedicate land and/or construct/install bicycle facilities, and provide bicycle parking as specified 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.

Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal OSC-J: Take appropriate actions to help Santa Rosa and the larger Bay Area region achieve and maintain all ambient air quality standards.

Policy OSC-J-1: Review all new construction projects and require dust abatement actions as contained in the CEQA Handbook of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Policy OSC-J-3: Reduce particulate matter emissions from wood burning appliances through implementation of the city’s Wood Burning Appliance code.

City of Santa Rosa City Code
City Code Chapter 17-35 states that it is unlawful to install a wood-burning appliance that is not a pellet-fueled heater; an EPA-Certified Phase II wood heater or newer; a solid fuel burning appliance certified for use by the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District; a gas log fireplace; or a fireplace certified by the EPA should the EPA develop a fireplace certification program. Under Section 20-30.090(C), no visible dust, gasses, or smoke shall be emitted, except as necessary for the heating or cooling of structures , and the operation of motor vehicles on a site.

City Code Section 20-30.090(J) regulates odors, wh ich requires that no obnoxious odor or fumes shall be emitted that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the property line of the site.

3.3.3 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 to air quality is considered significant if the project would:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 5) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an appl icable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions whic h exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-13
CEQA Guidance
The BAAQMD publishes CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality.

The district’s guidelines were updated in June 2010 to include new thresholds of significance (2010 thresholds) adopted by the BAAQMD Governing Board on June 2, 2010. The BAAQMD’s guidelines were further updated in May 2011. The 2010 thresholds included new thresholds of significance for construction emissions, cumulative toxic air co ntaminant impacts, and fine particulate matter concentration increases.

On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment in connection with a lawsuit filed by the Building Industry Association, finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the 2010 thresholds. The court did not determine whether the 2010 thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that adoption of the 2010 thresholds was a “project” under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the 2010 thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the district had complied with CEQA. The court did not address the Building Industry Association’s remaining arguments. The BAAQMD appealed the Alameda County Superior Court’s decision and the case went to the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District.

In light of the Alameda County Superior Cour t’s decision, the BAAQMD stopped recommending the 2010 thresholds be used as a generally applicable measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. The BAAQMD released a new version of its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in May 2012 removing the 2010 thresholds. The BAAQMD recommended that lead agencies themselves determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record.

On August 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court’s decision, finding that the BAAQMD’s thresholds were not a “project” under CEQA and as such, did not require CEQA review. The Court of Appeals rejected the Building Industry Associations other arguments as well.

On November 26, 2013, the California Supreme Court by unanimous vote granted review, but solely to address the legal issue of whether CEQA review is confined to an analysis of a proposed project’s impacts on the existing environment or also requires analysis of the existing environment’s impacts on the proposed project and its future occupants and users. On December 17, 2015, the Supreme Court of California issued its ruling, concluding that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment— and not the environment’s impact on the project. Given the recent date of the Supreme Court decision compared with the writing of this DEIR, the BAAQMD has yet to announce a recommendation regarding use of its 2010 thresholds. In the meantime, jurisdictions may exercise their discretion and utilize said thresholds base d on a determination that they are supported by substantial evidence. For purposes of this analys is, the City of Santa Rosa has determined, in its discretion, to utilize the BAAQMD ’s thresholds, finding that th e thresholds are supported by substantial evidence. Using these criteria, an ai r quality impact is considered significant if the project would violate any ambient air quality standa rd, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-14
Air Pollutant Emissions Analysis
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not contain nume ric thresholds related to criteria pollutant emissions resulting from implementation of a lo ng-range plan, such as implementation of the proposed project. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, in order to ensure that a plan would not violate any ambient air qu ality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the proposed plan (i.e., the proposed project) must demonstrate consistency with the control measures contained in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, described above, and show that projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increases as a result of the plan are less than or equal to projected population increases over the planning period of the plan.

CO Hot-Spot Analysis
The California 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards are:
 1-hour = 20 parts per million
 8-hour = 9 parts per million
The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient carbon monoxide levels within or in the vicinity of the project area are above state and federal CO standards. Carbon monoxide concentrations in Santa Rosa no longer exceed the CAAQS or NAAQS criteria, and the SFBAAB has been designated as attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards. Based on BAAQMD guidance (BAAQMD 2011: Section 3.3), projects meeting all of the following screening criteria would be considered to have a less than significant impact on localized carbon monoxide concentrations if:
1) The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management ag ency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plans, and local congestion management agency plans. 2) The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
3) The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below- grade roadway).

Toxic Air Contaminant Analysis
In addition to criteria air pollutants and CO hot spots, this Draft EIR evaluates the project’s impacts with respect to toxic air contaminants. The BAAQMD regulates levels of air toxics through a permitting process that covers both construction and operation. Per BAAQMD guidance, all other sources within 1,000 feet of a proposed sensitive receptor need to be identified and analyzed. If emissions of TAC concentrations at a new sensitive receptor generated from all TAC sources in a 1,000-foot radius result in the exceedance of an excess cancer risk level of more than 100 in one million, or a non-cancer hazard index greater th an 10, the project would result in a significant impact. In terms of the placement of a source of TAC emissions in the vicinity of existing sensitive receptors, if emissions of TACs exceed an excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million or a non-cancer hazard index greater than 1.0, the proposed source would result in a significant impact.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-15
Methodology
Air quality-related impacts were assessed in accordance with methodologies recommended by the BAAQMD. Where quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (Standard of Significance 1)
Impact 3.3.1 Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. This impact is less than significant.

The project’s consistency with Clean Air Plan co ntrol measures is demonstrated by assessing whether the project implements all of the applicable Clean Air Plan control measures. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Pla n (BAAQMD 2010) includes approximately 55 control measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or indirectly. The control measures are divided into five categories: 18 measures to reduce stationary and area sources; 10 mobile source measures; 17 transportation control measures; 6 land use and local impact measures; and 4 energy and climate measures.

In developing the control strategy, the BAAQMD identified the full range of tools and resources available, both regulatory and non-regulatory, to develop each measure.

This approach relies on lead agencies to assist in implementing some of the control measures. A key tool for local agency implementation is the development of land use policies and implementing measures that address new development or redevelopment in local communities.

The consistency of the proposed project is evaluated with respect to each set of control measures.

The Clean Air Plan includes stationary source control measures that the BAAQMD adopts as rules or regulations through its authority to control em issions from stationary and area sources. The BAAQMD is the implementing agency, since these control measures are applicable to sources of air pollution that must obtain BAAQMD permits. The City uses the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to evaluate air pollutant emissions fr om new sources. Additionally, the Clean Air Plan includes mobile source measures that would reduce emissions by accelerating the replacement of older, dirtier vehicles and equipment through programs such as the BAAQMD’s Vehicle Buy- Back and Smoking Vehicle programs and by pr omoting advanced technology vehicles that reduce emissions. The implementation of these measures relies heavily on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and the Transporta tion Fund for Clean Air, to achieve voluntary emission reductions in advance of or in addition to CARB requirements. CARB has new regulations that require the replacement or retrofit of on-road trucks, cons truction equipment, and other specific equipment that is diesel powered. The Clean Air Plan also includes transportation control measures (TCMs) that are strategies meant to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions.

While most of the TCMs are implemented at the re gional level (that is, by MTC or the California Department of Transportation [Caltrans]), the Clea n Air Plan relies on local communities to assist with implementation of some measures. In addition, the Clean Air Plan includes land use measures

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-16
and energy and climate measures whose implementation is aided by proper land use planning decisions.

The BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan includes various control strategies to reduce emissions of local and regional pollutants and promote public health and energy conservation. Consistent with the control strategies identified in the Clean Air Plan, the proposed project is required to comply with the City’s General Plan, which includes numerous provisions to reduce emissions of local and regional pollutants and to promote public health and energy conservation. The Clean Air Plan control strategies and policy provisions that are most applicable are summarized in Table 3.3-7.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-17
TABLE 3.3-7
CONSISTENCY WITH BAY AREA 2010 CLEAN AIR PLAN CONTROL STRATEGIES Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies Transportation Control Measures
TCM A: Improve Transit Services
A-1: Improve Local & Areawide Bus Service
A-2: Improve Local & Regional Rail Service
T-H-1: Provide convenient, efficient routes to major
employment centers throughout the city.

T-H-2: Implement the Long and Short Range Transit
Plans which include CityBus proposals for
transit and TSM improvements.

T-H-3: Require new developm ent 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.

T-H-8: Improve transit service along corridors where
increased densities are planned.

RN-2.4 Increase transit service along Sebastopol Road
to provide bus service every 15-minutes.

RN-3.2 Include transit facilities and amenities along
Hearn Avenue to support frequent transit
service.

RN-3.3 Ensure convenient pedestrian and bicycle
connections to and from the bus transit center
with new linked bike lanes and paths, as
shown on the Circulation Plan (Figure 4-3).

RN-5.1 Ensure all paths, streets, and crossings are
designed to be safely accessed by all users, in
accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).

RN-5.3 Ensure proper connectivity and accessible
pathways to and from transit stops and
amenities since transit riders typically start and
end trips as pedestrians
PBN-1.6 Develop and install wayfinding signage to the
downtown Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
(SMART) station, SMART multi-use path,
Sebastopol Road commercial district, and
other key destinations. Wayfinding should be
designed to help create a sense of place and
strengthen project area identity.

PBN-2.2 Implement str eetscape improvements
resulting in attractive, functional streets with
overall enhanced access, lighting, and safety
for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and
motorists.

PBN-3.1 Coordinate with SMART to ensure safe railway
crossings for all users.

T-1.1 Provide well-lit shel ters with benches and
bicycle parking at bus stops near schools and

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-18
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies shopping areas consistent with CityBus
standards for bus stop amenities and
accessibility.

T-1.2 Support increased connectivity and frequency of
transit routes serving the Southside Transfer
Center, in keeping with the CityBus long-range
plan for southwest Santa Rosa service.

T-1.3 Ensure that public transit service connects major destinations in the Roseland area, including
educational institutions, community facilities,
parks, and major commercial corridors, as well
as to the downtown and destinations outside of
the plan area.

TCM B: Improve System Efficiency
B-1: Freeway & Arterial Operational
Strategies
B-2: Transit Efficiency & Use Strategies
B-3: Bay Area Express Lane Network
B-4: Goods Movement Improvements &
Emission Reduction Strategies
Not directly applicable to the project . However, the
City’s General Plan contains policies intended to protect and sustain a high quality of life in Santa Rosa by
participating in coordinated land use and transportation planning in the region. For example:

T-A-4 Cooperate with Caltrans and public transit
providers to establish park-and-ride lots.

T-A-5 Pursue cooperation between local and
regional transportation agencies to coordinate
multi-modal connections throughout the city.

T-F-1 Participate in discussions addressing regional
through-traffic with the County of Sonoma, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and
other municipalities
RET-2.3 Encourage activity-generating uses along
Roseland Creek and Colgan Creek to provide
eyes on the creek.

RN-1.1 Improve connections by creating new streets
or extensions of existing streets, as identified
in Figure 4-1 and Table 4-2.

RN-1.3 Enhance existing intersections along major
arterials to improve traffic flow through use of
coordinated or adaptive signal timing and/or
dedicated turn pockets, as identified in Table
4-2.

RN-1.4 Implement coordinated or adaptive signal
timing along arterials to improve traffic flow,
using intelligent transportation systems (ITS)
strategies rather than roadway widening to
maximize roadway efficiency, minimize
congestion, and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.

RN-1.5 Support the planned construction of a new US
Highway 101 overpass at Bellevue Avenue
and a widened overpass at Hearn Avenue to
improve east–west multimodal connectivity to
and from the Roseland area.

RN-2.2 Design a raised roadway median to balance
the need for access to businesses while

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-19
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies enhancing pedestrian safety and the
streetscape environment.

RN-3.1 Prioritize and secure funding for the planned
widening of the Hearn Avenue overcrossing
and associated interchange improvements to
relieve existing congestion and improve
multimodal connectivity.

PBN-1.2 Design streets to safely serve and
accommodate all travel modes and users.

PBN-2.2 Implement str eetscape improvements
resulting in attractive, functional streets with
overall enhanced access, lighting, and safety
for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and
motorists.

PBN-2.3 Install high-visibility crosswalk markings and
signage in areas with high pedestrian activity.

PBN-2.4 Enhance safety at the Joe Rodota Trail crossing of Stony Point Road by eliminating the free-
flow right-turn island at the SR 12 eastbound
ramps intersection, using curb extensions to
reduce crossing distances where possible, and
implementing pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly
signal timing strategies.

PBN-3.2 Consider adding a new bike and pedestrian
crossing of the SMART rail corridor between
Barham and Hearn Avenues.

PBN-4.3 Prioritize pedestrian crossing signal timing
enhancements at signals around schools to
promote safety for pedestrians, including
techniques such as early release pedestrian
crossing phases (in which pedestrians receive
a “walk” signal several seconds before drivers
see a green light), dedicated pedestrian
phases, and reduced cycle lengths (to
minimize wait times).

TCM C: Encourage Sustainable Travel
Behavior
UD-D-4: Provide continuous sidewalks and bicycle
lanes on both sides of major regional/arterial
streets.

RET-1.3 Encourage small neighborhood stores, such as
corner food markets, in residential areas to
provide services within walking and bicycling

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-20
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies C-1: Voluntary Employer Based Trip
Reduction Program
C-2: Safe Routes to School & Safe Routes to
Transit
C-3: Rideshare Services and Incentives
C-4: Conduct Public Outreach & Education
C-5: Smart Driving
UD-E-4: Enhance pedestrian activity and safety by
designing streets, buildings, pathways, and
trails to provide a visual connection with
public spaces such as parks and Santa Rosa
Creek. Review and revise the Zoning Code
and Subdivision Guidelines to support this
policy.

UD-G-2: Locate higher density residential uses adjacent to transit facilities, shopping, and employment
centers, and link these areas with bicycle and
pedestrian paths.

UD-G-3: Design new residential streets to be in scale
with the adjacent structures and uses, and
appropriate to their intended purpose.

Neighborhood streets should be scaled for
slow moving traffic, pedestrian and bicycle
access, and children’s play.

UD-G-4: Provide through-connections for pedestrians
and bicyclists in new developments. Avoid
cul-de-sac streets, unless public
pedestrian/bikeways interconnect them.

UD-G-8: Promote personal safety in project design,
particularly in multifamily development, by
locating windows and walkways to assure
visual access to common areas. Locate
children’s play space within view of the
nearest units, and discourage designs with
unutilized open space.

UD-G-9: Encourage pedestrian-oriented village
character, rather than strip malls, in
neighborhood centers for local shops and
services. Shops should front on streets rather
than parking lots. Parking areas should be
located in less visible locations behind
buildings and away from the street edge.

T-A-7: Expand non-motorized and bus infrastructure
throughout the city such that greater amenities
exist for cyclists, pedestrians and transit users
distance. Location of such stores is allowed
where they can be economically supported.

RET-2.2 Encourage small-scale, local-serving, and
active retail uses that encourage walking,
browsing, and social interaction.

RET-2.3 Encourage activity-generating uses along
Roseland Creek and Colgan Creek to provide
eyes on the creek.

SR-1.1 Promote a mix of land uses and increased
development densities to ensure Sebastopol
Road is Roseland’s commercial core, and to
encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
modes of travel for local trips.

AH-1.4 Encourage the integration of market-rate
housing with affordable units at the project
level as well as at the neighborhood level to
encourage housing for all income levels
within the plan area.

ED-1.1 Encourage job creation in the plan area, and
enhance connections to allow Roseland
residents to walk or bike to work within and
outside the plan area.

RN-2.1 Create a lush and colorful landscaped
ambiance along Sebastopol Road through the
use of broader sidewalks, landscaped
medians, historic-style street lamps, shade
trees, flowers, and bike lanes.

RN-2.2 Design the raised roadway median to balance
the need for access to businesses while
enhancing pedestrian safety and the
streetscape environment.

RN-2.3 Design Sebastopol Road as a focal gathering
point and pedestrian-oriented main street.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-21
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies in order to promote a healthy, sustainable city
and further reduce GHG emissions.

T-J-1: Pursue implementation of walking and
bicycling facilities as en visioned in the city’s
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

T-J-2: Provide street lighting that is attractive,
functional, and appropriate to the character
and scale of the neighborhood or district, and
that contributes to vehicular and pedestrian
safety.

T-J-3: Strengthen and expand east-west linkages
across the Highway 101 corridor.

T-J-4: Provide street trees to enhance the city’s
livability and to provide identity to
neighborhoods and districts.

T-J-5: Support Safe Routes to School by pursuing
available grants for this program and ensuring
that approaches to schools are safe for cyclists
and pedestrians by providing needed
amenities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, bike
lanes, and traffic calming on streets near
schools.

T-K-5: Ensure provision of safe pedestrian access for
students of new and existing school sites
throughout the city.

RN-2.4 Increase transit service along Sebastopol Road
to provide bus service every 15-minutes.

RN-3.2 Include transit facilities and amenities along
Hearn Avenue to support frequent transit
service.

RN-3.3 Ensure convenient pedestrian and bicycle
connections to and from the bus transit center
with new linked bike lanes and paths, as
shown on the Circulation Plan (Figure 4-3).

RN-4.2 Balance the desire to maintain rural character
with pedestrian and bicycle safety along
Burbank Avenue.

RN-5.3 Ensure proper connectivity and accessible
pathways to and from transit stops and
amenities since transit riders typically start and
end trips as pedestrians.

PBN-1.1 Ensure convenient opportunities to walk and
bike to daily destinations.

PBN-1.2 Design streets to safely serve and
accommodate all travel modes and users.

PBN-1.3 Identify gaps and build sidewalks to complete
the pedestrian network in neighborhoods.

PBN-1.4 Develop a system to prioritize bicycle and
pedestrian improvements for future funding
opportunities.

PBN-1.5 Require dedication of right-of-way for
improvements and/or expansion of pedestrian
and bicycle facilities where insufficient right-
of-way currently exists.

PBN-1.6 Develop and install wayfinding signage to the
downtown Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
(SMART) station, SMART multi-use path,
Sebastopol Road commercial district, and

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-22
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies other key destinations. Wayfinding should be
designed to help create a sense of place and
strengthen project area identity.

PBN-2.1 Provide pedestrian and bicycle amenities such
as directional signs, benches, drinking
fountains, etc., in high travel locations to serve
the recreational and travel needs of residents
and visitors.

PBN-2.2 Implement str eetscape improvements
resulting in attractive, functional streets with
overall enhanced access, lighting, and safety
for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and
motorists.

PBN-2.3 Install high-visibility crosswalk markings and
signage in areas with high pedestrian activity.

PBN-2.5 Ensure that pedestri an and bicyclist safety and convenience are maintained where paths and
trails cross streets through a variety of
measures such as signing, special pavement
markings or colors, raised crosswalks, and/or
warning lights alerting motorists to the
presence of bicyclists and pedestrians at major
crossings.

PBN-2.6 Support bike education events and classes.

PBN-3.1 Coordinate SMART to ensure safe railway
crossings for all users.

PBN-3.2 Consider adding a new bike and pedestrian
crossing of the SMART rail corridor between
Barham and Hearn avenues.

PBN-3.4 Encourage SMART to provide lighting along
the railway corridor multiuse path.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-23
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies PBN-4.1 Ensure safe routes to school, including safe
pedestrian crossings and clearly marked routes
near schools.

PBN-4.2 Provide crosswalk enhancements near
schools, parks, and high-volume pedestrian
areas.

TCM D: Support Focused Growth
D-1: Bicycle Access & Facilities
Improvement
D-2: Pedestrian Access & Facilities
Improvement
D-3: Local Land Use Strategies
UD-D-4: Provide continuous sidewalks and bicycle
lanes on both sides of major regional/arterial
streets.

UD-D-5: Provide planting strips with large canopy trees between the road and sidewalk to buffer
pedestrians from traffic, and help define the
street space along comme rcial streets. Install
pedestrian amenities in the planting strip such
as:
• Street lighting;
• Seating;
• Bus stop shelters;
• Bicycle racks; and
• Mail boxes.

T-A: Provide a safe and sustainable transportation
system.

T-A-2: Work with employers and business
associations to meet employee transportation
needs that will lead to reduction of the use of
single occupant vehicles.

T-K-1: Link the various citywide pedestrian paths,
including street sidewalks, downtown
R-1.1 Include a variety of housing types near
workplaces, schools, parks, stores, and
amenities.

RET-1.1 Expand local-serving retail and personal
services uses to accommodate the daily needs
of Roseland area residents, visitors, and
employees.

RET-1.2 Encourage unique neighborhood-serving uses
in the new shopping center south of Hearn
Avenue at Dutton Avenue.

RET-1.3 Encourage small neighborhood stores, such as
corner food markets, in residential areas to
provide services within walking and bicycling
distance. Location of such stores is allowed
where they can be economically supported.

RET-2.2 Encourage small-scale, local-serving, and
active retail uses that encourage walking,
browsing, and social interaction.

SR-1.1 Promote a mix of land uses and increased
development densities to ensure Sebastopol
Road is Roseland’s commercial core, and
encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
modes of travel for local trips.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-24
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies walkways, pedestrian areas in shopping
centers and work complexes, park pathways,
and other creekside and open space pathways.

T-K-2: Allow the sharing or parallel development of
pedestrian walkways with bicycle paths,
where this can be safely done, in order to
maximize the use of public rights-of-way.

T-K-3: Orient building plan s and pedestrian facilities to allow for easy pedestrian access from street
sidewalks, transit stops, and other pedestrian
facilities, in addition to access from parking
lots.

T-K-4: Require construction of attractive pedestrian
walkways and areas in new residential,
commercial, office, and industrial
developments. Provide landscaping or other
appropriate buffers between sidewalks and
heavily traveled vehicular traffic lanes, as well
as through and to parking lots. Include
pedestrian amenities to encourage and
facilitate walking.

AH-1.1 Promote inclusion of second dwelling units in
new and existing single-family neighborhoods
to provide a smaller, more affordable housing
option.

HF-1.3 Support location/ope ration of healthy food
purveyors such as full-service grocery stores,
ethnic food markets, farm stands, community
gardens, edible schoolyards, and farmers’
markets.

HF-1.5 Support development of small-scale
neighborhood nodes that provide a range of
neighborhood-serving retail, public amenities,
and services to residents within walking
distance of their homes.

ED-1.1 Encourage job creation in the plan area, and
enhance connections to allow Roseland
residents to walk or bike to work within and
outside the plan area.

ED-1.2 Encourage local-serving retail especially on
Sebastopol Road.

TCM E: Implement Pricing Strategies
E-1: Value Pricing Strategies
E-2: Promote Parking Pricing to Reduce
Motor Vehicle Travel
E-3: Implement Transportation Parking
Reform
T-A-1: Expand Transportation Systems Management
programs for employers, and reduce peak
hour single-occupancy automobile trips
through the following techniques.
• Promotion of transit service;
• Staggering of work shifts;
• Flextime (e.g. 9/80 work schedule);
• Telecommuting;
• Carpool and vanpool incentives;
• Provision of bi cycle facilities;
• Trip reduction incentive programs;
• Parking disincentives for single-occupant
vehicles; and
• Car sharing programs.

None

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-25
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies Land Use & Local Impact Measures
LUM 1: Goods Movement
LUM 4: Land Use Guidance
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.

LUL-A-1: As part of plan implementation—including
development review, capital improvements
programming, and preparation of detailed
area plans—foster close land
use/transportation relationships to promote
use of alternative transportation modes and
discourage travel by automobile.

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.

LUL-E-1: Provide new neighborhood parks and
recreation facilities, el ementary schools, and
convenience shopping in accordance with the
General Plan Land Use Diagram and Table 2-

4. LUL-E-2: As part of plan ning and development review activities, ensure that projects, subdivisions,
and neighborhoods are designed to foster
livability.

LUL-E-6: Allow residentia l or mixed use development
in the Retail and Business Services or Office
designations.

RN-1.1 Improve connections by creating new streets or
extensions of existing streets, as identified in
Figure 4-1 and Table 4-2.

RN-1.5 Support the planned construction of a new US
Highway 101 overpass at Bellevue Avenue and
a widened overpass at Hearn Avenue to
improve east–west multimodal connectivity to
and from the Roseland area.

PBN-1.2 Design streets to safely serve and accommodate
all travel modes and users.

PBN-2.2 Implement streetscape improvements resulting
in attractive, functional streets with overall
enhanced access, lighting, and safety for
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and
motorists.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-26
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies Energy & Climate Measures
ECM 1: Energy Efficiency
ECM 2: Renewable Energy
ECM 3: Urban Heat Island Mitigation
ECM 4: Shade Tree Planting
H-G-1: Maximize energy efficiency in residential
areas. Utilize the following techniques:
 Implement CALGreen Tier 1 standards.
 Fund energy conservation through the
Housing Authority’s rehabilitation loans.
 Promote home improvement strategies
for energy efficiency.
 Promote energy effi ciency improvements
that are sensitive to the historic
significance of the residential structure.
 Consider a program that would require
energy efficiency improvements when a
residential structure undergoes transfer of
title or major renovation.
 Promote the Sonoma County Energy
Independence Program, which funds
energy and water conservation
improvements.
 Consider a program that requires energy
audits and cost-effective energy upgrades
for existing residential structures.

H-G-2: Promote energy efficiency through site
planning and building design by establishing
a technical assistance program to aid
residential developers in identifying energy
conservation and efficiency measures
appropriate to the Santa Rosa area. Measures
may include: use of site daylight; solar
orientation; cool roofs; window design and
insulation; shade landscaping; solar water
heaters; solar heating of swimming pools;
bicycle and pedestrian connections; and
mixed land uses to reduce vehicle trips.

UD-A-13: Review guidelines for parking lot trees to
ensure adequate summertime shading.

AH-1.1 Promote inclusion of second dwelling units in
new and existing single-family neighborhoods
to provide a smaller, more affordable housing
option.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-27
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Strategies General Plan Policies Specific Plan Policies OSC-K-1: Promote the use of site planning, solar
orientation, cool roofs, and landscaping to
decrease summer cooling and winter heating
needs. Encourage the use of recycled content
construction materials.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-28
As described in Section 3.14, Traffic and Transportation, 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 (e.g., Specific Plan polici es PBN-1.1, PBN 1.2, PBN-2.2, RN-1.5, RN-2.1, RN-

2.3, RN3.1 through RN-3.4). 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 City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. In addition, the proposed project would result in a beneficial impact to pedestrian and bicycle circulation.

The proposed project includes new street an d 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 shopping all within walking and bicycling distance of one another. As demonstrated in Section

3.14, Traffic and Transportation, multimodal leve ls 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.

As noted previously, the BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan includes various control strategies to reduce emissions of local and regional pollutants and promote public health and energy conservation. Consistent with the control strategies identified in the Clean Air Plan, the proposed project includes numerous provisions to reduce emissions of local and regional pollutants and to promote public health (see Table 3.3-7).

The proposed project supports the goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan, as it includes applicable pollutant control mechanisms. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Violate Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substant ially to an Air Quality Violation During Long- Term Operations (Standard of Significance 2)
Impact 3.3.2 Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan or result in vehicle miles traveled increases greater than the projected population increases over the project’s planning period. Therefore, consistent with BAAQMD guidance, the project would not result in an air quality violation and this impact is less than significant.

As previously described, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not contain numeric thresholds related to criteria pollutant emissions resulting from plan implementation, such as the proposed project.

According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, in order to ensure that the proposed project would violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the proposed project must demonstrate consistency with the control measures contained in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and show that projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increases as a result of the proposed project are less than or equal to projected population increases over the project’s planning period. As demonstrated in Impact 3.3.1, the proposed

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-29
project would be consistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered to have a less than significant impact if projected increases in VMT are less than or equal to projected increases in population growth. (Emissions resulting from operations within the project area at project buildout have been estimated for disclosure purposes.) According to Section 3.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, the proposed project would result in an estimated additional 9,662 residents over existing conditions by the year 2040 (5.5 percent more than analyzed in the Gene ral Plan EIR). Population within the project area and daily VMT estimates were based on existing 2016 conditions and buildout of the project area in 2040. Table

3.3-8 identifies the VMT and population for the proposed project area.

TABLE 3.3-8
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND 2040 BUILDOUT DAILY VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

AND SERVICE POPULATION IN PROJECT AREA
Metric/Variable 2016
(Existing Conditions) Proposed Project 2040 Percentage Change Daily VMT1 549,880 821,914 49.4%
Population2 19,341 29,003 49.9%
Are Increases in VMT Greater Than Increa ses in Population Compared with Existing Conditions? No
Source: 1 CalEEMod 2013.2.2 (see Appendix 3.3)
2 Population projections for existing conditions and the proposed project are derived from Section 3.12, Population and Housing.

In comparison to existing conditions, VMT attributable to the project is anticipated to increase 49.4 percent. The increase in population is estimated at 86.1 percent. As a result, VMT would increase at a lower rate than population growth in comparison to existing conditions, so this impact would be less than significant.

As shown, the proposed project is consistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan and VMT would increase at a lower rate than population growth in comparison to existing conditions. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Violate Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Air Quality Violation During Short- Term Construction Activities (Standard of Significance 2) Impact 3.3.3 The proposed project could result in short-term construction emissions that could violate or substantially contribute to a violation of federal and state standards. This impact is considered potentially significant.

Development allowed under the proposed project could include the construction of up to 3,702 homes and 913,814 square feet of nonresidential land uses. Emissions commonly associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy-duty diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. During construction, fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions,
is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and pote ntial health hazard to those living and working nearby.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-30
Demolition and renovation of buildings can also generate PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions. Off-road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a substantial source of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions, in addition to exhaust PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions. Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions.

Quantifying the air quality pollutant emissions from future, shor t-term, temporary construction activities allowed under the proposed project is not possible due to project-level variability and uncertainties related to future individual projects in terms of detailed site plans, construction schedules, equipment requirements, etc., which are not currently determined. However, depending on how development proceeds, construction-generated emissions associated with the project area could potentially exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, future project-level analyses of air quality impacts will be conducted as needed on a case-by-case basis as individual, future development projec ts proceed. The BAAQMD has promulgated methodology protocols for the preparation of air quality analyses. For instance, the BAAQMD has adopted thresholds of significance depicting th e approximate level of construction-generated emissions that would result in a potentially sign ificant impact (i.e., violation of an ambient air quality standard) for each pollutant of concern in the SFBAAB. The significance criteria established by the BAAQMD may be relied upon to make a determination of impact significance level. In addition, the BAAQMD recommends appropriate emissions modeling input parameters for the air basin in addition to other recommended procedur es for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements.

Projects estimated to exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds are required to implement mitigation measures in order to reduce air pollutant emissions as much as feasible. Such measures could include the requirement that all construction equipment employ the use of the most efficient diesel engines available, which are able to reduce NO X, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions by 60–
90 percent (e.g., EPA-classified Tier 3 and/or Tier 4 engines 1) and/or that construction equipment be equipped with diesel particulate filters. Furthermore, all development projects in the SFBAAB are subject to BAAQMD rules and regulations ad opted to reduce air po llutant emissions. For example, BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings, limits the quantity of volatile organic compounds in architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within the district. Regulation 8, Rule 15, Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts, limits the emissions of volatile organic compounds caused by the use of emulsified and liquid asphalt in paving materials and paving and maintenance operations.

1 NOx emissions are primarily associated with use of di esel-powered construction equipment (e.g., graders, excavators, rubber-tired dozers, tractor/loader/backh oes). The Clean Air Act of 1990 directed the EPA to study, and regulate if warranted, the contribution of off-road internal combustion engines to urban air pollution. The first federal standards (Tier 1) for new off-road diesel engines were adopted in 1994 for engines over 50 horsepower and were phased in from 1996 to 2000 . In 1996, a Statement of Principles pertaining to off-road diesel engines was signed between the EPA, CARB, and engine makers (including Caterpillar, Cummins, Deere, Detroit Diesel, Deutz, Isuzu, Komatsu, Kubota, Mitsubishi, Navistar, New Holland, Wis-Con, and Yanmar). On August 27, 1998, the EPA signed the fina l rule reflecting the provisions of the Statement of Principles. The 1998 regulation introduced Tier 1 standards for equipment under 50 horsepower and increasingly more stringent Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for all equipment with phase-in schedules from 2000 to 2008. As a result, all off-road, diesel-fueled construction equipment manufactured in 2006 or later has been manufactured to Tier 3 standards.

On May 11, 2004, the EPA signed the final rule introd ucing Tier 4 emission standards, which are currently phased-in over the period of 2008-2015. The Tier 4 standards require that emissions of PM and NOx be further reduced by about 90 percent. All off-road, diesel-fueled construction equipment manufactured in 2015 or later will be manufactured to Tier 4 standards.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-31
In addition, Santa Rosa General Plan Policy OSC-J-1 requires dust abatement actions as contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Handbook. As a result of this policy provision, the City of Santa Rosa must ensure that the BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (or subsequent updates) are noted on the construction documents. These basic construction mitigation measures include the following:
1) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3) All visible mud or dirt track- out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regardin g dust complaints. This pers on shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

As previously mentioned, the quantification of air quality emissions from short-term, temporary construction activities associated with the proposed project is not possible due to project-level variability and uncertainties related to future individual projects in terms of timing of development, site plan details, construction schedules, equipment requirements, etc. However, all construction projects can produce ozone precursors and nuisance dust emissions. Therefore, future project- level analyses of air quality impacts, in accordance with CEQA requirements, may be required to be conducted on a case-by-case basis as individual, future development projects allowed in the project area proceed.

While the BAAQMD has promulgated methodology protocols for the preparation of air quality analyses, and future development projects allowed under the project that are projected to exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds are required to implement mitigation measures in order to reduce air pollutant emissions as much as feasible, BAAQMD significance thresholds may still be exceeded during project construction. Since it cannot be guaranteed that construction of future projects allowed under the project would generate air pollutant emissions below BAAQMD significance thresholds due to the programmatic and conceptual nature of the proposed project and uncertainties related to future indi vidual projects, this is considered a potentially significant impact.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-32
Mitigation Measures
MM 3.3.3 Where projects in the project area are subject to s u b s e q u e n t C E Q A r e v i e w , t h e C i t y o f S a n t a R o s a m u s t e n s u r e t h a t i n addition to the BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (or subsequent updates), BAAQMD additional mitigation measures from Table 8-2 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (or subsequent updates) are noted on the construction documents an d implemented. These measures include the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the
construction project (i.e., ow ned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NO
X reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-33

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

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

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

Timing/Implementation: Implemented during construction activities for subsequent projects within the project
area
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce construction emissions from development under the project below BAAQMD thresholds. For instance, all construction allowed under the proposed project would be required to demonstrate that the off-road equipment to be used in the construction project would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NO X
reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average.

Acceptable options for reducing emissions incl ude the use of low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, af ter-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and the use of late model engines. As previously described, all off-road, diesel- fueled construction equipment manufactured in 2006 or later has been manufactured to Tier 3 standards and all off-road, diesel-fueled construction equipment manufactured in 2015 or later will be manufactured to Tier 4 standards. Tier 3 engines reduce PM and NOx emissions by as much as 60 percent and Tier 4 standards require that emissions of PM and NOx be further reduced by about 90 percent. The availability of such emission reducing technology ensures that all future construction instigated under the project would be reduced to levels below BAAQMD thresholds and this impact is less than significant.

Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Carbon Monoxide Pollutant Concentrations (Standard of Significance 3)
Impact 3.3.4 The proposed project would not contri bute to localized concentrations of mobile-source CO that would exceed applicable ambient air quality standards. This is considered a less than significant impact.

The primary mobile-source criteria pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide. Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions.

CO disperses rapidly with distance from the sour ce under normal meteorological conditions, so transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited. Under certain meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,” are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-34
commute hours.2 Modeling is therefore typically conducted for intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak commute hours.

Based on BAAQMD guidance (BAAQMD 2011: Section 3-3), projects meeting all of the following screening criteria would be considered to have a less than significant impact on localized carbon monoxide concentrations:
1) The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
2) The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below- grade roadway).

According to the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project (W-Trans 2016, Figures 7 and 8, Tables 22 and 23; see Appendix 3.14), no intersection or freeway ramp would experience more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. Similarly, the project would not result in 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing of pollutants and atmosphere is substantially limited (i.e., an enclosed parking structure). As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Toxi c Air Contaminant Concentrations During Construction (Standard of Significance 3)
Impact 3.3.5 The proposed project could result in increased exposure of existing or planned sensitive land uses to construction-source toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. This impact is considered potentially significant.

Sensitive land uses are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population who are particularly sensitive to the effects of ai r pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.

The project would result in the construction of new housing units and nonresidential square footage. Sources of construction-related TACs potentially affecting sensitive receptors include off- road diesel-powered equipment. Construction would result in the generation of diesel PM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of expo sure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emis sion levels that exceed applicable standards).

Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhau st emissions are primaril y linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. Concentrations of mobile-source diesel

2 Level of service (LOS) is a measure used by traffic engineers to determine the effectiveness of transportation infrastructure. Level of service is most commonly used to analyze intersections by categorizing traffic flow with corresponding safe driving conditions. LOS A is considered the most efficient level of service and LOS F the least efficient.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-35
PM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at a distance of approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005). In addition, current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 40, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities.

In the case of most construction projects that would occur in the project area, duration would be short term, lasting less than one year. According to the BAAQMD (2011), construction-generated diesel PM emissions contribute to negative health impacts when construction is extended over lengthy periods of time. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment during construction would be temporary and episodic and would occur in various locations isolated from one another. Furthermore, future development projects would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting idling to no more than 5 minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions. Many of the individual construction projects would span small areas. Construction projec ts contained on a site of less than 5 acres are generally considered to represent less than significant health risk impacts due to (1) limitations on the off-road diesel equipment able to operate and thus a reduced amount of generated diesel PM, (2) the reduced amount of dust-generating ground disturbance possible compared to larger construction sites, and (3) the reduced duration of construction activities compared to the development of larger sites. For these reasons and because diesel fumes disperse rapidly over relatively short distances, diesel PM generated by most construction activities, in and of itself, would not be expected to create conditions where the probability of contracting cancer is greater than 10 in one milli on for nearby receptors. In addition, mitigation measure MM 3.3.3 requires that off-road diesel-fueled equipment employed during construction activities be CARB Tier 3 Certified or better when construction activities are projected to exceed NO
X and PM thresholds. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the emissions of toxic pollutants generated by heavy-duty dies el-powered equipment during larger-scale construction projects. Also, Santa Rosa General Pl an Policy OSC-J-1 requires the employment of BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures during all construction projects. These basic construction mitigation measures include actions that would substantially reduce nuisance fugitive dust.

Nonetheless, larger-scale construction projects may occur within the project area. Additionally, there is a potential for construction to occur in proximity to residential and other sensitive land uses, making this impact potentially significant and requiring the following mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
MM 3.3.5 Projects within the project area that have a construction area greater than 5 acres and which are scheduled to last mo re than two years shall be required to prepare a site-specific construction pollutant mitigation plan in consultation with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) staff prior to the issuance of grading permits. A project-specific construction-related dispersion model acceptable to the BAAQMD shall be used to identify potential toxic air contaminant impacts, including diesel particulate matter. If BAAQMD risk thresholds (i.e., probability of contract ing cancer is greater than 10 in one million) would be exceeded, mitigation measures shall be identified in the construction pollutant mitigation plan to address potential impacts and shall be based on site-specific information, such as the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, project site plan details, and construction schedule. The City shall ensure construction contracts include all identified measures.

Construction pollutant mitigation plan measures shall include but not be limited to limiting the amount of acreage to be graded in a single day, requiring the

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-36
use of advanced particulate filters on construction equipment, and requiring t h e u s e o f a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l s , s u c h a s b i o d i e s e l , t o p o w e r c o n s t r u c t i o n equipment.

Timing/Implementation: Modeling shall be completed prior to grading permit issuance, and measures implemented
during construction activities for subsequent
projects with a construction area greater than 5
acres and construction lasting more than two
years
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
As previously stated, implementation of mitigation measure MM 3.3.3 requires the use of specified off-road construction equipment manufactured to Tier 3 standards or higher during all construction activities. Compared to current standards, Tier 3 standards for heavy-duty vehicles represent approximately a 60 percent reduction in per vehicle PM emissions compared with equipment that does not meet the Tier 3 standard (EPA 2014). Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the emissions of toxic pollutants generated by heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during construction. Al so, General Plan Policy OSC-J- 1 requires that BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures be employed. These basic construction mitigation measures include actions that would substantially reduce nuisance fugitive dust. Mitigation measure MM

3.3.5 requires a site-specific analysis of large-scal e construction projects (greater than 5 acres lasting longer than two years) for the potential for construction-generated air pollutant impacts based on specific project details of future development, and the development of adequate measures, in consultation with the BAAQMD, to reduce any such impacts below thresholds. As a result, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Toxi c Air Contaminant Concentrations During Operations (Standard of Significance 3)
Impact 3.3.6 The proposed project could result in th e development of housing units (sensitive land uses) near stationary or mo bile-source TACs. This impact is potentially significant.

There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs potentially affecting sensitive receptors include mobile sources, such as freeways and diesel locomotive trains. These mobile sources are sources of dies el PM, which CARB has listed as a toxic air contaminant. Sensitive receptors can also be expo sed to stationary sources, such as gasoline stations, dry cleaners, certain manufacturing operations, and backup generators. There is a potential that future sensitive receptors in the project area could be exposed to TAC emissions from stationary and/or mobile sources, depending on location.

Mobile Sources
The primary mobile sources affecting the project area include the US 101 corridor and the SR 12 corridor. Per BAAQMD guidance, all other sources within 1,000 feet of a proposed sensitive receptor need to be identified and analyzed. According to the BAAQMD’s (2012a) Highway Screening Analysis Tool, three segments of US 101 and two segments of SR 12 are located adjacent to the project area. These segments have been modeled for health risk by the BAAQMD. Table

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-37

3.3-9 identifies the PM 2.5 concentration, cancer risk, and non-cancer hazard index exposure at distances of 10 through 1,000 feet from the segments of US 101 and SR 12 in locations adjacent to the project area.

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutant levels that result in an unac ceptable cancer risk or hazard to be significant. Per BAAQMD guidance, all other sources within 1,000 feet of a proposed sensitive receptor need to be identified and analyzed. If emissions of TAC concentrations at a new sensitive receptor generated from all air toxics sources within a 1,000-foot radius result in the exceedance of an excess cancer risk level of more than 100 in one million, or a non-cancer hazard index greater than 10, the project would result in a significant impact.
3 The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines also consider exposure to annual PM2.5 concentrations that exceed 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3) from all TAC sources within a 1,000-foot radius to be significant.

In addition to these existing mobile sources, the proposed project would include development of land uses close to the planned Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) corridor. Health-related air quality risks associated with the planned operation of transit passenger trains were evaluated in the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Draft Enviro nmental Impact Report (SMART 2005). As part of this analysis, a screening-level assessment was conducted using the SCREEN3 computer program to estimate hourly concentrations of diesel PM in μg/m3. The screening-level assessment evaluated exposure of residents located al ong the SMART corridor. Train id ling associated with regular passenger stops at the SMART station, idling associated with potential train layovers, and idling of shuttle buses at the station were also included in the assessment. Predicted concentrations obtained from the SCREEN3 computer model were converted to an annual average concentration by applying a factor of 0.08, co nsistent with EPA-reco mmended methodologies, which is considered to provide a conservative es timation of emissions concentrations. Potential cancer risks were calculated assuming an average exposure period of 70 years (SMART 2005).

Based on the analysis conducted for the SMART DEIR, predicted cancer risks along the SMART corridor was 0.6 in one million at 30 feet from the track (SMART 2005). Based on the analysis conducted for the SMART DEIR, increased exposure to pollutant concentrations along the planned SMART corridor and near the SMART station would be considered less than significant.

In addition to the evaluation of health-related air quality risks prepared in the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit DEIR, the BAAQMD has modeled this planned railway for air quality health risk.

According to the BAAQMD’s (2015b) Railway Screening Analysis Tool, three separate railway segments traverse and are adjacent to the project area. Table 3.3-10 identifies the PM

2.5 concentration, cancer risk, and non-cancer haza rd index exposure at distances of 10 through 1,000 feet for each of the three railway segments traversing and adjacent to the project area.

3 The Hazard Index is the ratio of the computed recept or exposure level to the level known to cause acute or chronic adverse health impacts, as identified by the BAAQMD.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-38
TABLE 3.3-9
US HIGHWAY 101 AND STATE ROUTE 12 HEALTH RISK
Highway Segment Health Risk Type1 Distance West (feet)
10 25 50 75 100 200 300 400 500 750 1,000
US 101
Link 654
(just south of W. Third
Street to SR 12
Interchange)
PM2.5 Concentration
(BAAQMD Threshold = 0.8) 0.45 0.33 0.23 0.17 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 Cancer Risk
(BAAQMD Threshold = 100) 50.02 36.96 25.97 19.85 15.90 8. 06 4.79 3.14 2.22 1.17 0.75 Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 US 101
Link 651
(just south of SR 12
Interchange to Nissan
Auto Dealer)
PM2.5 Concentration
(BAAQMD Threshold = 0.8) 0.70 0.54 0.40 0.32 0.27 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.30 0.01 Cancer Risk
(BAAQMD Threshold = 100) 71.87 56.20 42.01 33.77 28.22 16.55 11.14 8.03 6.04 3.30 1.99 Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 US 101
Link 652
(Nissan Auto Dealer to
Santa Rosa Avenue Off-
Ramp)
PM2.5 Concentration
(BAAQMD Threshold = 0.8) 0.86 0.66 0.48 0.37 0.30 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 Cancer Risk
(BAAQMD Threshold = 100) 82.71 64.06 46.41 36.11 29.18 14. 84 8.60 5.44 3.69 1.71 1.01 Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 US 101
Link 619
(Santa Rosa Avenue
Off-Ramp to Rohnert
Park)
PM2.5 Concentration
(BAAQMD Threshold = 0.8) 0.75 0.60 0.46 0.38 0.33 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.07 Cancer Risk
(BAAQMD Threshold = 100) 79.44 63.99 49.78 41.45 35.81 23.98 18.45 15.18 12.99 9.63 7.70 Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-39
Highway Segment Health Risk Type1 Distance West (feet)
10 25 50 75 100 200 300 400 500 750 1,000
SR 12
Link 653
(Santa Rosa Avenue
Off-Ramp to US 101
Interchange)
PM2.5 Concentration
(BAAQMD Threshold = 0.8) 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Cancer Risk
(BAAQMD Threshold = 100) 16.24 12.94 9.78 7.85 6.52 3. 75 2.46 1.74 1.31 0.74 0.48 Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 SR 12
Link 645
(US 101 Interchange to
SMART Corridor)
PM2.5 Concentration
(BAAQMD Threshold = 0.8) 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 Cancer Risk
(BAAQMD Threshold = 100) 21.74 17.38 13.12 10.45 8.62 4. 88 3.22 2.31 1.75 0.96 0.60 Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 SR 12
Link 639
(SMART Corridor to
Fulton Road)
PM2.5 Concentration
(BAAQMD Threshold = 0.8) 0.22 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 Cancer Risk
(BAAQMD Threshold = 100) 19.56 15.86 12.42 10.41 9.07 6. 24 4.90 4.11 3.55 2.70 2.19 Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Source: BAAQMD 2015a
Note: 1 The BAAQMD thresholds are cumulative thresholds. The health risk from all local sources (i.e., stationary and mobile sources within a 1,000-foot radius) to a proposed new sensitive receptor would be added together and compared to these thresholds on a project-by-project basis.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-40
TABLE 3.3-10

SMART CORRIDOR HEALTH RISK
Railway Segment Health Risk Type1 Distance West (feet)
10 25 50 75 100 200 300 400 500 750 1,000
SMART
Link 416
(just north of 9th Street
to just south of Marriot
on 3rd Street)
PM2.5 Concentration
(BAAQMD Threshold = 0.8) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cancer Risk
(BAAQMD Threshold = 100) 3.06 2.42 1.85 1.50 .28 0.80 0.57 0.43 0.33 0.19 0.12 Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SMART
Link 418
(just south of Marriot
on 3rd Street to SR 12)
PM2.5 Concentration
(BAAQMD Threshold = 0.8) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cancer Risk
(BAAQMD Threshold = 100) 1.19 0.88 0.60 0.43 0.32 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SMART
Link 410
(SR 12 to Petaluma)
PM2.5 Concentration
(BAAQMD Threshold = 0.8) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cancer Risk
(BAAQMD Threshold = 100) 1.82 1.48 1.17 0.99 0.87 0.61 0.49 0.41 0.36 0.28 0.24 Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Source: BAAQMD 2015b
Note: 1 The BAAQMD thresholds are cumulative thresholds. The health risk from all local sources (i.e., stationary and mobile sources within a 1,000-foot radius) to a proposed new sensitive receptor would be added together and compared to these thresholds on a project-by-project basis.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-41
Stationary Sources
Stationary sources include but are not limited to refineries, gasoline dispensing facilities, dry cleaners, diesel internal combustion engines, natural gas turbines, crematories, landfills, waste water treatment facilities, hospitals, and coffee roasters. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend evaluation of risks for receptors located within 1,000 feet of TAC and PM2.5 emission sources or at distances approved/recommended by the BAAQMD.

To aid in the identification and evaluation of stationary sources, the BAAQMD has provided maps that identify permitted stationary sources, as we ll as the cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard index, and PM2.5 concentration associated with these sources. It is important to note that the health risks and PM 2.5 concentrations identified for these sources were calculated using a highly conservative screening methodology. Actual risks for nearby sensitive receptors would be significantly lower than those identified. Furthermore, these stationary sources are subject to the BAAQMD’s permitting requirements. As part of the BAAQMD’s permitting requirements, sources having the potential to emit localized concentrations of pollutants are required to implement measures designed to ensure that potential health risks to nearby existing receptors are reduced.

There are 34 identified stationary sources of TACs both in, and within 1,000 feet of, the project area. However, only 13 of these sources emit quantifiable amounts of TACs. Table 3.3-11 provides a summary of these 13 stationary sources identified in, and within 1,000 feet of, the project area, as well as the cancer risk, PM 2.5 concentration, and non-cancer hazard index associated with these sources. The cancer risk, PM2.5 concentration, and non-cancer hazard index associated with each source is identified both at the source itself, and at varying distances from the source, up to 1,000 feet. Source and risk data were obtained from the BAAQMD’s (2012b) Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. The BAAQMD calculated identified cancer risks, pollutant concentrations, and non-cancer hazards based on conservative modeling parameters and assumptions and do not take into account site-specific conditions. As a result, actual risks and pollutant concentrations would be expected to be substantially lower. When the pollutant source is identified as a gasoline dispenser or a diesel-powered backup generator, the BAAQMD’s Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool [Gasoline Dispensing Facility & Diesel Internal Combustion Engine] is applied.

As shown of Table 3.3-11, of the stationary sources identified, one is estimated to have predicted cancer risks in excess of the BAAQMD’s risk thresholds only at the source itself, while three exceed the cancer risk threshold up to a distance of approximately 100 feet from the source. One source exceeds the cancer risk threshold up to a distance of approximately 200 feet. (See Appendix 3.3 for a list of all 34 stationary sources of TACs located in, and within 1,000 feet of, the project area.)

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-42
TABLE 3.3-11

STATIONARY SOURCE HEALTH RISK
Facility Number, Name &
Address Health Risk Type1
Distance (feet)
At
source
(<100)
100 200 300 400 500 750 1,000
G9819 – Quick Stop #35
816 McMinn Avenue
Source Type: Gasoline
Dispensing
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 9.56 5.34 1.87 0.99 0.63 0.44 0.22 0.14 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18573 – Exxon Mobile Oil
Corp
565 Sebastopol Road
Source Type: Gasoline
Dispensing
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 0.67 0.37 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G7228 – Unocal #4320
370 Sebastopol Road
Source Type: Gasoline
Dispensing
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 21.23 11.86 4.17 2.21 1.40 0.97 0.48 0.31 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G12304 – Dutton Shell
255 Dutton Avenue
Source Type: Gasoline
Dispensing
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 26.34 14.72 5.17 2.74 1.73 1.21 0.60 0.39 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17692 – Equilon Enterprises
LLC.
255 Dutton Avenue
Source Type: No Data
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-43
Facility Number, Name &
Address Health Risk Type1
Distance (feet)
At
source
(<100)
100 200 300 400 500 750 1,000
16288 – Chevron
Environmental Co.
1075 Santa Rosa Avenue
Source Type: No Data
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G10583 – Fast Gas & Market
1410 Santa Rosa Avenue
Source Type: Gasoline
Dispensing
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 17.00 9.50 3.34 1.77 1.12 0.78 0.39 0.25 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18271 – Council of Aging
30 Kawana Springs Road
Source Type: Backup
Generator
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 21.15 15.43 8.67 5.28 3.38 2.53 1.48 0.84 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G11902 – 7-Eleven #33277
2648 Santa Rosa Avenue
Source Type: Gasoline
Dispensing
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 4.74 2.64 0.93 0.49 0.31 0.21 0.10 0.07 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G7711 – Corby Avenue Shell
2575 Corby Avenue
Source Type: Gasoline
Dispensing
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 3.82 2.13 0.75 0.39 0.25 0.17 0.08 0.05 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G8645 – A&M Mini Market
440 Hearn Avenue
Source Type: Gasoline
Dispensing
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 92.19 51.53 18.11 9.61 6.08 4.25 2.12 1.37 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-44
Facility Number, Name &
Address Health Risk Type1
Distance (feet)
At
source
(<100)
100 200 300 400 500 750 1,000
16175 – Verizon Wireless
3001 Corby Avenue
Source Type: Backup
Generator
PM2.5 Concentration
(Single Source Threshold = 0.3) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cancer Risk
(Single Source Threshold = 10) 4.53 3.30 1.85 1.13 0.72 0.54 0.31 0.18 Non-Cancer Hazard Index
(Single Source Threshold = 1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Source: BAAQMD 2012b, 2012c
Note: 1 The BAAQMD thresholds are single-source thresholds, i.e.,10 in one million for cancer risk, 0.3 μg/m3 for PM2.5 concentration, and 1.0 for non-cancer hazard index. However, the health risk from all local sources (i.e., st ationary and mobile sources within a 1,000 -foot radius) to a proposed new sensitive receptor would be added together and compared to cumulative thresholds (100 in one million for cancer risk, 0.8 μg/m3 for PM2.5 concentration, and 10 for non-cancer hazard index) on a project-by-project basis.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-45
As previously stated, BAAQMD guidance recommends that all other sources within 1,000 feet of a proposed sensitive receptor be identified and analyzed. Table 3.3-9 identifies the PM 2.5 concentration, cancer risk, and non-cancer haza rd index exposure at distances of 10 through 1,000 feet from the portions of US 101 and SR 12 adjacent to the project area. Table 3.3-10 identifies the PM2.5 concentration, cancer risk, and non-cancer hazard index exposure at distances of 10 through 1,000 feet from the portions of the planned SMART corridor traversing and adjacent to the project area. Table 3.3-11 identifies the PM2.5 concentration, cancer risk, and non-cancer hazard index exposure at the sites of permitted stationary sources in and around the project area, as well as at distances from 100 through 1,000 feet (also see Appendix 3.3).

The impact of these sources on future sensitive receptors in the project area can only be addressed on a project-by-project basis, since impacts are generally localized and specific development projects have not yet been proposed. Subsequent analysis for specific development proposals within the project area can rely on Tables 3.3-9 through 3.3-11 to identify the health risk at the proposed receptor. The health risk from all local sources (i.e., stationary and mobile sources within a 1,000-foot radius) to a proposed new sensitive receptor would be added together and compared to these thresholds on a project-by-project basis. Tables 3.3-9 through

3.3-11 are based on BAAQMD health risk screening tools intended to assist with air quality analyses.

The BAAQMD health risk screening tools interface with Google Earth to allow a user to identify stationary, freeway, and train sources within 1,000 feet of a receptor (BAAQMD 2012a, 2012b, 2015b). In addition to source identification, the tools identify conservative screening levels of cancer risk, non-cancer hazards, and PM

2.5 concentrations. TAC sources that show the potential for significant community risk impacts after this first level of review are further analyzed by contacting the BAAQMD for additional information and applying distance adjustment factors. A refined modeling analysis would be required if there are sources that still have potentially significant impacts after this level of review. A refined analysis would include dispersion modeling of the source using emissions and source information provided by the BAAQMD. If the source still has significant community risk impacts following this level of effort, the development project would be required to implement risk reduction strategies on a case-by-case basis.

Sensitive receptors can also be exposed to toxi c air contaminant concentrations from future nonresidential land uses proposed by the project. For instance, development projects that involve numerous heavy-duty truck trips on-site create su bstantial quantities of diesel PM emissions and therefore can negatively affect sensitive land uses. According to CAPCOA’s (2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, operations that require fewer than 100 delivery trucks daily are not considered a potential health risk. It is anticipated that the majority of nonresidential land uses developed in the project area would generate less than 100 delivery truck trips daily.

Because portions of the project area include sources of air toxics that could exceed established health criteria, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. The following mitigation is required in order to protect sensitive receptors in the project area from substantial concentrations of air toxics.

Mitigation Measures
MM 3.3.6 The following measures shall be utilized in site planning and building designs to reduce TAC and PM2.5 exposure where new receptors are located within 1,000 feet of emissions sources:

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-46
 Future development in the project area that includes sensitive receptors (such as residences, schools, hospitals, da ycare centers, or retirement homes) located within 1,000 feet of US 101, SR 12 and/or stationary sources shall require site-specific analysis to determine the leve l of health risk. This analysis shall be conducted following procedures outlined by the BAAQMD. If the site-specific analysis reveals significant exposures from all sources (i.e., health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a hazard Index greater than 10, or annual PM

2.5 exposures greater than 0.8
µg/m3), measures shall be employed to reduce the risk to below the threshold (e.g., electrostatic filtering systems or equivalent systems and location of vents away from TAC sources).
 Future nonresidential developments projected to generate more than 100 heavy-duty truck trips daily and/or include the need for a BAAQMD permit to operate a stationary source shall include measures to protect public health to ensure they do not cause a significant health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 10 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 1.0, or annual PM

2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 µg/m3.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
Implementation of mitigation measure MM 3.3.6 in addition to BAAQMD permitting requirements would ensure that adequate measures and asso ciated performance standards are in place to mitigate this impact to less than significant.

Expose Sensitive Receptors to Odorous Emissions (Standard of Significance 4) Impact 3.3.7 Future development within the project area would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial odorous emissions. This impact is considered less than significant.

The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to object ionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact.

Land uses commonly considered to be potential sources of odorous emissions include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, food processing facilities, chemical manufacturing plants, rendering plants, paint/coating operations, asph alt batch plants, agricultural feedlots, and dairies. Short-term construction activities may also result in localized increases of odorous emissions. Short- and long-term increases in lo calized concentrations of odors are discussed below.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-47
Short-Term Exposure to Odors
Construction within the project area is not anticipated to expose nearby receptors to objectionable odors. Construction-generated odors are typically associated with exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled equipment and the application of architectural coatings and paving materials, which may be considered objectiona ble to some individuals. However, because construction-related odors would be intermittent, temporary, and would disperse rapidly with distance from the source, construction-related odors would not result in the frequent exposure of a substantial number of individuals to objectionable odors. It is also important to note that projects developed as part of the project would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings, and Rule 15, Emulsifie d Asphalt, which establish volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits for these construc tion materials. VOCs are the main sources of odors from these sources. Therefore, compliance with these regulatory requirements would further reduce odor impacts associated with these sour ces. Short-term exposure to odorous emissions would therefore be considered less than significant.

Long-Term Exposure to Odors
Residential, institutional, office, and commercial land uses are not considered major sources of odorous emissions. However, the project would also allow for the development of industrial land uses, which have the potential to produce odorous emissions during operation. Responses to odors are subjective and vary by individual and type of use. Sensitive land uses that include outdoor uses, such as residences, are likely to be affected most by odors. Compliance with policies in the Santa Rosa General Plan would reduce the exposure of additional people to odors. For instance, General Plan Land Use Element Policy LUL-K-1 requires industrial development adjacent to residential areas to provide buffers and inst itute setback, landscaping, and screening requirements to minimize compatibility-related impacts. Housing Element Policy H-A-3 seeks to discourage intrusion of incompatible uses into residential neighborhoods that would erode the character of established neighborhoods or lead to use conflicts. Adherence to City Design Guidelines would also reduce the exposure of people to odors. The City Design Guidelines provide direction to designers as well as establish criteria for review of projects. The purpose of the Design Guidelines is to provide a clear set of design policies to project sponsors such as developers, property owners, architects, designers, and public agencies. These are the primary design criteria which the City staff, boards and commissions, and the City Council will use to evaluate project proposals. These guidelines apply to all projects that require design review, including development in the project area. The City Design Guidelines ensure all new development in the project area would incorporate adequate transition areas between industrial and residential development in order to buffer neighborhoods from odors. City Code Section 20-30.090(J) also regulates odors, which requires that no obnoxious odor or fume s shall be emitted that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the property line of the site.

Additionally, potential odor sources are locate d throughout the city that could affect new sensitive receptors. While no existing major stationary sources of odors have been identified in the project area, an existing asphalt batch plant is located at 1060 Maxwell Drive, south of College Avenue (approximately 0.8 miles north of the project area). The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include recommended odor screening criteria for the evaluation of various odor- generating facilities. According to these sc reening criteria, receptors located within approximately 2 miles of an asphalt batch plant, which would include land uses located in the project area, could be adversely affected. The BAAQMD has not received odor-related complaints for this facility, but the City has received complaints. The proposed project would not contribute to odors at the asphalt batch plant. Therefore, the project’s impact with regard to long-term exposure to odorous emissions would be considered less than significant.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-48
Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.3.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES The cumulative setting for air quality includes Santa Rosa and the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

The SFBAAB is designated as a nonattainment area related to the state standards for ozone, PM10, and PM 2.5 in addition to federal ozone and PM 2.5 standards. The basin is designated as being unclassified and/or attainment for all other pollut ants. Cumulative growth in population, vehicle use, and industrial activity could inhibit efforts to improve regional air quality and attain the ambient air quality standards. Thus, the setting for this cumulative analysis consists of the SFBAAB and associated growth and development anticipated in the air basin.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts (Standard of Significance 5) Impact 3.3.8 The proposed project, in combination with cumulative development in the SFBAAB, could result in a significantly cumulative increase of criteria air pollutants for which the air basin is designated nonattainment. This would be a significant cumulative impact, and the project’s contribution to the impact would be considered cumulatively considerable.

By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. According to the BAAQMD, no single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.

Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. According to the BAAQMD, if a project exceeds its identified significance thresholds, the project’s impact would be cumulatively considerable (BAAQMD 2011). As stated under Impact 3.3.3, it cannot be guaranteed, despite mitigation, that construction of subsequent projects allowed under the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions below BAAQMD significance thresholds because of the programmatic and conceptual nature of the proposed project and uncertainties related to fu ture subsequent projects. Therefore, significant cumulative impacts would result and the projec t’s contribution to those impacts would be cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measure MM 3.3.3 and compliance with General Plan Policy OSC-J-1 would likely mitigate most construction emissions from development in the project area. However, the extent of construction that may occur in any specific period of time is currently unknown to determine whether the above mitigation measures would fully mitigate this temporary impact below BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project’s contribution to this impact is significant and unavoidable.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.3-49

REFERENCES
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx. ———. 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
———. 2012a. Highway Screening Analysis Tool. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. ———. 2012b. Stationary Source Screening Anal ysis Tool. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. ———. 2012c. Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool [Gasoline Dispensing Facility & Diesel Internal Combustion Engine]. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california- environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. ———. 2015a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. http://www.baaqmd.gov/research- and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status.
———. 2015b. Railway Screening Analysis Tool. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.
———. 2011. Health Effects.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
———. 2015. Air Quality Data Statistics. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html.

CDOF (California Department of Finance). 2015. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State – January 1, 2011–2015.

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

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. ———. 2014. EPA Sets Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/documents/tier3/420f14009.pdf.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2007. Air Toxicology and Epidemiology: Air Pollution and Children's Health .
http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/airkids.html.

SMART (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit). 2005. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Draft Environmental Impact Report.

W-Trans. 2016. Traffic Impact Study for the Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan & Annexation.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.3-50
This page intentionally left blank

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-1

3.4.1 E XISTING SETTING
The Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and the Annexation areas (together identified as the project area) are located in Santa Rosa, California. The project area is generally bounded by State Route (SR) 12 to the north, Bellevue Avenue to the south, US Highway 101 (US 101) to the east, and Stony Point Road to the west, but also includes three small pockets just outside those boundaries. Elevations in the project area range from 105 to 135 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The proposed project includes anne xation of all existing unincorporated islands in southwestern Santa Rosa. An unincorporated is land is defined as an area of unincorporated land that is substantially surrounded by city land. There are five such areas in southwestern Santa Rosa, two located within the area of the Roseland Area/S ebastopol Road Specific Plan and three located outside the plan area.

WILDLIFE AND PLANT COMMUNITIES
The plant and land use communities occurring in the project area are discussed below. The discussion includes species that may not have been specifically identified in current surveys, but which nevertheless may be expected to occur in the project area. The project area is highly urbanized. Habitat that occurs in the project area include non-native annual grassland, riparian woodland, vernal pool complexes, aquatic channels, and urban development. Vegetation and land use communities are shown in Figure 3.4-1.

Non-Native Annual Grassland
Aside from developed areas, non-native grassland is the dominant community in the project area.

The dominant species are mostly annuals and include filaree ( Erodium moschatum), hare barley (Hordeum gussoneanum ssp. leprinum), and rip-gut brome ( Bromus diandrus ). Other species include common chickweed (Stellaria media), white clover (Trifolium repens), and subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum).

Many of the grasslands in the project area may contain some ruderal species and may be the remains of old agricultural fields. Rural residential, with the exception of buildings and driveways, are also mapped as non-native grasslands.

Grasslands attract reptiles and amphibians such as western fence lizard (Sceloperus occidentalis), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and western rattlesnake (Crotalis viridis). Bird species commonly found in non-native grassland include California quail ( Callipepla californica ), mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglects). Grasslands are common foraging habitat for aerial bi rds and ground foraging species such as Myotis bat species and pallid bats ( Antrozous pallidus). Mammals and small rodents that may occur in this community include coyote ( Canis latrans ), black-tailed deer ( Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), California ground squirrel ( Spermophilus beecheyi ), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and other birds of prey may forage on smaller wildlife species in grasslands.

Riparian Woodland
Portions of Roseland Creek in the project area are surrounded by riparian woodland. Species in this community could include buckeye (Aesculus sp.), valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Q. agrifolia), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus var. l aevigatus). Other species that may occur include blue elderberry ( Sambucus mexicana ), box elder ( Acer negundo ), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and willows (Salix spp.).

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-2
A variety of birds could forage in the ri parian habitat including Bewick’s wren ( Thryomanes bewickii), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), oak titmouse ( Baeolophus inornatus), and belted kingfisher ( Megaceryle alcyon). A variety of other species may occur in this community, including western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). A variety of mammal species may use this community, including mountain lion (Puma concolor ), black-tailed deer, and bobcat ( Lynx rufus ). Sharp-shinned hawk ( Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ), and a variety of other raptors could use riparian woodland for nesting.

Vernal Pool Complexes
Vernal pools are seasonal wetlan ds that generally occur in grasslands and are typically located in slight depressions that form over bedrock or hardpan soils that allow water to pool during winter and spring rains. Although vernal pools occur na turally in grassland and woodland settings, they may also occupy disturbed locations where the underlying soils conditions remain intact or where disturbance has resulted in soil compaction.

Vegetation in undisturbed vernal pools is typically characterized by native annual species that are capable of completing their life cycles by producing viable seed in a variable habitat that is ponded at times and dry at others. Common vernal pool species in the project area include fringed downingia (Downingia concolor), spiny coyote thistle (Eryngium armatun), sedge species (Eleochris ssp.), and California goldfields (Lasthenia californica).

Vernal pools provide seasonal aquatic habitat for invertebrates and tree frogs and are temporary water sources for birds and terrestri al wildlife. They are habitat for the federally and state listed California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense).

Channels
Two creeks flow through the project area. Roseland Creek is an ephemeral stream that surfaces from an outfall west of the Nort hern Pacific Railroad. It then flows southwest through the project area, exiting at the midpoint of the western boundary. Colgan Creek flows under US 101 at the eastern boundary of the project area and continues southwesterly through the project area.

Species that may occur in the channels include California freshwater shrimp ( Syncaris pacifica), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), and western toad.

Urban
The project area is primarily residential developm ent with some commercial and industrial uses.

Urban development is typically dominated by ornamental landscaping, which can provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species that are adapted to human habitation, such as raccoons and Virginia opossums. Other species include mourning dove, European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and American robin (Turdus migratorius). Some bat species, including Myotis spp., pallid bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), could roost in larger trees and buildings.

FIGURE 3.4-1
Vegetative Communities
Stony Point Rd
W 3Rd St
Corby Ave
Santa Rosa Ave
Hearn Ave
Sebastopol Rd
West Ave
Olive St
Bellevue Ave
Yuba Dr
Dutton Ave
Burbank Ave
Dowd Dr
Butler Ave
S A St
Leo Dr
Ludwig Ave
Glenbrook Dr
Gloria Dr
Dutton Meadow
Primrose Ave
Moorland Ave
Oasis Dr
Occidental Rd
Northpoint Pkwy
Boyd St
Phillips Ave
Mcminn Ave
1St St
Tuxhorn Dr
W Robles Ave
Brittain Ln
Lombardi Ln
W Hearn Ave
Juniper Ave
Rose Ave
Link Ln
W 6Th St
Victoria Dr
Beachwood Dr
Lazzini Ave
Edgewater Dr
Corporate Center Pkwy
Apollo Way
Burgess Dr
Sunset Ave
Campbell Dr
Gardner Ave
Bancroft Dr
Funston Dr
Silver Spur Dr
C St
Barham Ave
Wilder Rd
Weber Ln
Arrowhead Dr
Southwood Dr
Comalli St
Demeo St
Marble St
S Davis St
Cass Rd
Earle St
Poplar St
Wiljan Ct
Hughes Ave
Liana Dr
Pearblossom Dr
Barndance Ln
Janero Dr
Liscum St
Blue Sky Ln
Dixie Pl
Darek Dr
Giffen Ave
Baker Ave
Bellevue Rnch
Goodman Ave
Keegan Dr
Hazel St
Whitewood Dr
Carina Dr
South Ave
Umland Dr
Amador Dr
Surrey Dr
Hull St
Heather Dr
Ash Dr
Newmark Dr
Timothy Rd
Boron Ave
Kenmore Ln
Talmadge Dr
Westwood Dr
Red Tail St
Pippin Cir
Sonoma Ave
Mesa Way
Gallop Dr
Westbrook Dr
Banjo Dr
Park Meadow Dr
James Ct
West Ct
B St
Brockhurst Dr
Muledeer Ln
Fenwick Dr
Westgate Cir
Mojave Ave
Trombetta St
Mercury Way
Standish Ave
Roseland Ave
Delport Ave
Maureen Dr
Bosley St
Romani Ct
E Robles Ave
W Barham Ave
Kenton Ct
Rain Dance Way
Avalon Ave
Goldpan Way
Inglewood Dr
Hampton Way
Odell Ln
Hobbie Ln
Javore Dr
Debbie Dr
Buss Dr
Pebblecreek Dr
Shady Ln
Orange St
Homestead Ln
Greenwood Dr
Eddy Dr
Valerie Way
Myrtlewood Dr
Railroad St
Hogrefe Way
Wild Bill Way
Stroven Ln
Elk Ln
Monument Dr
Westland Dr
Tapadera Dr
Laurel Grove Cir
Duncan St
Santini Ct
Duke Ct
Page Ct
Walkham Pl
Naify Ln
Metaxa CtLathrop Dr Cottonwood Dr
Apple Creek Ln
Smokewood Dr
Rose Meadow Ct
Lombardi Ct
Rosevine Ln
Wall Pl
Bighorn Sheep St
Willow St
Old Stony Point Rd
Tara Dr
Sebastopol Ave
Winston Dr
Tobin Ln
Alamo Ln
Harmonica Ln
Ashwood Dr
Anteeo Way
Shay Ave
Ironstone Cir
Primrose Ct
Southside
Barbara Dr
Ohair Ct
Pinewood Dr
Broadmoor St
Freitas Ct
Corby Avenue Ext
Barnett St
Mancini St
Theresa St
Aloise Ave
Blythewood Pl
Montevino Dr
Lucas Cir
Roberts Ave
Ames Ct
Horizon Way
Spruce St
Grandberg Ct
Faletto Ct
Cherrywood Dr
Goldpan Cir
Leisure Park Cir
Torzelli Ln
Oak Manor Ct
Nathan Ln
Lilac Dr
Harvest Ln
Commercial Ct
Mosswood Ln
Holbrook St
Coors Ct
Sugar Bear Ln
Mcmaude Pl
Milicent Way
Fenwick Pl
Malibu Cir
Redwood Cir
Camellia Ct
Richardson Ct
Chestnut St
Wisteria Ln
Newton St
Longhorn Cir
Dall Sheep Ln
Quillco Ct
Robin Way
Oldfield Way
Ryan Ln
Victoria Ct
Constants Ln
Meekland Ct
Thunderbolt Way
David Lee Ct
Bellevue Ave
Lombardi Ln
Brittain Ln
Mesa Way
Trombetta St
Dutton Ave
Barham Ave
Earle St
Giffen Ave
A St
Juniper Ave
Giffen Ave
S A St
Baker Ave
IÆ
?ÝE
T:\_GIS\Sonoma_County\MXDs\Santa_Rosa\SRRASP\EIR_Figures\Vegetative Communities.mxd (3/11/2016) 0 1,000 2,000
FEET
Source: City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.

Legend
Project Area
City Limits
Vegetative Communities
Non-native Annual Grassland
Riparian Woodland
Channel
Vernal Complex
Urban

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-5
Special-Status Species
The following discussion describes the plant and animal species that have been afforded special recognition by federal, state, or local resource agencies or organizations. Listed and special-status species are of relatively limited distribution and may require specialized habitat conditions. Listed and special-status species are described as:
 Listed or proposed for listing under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts  Protected under other regulations (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA])  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern  Listed 1 or 2 (rare or endangered) by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) or the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
 Receive consideration during environmental review under CEQA Special-status species were considered for this analysis based on known habitat in the project area, a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2016a), a review of the USFWS lists for special-status species occurring in the region (USFWS 2016), and CNPS literature (CNPS 2016) ( Appendix 3.4). All CNDDB occurrences fo r wildlife are shown in Figures 3.4-2, and special-status plant species are shown in Figure 3.4-3. Table 3.4-1 identifies the species shown in Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3. Appendix 3.4 identifies the special-status species and indicates the potential for the species to occur in the project area. Species listed as having no potential for occurrence are species either not expected to occur based on the known range of the species or not expected to occur based on the lack of suitable habitat in the project area.

Plants
A variety of special-status plants have the pote ntial to occur in the vernal pool complexes and grasslands in the project area. Focused specia l-status plant surveys conducted during the blooming period would be needed to determine the presence or absence of these species. These plants include the species discussed below.

Baker’s Navarretia
Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri) is a species listed as 1B.1 by the CNPS.

This species is generally found in vernal pools and swales; it blooms between April and July (CNPS 2016). The vernal pool complexes provide suitable habitat for this species, and there are multiple occurrences for this species west of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Burke’s Goldfield
Burke’s goldfield (Lasthenia burkei) is a federal and state endangered species and is listed as 1B.1 by the CNPS. This species grows in vernal pool and swales; it blooms between April and June (CNPS 2016). The vernal pool complexes provide suitable habitat for this species, and there are multiple occurrences for this species within 5 miles of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-6
Congested-Headed Hayfield-Tarplant
Congested-headed hayfield-tarplant ( Hemizonia congesta ) i s a s p e c i e s l i s t e d a s 1 B . 2 b y t h e CNPS. This species is found in valley and foothi ll grasslands and on roadsides (CNPS 2016). The grasslands provide suitable habitat for this spec ies, and there are multiple occurrences within 5 miles of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Dwarf Downingia
Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla) is a species listed as 2.2 by the CNPS. This species is found in mesic grasslands and vernal pools; it blooms between March and May (CNPS 2016). The vernal pool complexes in the project area provide suitable habitat for this species, and there are multiple occurrences for this species within 5 miles of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Legenere
Legenere (Legenere limosa) is a species listed as 1B.1 by the CN PS. This species is found in vernal pools; it blooms between April and June (CNPS 2016). The vernal pool complexes in the project area provide suitable habitat for this species, and there is an occurrence within 1 mile of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Many-Flowered Navarretia
Many-flowered navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha) is a state and federally listed species. This species is found in vernal pools; it blooms between May and June (CNPS 2016). The vernal pool complexes in the project area provide suitable habitat for this species; there are no occurrences within 5 miles of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Saline Clover
Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum) is a species listed as 1B.2 by the CNPS. This species is found in valley and foothill grasslands and vernal pools; it blooms between April and June (CNPS 2016). The vernal pool complexes provide suitable habitat for this species, and there is one occurrence for this species in the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Sebastopol Meadowfoam
Sebastopol meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans) is a federal and state endangered species and is listed as 1B.1 by the CNPS. This species is found in vernal pools; it blooms between April and May (CNPS 2016). The vernal pool complexes provide suitable habitat for this species, and there are multiple CNDDB occurrences for this species within 5 miles of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Showy Indian Clover
Showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum) is a federally endangered sp ecies and is listed as 1B.1 by the CNPS. This species is found in valley an d foothill grasslands; it blooms from April through June (CNPS 2016). The grasslands in the project area provide suitable habitat, and there are multiple occurrences in the vicinity of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-7
Sonoma Sunshine
Sonoma sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri) is a federal and state endangered species and it is listed as 1B.1 by the CNPS. This species is found in valley grasslands and vernal pools; it blooms between March and May (CNPS 2016). The vernal pool complexes provide suitable habitat for this species, and there are multiple CNDDB occurrences for this species southeast of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Two-Forked Clover
Two-forked clover (Trifolium amoenum) is a federally endangered species and is listed as 1B.1 by the CNPS. This species is found in valley and foot hill grasslands; it blooms from April through June (CNPS 2016). The grasslands in the project area provide suitable habitat, and there are multiple occurrences in the vicinity of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-8
This page intentionally left blank
FIGURE 3.4-2
CNDDB Occurrences of Special-Status Species
Within 5 Miles of Project Area
IÆ
IÆ
?ÝE
?ÝE
AÜE
6 11
20 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
6 12
34 24
34 1
34 24
3 3
39 3
3 3
3 3
3 34
3 24
3 3 33
3 3
3 3
3 42
3 3
3 3
33 24
3 3
24 3 33
3 24
24 3
3 33
3 3 3
3 3
3 3
3 33 3
3 3 33
8 3
3 3 3
3 3
3 3 3
33 3
3 33
3 37
24 24
24 43
24 24
43 23
24 24
2424
24 24
24 24
24 43
3 40
T:\_GIS\Sonoma_County\MXDs\Santa_Rosa\SRRASP\EIR_Figures\CNDDB.mxd (5/10/2016) 0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife (2016); City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.

Legend
Project Area
5-mi Radius of Specific Plan Area
CNDDB Occurrence Type
Amphibian
Bird
Fish
Mammal
Reptile
Invertebrate
See Table 3.4-1 for information on species shown.

FIGURE 3.4-3
CNDDB Occurrences of Special-Status Species
Within 5 Miles of Project Area
IÆ
IÆ
?ÝE
?ÝE
AÜE
32 32
5 45
45 13
44, 45
31 19, 25,
27, 29, 47
25 26
26 38, 41
16 26
2 25
45 36
21 7
35 2
36 7
36 31
36 44
36 7
7 7
22 26
36 46
22 15
10, 28, 33
17, 18
26 25
15 31
22 25
36 22
30 15
16 9
9 26
25 15
36 1325
36 2525
22 22
22 36
26, 28
7 10, 28, 33
T:\_GIS\Sonoma_County\MXDs\Santa_Rosa\SRRASP\EIR_Figures\CNDDB Plants.mxd (5/10/2016) 0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife (2016); City of Santa Rosa (2015); ESRI.

Legend
Project Area
5-mi Radius of Specific Plan Area
CNDDB Occurrence Type
Sonoma sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri)
Rincon Ridge ceanothus ( Ceanothus confusus)
Burke's goldfields (Lasthenia burkei)
Sebastopol meadowfoam ( Limnanthes vinculans)
All Other Plant Species
See Table 3.4-1 for information on species shown.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-13
TABLE 3.4-1: KEY TO CNDDB SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND PLANT OCCURRENCES SHOWN IN FIGURES 3.4-2 AND 3.4-3 Map ID Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing State Listing Rare Plant Rank
1 Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird None None
2 Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis Sonoma alopecurus Endangered None 1B.1 3 Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander Threatened Threatened 4 Amorpha californica var. napensis Napa false indigo None None 1B.2 5 Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck None None 1B.2 6 Andrena blennospermatis Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee None None 7 Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens Rincon Ridge manzanita None None 1B.1 8 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None None
9 Balsamorhiza macrolepis big-scale balsamroot None None 1B.2 10 Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine Endangered Endangered 1B.1 11 Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee None None
12 Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee None None
13 Brodiaea leptandra narrow-anthered brodiaea None None 1B.2 14 Ceanothus confusus Rincon Ridge ceanothus None None 1B.1 15 Ceanothus divergens Calistoga ceanothus None None 1B.2 16 Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus Vine Hill ceanothus None None 1B.1 17 Ceanothus purpureus holly-leaved ceanothus None None 1B.2 18 Ceanothus sonomensis Sonoma ceanothus None None 1B.2 19 Chorizanthe valida Sonoma spineflower Endangered Endangered 1B.1 20 Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo Threatened Endangered 21 Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa Peruvian dodder None None 2B.2 22 Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia None None 2B.2
23 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite None None

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-14
Map ID Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing State Listing Rare Plant Rank
24 Emys marmorata western pond turtle None None
25 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None None 1B.2 26 Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta congested-headed hayfield tarplant None None 1B.2 27 Horkelia tenuiloba thin-lobed horkelia None None 1B.2 28 Lasthenia burkei Burke's goldfields Endangered Endangered 1B.1 29 Lasthenia californica ssp. bakeri Baker's goldfields None None 1B.2 30 Legenere limosa legenere None None 1B.1
31 Leptosiphon jepsonii Jepson's leptosiphon None None 1B.2 32 Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Pitkin Marsh lily Endangered Endangered 33 Limnanthes vinculans Sebastopol meadowfoam Endangered Endangered 1B.1 34 Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella None None 35 Microseris paludosa marsh microseris None None 1B.2
36 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Baker's navarretia None None 1B.1 37 Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast DPS Threatened None 38 Potentilla uliginosa Cunningham Marsh cinquefoil None None 1A 39 Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog None None
40 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Threatened None 41 Rhynchospora californica California beaked-rush None None 1B.1 42 Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp Endangered Endangered 43 Taxidea taxus American badger None None
44 Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover Endangered None 1B.1 45 Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover None None 1B.2
46 Triquetrella californica coastal triquetrella None None 1B.2 47 Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum None None 2B.3 Source: CDFW California Natural Diversity Database 2016.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-15
White Sedge
White sedge (Carex curta) is a federal and state endangered species; it is not listed by the CNPS.

This species is found in wetlands and vernal pools; it blooms between May and July (USFWS 2009).

Although there are no CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles of the project area (CDFW 2016a), vernal pools in the project area provide suitable habitat for this species.

Animals
Western Pond Turtle
Western pond turtle is a state species of concern. This species prefers permanent still to slow- moving water bodies with basking sites such as logs, rocks, floating vegetation, or open mud banks (CDFW 2016b). Roseland Creek and Colgan Creek provide suitable habitat for this species. There are multiple occurrences of western pond turtle in the vicinity of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

California Tiger Salamander
The California tiger salamander (CTS) is listed as federally endangered and a state threatened species. This species is generally found in annual grasslands, occasionally in the understory of valley-foothill hardwood habitats. Adults spend most of their lives underground. This species frequently uses burrows of California ground squirrels and other rodents. Adult CTS breed in vernal pools and other seasonal ponds (CDFW 2016b). There are recent records of this species in the project area, and protection measures for this species are described in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (Bolster 2010). There are multiple occurrences for CTS in the project area and vicinity (CDFW 2016a).

Tricolored Blackbird
Tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor ) is a state endangered species. This species inhabits freshwater marsh habitats with stands of cattails, tules, and blackberry thickets for nesting. It generally forages in open habitats, such as farm fields, pastures, lawns, and cattle pens (CDFW 2016b). Suitable habitat is present in the non-na tive annual grassland and areas with blackberry thickets in the project area. This species is known to occur within 5 miles of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Long-Eared Owl
The long-eared owl (Asio otus) is a state species of concern. This species is an uncommon yearlong resident throughout California with the exceptio n of the Central Valley and Southern California desert. This species utilizes riparian habitat, li ve oak thickets, and other dense stands of small densely canopied trees for roosting and nesting (CDFW 2016b). The riparian woodland and other large trees in the project area provide suitable habitat for this species.

Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularis ) is a state species of concern. Burrowing owls are found in grassland habitats, which support suitable burrowing sites. Burrowing owls are unable to construct their own burrows so they rely on burrows of other species such as California ground squirrels .

Burrowing owls forage mostly on insects and small rodents (CDFW 2016b). The non-native annual grasslands in the project area provide suitable habitat for this species. This species is known to occur within 5 miles of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-16
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
Yellow-billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus ) is a federally threatened and state endangered species. They are found in woodlands, thickets, and streamside groves. Nests are found in dense habitat, deciduous trees, and shrubs. The species forages by clambering through shrubs and trees, gleaning insects from leaves and branches. It feeds mostly on caterpillars and other insects, and occasionally on frogs, lizards, and eggs (CDF W 2016b). The riparian woodland around Roseland Creek provides suitable habitat for this species. This species is known to occur within 5 miles of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Yellow-Breasted Chat
The yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) is a state species of concern. This species is a neotropical migrant that occurs in riparian or marsh habitats throughout California. Yellow-breasted chats are found in valley foothill riparian habitat with thickets of dense willow and brushy tangles near watercourses. Forage patterns usually involve gl eaning insects, spiders, and berries from the foliage of shrubs and low trees. Nests are often low to the ground in dense shrubs along streams.

They occur as summer breeding residents in the Sacramento River Valley and its tributaries (CDFW 2016b). The riparian woodland around Roseland Creek provides suitable habitat for this species.

Cooper’s Hawk, White-Tailed Kite, Loggerhead Shrike, and Other Raptors Cooper’s hawk is on the state watch list, loggerhead shrike is a state species of concern, and white tailed kite is a fully protected species. Some raptor and migratory bird species, such as red- tailed hawk, American kestrel, and oak titmouse , are not considered special-status species because they are not rare or protected under the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act; however, the nests of all raptor species are protected under the MBTA and Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC), which makes it illegal to destroy any active migratory bird nest. Raptors nest in large trees and forage in open habitats, specifically annual grasslands and row crops (CDFW 2016a). The riparian woodland and other large trees in the project area provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors. The non-native annual grasslands provide suitable foraging habitat. Th ese species are known to occur within 5 miles of the project area (CDFW 2016a).

Bats
Bats, including a variety of Myotis sp., pallid bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat, all state species of concern, are known to occur in the vicinity of the project area. These species are of concern to the CDFW due to recent population declines. Habitat for bat species consists of foraging habitat, night roosting cover, maternity roost sites, and winter hibernacula. Potential habitat for maternity roosts occurs in aban doned outbuildings and in trees throughout the project area.

Foraging habitat is present in the non-native a nnual grasslands and the channels in the project area.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-17

3.4.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, provides protective measures for federally listed threatened and endangered species, including their habitats, from unlawful take (16 United States Code (USC) Sections 1531–1544). The ESA defines “take” to mean “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Title 50, Part 222, of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR Section 222) further defines “harm” to include “an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including feeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering.”
ESA Section 7(a)(1) requires federal agencies to use their authority to further the conservation of listed species. ESA Section 7(a)(2) requires consultation with the USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) if a federal agency undertakes, funds, permits, or authorizes (termed the federal nexus) any action that may affect enda ngered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat. For projects that may result in the incidental take of threatened or endangered species, or critical habitat, and that lack a federal nexus, a Section 10(a)(1)(b) incidental take permit can be obtained from the USFWS and/or the NMFS.

Clean Water Act
The basis of the Clean Water Act (CWA) was established in 1948 and was originally referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The act was reorganized and expanded in 1972 (33 USC Section 1251), and at this time the Clean Water Act became the act’s commonly used name. The basis of the CWA is the regulation of pollutant discharges into waters of the United States, as well as the establishment of surface water quality standards.

Section 404
CWA Section 404 (33 USC Section 1344) established the program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Under this regulation, certain activities proposed within waters of the United States require the obtainment of a permit prior to initiation. These activities include, but are not limited to, placement of fill for the purposes of development, water resource projects (e.g., dams and levees), infrastructure development (e.g., highways and bridges), and mining operations.

The program’s primary objective is to ensure that the discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur if a practicable alternative to the proposed activities exists that results in less impact on waters of the United States or if the proposed activity would result in significant adverse impacts on these waters. To comply with these objectives, a permittee must document the measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts on waters of the United States and provide compensatory mitigation for any remaining unavoidable impacts.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USFWS are assigned roles and responsibilities in the administration of this program; however, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency in the administration of day-to-day activities, including issuance of permits. The agencies will typically assert jurisd iction over the following waters: (1) traditional

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-18
navigable waters (TNW); (2) wetlands adjacent to TNWs; (3) relatively permanent waters (RPW) that are non-navigable tributaries to TNWs and have relatively permanent flow or seasonally continuous flow (typically three months); and (4) wetlands that directly abut RPWs. Case-by-case investigations are usually conducted by the agencies to ascertain their jurisdiction over waters that are non-navigable tributaries and do not co ntain relatively perman ent or seasonal flow, wetlands adjacent to the aforementioned featur es, and wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs (USACE 2007). Jurisdiction is not generally asserted over swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies or small washes characterized by low-volume/short-duration flow events) or ditches constructed wholly within and draining only uplands that do not have relatively permanent flows.

The extent of jurisdiction within waters of the United States, which lack adjacent wetlands, is determined by the ordinary high wate r mark, which is defined in 33 CFR Section 328.3(e) as the “line on the shore established by the fluctua tions of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line im pressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteri stics of the surrounding areas.” Wetlands are further defined under 33 CFR Section 328.3 and 40 CFR Section 230.3 as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground wa ter at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions”; and typically include “swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” The 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) sets forth a standardized methodology for delineating the ex tent of wetlands under federal jurisdiction (USACE 1987).

The 1987 Manual outlines three parameters that all wetlands, under normal circumstances, must contain positive indicators for to be considered jurisdictional. These parameters include (1) wetland hydrology, (2) hydrophytic vegetation, and (3) hydric soils (USACE 1987). In 2006, the USACE issued a series of Regional Supplements to address regional differences that are important to the functioning and identification of wetlands . The supplements presen t “wetland indicators, delineation guidance, and other information” that is specific to the region. The USACE requires that wetland delineations submitted after June 5, 2007, be conducted in accordance with both the 1987 Manual and the applicable supplement.

Section 401
Under CWA Section 401 (33 USC Section 1341), federal agencies are not authorized to issue a permit and/or license for any activity that may result in discharges to waters of the United States, unless a state or a tribe where the discharge origin ates either grants or waives CWA Section 401 certification. CWA Section 401 provides states or tribes with the ability to grant, grant with conditions, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification, with or without conditions, allows the federal permit/license to be issued and remain consistent with any conditions set forth in the CWA Section 401 certification. Denial of the cert ification prohibits the issuance of the federal license or permit, and waiver allows the permit/license to be issued without state or tribal comment. Decisions made by states or tribes are based on the proposed project’s compliance with EPA water quality standards as well as applicable effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, toxic pollutant restrictio ns, and any other appropriate requirements of state or tribal law. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board is the primary regulatory authority for CWA Section 401 requirements (additional details below).

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-19
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC Sections 703–711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Section 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR Section 21). The majority of birds found in the project vicinity would be protected under the MBTA.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle and golden eagle are federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Sections 668–668c). Under the act, it is illegal to take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell or purchase or barter, transport, export, or import at any time or in any manner a bald or golden eagle, alive or dead; or any part, nest or egg of these eagles unless authorized by the Secretary of the Interior. Violations are su bject to fines and/or imprisonment for up to one year. Active nest sites are also protected from disturbance during the breeding season.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species
This executive order directs all federal agencies to refrain from authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions or projects that may spread invasive species. The order further directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, control and monitor existing invasive species populations, restore native species to invaded ecosystems, research and develop prevention and control methods for invasive species, and promot e public education on invasive species. The USFWS and the USACE are responsible for ensuring projects requiring a federal permit comply with Executive Order 13112 so that the activities do not contribute to the spread of invasive species.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 USC 661 et seq.) The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that whenever any body of water is proposed or authorized to be impounded, diverted, or otherwise controlled or modified, the lead federal agency must consult with the USFWS, the state agency responsible for fish and wildlife management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Section 662(b) of the act requires the lead federal agency to consider the recommendations of the USFWS and other agencies. The recommendations may include proposed measures to mitigate or compensate for potential damages to wildlife and fisheries associated with a modification of a waterway.

Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands (42 FR 26961, May 25, 1977) Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural qualities of these lands. Federal agencies are required to avoid undertaking or providing support for new construction located in wetlands unless (1 ) no practicable alternative exists and (2) all practical measures have been taken to minimize harm to wetlands.

STATE
California Endangered Species Act
Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the CDFW has the responsibility for maintaining a list of endangered and threatened species (FGC Section 2070). The CDFW also maintains a list of “candidate species,” which are species formally noticed as being under review

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-20
for potential addition to the list of endangered or threatened species, and a list of “species of special concern,” which serve as a species “watch lists.” Pursuant to the requirements of the CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any State-listed endangered or threatened species may be present and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, the CDFW encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that may impact a candidate species.

Project-related impacts on species on the CESA endangered or threatened list would be considered significant. State-listed species are fully protected under the mandates of the CESA.

Take of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful management activities, however, may be authorized under FGC Sections 2080.1 and 2081. Authorization from the CDFW would be in the form of an incidental take permit.

California Fish and Game Code
Streambed Alteration Agreement (FGC Sections 1600–1607) State and local public agencies are subject to FGC Section 1602, which governs construction activities that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, st ream, or lake whether the river, stream or lake is episodic or perennial. Under FGC Section 1602, a discretion ary Streambed Alteration Agreement must be obtained by the project proponent prior to the initiation of construction activities on lands under CDFW jurisdiction. As a general rule, this requir ement applies to any work undertaken within the 100-year floodplain of a stream or river containing fish or wildlife resources.

Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (FGC Sections 1900–1913) prohibits the taking, possessing, or sale within the state of any plants with a state designation of rare, threatened, or endangered (as defined by the CDFW). An exception in the act allows landowners, under specified circumstances, to take listed plant species, provided that the owners first notify the CD FW and give that state agency at least 10 days to retrieve the plants before they are plowed under or otherwise destroyed (FGC Section 1913).

Birds of Prey
Under FGC Section 3503.5, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by the Fish and Game code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.
“Fully Protected” Species
California statutes also afford “fully protected” status to a number of specifically identified birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. These species cannot be taken, even with an incidental take permit.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-21
California Wetlands Conservation Policy
California wetlands policy is more restrictive than federal wetlands policy. The goal of the California Wetlands Conservation Policy (1993) is to ensure no net loss of wetlands in the state. This policy, incorporated in an executive order by then-Governor Pete Wilson, also encourages a long-term net gain in the state’s quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values.

Interpretation of this order indicates that any developer wishing to fill wetlands for construction of new development must perform mitigation in the form of constructed wetlands elsewhere at ratios ranging from 2:1 to 10:1. In addition to the USACE, state regulatory agencies claiming jurisdiction over wetlands include the CDFW and the State Water Resources Control Board.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1966 (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.; CCR Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15) is the primary state regulation addressing water quality. The requirements of the act are implemented by the State Water Resources Control Board at the state level and by the Regional Water Qu ality Control Board (RWQCB) at the local level.

The RWQCB carries out planning, permitting, and enforcement activities related to water quality in California. The act establishes waste discha rge requirements and a permitting system for discharges to land or water. Certification is requ ired by the RWQCB for activities that can affect water quality.

State Definition of Covered Waters
Under California state law, waters of the St ate means “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” As such, water quality laws apply to both surface water and groundwater. After the US Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. US Army Corps of Engineers (53 US 159), the Office of Chief Counsel of the State Water Resources Control Board released a legal memorandum confirming the State’s jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The memorandum stated that under the California Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), discharges to wetlands and other waters of the State are subject to state regulation, and this includes isolated wetlands. In general, the SWRCB regulates discharges to isolated waters in much the same way as it does for waters of the United States, using Porter-Cologne rather than Clean Water Act authority.

NONGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY
California Native Plant Society
The CNPS is a nongovernmental agency that classifies native plant species according to current population distribution and threat level in regard to extinction. The data is utilized by the CNPS to create and maintain a list of native California plants that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (C NPS 2014). Potential impacts on populations of CNPS-listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review.

The following identifies the definitions of the CNPS listings:

List 1A: Plants believed to be extinct
List 1B: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-22
List 2: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but are more numerous elsewhere
All of the plant species on List 1 and 2 meet the requirements of the Native Plant Protection Act Section 1901, Chapter 10, or FGC Section 2062 and Section 2067 and are eligible for State listing.

Plants appearing on List 1 or 2 are considered to meet the criteria of CEQA Section 15380 (definition of endangered, rare and threatened species), and effects on these species are considered “significant.” Classifications for plants on List 3 (plants about which we need more information and/or List 4 (plants of limited distri bution), as defined by the CNPS, are not currently protected under state or federal law. Therefore, no detailed descriptions or impact analysis was performed on species with these classifications.

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 are the applicable General Plan goals an d policies most pertinent to the project with regard to protection and preservation of the natural resources in the area.

Goal OSC-A: Maximize the benefits of open space.

Policy OSC-A-2: Collaborate with other agencies and private development to link non-access open spaces, where such linking would benefit the protection of special environments and life systems such as wetlands, plant communities, and wildlife habitats and corridors.

Goal OSC-B: Conserve the city’s open spaces and significant natural features.

Policy OSC-B-3: Require that new subdivisions, multifamily, and non-residential development abutting creek corridors are appropriately designed and oriented with respect to the creek. Development may orient toward the creek as an amenity, but adequate setbacks shall be used to ensure riparian habitat is protected.

Goal OSC-D: Conserve wetlands, vernal pools, wildlife ecosystems, rare plant habitats, and waterways.

Policy OSC-D-1: Utilize existing regulations and procedures, including Subdivision Guidelines, Zoning, Design Review, and environmental law, to conserve wetlands and rare plants. Comply with the federal policy of no net loss of wetlands using mitigation measures such as:
 Avoidance of sensitive habitat,
 Clustered development.
 Transfer of development rights, and/or
 Compensatory mitigation, such as restoration or creation Policy OSC-D-2: Protect high quality wetlands and vernal pools from development or other activities as determined by the Vernal Pool Preservation Plan.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-23
Policy OSC-D-3: Preserve and restore elements of wildl ife habitats and corridors throughout the Planning Area.

Policy OSC-D-4: Continue to consult with the CDFW to identify significant environmental concerns, and develop an overall strategy for the maintenance of areas that will preserve the populations of plant and animals currently in the Urban Growth Boundary.

Policy OSC-D-5: Consult with North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff as part of the CEQA process for proposed developments to help them identify wetland and vernal pool habitat that has candidacy for restoration/protection based on actual and potential beneficial use, and determine appropriate locations for mitigation banking.

Policy OSC-D-6: Preserve waterways by informing resi dents of the environmental effects of dumping yard waste into creeks, or other wastes, such as motor oil, into storm drains that empty into creeks.

Policy OSC-D-7: Rehabilitate existing channelized waterways, as feasible, to remove concrete linings and allow for a connection with the stream channel and the natural water table. Avoid creating additional channelized waterways, unless no other alternative is available to protect human health, safety, and welfare.

Policy OSC-D-8: Restore channelized waterways to a mo re natural condition which allows for more natural hydraulic functioning, including development of meanders, pools, riffles, and other stream features. Restoration should also allow for growth of riparian vegetation which effectively stabilizes banks, screens pollutants from runoff entering the channel, enhances fisheries, and provides other opportunities for natural habitat restoration.

Policy OSC-D-9: Ensure that construction adjacent to creek channels is sensitive to the natural environment. Ensure that natural topography and vegetation is preserved along the creek, and that construction activities do not disrupt or pollute the waterway.

Policy OSC-D-11: New development along channelize d waterways should allow for an ecological buffer zone between the waterway and development. This buffer zone should also provide opportunities for multi-use trails and recreation.

Policy OSC-D-12: New development should maintain an adequate setback from channelized waterways to recognize the 100-year fl ood elevation, and allow for stream corridor restoration. Setbacks identified in the Zoning Code should serve as minimum setbacks. Larger setbacks ar e encouraged in accordance with Restoration Concept Plans to meet restoration and enhancement goals.

Goal OSD-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: Preserve trees and other vegetation, including wildflowers, both as individual specimens and as parts of larger plant communities.

Policy OSC-E-2
: Preserve and regenera te native oak trees.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-24
Citywide Creek Master Plan
The Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan (San ta Rosa 2013), adopted by the City Council in August 2013, implements General Plan Policy OSC-D-13 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. Conceptual restoration plans for Roseland Creek and Colgan Creek are included in the Citywide Creek Master Plan. The following Master Plan policies would also minimize potential degradation of creek, riparian, and other sensitive communities:

Policy HA-1-1: Avoid channelization of additional creeks to preserve remaining wildlife habitat.

Policy-HA-1-2: Meet or exceed the required creek setback to provide ecological buffers, recognize the 100 year floodplain, and allow for stream corridor restoration.

Development shall locate outside the creek setback, as identified with the Santa Rosa Zoning Code.

Policy HA-5-1: Protect habitat for endangered species, through preservation, enhancement, and restoration of riparian corridors and preservation of stormwater pollution.

Policy HA-5-2: Reestablish populations of special status species as ecologically appropriate.

Policy HA-6-1: Coordinate, as appropriate, with regula tory agencies on Master Plan projects.

Policy HA-6-2: Consistent with federal, state and loca l regulations, impacts to existing habitat will be avoided if possible. Minimizati on and mitigation of any unavoidable impacts will be required
Policy HA-7-1: Consult with knowledgeable experts as appropriate, including natural resources agency staff and other jurisd ictions or organizations that have successfully completed similar project.

Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy
The Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (USFWS 2005) was developed to help conserve CTS and four species of plants: Burke’s goldfield, Sonoma sunshine, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and many-flowered navarretia. It establishes critical habitat areas for the species and provides for protection of the covered species through establishment of preserves in Sonoma County that will help maintain genetic diversity of listed plan ts and provide suitable habitat for CTS. The Conservation Strategy addresses the mitigation requirements for CTS, the listed plant species and seasonal wetlands, including vernal pools. The US FWS uses the guidelines in the document when it reviews projects and issues permits.

Neither the City nor Sonoma County have formally adopted the Conservation Strategy as a means to mitigate project impacts on CTS and the plants covered by the document. However, General Plan 2035 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.F-5 requires that the avoidance and mitigation measures described in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy and the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion be incorporated as conditions of approval for development in the city. The measure also provides that projects in the Southwest Santa Rosa Preserve System shall be

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-25
evaluated individually, in accordance with th e USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion. The mitigation approach in the Conservation Strategy may provide a basis for a project’s mitigation, but the project may not rely on the Conservation Strategy exclusively to mitigate impacts, and site-specific evaluation and mitigation, as required, must still be implemented.

City of Santa Rosa City Code
Tree Ordinance
In 1990, the Santa Rosa City Council passed Ordinance 2858, which enacted the following regulations to protect certain trees that are essential to the city’s natural heritage, called “heritage trees.” City Code Sections 17-24.030 through 17-24.050 provide information about permits required for removal, relocation or alterati on of heritage or protected trees. In addition, tree protection measures are included for development projects.

Creekside Development
City Code Section 20-30.040 provides creek setback criteria for any new development. Limited exceptions are permitted for any defined channe l that is owned by the Sonoma County Water Agency, for developments in compliance with setback requirements prior to September 3, 2004, for new developments that are surrounded by ex isting structures that were developed in compliance with setback requirements prior to September 3, 2004, and for bridges and utilities.

3.4.3 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 on biological resources is considered significant if the project would:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ri parian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-26

METHODOLOGY
The impact assessment was base d on information available from various existing planning documents and database searches, as well as the standards of significance described above.

The assessment discusses potential impacts that could occur upon implementation of the project.

Although it is likely that some level of natural resources would be retained within future projects developed under the proposed project, the location and extent of these resources cannot be determined at this time. A conservative impact approach was taken to ensure impacts are not underestimated, and the assumption is that all natural resources within the project area identified for development under land use designations will be removed or otherwise adversely modified by activities of future development projects in the project area.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Special-Status Species (Standard of Significance 1)
Impact 3.4.1 Implementation of the proposed project could result in adverse effects, either directly or indirectly, on species listed as endangered, threatened, rare, proposed, and candidate plant and wildl ife species as well as plant species identified by the CNPS with a rating of List 1A or 1B. This impact would be potentially significant.

Suitable habitat for plant and wildlife species listed as endangered, threatened, rare, proposed, candidate, or List 1A or 1B (collectively referred to in this EIR as “listed species” is present within the project area. As shown in Appendix 3.4, the project area supports suitable habitat for a variety of listed species. Although the project area is highly developed, there are several natural communities that provide suitable habitat for special status species. Land use and development consistent with the proposed land use designations thus could result in adverse impacts on special status species and/or essential habitat for special status species. Most direct impacts could occur from development of large areas of non-native annual grassland and ve rnal pool complexes.

Based on the maximum area that could be affected by project-related development, the project could potentially impact approximately 265 acres of non-native annual grassland, 65 acres of vernal pool complexes, and 18 acres of riparian woodland. Where there are direct impacts on special-status species, indirect impacts could occur as well. Indirect impacts may include habitat modification, increased human/wildlife interactio ns, habitat fragmentation, encroachment by exotic weeds, and area-wide changes in surface water flows and general hydrology due to development of previously undeveloped areas.

The General Plan includes goals and polices that would minimize direct and indirect impacts on endangered, threatened, rare, proposed, and candidate species, as well as plant species with a CNPS List 1A or 1B. Policies OSC-A-2, OSC-D-3, and OSC-D-4 protect special status species through collaboration with other agencies in order to maintain connectivity between open spaces and fragmented habitat, restoring wildlife corri dors and protecting areas with significant environmental concern. Implementation of Policy OSC-D-1 would ensure no net loss of wetlands.

Policies OSC-D-2, and OSC-D-5 ensure further protection of wetlands from development and require consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to restore and protect wetlands that provide beneficial use. Policy OS C-D-2 also protects high quality wetlands and vernal pools.

Future development in the project area will be required to comply with the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.F-5, which requires the implementation of the Conservation Strategy and the

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-27
USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion. Implemen tation of the Conservation Strategy and the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion will minimize potential adverse effects on CTS and listed plants through establishment of preserves to maintain genetic diversity of listed plants and provide suitable habitat for CTS; securing and expanding CTS breeding sites; requiring minimum mitigation ratios for impacted resources; and effectively managing the preserves. The Conservation Strategy and the Biological Opinion assures that the preservation of CTS and the listed plants will occur in proportion with the habitat lost through proposed future development.

The potential for direct or indirect adverse effects on species listed as endangered, threatened, rare, proposed, and candidate plant and wildlife species is considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM 3.4.1a Implement General Plan Mitigation Meas ure4.F-5: The City of Santa Rosa shall incorporate the avoidance and mitigation measures described in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy and the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion, as conditions of approval for development in or near areas with suitable habitat for California tiger salamander, Burke’s goldfields, Sonoma sunshine, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and manyflowered navarretia. However, in accordance with the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion, projects within the Southwest Santa Rosa Preserve System will be evaluated individually and mitigation may not necessarily adhere to the ratios described in the Conservation Strategy.

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

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

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-28
Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction of any subsequent project that could result in disturbance to bird or bat
nests
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division
Implementation of the General Plan policies identified above and Mitigation Measures MM 3.4.1a and MM 3.4.1b would ensure no net loss of habitat or species, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Species of Concern and Other Non-Listed Special-Status Species (Standard of Significance 1) Impact 3.4.2 Implementation of the prop osed project could result in direct and indirect loss of habitat and individuals of animal and plant species of concern and other non-listed special-status species. This impact would be potentially significant.

Suitable habitat exists in the pr oject area for unlisted but otherwise special-status species. These species are designated as a species of concern by the USFWS or the CDFW, listed as “fully protected” in the Fish and Game Code of California (Section 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515, and/or listed in CNPS as List 2. Direct and indirect impacts on these species could occur for the same reasons and in the same manner as impa cts on listed species and ident ified above. Implementation of the project would also allow for redevelopment of some parcels containing structures such as buildings and bridges, which may provide habitat for bat and bird species, some of which may be special-status species or, in the case of rapt ors and birds, protected by the MBTA. This is a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM3.4.2 Implement Mitigation Measures MM 3.4.1a. and MM 3.4.1b.

Implementation of the General Plan policies identified above and Mitigation Measures MM 3.4.1a, and MM 3.4.1b would ensure no net loss of habitat or species, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Sensitive Vegetation Communities including Riparian Habitat (Standard of Significance 2) Impacts 3.4.3 Implementation of the proposed proj ect could result in disturbance and degradation of riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS. The impact would be less than significant.

Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Project activities may result in the loss of riparian habitat and other sensitive vegetation communities.

The project area has only one isolated area of riparian woodland, which is located around Roseland Creek. Future development in the project area could result in disturbance, degradation, and removal of riparian habitat .. Development affecting riparian habitat is regulated under the jurisdiction of the CDFW under the California Fish and Game Code Section 1602. CDFW regulates work that will substantially affect resources associated with rivers, streams, and lakes in California,

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-29
pursuant to Fish and Game Code Sections 1600–1607. Any action from a project that substantially diverts or obstructs the natural flow or changes th e bed, channel, or bank of any river or stream, or uses material from a stream bed will require prior authorization from CDFW in a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.

In 2007, the City of Santa Rosa developed the Sa nta Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan (updated in August 2013) in order to provide for the protection, care, management, restoration and enhancement of riparian habitat and waterways. Implementation of policies HA-1-1 and HA-1-2 of the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan would minimize potential degradation of creek, riparian and sensitive communities. Policy HA-1-1 would avoid channelization of creeks and Policy HA-1-2 requires projects to meet or exceed the required creek setbacks in order to preserve wildlife corridors, ecological buffers and allow for corridor restoration.

Implementation of General Plan goals and policies would minimize degradation of creek, riparian habitat, and other sensitive communities. Policy OSC-A-2 requires collaboration with agencies and private development to link open spaces in order to benefit protection of wetlands and other protected communities. Policies OSC-D-1, OSC-D-2, and OSC-D-5 ensure no net loss of wetlands and vernal pools through avoidance, protection, and compensatory mitigation. Implementation of OSC-D-4 requires coordination with CDFW to identify and protect areas of environmental concern and develop a strategy that would preserve plant and animal populations in the project area.

Implementation of Policies OSC-B-3, OSC-D-3, OSC-D-6, and OSC-D-9 would preserve, protect and rehabilitate creeks and channelized waterways. Policy OSC-D-6 would educate residents about the environmental impacts of dumping into stor m drains. Policies OS C-D-7 and OSC-D-8 would provide for restoring channels to natural condit ions and remove concrete linings in order to provide opportunity for natural habitat restoration. Creek setbacks and corridor restoration will be ensured through implementation of OSC-D-11 and OSC-D-12. Implementation of Policies OSC-E-1 and OSC-E-2 preserve trees and other native vegetation.

Implementation of the goals and policies under the General Plan and the Citywide Creek Master Plan reduce potential degradation of sensitive communities and therefore impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Jurisdictional Wetlands (Standard of Significance 3)
Impact 3.4.4 Implementation of the pr oject could result in the loss or degradation of protected wetlands or vernal pools. This loss would be less than significant.

Vernal pool complexes are present throughout the project area. Potential impacts of construction of future projects could include the destruction of vernal pools themselves, as well as alteration or destruction of the surrounding habitat. Special-st atus plant and animal species associated with vernal pools include the CTS, Sonoma suns hine, Sebastapol mead owfoam, many-flowered navarretia, and Burke’s goldfields. This is a potentially significant impact.

Any future projects within the project area that could impact jurisdictional features would require a 404 permit from USACE and a 401 Water Qualit y certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. USACE and CDFW have a “no net loss” policy for jurisdictional features.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-30
Implementation of policies OSC-D-2, OSC-D-4, and OSC-D-5 from the General Plan would minimize potential loss of vernal pool habitat. These policies protect wetlands and vernal pools, develop a strategy to restore and protect wetlands and preserve plants in the project area. Policy OSC-D-1 w i l l e n s u r e n o n e t l o s s o f w e t l a n d s b y a v o i d i n g s e n s i t i v e h a b i t a t , c l u s t e r e d d e v e l o p m e n t , transferring development rights, and requiring compensatory mitigation.

General Plan EIR mitigation meas ure 4.F-5 requires implementation of the Conservation Strategy and the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion. The goal of the Conservation Strategy and Biological Opinion is to preserve and protect vernal pools and wetlands in order to minimize potential take of CTS and listed plants.

Mitigation Measures
MM 3.4.2a Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4.1a

MM 3.4.2b A formal wetland delineation shall be conducted for areas that will be permanently or temporarily impacted by the project. If jurisdictional waters cannot be avoided, the City shall apply for a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE and a Section 401 permit from the RWQCB. These permits shall be obtained prior to issuance of gradin g permits and implementation of the proposed project.

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

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

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

Timing/Implementation: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities

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

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-31
Implementation of the General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures MM 3.4.2a and MM 3.4.2b would ensure no net loss of wetland and vernal pool habitats. This would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Movement of Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or Within Established Migratory Corridor (Standard of Significance 4)
Impacts 3.4.5 Implementation of the project could interfere with movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established migratory corridor. This impact would be less than significant.

Wildlife movement is affected when physical constraints impede the ability of wildlife to search for food, water, shelter, and mates. When urban development fragments open space or creates obstacles, it compromises the quality of wildlife corridors and further hinders wildlife movements.

The open space areas within the project area are discontinuous, which provide little, if any, value as migration corridors. The riparian woodland along Roseland Creek provides a migration corridor for species such as black tailed deer, striped sk unk, and bobcat. The non-native grasslands and vernal pools contain suitable breeding habitat for CTS and connect breeding habitat with upland habitat. Unlike Roseland Creek, there is no riparian woodland along Colgan Creek, and this creek is unlikely to support wildlife migration corridors.

Implementation of General Plan policies would minimize impacts on wildlife corridors in the project area. Implementation of Policy OSC-A-2 and OSC-D-3 would preserve and restore wildlife corridors through coordination with other agencies and private development. Citywide Creek Master Plan Policy HA-5-1protects habitat through preservation and restoration of riparian corridors.

Implementation of the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Citywide Creek Master Plan will reduce potential impacts and enhance wildl ife corridors in the project area and resulting impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biologi cal Resources, such as a Tree Preservation Policy or Ordinance (Standard of Significance 5)
Impacts 3.4.6 Implementation of the project will not result in a conflict with a local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources. There would be no impact.

The City of Santa Rosa has adopted the General Plan, Citywide Creek Master Plan, and the Santa Rosa City Code, which includes a Tree Ordinance (City Code Chapter 17-24) and Creekside Development Ordinance (City Code Section 20-30.040). All future projects developed within the Specific Plan and Annexation Area would be re quired to comply with these local policies.

Therefore, there will be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-32
Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan (Standard of Significance 6).

Impact 3.4.7 Development in the project area would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved Conservation Plan. There would be no impact.

Santa Rosa has not adopted a conservation plan nor does is it signatory to a plan. However, as described above, the City has adopted a General Plan 2035 EIR mitigation measure (4.F-5) that requires development projects to be conditioned to incorporate avoidance and mitigation measures in the Santa Rosa Plai n Conservation Strategy and USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion for covered species. Mitigation Measure MM 3.4.1a identified in Impact 3.4.1 requires implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.F-5 of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there will be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.4.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative context for biological resources is the development assumed to occur in the project area, Santa Rosa, and the surrounding region. As discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, there has been substantial growth in the region and considerable future growth is projected.

Habitat within the region is highly developed with few areas of natural habitat. The dominant land use communities consist of a mix of industrial, residential, and agricultural uses (Santa Rosa 2009a).

The developed areas have encroached onto some natural habitat including non-native annual grasslands, vernal pool, and creeks in the vicinity. The natural communities in the vicinity provide habitat for special status species including, but not limited to, a variety of plants, CTS, California freshwater shrimp, nesting raptors, bats, and migratory birds. There is a higher level of protection for special status species because urban encroachments and development has had a significant direct and indirect impacts on the species and their habitat. Because there is so little natural habitat available in the region for these species, the habitat that is available is particularly important.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.4-33

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.4.8 Development in the project area, when considered together with other past, existing, and planned future projects, could result in a significant cumulative impact on biological resources in the re gion. The project’s contribution to the significant cumulative impact on biological resources impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

As development in Santa Rosa and the region in general continues, habitat for plant and wildlife species will be lost through conversion to urban development. Although more mobile species may be able to survive these changes in their environment by moving to new areas, less mobile species would simply be extirpated. With continued conversion of natural habitat in the region to human use, the availability and accessibility of remain ing natural habitats in this ecosystem will be substantially reduced. Remaining natural areas would likely not be able to support additional plant or animal populations above their current carrying capacities, and conversion of plant and wildlife habitat on a regional level would result in a cumulatively significant impact on biological resources. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 would not result in a considerable incremental contribution to cumulative impacts, because Santa Rosa is largely built out, the city has stro ng policies that encourage infill development, remaining potential development would not constitu te substantial conversion of natural habitat conditions, and potentially developed parcels in sensitive habitats would be protected by the proposed General Plan policies and regulations set forth by state and federal agencies.

Additionally, implementation of General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.F-5 (as required under MM

3.4.1a) would further serve to reduce potential impacts on sensitive biological resources occurring in the Santa Rosa Plain.

The project area contains non-native grasslands, riparian woodland, vernal pool complexes, and creek habitat with the potential to support a number of special-status plant and animal species.

As discussed in Impacts 3.4-1 through 3.4-7, implementation of the proposed project could result in the loss and/or degradation of riparian habi tat, wetlands, and vernal pools, and loss or degradation of special-status species associated with reductions in their habitat and limit the availability and accessibility of remaining natural habitats to regional wildlife. The proposed project’s contribution would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measures MM

3.4.1a, MM 3.4.1b, and MM 3.4.2b. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the project site was considered for development in the General Plan 2035. Consequently, the proposed project would not change the impacts disclosed in the Ge neral Plan EIR, and the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact be less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.4-34

REFERENCES
Bolster, B. C. 2010. A Status Review of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense).

Nongame Wildlife Program Report 210-4; Sacramento.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) 2016a. California Natural Diversity Database – CNDDB Quicktool. https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. ———. 2016b. California Wildlife Habitat Relation ship System Life Hist ory Accounts and Range Maps (online edition). Sacramento: CDFW Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed February 20. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). Sacramento: CNPS. Accessed February 20. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Draf t Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2013. Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. ———. 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form In structional Guidebook. USACE and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris paifica) Recovery Plan. Portland, OR: USFWS.
———. 2005. Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy.
———. 2009. Carex albida (white sedge) and Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense (Pitkin marsh lily), 5-year review summary and evaluation. Sacramento: USFWS, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
———. 2016. Information, Planning and Conservati on System (IPaC). Accessed February 20, 2016. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.5-1
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on cultural resources, which are defined as prehistoric and historic properties, structures, and districts or any other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, or religious reasons. A cultural resources assessment was prepared for the proposed project (Peak & Associates 2016 [Appendix 3.5]), and the results of the study have been incorporated into the analysis.

3.5.1 E XISTING SETTING

PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC OVERVIEW
Ethnographic literature indicates that at the time of historic contact, the Santa Rosa planning area was in the territory of the Southern Pomo people. The closest reported ethnographic village to the project area was Hukabetawi, located in the vicini ty of southwestern Santa Rosa or Roseland. In 1920, the Bureau of Indian Affairs purchased a 15.45-acre tract of land in Graton for the Marshall, Bodega, Tomales, and Sebastopol Indians. This land was put into a federal trust, and these neighboring peoples that included both Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo were consolidated into one recognized group called the Graton Rancheria. The Lytton Band of Pomo Indians was first established in 1937. The Lytton Band of Pomo In dians also has federal recognition and currently has approximately 200 members (Santa Rosa 2009a).

William Elliott settled in the Santa Rosa area in 1845. The original town plat laid out the long rectangular blocks formed northwest from Santa Rosa Creek. An early map of the region from 1867 shows all of the project area on large tracts of land, presumably in use for agriculture. Luther Burbank purchased 4 acres at the edge of the town in 1878 and began his experimentation with hybridization and development of improvements in many plants. In 1885, he needed more space and purchased 18 acres just outside the city limits of Sebastopol, establishing the Burbank Experimental Farm By 1900, some of the lands of the project area closest to the developed city area had been annexed to the city for residential development. Farther away from the city, the lands began to be subdivided into smaller parcel s, likely for small fruit farms. This area was identified on early maps as Roseland (Peak & Associates 2016).

CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA
Records Search
A total of 162 cultural resources were identified in the project area, according to files maintained by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). These cultural resources span both the prehistoric and historic periods and range from Native American sites to historic period farms, ranches, and homes. A total of 141 of the 162 resources are public and privately owned buildin gs in the project area as identified on the Sonoma County Historic Property Data File Directory. A complete list of these cultural resources is provided in Table 1 of Appendix 3.5.

Prehistoric-Era Archaeological Resources
Santa Rosa is located in the Santa Rosa Basin wi th six major drainages, including Santa Rosa, Matanzas, Piner, Rincon, Austin, and Brush creeks. These creeks are significant with respect to prehistoric resources beca use Native American archaeological sites tend to be located near waterways, as well as along ridgetops, midslope terraces, alluvial flats, the base of hills, and near vegetation ecotones. Remnants of Native American civilizations have been discovered along

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.5-2
Santa Rosa Creek and its tributaries, in the adjacent alluvial valleys and surrounding plains, in the hills, in the Annadel State Park area, in Laguna de Santa Rosa, and in the Windsor area. Given the archaeologically rich nature of the Santa Rosa area and the large amount of unsurveyed land (at least 50 percent of the city has not been surveyed for archaeological resources), there is a high potential for finding additional Native American sites in the city (Santa Rosa 2009a). In the project area, undeveloped areas near natural features such as Roseland and Colgan creeks are likely to contain recorded or still undiscovered prehistoric resources.

Historic-Era Archaeological Resources
The City of Santa Rosa recognizes eight historic districts, none of which are located in the project area. There are 22 designated landmarks in the city, one of which, the Dutton Avenue Queen Anne at 855 Dutton Avenue, is located in the project area.

Additional historic period cultural resources have been identified in the project area that are not listed on the Historic Properties Directory for Santa Rosa (see Table 1 of Appendix 3.5) or by the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. A 1989 study by Anne Bloomfield surveyed resources in a small portion of the current project area north of State Route 12. In this study, Bloomfield identified the West Third Street District, which is partially located in the project area. Some of these resources in the proposed West Third Street District annexation area are listed in the Historic Properties Data File, but several of the properties are omitted (see Table 2 of Appendix 3.5 ). The City of Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board may consider listing the proposed West Third Street District once the area is formally annexed (Peak & Associates 2016).

Another survey was conducted by Harris and Clark in 1991 to supplement Bloomfield’s study by examining the southwest portion of the city. Harris and Clark’s study included nearly all the project area as well as areas to the west and south. This study identified four districts and nine potential districts, eight of which are located within the project area (see Figure 3 of Appendix 3.5). This study also identified 10 resources in the project area which the authors felt were eligible properties for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 24 resources in the project area that the authors believed were Local Landmark–eligible properties. The authors also noted 414 resources with “notable architectural properties” in the project area that are not listed on the Historic Properties Directory (Peak & Associates 2016). These properties are summarized in Table 3 of Appendix 3.5.

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
The City of Santa Rosa contacted the Lytton Ranc heria of California and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria regarding consultation with local Native American tribes pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52. Lytton Rancheria did not request consultation in their response but did request that cultural resources be addressed in the EIR and that the Lytton Rancheria receive a copy of the cultural resources report for review. On March 23, 2016, Graton Rancheria submitted a formal request for consultation, which provided the City 30 days to begin the consultation process. The City responded to the request for consultation on April 4, 2016, and a meeting was held between the City and representatives of Graton Rancheria on May 6, 2016.

The City of Santa Rosa also contacted the Nati ve American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the Lytton Rancheria of California, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, the Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians, the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians, the Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians, and the Stewarts Point Ranche ria regarding consultation with local Native American tribes pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18. Responses were received from the NAHC and

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.5-3
Stewarts Point Rancheria (see Appendix 3.5). The NAHC provided a list of local tribes to contact (the aforementioned tribes), and Stewarts Point stated that the projects are outside of their aboriginal territory and therefore did not have any comments or concerns.

Letters were also sent on January 12, 2016, to th e Western Sonoma County Historical Society, the Sonoma Valley Historical Society, the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation, and the Historical Society of Santa Rosa requesting any comments or specific input concerning the project area. As of writing of the Draft EIR, no replies have been received.

3.5.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (54 United States Code [USC] 300101 et seq.) established guidelines to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice.” One of the provisions of NHPA was the development of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP; National Register), which is administered by the National Park Service.

The National Register Bulletin also provides guid ance in the evaluation of archaeological site significance.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves and Repatriation Act The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 USC 1996) recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred sites, and sacred objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national policy that traditional practices and beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects are to be protected and preserved. Additionally, Native American remains are protected by the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001-3013).

STATE
California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act (applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity cease and that the county coroner be notified. If the remains are of a Native American, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be descended from the deceased. The act stipulates the procedures the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.

California Register of Historical Resources
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 4852 addresses the types of historical resources and criteria for listing in the Cal ifornia Register of Historical Resources (CRHR; California Register).

The criteria for listing historical resources in the CRHR are consistent with those developed by the National Park Service for listing historical resources in the NRHP, but have been modified for state use to include a range of historical resources whic h better reflect the history of California. Only resources that meet the state criteria may be listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the CRHR.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.5-4
California Environmental Quality Act
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both “historical resources” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on unique archaeological resources.

Historical resource is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC Section 21084.1; determining significant impacts to historical and archaeologic al resources is described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a], [b]). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), historical resources include the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically signif icant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource will be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1), including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k)), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.5-5
Historic resources are usually 45 years old or older and must meet at least one of the criteria for listing in the CRHR, described above (such as associatio n with historical events, important people, or architectural significance), in addition to maintaining a sufficient level of physical integrity.

Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be historical resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC Section 5024.1 and California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Section 4850). Unless a resource listed in a survey has been demolished, lost substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that it is otherwise not eligible for listing, a lead agency should consider the resource to be potentially eligible for the CRHR.

For historic structures, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subdivision (b)(3), indicates that a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standa rds for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilita tion and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995) will generally be considered as having mitigated impacts to a less than significant level.

As noted above, CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will impact unique archaeological resources. Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, subdivision (g), states:
“unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
 Contains information needed to answer im portant scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.  Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
 Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Treatment options under Section 21083.2 include activities that preserve such resources in place in an undisturbed state. Other acceptable methods of mitigation under Section 21083.2 include excavation and curation or study in place without excavation and curation (if the study finds that the artifacts would not meet one or more of th e criteria for defining a unique archaeological resource).

California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b) specifies protocol when human remains are discovered, as follows:

In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.5-6
Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of deat h, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subdivision (e), requires that excavation activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are those of Native Americans, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency must consult with the appropriate Native Americans, if any, as timely identified by the NAHC. Section 15064.5 directs the lead agency (o r applicant), under certain circumstances, to develop an agreement with the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains.

The CEQA Guidelines also require that a lead agency make provisions for the accidental discovery of historical or archaeological reso urces, generally. Pursuant to Section 15064.5, subdivision (f), these provisions should include “an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time allotment sufficie nt to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be available. Work co uld continue on other parts of the building site while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation takes place.” California Public Resources Code Section 5097
PRC Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of human remains on nonfederal land. Th e disposition of Native American burial falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC. PRC Section 5097.5 states the following:

No person shall knowingly and willfully exca vate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, bu rial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014)
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) establishes a formal consul tation process for California tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 defines a “C alifornia Native American tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC. AB 52 requires formal consultation with California Nati ve American tribes prior to determining the level of environmental document if a tribe has requested to be informed of proposed projects by the lead agency. AB 52 also requires that consultation address project alternatives and mitigation measures for significant effects, if requested by the California Native American tribe, and that consultation be considered concluded when either of the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or the agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Under AB 52, such mi tigation or avoidance measures , must be recommended for

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.5-7
inclusion in the environmental document and adopted mitigation monitoring program if determined to avoid or lessen a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource. As noted above, the City initiated consultation with the Lytton Rancheria and the Graton Rancheria. Lytton Rancheria did not request consultation, however, Graton Rancheria did.

Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004)
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires cities and counties to consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Places.

This allows Native American tribes the opportunity to provide input with respect to the possible preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts on, specified Native American places, features, and objects located within that jurisdiction. This consultation is required prior to amending or adopting any general plan or specific plan, or designating land as open space. As noted above, the City contacted the NAHC and local tribes in accordance with SB 18 requirements.

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 that are relevant to the proposed project in regard to cultural resources.

Historic Preservation Element
Goal HP-A: Protect Native American heritage.

Policy HP-A-1: Review proposed developments and work in conjunction with the California Historical Resources Information Syst em, Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources, either prehis toric and/or historic-era, or have the potential for such resources.

Policy HP-A-2: Require that project areas found to contain significant archaeological resources be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist for recommendations concerning protection and preservation.

Policy HP-A-3: If cultural resources are encountered during development, work should be halted to avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified consulting archaeologist and Native American representative (if appropriate) have evaluated the situation, and recorded identified cultural resources and determined suitable mitigation measures.

Policy HP-A-4: Consult with local Native American tribes to identify, evaluate, and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process.

Policy HP-A-5: Ensure that Native American human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity and assure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Califo rnia Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.5-8
Goal HP-B: Preserve Santa Rosa’s historic structures and neighborhoods.

Policy HP-B-1: Ensure that alterations to historic bu ildings and their surrounding settings are compatible with the character of the structure and the neighborhood. Ensure that specific rehabilitation projects follo w the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to a reasonable extent, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.

Policy HP-B-2: Preserve significant historic structures. Consider the life cycle costs when evaluating the alternatives to demolition of these structures, including the adaptive reuse of historic buildings for contemporary uses.

Policy HP-B-8: Preserve sites that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and pursue listing eligible sites in the Register.

Goal HP-C: Increase public participation in the historic preservation process.

Policy HP-C-1: Prepare and distribute educational guides and walking tour brochures of places of historical, architectural or cult ural interest in Santa Rosa, to increase public awareness of these resources.

Policy HP-C-2: Hold neighborhood meetings to achieve the following:
 Increase public awareness of preservation issues and opportunities;  Provide information on the historic designation process;  Publicize low-impact/low-cost/high benefit options for energy efficiency upgrades in context of green building program requirements; and  Alert neighborhoods, when necessary, to the pending loss of significant buildings or other features.

City of Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board
Adopted in 1988, the Historic and Cultural Preservation Ordinance (City Code Chapter 17-22) created the Cultural Heritage Board. The board recommends to the City Council designation of landmarks and preservation districts, reviews permits for alterations to landmarks and buildings in preservation districts, and promotes public awareness of historic resources.

City of Santa Rosa City Code
Under City Code Sections 17-22.030 and 17-22.050, Landmarks, any site, including trees or other significant landscaping, place, building, structure, street, sign, work of art, natural feature, or other object of special historical, cult ural, archaeological, or architectural value, may be designated as a historical landmark by the City Council, with the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Board.

Additionally, any area having historical significance or representing an architectural period or style typical to the history of the city may be designated as a preservation district (City Code Sections 17-22.060 through 17-22.080). Before a landmark or structure in a preservation district is restored, developed, demolished, or otherwise altered, a landmark alteration permit must be granted by the Zoning Administrator or the Cultural Heritage Board (City Code Sections 17-22.090 through 17-

22.102).

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.5-9

3.5.3 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 cultural resources impact is considered significant if the project would:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the si gnificance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
3) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 4) Cause a substantial adverse change in the sign ificance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074.

METHODOLOGY
The following impact analysis is based on the cultural resources report prepared for the proposed project by Peak & Associates in 2016 (see Appendix 3.5) and review of the General Plan EIR.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Historical Resources (Standard of Significance 1)
Impact 3.5.1 Redevelopment within the project area co uld affect historic properties through modification of historic character and though construction activities. This impact would be less than significant.

The project area includes several properties that are listed on the Historic Properties Directory and several additional properties that could be eligible for such listing. The properties listed in the Historic Properties Inventory (with the exception of the Dutton Queen Anne, which is a designated landmark) are listed mainly because of their ag e. Additionally, five neighborhoods in southwest Santa Rosa have been identified as the Northeast Roseland Historic Neighborhoods for which special design considerations must be given (Northeast Roseland Planned Community Policy Statement, October 1, 1996, Ordinance 3283). Seven neighborhoods in the southwest area have also been determined to contain properties that may make them potentially eligible historic neighborhoods (Santa Rosa 2009a).

Compliance with General Plan policies and existing state and local regulations and standards prior to approval of future projects that coul d be developed under the proposed project would reduce potential impacts on historic resources. Ge neral Plan Policy HP-A-1 requires the City to review proposed development projects to determ ine whether the proposed site contains or has the potential to contain historic-era resources. Additionally, Santa Rosa Zoning Code Chapter 20- 58, Historic and Cultural Preservation, and General Plan Policies HP-B-2 to HP-B-9 are intended to preserve and enhance the city’s significant historic structures, properties, and neighborhoods and pursue listing of eligible sites in the National Register. Adherence to the standards from the Secretary of the Interior guidelines is required by General Plan Policy HP-B-1. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Identification (Standards I and II) require survey activities to be conducted

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.5-10
to document the information necessary to achi eve defined preservation goals. General Plan Policy HP-B-8 requires sites to be preserved that are eligible for the NRHP and that the City pursue listing eligible sites in the NRHP.

The only structure that would be subject to review by the Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board would be the Dutton Avenue Queen Anne, which was designated as a local landmark by the City Council on March 4, 2008. There are no preservation districts in the project area, and the Cultural Heritage Board does not have authority over older homes on the list that are not in a preservation district and not designated by the City Council as a local landmark. The proposed Specific Plan does not propose to change the land uses that would affect the Dutton Avenue Queen Anne.

The properties listed in the Historic Properties inventory are not in any of the city’s preservation districts, nor are they designated as local landmarks, and thus are not subject to the Landmark Alteration section of the Zoning Code and are not under the jurisdiction of the Cultural Heritage Board. For any new construction activities on or in the vicinity of a property in the City’s inventory that could impact or alter the historic structure and/or the character or setting of the area, the City will require compliance with applicable policies, regulations, and standards. This would ensure impacts on historic resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Known and Undiscovered Archaeological Resources (Standards of Significance 2 and 4) Impact 3.5.2 If future projects constructed in the project area involve ground disturbance, implementation of the proposed projec t could result in the disturbance of known and undiscovered archaeological resources or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. This impact would be potentially significant.

As described previously, there are numerous recorded cultural resources within the project area (see Table 1 of Appendix 3.5). General Plan Policy HP-A-1 requires review of proposed developments and that the City work in conjunction with the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources. Policy HP-A-2 requires that project areas found to contain significant archaeological resources be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist for recommendations concerning protection and preservation. Adherence to these policies would reduce potential impacts to previously recorded archaeological resources in the project area. Policy HP-A-3 requires that if cultural resources are encountered during development, work should be halted to avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified consulting archaeologist and Native Am erican representative (if appropriate) have evaluated the situation, and recorded identified cultural resources and determined suitable mitigation measures.

City-initiated consultation with the Lytton Rancheria and the Graton Rancheria did not yield any specific information regarding trib al cultural resources in the project area, although there was indication that there likely are resources in the area and further studies would be needed with any future developments in the area, particularly those near Roseland and Colgan creeks.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.5-11
Given the archaeologically rich nature of the Santa Rosa area, th e large amount of unsurveyed land in the city, and the presence of natural features such as Roseland and Colgan creeks, it is likely that unrecorded, undiscovered archaeological resources are present within the project area. Tribal cultural resources could be discov ered during ground-disturbing project-related activities. Any such discoveries have the potential to adversely affect unique archaeological resources, which is considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM 3.5.2a Phase 1 Archaeological Resource Study. When specific projects are proposed within the project area that involve ground-disturbing activity, a site-specific Phase I archaeological resource study shall be performed by a qualified archaeologist or equivalent cultural resources professional that will include an updated records search, pedestrian survey of the project ar ea, development of a historic context, sensitivity assessment for buried prehistoric deposits, and preparation of a technical report that meets federal and state requirements. If significant or unique resources are identified and cannot be avoided, treatment plans will be developed in consultation with the City and appropriate Native American representatives to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level based on the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

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

Under mitigation measure MM 3.5.2a, upon City approval of a specific development site that would involve ground disturbance, the area would be investigated in advance to determine if cultural resources are present. Compliance with regulations from the Public Resources Code, specifically Section 21083.2, would diminish the potential impacts from any project involving the demolition or adverse change of an archaeological site that is listed on the NRHP or CRHR or is eligible for listing. Additionally, the California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act and General Plan Policies HP-A-2 and HP-A-3 require proper notification of experts upon discovery of human remains, significant artifacts, or cultural resources for proper assessment and to determine the necessity for mitigation measures. If significant resources are present, they would be managed in accordance with state regulations and standards.

If archaeological resources are inadvertently discovered during construction activities, mitigation measure MM 3.5.2b provides all work within 50 feet of the discovery be stopped and an archaeological survey by a qualified professional be completed whenever there is evidence of an archaeological site in a proposed project area. If resources are present, the development project would be subject to state requirements (e.g., Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) for t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , a s r e q u i red under General Plan 20 35 Policies HP-A-4 and

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.5-12
HP-A-5. These requirements, as well as those of AB 52, specify that representatives of the Native American community must be consulted when necessary to ensure the respectful treatment of Native American sacred places. Any significant historical or archaeological impacts identified on a project site must be mitigated in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

With implementation of mitigation measures MM. 3.5.2a and MM 3.5.2b, impacts on archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Human Remains (Standard of Significance 3)
Impact 3.5.3 If future projects constructed in the project area involve ground disturbance, implementation of the proposed projec t could result in the disturbance of human remains. This impact would be potentially significant.

Given the high potential for Native American resources in the project area, it is possible that Native American or other human remains may be present at a site or could inadvertently be encountered during project construction activities involving ground disturbance. This is a potentially significant impact.

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

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

Mitigation measure MM 3.5.3a requires that a development site where ground disturbance could occur be evaluated for the potential to have Native American remains. The development project would be subject to the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 et seq., regarding the discovery and disturbance of human remains. These provisions include contacting th e Sonoma County Coroner if discovered remains appear to be human and contacting the Nati ve American Heritage Commission if remains appear to be of Native American origin. The Ca lifornia Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act and General Plan Policies HP-A-2 and HP-A-3 require the proper notification of experts upon discovery of human remains and that construction or excavation activity cease.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.5.3a and MM 3.5.3b would reduce impacts related to human remains to less than significant.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.5-13

3.5.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

CUMULATIVE SETTING
Cultural resources contribute to an understanding of past human activities, including Native American history, local and regional European, Af rican, and Asian settlement in North America, urban development, historic engineering acti vities, cross-cultural influences, and human adaptations to the environment. Cultural resources, like many natural resources, are nonrenewable. Once these resources have been destroyed, by whatever means, a fragment of history permanently disappears.

The cumulative setting associated with the proposed project includes existing, proposed, planned, and reasonably foreseeable projects and growth in Santa Rosa and the region.

Continued growth in the region would contribute to potential loss of cultural resources. These resources include archaeological resources asso ciated with Native American activities and historic resources associated with settlement, farming, and economic development.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts
Impact 3.5.4 Implementation of the proposed project, along with any foreseeable development in the project vicinity, could contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources. This cumulative impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable.

The General Plan 2035 EIR concluded that the im pacts related to the potential for development under the General Plan would be reduced to less than cumulatively significant levels with the policies included in the General Plan. The entire project area is subject to these General Plan policies, which require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources, immediate cessation of construction activity upon discovery of unidentified human remains, and the protection of cultural resources. In addition, as required by mitigation measures MM 3.5.2a, MM

3.5.2b, MM 3.5.3a, and MM 3.5.3b, individual development sites where ground disturbance would occur would be evaluated for the potential to contain buried cultural resources, including Native American artifacts and remains. Because the proposed project is subject to these General Plan policies and mitigation measures, it would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impacts on cultural resources.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.5-14

REFERENCES
Peak & Associates. 2016. Cultural Resource Report for the Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Dr aft Environmental Impact Report.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.6-1
This section describes the geologic and soil conditions in Santa Rosa and the project area, identifies applicable laws and regulations that have been adopted to minimize safety risks associated with geologic and soils hazards, and analyzes impacts such as potential exposure of people and property to seismic and soils hazards.

3.6.1 E XISTING SETTING

GEOLOGY
The project area is in the Coast Ranges geomorph ic province of California. Much of the Coast R a n g e s p r o v i n c e i s c o m p o s e d o f m a r i n e s e d i m e n t a r y d e p o s i t s a n d v o l c a n i c r o c k s t h a t f o r m northwest-trending mountain ridges and valleys, running subparallel to the San Andreas fault zone.

The Northern Coast Ranges largely comprise the Franciscan Complex or Assemblage, which consists primarily of graywacke, shale, greenstone (altered sedimentary and volcanic rocks), basalt, chert (ancient silica-rich ocean deposits), and sandstone that originated as ancient sea floor sediments. Franciscan rocks are overlain by volcanic cones and flows of the Quien Sabe, Sonoma, and Clear Lake volcanic fields (Santa Rosa 2009b).

Santa Rosa is underlain by the Sonoma Volcanic s, sedimentary rocks comprising the Petaluma Formation, and alluvial deposits . The Sonoma Volcanics formed during volcanic activity in the region approximately 3 to 6 million years ago and are generally found in the hilly upland areas.

The Petaluma Formation is similar in age and co nsists of claystones, s iltstones, and mudstones formed from the deposition of eroded materials in the upland areas. The alluvial deposits have been divided into the younger Huichica Formation and the Glen Ellen Formation, which consist of gravels, silt, sands, and clays found predominantly in the lower valley areas. Recent alluvial sediments deposited are divided into younger and older deposits, which fill the valleys and originated from continued erosion of the upland areas (Santa Rosa 2009b).

Based on California Geological Survey (CGS) mapping, the project area is underlain by sedimentary rocks consisting of Quaternary alluvium and the Huichica and Glen Ellen formations (CGS 2012).

TOPOGRAPHY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
Specific Plan Area
The Specific Plan area is generally flat and slopes gently west. Elevations range from approximately 150 feet above mean sea level (a m s l ) i n t h e W e s t T h i r d a n n e x a t i o n a r e a t o approximately 120 to 130 feet near Hearn Avenue. The lowest points in the Specific Plan area are in the western annexation areas, where the elevation is approximately 100 feet. The area is not highly susceptible to slope failure or landslides.

Roseland Creek and Colgan Creek flow through the Specific Plan area. The upper portion of Roseland Creek (Reaches 1 and 2, US Highway 101 to Burbank Avenue) is generally characterized by a natural, meandering channel. Reach 3 (Burba nk Avenue to Stony Point Road) is primarily a grass-lined flood control channel. 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 consists largely of a Sonoma County Water Agency flood control channel that is grass-lined.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.6-2
Annexation Areas
The Annexation areas are generally flat. Elevations in the West Third Street Annexation area range from approximately 145 to 155 feet amsl sloping to the northwest. The Brittain Lane Annexation area is essentially flat with an elevation of a pproximately 110 feet amsl. Elevations in the West Hearn Annexation area range from approximately 102 to 108 feet amsl sloping generally west. The annexation areas are not highly susceptible to slope failure or landslides.

Santa Rosa Creek flows through the West Third Stre et Annexation area. This portion of the creek (Reach 5 from Pierson Street to Stony Point Road) is characterized as a modified-natural channel featuring maturing trees providing some shade an d old riprap, tree roots, and some bank areas providing shelter for fish.

SOILS
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has characterized the majority of native, undisturbed soils in Santa Rosa as cl ayey alluvial soils and riverwash, as well as some silty and gravelly soils and loams. The native soils in the project area are predominantly Wright loam, Yolo clay loam, and Zamora silty clay loam. These soils are formed on weathered alluvial deposits and sedimentary alluvium (NRCS 2014).

The soils in the project area have low to moderate potential for water or wind erosion and have moderate to high expansion potential (NRCS 2014). In areas that are already developed, there is a substantial volume of fill material (Santa Rosa 2009b). Areas are susceptible to differential settlement if underlain by compressible sediments, such as poorly engineered artificial fill or loose unconsolidated alluvial sediments.

According to the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035, no significant mineral resources are identified in the project area (Santa Rosa 2009a).

SEISMIC HAZARDS
Faults and Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay Area is a region of high seismic activity. The San Andreas and Hayward- Rodgers Creek fault zones are the principal fault systems in the Bay Area. Major active faults in the San Andreas fault zone include the San Andreas, Hayward, Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, San Gregorio- Seal Cove, Maacama, West Napa, Green Valley, Concord, Greenville, and Calaveras faults.

The closest fault to the project area is the Rodgers Creek fault, located about 0.5 mile to the east of downtown Santa Rosa. The Rodgers Creek fault is considered an extension of the Hayward fault and experienced historic seismic events in 1898 and 1969. The city is approximately 8 miles southeast of the Maacama fault zone and 20 miles northeast of the San Andreas fault zone. The Maacama fault zone experienced movement within the last 11,000 years and is capable of producing a maximum moment magnitude (M) 7.1 earthquake. Other principal faults capable of producing ground shaking in Santa Rosa include the East Bay’s Hayward fault, the San Gregorio- Hosgri fault zone along the San Mateo Coast, the Calaveras fault, and the Concord-Green Valley fault. Many of the other active faults in the region are capable of causing significant ground shaking in Santa Rosa (Santa Rosa 2009b).

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.6-3
The US Geological Survey Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities study completed in 2014 estimates there is a 72 percent probability between 2014 and 2044 that a M6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake will occur in the San Francisc o Bay region. In this study, scientists also assigned a numerical “readiness” factor, which refers to whether the likelihood is elevated (more than 1.0) or lowered (less than 1.0) and is a function of the length of time since the most recent large earthquake. For the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault, the readiness was determined to be 1.6, indicating an elevated likelihood of an earthquake (USGS 2015).

Surface Fault Rupture
Seismically induced ground rupture is defined as the physical displacement of surface deposits in response to an earthquake’s seismic waves. Ground rupture is typically confined to relatively narrow zones (a few feet to tens of feet wide) and considered more likely along active faults. The CGS has delineated an Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone for the Rodgers Creek fault through downtown
Santa Rosa, but the fault does not pass through the project area (DOC 1983).

Ground Shaking
Ground movement during an earthquake can vary depending on the overall magnitude, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of geologic material. The composition of underlying soils, even those relatively distan t from faults, can intensify ground shaking. The Modified Mercalli intensity scale is commonly used to measure earthquake effects due to ground shaking. The Modified Mercalli values for intensity range from I (earthquake not felt) to XII (damage nearly total), and intensities ranging from IV to X could cause moderate to significant structural damage. As a comparison, ground shaking during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (7.1 surface- wave magnitude) resulted in light (Modified Mercalli V) ground shaking, whereas the 1906 earthquake produced moderate (VI) to very strong (VIII) ground shaking in the city (Santa Rosa 2009b).

According to a map prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in 2015, a major seismic event on the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault could cause very strong (Modified Mercalli VIII) ground shaking in the project area. A small portion of the West Third Annexation area could experience violent (Modified Mercalli IX) ground shaking. Strong ground shaking from an earthquake could result in considerable damage, with buildings shifted off their foundations and underground pipes broken.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby unconsolidated and/or near-saturated soils lose cohesion, resulting in temporary fluid-like behavior of the soil. Soil liquefaction causes ground failure that can damage roads, pipelines, un derground cables, and buildings with shallow foundations. The CGS has not investigated the Santa Rosa area for potential designation as a Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefac tion. However, according to maps compiled by ABAG, there is low to moderate liquefaction potential in the project area (ABAG2016).

Earthquake-Induced Settlement
Settlement of the ground surface can be accelerated and accentuated by earthquakes. During an earthquake, settlement can occur as a resu lt of the relatively rapid rearrangement, compaction, and settling of subsurface materi als (particularly loose, non-compacted, and variable sandy sediments). Settlement can occur both uniformly and differentially (i.e., where adjoining areas settle at different rates). Areas are susceptible to differential settlement if underlain

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.6-4
b y c o m p r e s s i b l e s e d i m e n t s , s u c h a s p o o r l y e n g i n eered artificial fill or loose alluvial sediments (Santa Rosa 2009b).

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Paleontological resources are defined as fossil ized remains of vertebrate and invertebrate organisms, fossil tracks and trackways, and plan t fossils. Rock formations that yield significant vertebrate or invertebrate fossil remains are cons idered to have paleontological sensitivity. The Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 EIR does not identify paleontological resources in the city (Santa Rosa 2009b), and the sedimentary rocks of the Glen Ellen and Huichica formations have not been identified as important paleontological resources formations (CPUC 2013).

3.6.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The law’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones known as earthquake fault zones around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. As noted above, there is an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone in Santa Rosa, but it does not extend into the project area.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (California Publ ic Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.8A) addresses non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. The act resulted in a mapping program identifying areas that have the potential for liquefaction, landslide, strong grou nd shaking, or other ea rthquake and geologic hazards. Mapping undertaken by the CGS in the San Francisco Bay region has not been completed in Santa Rosa, and no zones of special investigation apply to the city.

California Building Code
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code (CBC) (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Part 2 of Title 24). The CBC is based on the federal Uniform Building Code (UBC), whic h is used widely throughout the United States (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis) and has been modified for conditions in California. State regulations and engineering standards related to geology, soils, and seismic activity in the UBC are reflected in the CBC requirements. Through the CBC, the State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction. The State adopted the current CBC in 2013.

The CBC contains specific requirements for seis mic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control (Chapter 18, Appendix J). The City of Santa Rosa has adopted the 2013 CBC (Ordinance 4015).

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.6-5
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, authorized by Section 402(p) of the federal Clean Water Act, controls water pollution by regulating point sources, such as construction sites and industrial operations that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is required to control discharges from a project site, including soil erosion, to protect waterways. A SWPPP describes the measures or practices to control discharges during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. A SWPPP identifies proj ect design features and structural and non- structural best management practices (BMPs) that will be used to control, prevent, remove, or reduce stormwater pollution from the site, including sediment from erosion.

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 policies most pertinent to the proposed project with respect to geology and soils.

Noise and Safety Element
Goal NS-C: Prohibit development in high-risk geologic and seismic hazard areas to avoid exposure to seismic and geologic hazards.

Policy NS-C-1: Prior to development approval, require appropriate geologic studies to identify fault trace locations within active fault zones as designated by the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. California registered geologists or engineers must cond uct these studies and investigation methodologies must comply with guidel ines set forth by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Compliance with the Act would insure proper setback or appropriate design to minimize the potential hazards resulting from fault movement and surface displacement.

Policy NS-C-2: Require comprehensive geotechnical investigations prior to development approval, where applicable. Investigations shall include evaluation of landslide risk, liquefaction potential, settlement, seismically induced landsliding, or weak and expansive soils. Evaluation and miti gation of seismic hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides, shall comply with guidelines set forth in the most recent version of the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Special Publication 117. The level of investigation would depend on physical site location, local or regional geologic or seismic hazards, and recommendations by a consulting engineer.

Policy NS-C-3: Restrict development from areas where people might be adversely affected by known natural or manmade geologic hazards. Hazards might include unstable slopes, liquefiable soils, expansive soils or weak poorly engineered fills, as determined by a California registered geologist or engineer.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.6-6
Policy NS-C-4: Restrict development of critical facilities—such as hospitals, fire stations, emergency management headquarters, and utility lifelines, including broadcast services, sewage treatment plants, and other places of large congregations—in areas determined as high-risk geologic hazard zones (e.g.

Rodgers Creek Fault zone, liquefiable soils, areas of slope instability).

Policy NS-C-6: Require appropriate and feasible seismic retrofit, as determined by a registered structural engineer, or commercial, industrial, and public buildings that are not currently retrofitted and are located wi thin areas determined to experience strong ground shaking during an earthquake.

Policy NS-C-7: Require inspection for structural inte grity of water storage facilities, water conveyance facilities, electricity transmission lines, roadways, water detention facilities, levees, and other utilities after a major seismic event, especially on the San Andreas or Rodgers Creek faults.

Policy NS-C-8: Adopt mandatory, minimum erosion control measures for current properties and those under construction that exhibit high erosion potential, are in areas of steep slopes, or have experienced past erosion problems. Control measures shall reduce soil erosion from prim ary erosional agents, including wind, construction operations, and storm water runoff.

City of Santa Rosa City Code
Building and Construction
Title 18, Buildings and Construction, of the Santa Rosa City Code addresses general building and construction practices and lists requirements. Buildings and construction are required to be in accordance with the California Building Code, which the City has incorporated by reference (City Code Section 18-04.015). As noted above, the CBC establishes applicable standards pertaining to seismic and soils hazards as well as grading and erosion controls. Chapter 18-16.J104.5 Appendix J of the City Code sets forth requirements for grading permits. Review and abatement of existing buildings considered seismic hazards is included in Chapter 18-48 of the City Code.

Grading, Soils, and Erosion Control Ordinances
City Code Title 19 establishes grading and soils requ irements for structural foundations. Provisions include completion of a preliminary soils report prepared by a licensed civil engineer based on adequate test borings or excavations for subdivisions. This requirement may be waived if the City’s Chief Building Official determines that critically expansive soil or other soils problems that could lead to structural defects do not exist. If the soils report indicates the presence of critically expansive soil or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural damage, the City requires a complete soils investigation, prepared by a licensed civil engineer, for each lot in a subdivision. This report is required to in clude recommended corrective actions to prevent structural damage to proposed structures. The report and investigation are conditions of approval for subsequent plan-level and building permits.

Title 19 also establishes erosion control requirements for subdivisions including properly timing grading and construction activities to minimize soil exposure during the rainy season, retain natural vegetation and revegetate denuded areas, divert runoff away from steep slopes, trap sediment in basins to allow for particles to settle out prior to discharge, and inspect erosion control measures regularly.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.6-7
City of Santa Rosa Local Hazards Mitigation Plan
The City’s Local Hazards Mitigation Plan is a multijurisdictional document that addresses natural disasters, including earthquakes. The plan’s goal is to maintain and enhance a disaster-resilient region by reducing the potential loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from natural disasters while accelerating econom ic recovery from those disasters (Santa Rosa 2011).

3.6.3 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 geology, soils, paleontological resources, or mineral resources impact is considered significant if the project would:
1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as deli neated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault.
b. Strong seismic ground shaking.
c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. d. Landslides.
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the 2013 California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property.
5) Have soils incapable of adequately supportin g the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
6) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.
7) Result in the loss of availability of a known mi neral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local land use plan.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.6-8

METHODOLOGY
Evaluation of potential geologic and soil impact s of the proposed project was based on review of available documentation, including the City of Santa Rosa General Plan, General Plan EIR, and ABAG, CGS, and USGS data and publications.

Impacts Not Evaluated in Detail
An Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone has been delineated in Santa Rosa, but it does not extend into the project area. There would be no impact relative to Standard of Significance 1a, and this issue is not further evaluated.

The project area is flat and is not located near hilly or mountainous terrain that could pose a landslide risk. There would be no impact relative to Standard of Significance 1d, and this issue is not further evaluated.

Soils in the project area are not designated for protection as a source of topsoil. There would be no impact relative to Standard of Significance 2 regarding topsoil, and the issue of loss of topsoil is not further evaluated. However, erosion im pacts, which are a component of Standard of Significance 2, are evaluated in Impact 3.6.2.

All subsequent projects generating wastewater would be connected to the City’s sewer system.

T h e r e w o u l d b e n o i m p a c t r e l a t i v e t o S t a n d a r d o f Significance 5, and this issue is not further evaluated.

The geologic formations that underlie the proj ect area have not been identified as important paleontological resource formations, or uniq ue geological features, and no significant paleontological resources have been identified in the city. Thus, there would be no impact relative to Standard of Significance 6, and this issue is not further evaluated.

According to the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035, no significant mineral resources are identified within the project area (Santa Rosa 2009a). There would be no impact relative to Standard of Significance 7, and this impact is not further evaluated.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Seismic Hazards (Standards of Significance 1b and 1c)
Impact 3.6.1 Subsequent projects developed as a result of implementation of the proposed project could be at risk from seismic hazards. This impact is less than significant.

The project area could experience strong to violent ground shaking as a result of an earthquake on the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault, as well as gr ound shaking associated with seismic activity on other regional faults. The intensity of grou nd shaking would vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing the ground shaking. The project area is in CBC Seismic Zone 4, as is Santa Rosa and much of the rest of the Bay Area. Development would be required to meet the most stringent CBC standards for Seismic Zone 4 in effect at the time of project design as well as the M
w7.1 “design earthquake” on the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.6-9
Structures built to meet the CBC seismic safety standards or resistance to lateral movement would not likely be destroyed, but could have at le ast minor damage, such as cracked façades and damaged utility pipes. Frame structures could shift off their foundations if not bolted. Ground shaking could completely destroy or badly da mage unreinforced masonry or poorly built structures not meeting the current seismic code.

The project area, like the rest of the city, is likely to have a moderate liquefaction potential, but there are some isolated areas where the potential could be greater. Soil liquefaction could cause ground failure that could damage roads, pipelines, underground cables, and buildings with shallow foundations. A geotechnical investigation or geologic assessment for future projects would be required to assess the site-specific liquefaction potential for each development site.

The project area is not mapped by the CGS as being located within an earthquake-induced landslide zone. However, slopes adjacent to the creeks that flow through and adjacent to the project area may be subject to some type of slop e failure as a result of violent ground shaking.

Lurch cracking is another feature characteristic of slope instability that could result from an earthquake. Fissures or cracks on slopes overlain by weak soils can result from swaying, rolling, or spreading of the ground during a strong earthquake. This hazard is generally considered minimal due to lack of slopes throughout the area, but could occur along tops of banks next to the creeks, which may be susceptible to some sort of slope failure. General Plan Policy NS-C-3 requires development restrictions in unstable areas, including any unstable slopes along creeks. In the city, if a project meets the Zoning Code–required creek setback standards, no further stability analysis is required. If there is evidence of a stability problem or if a structure would encroach into the creek setback, the Building Division would require soils an alysis. In addition, soils reports are required by the Building Division for new structures and additions larger than 500 square feet. A soils engineer would identify whether there are streambank issues.

General Plan Policy NS-C-2 requires a comprehensive geotechnical investigation prior to development approval, where applicable. Such in vestigation must include evaluation of all seismic hazards, including seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and other potentially unstable soil conditions. Policy NS-C-4 also restricts development of critical facilities in high-risk geologic hazard zones. Policy NS-C-7 requires inspection of majo r utilities following earthquakes. The California Building Code and Title 18 and Title 19 of the Santa Rosa City Code require proper foundation engineering and construction in accordance with recommendations of a licensed civil engineer.

Incorporation of seismic design and construction standards required under the CBC, with which compliance would be confirmed by City staff during its review of building permit submittals, may not completely eliminate the hazard of seis mically induced ground shaking and related secondary hazards, such as liquefaction and unstable soils, but they would reduce the potential for significant catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure.

Compliance with adopted building codes that address seismic hazards would result in less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.6-10
Soil Erosion (Standard of Significance 2)
Impact 3.6.2 Construction of subsequent projects developed as a result of implementation of the proposed project could result in temporary erosion impacts. This is a less than significant impact.

Soil erosion is a process whereby soil materials are worn away and transported to another area, either by wind or water. Rates of erosion can vary depending on the soil material and structure, placement, and human activity. Soil containing high amounts of silt can be easily eroded, while sandy soils are less susceptible.

Development of vacant sites within the project area could involve the removal of vegetation that currently helps to stabilize site soils. The exposure of the soils during land clearing and grading activities could lead to increased surface runo ff and erosion, with possible impacts to Roseland Creek, Santa Rosa Creek, or Colgan Creek. Because the project area does not contain steep slopes or grades, the potential for soil erosion is slight and soil loss can be easily controlled.

To reduce erosion, as established in City Code Title 18, the City requires projects to comply with Appendix J-110 of the CBC, and Santa Rosa Ci ty Code Chapter 19-64, Grading and Erosion Control, requires implementation of erosion cont rol measures for all subdivisions. General Plan Policy NS-C-8 requires erosion control measures to be implemented to reduce soil erosion from runoff, construction operations, wind, and other causes. These requirements overlap those of the City’s Storm Water Management Plan, which will require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for individual development projects proposed in the project area. Implementation of an approved SWPPP would minimize erosion potential by identifying project design features and best management practices that will be used during and following construction to control, prevent, remove, or reduce stormwater pollution from the site, including sediment from erosion. Soil erosion potential would also be reduced once the soil is graded and covered with concrete, structures, or asphalt. Therefore, project impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Soils Hazards (Standards of Significance 3 and 4)
Impact 3.6.3 Subsequent projects developed as a result of implementation of the proposed project could be constructed on soils that are expansive or have other physical characteristics that could result in unstable conditions. This is a less than significant impact.

Expansive soils possess a “shrink-swell” characte ristic, which is a cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fi ne-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying. During these cycles, the volume of the soil changes markedly. Soils with moderate to high expansion potential are a common cause of foundation deterioration, especially cracking of concrete slabs, and ro adway damage. Native, undisturbed soils in the project area have moderate to high expansion potential (NRCS 2014).

Settlement is the depression of the bearing soil when a load, such as that of a building or new fill material, is placed on it. Soils tend to settle at different rates and by varying amounts depending on the load weight, which is referred to as differential settlement. Differential settlement or subsidence could occur if buildings or other improvements were built on low-strength foundation

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.6-11
materials (including imported fill) or if improv ements straddle the boundary between different types of subsurface materials (e.g., a boundary between native material and fill). Although differential settlement generally occurs slowly enough that its effects are not dangerous to inhabitants, it can cause significant building damage over time. Any portions of the project area that contain loose or non-engineered fill where development occurs may be susceptible to differential settlement.

Testing would be required under General Plan Policy NS-C-2 and the City’s Building Code prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits for new development. In general, soils can be engineered in accordance with the California Building Code and other geotechnical requirements to provide sufficient foundation for structures to account for underlying soil characteristics. This may include removal of any non-suitable soils and replacement with compacted and moisture- conditioned engineered fill in accordance with accepted geotechnical standards. Adherence to existing regulations and policies would ensure that impacts related to soil hazards are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.6.4 C UMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

CUMULATIVE SETTING
Impacts associated with geology and soils are generally site-specific (determined by a particular site’s soil characteristics, topography, and proposed land uses) rather than cumulative in nature.

Nonetheless, the cumulative setting for the proposed project related to geology and soils would be Santa Rosa and the city’s Urban Growth Boundary as well as development anticipated to result from buildout of the General Plan 2035. Individual development projects in the region would be subject to, at a minimum, uniform site development and construction standards relative to seismic and other geologic conditions that are prevalent in the region.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts
Impact 3.6.4 Subsequent projects developed as a result of implementation of the proposed project, in addition to other proposed and approved projects in the vicinity, would not cumulatively create any new or exacerbate any identified geological or soils impacts. Cumulati ve geology and soils impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Development within the Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary has the potential to result in a cumulative impact related to geology and seismicity. The General Plan 2035 EIR concluded that with the policies included in the General Plan, the General Plan would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact related to geologic and seismic impacts.

Implementation of the proposed project could result in the construction and occupancy of new residential and nonresidential development. All new development would be required to comply with the CBC, as required under City Code Title 18, which requires stringent earthquake-resistant design. Soils hazards would be mitigated through compliance with the City’s requirements for soils

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.6-12
testing and appropriate engineering. Any development involving clearing, grading, or excavation that causes soil disturbance of 1 or more acres, or any project involving less than 1 acre that is part of a larger development plan and includes clearing, grading, or excavation, would be subject to the City’s Storm Water Management Plan requirements. These requirements reduce the potential for erosion by requiring an approved SWPPP and implementation and maintenance of erosion control measures. Compliance with existing regu latory requirements, General Plan policies, and City codes would ensure that subsequent develo pment under the proposed project, in addition to other proposed and approved projects in the vicinity, would not cumulatively create any new or exacerbate any identified geological or soils impacts. Cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects May 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report

3.6-13

REFERENCES
ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2015. Sonoma County Earthquake Hazard Map.

Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault layer. Accessed December 14. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/sonoma/.
_____. 2016. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Accessed April 24, 2016. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility CGS (California Geological Survey). 2012. Geologic Map of the Santa Rosa Quadrangle. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/RGM/santarosa/santarosa.html.

CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2013. PG&E Windsor Substation Project Draft MND/Initial Study.

DOC (California Department of Conservation). 1 983. State of California Special Studies Zones, Santa Rosa Quadrangle Revised Official Map.
———. 2012. Seismic Hazards Zonation Pr ogram. Accessed October 19, 2015. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/.

NRCS (US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2014. Web Soil Survey: Soil Map-Sonoma County, California. Accessed October 19, 2015. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. ———. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Dr aft Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2011. 2010 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan . Annex to 2010 Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Taming Natural Disasters.

USGS (US Geological Survey). 2015. “UCERF3: A New Earthquake Forecast for California’s Complex Fault System.” USGS Fact Sheet 2015-3009.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Projects City of Santa Rosa Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016

3.6-14
This page intentionally left blank

3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

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

3.7-1
This section provides a discussion of the proposed project’s effect on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the associated effects of climate change. The reader is referred to Section 3.3, Air Quality, for a discussion of project impacts associated with air quality.

3.7.1 E XISTING SETTING
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surf ace and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low- frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower- frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would not be able to support life as we know it.

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4),
and nitrous oxide (N 2O). Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are believed responsible for inte nsifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climat e, known as global clim ate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic factors together (IPCC 2014, pp. 3 and 5).

Table 3.7-1 provides descriptions of the primary GH Gs attributed to global climate change, including a description of their physical proper ties, primary sources, and contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. CH
4 traps over 25 times more heat per
molecule than CO 2, and N 2O absorbs 298 times more heat per molecule than CO 2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presente d in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2e), which weigh each gas by its global warming potentia l (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in CO 2e takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of any particular GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, it is understood that more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO 2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013, p. 467).

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

3.7-2
TABLE 3.7-1

GREENHOUSE GASES
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas. CO 2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activit ies. The largest source of CO 2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, an d gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources. A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere.1
Methane (CH4)
Methane is a colorless, odorless gas and is th e major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. Methan e is emitted from a variety of both human- related and natural sources. Human-related s ources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (intestinal fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These ac tivities release significant quantities of CH4 to the atmosphere. Natural sources of CH 4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires.

The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about12 years.2
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Nitrous oxide is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human-related source s. Primary human-related sources of N 2O are
agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production.

Nitrous oxide is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tr opical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years.3
Sources: 1 EPA 2011a, 2 EPA 2011b, 3 EPA 2010
The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; suffice it to say the quantity is enormous, and no single project alone would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature or to global, local, or microclimates. From the standpoint of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), greenhouse gas impacts to global climate change are inherently cumulative.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural emissions sectors (CAR B 2014). California is a significant emitter of CO2e in the world and produced 459 million gross metric tons of CO2e in 2012 (CARB 2014). In the state, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation (CARB 2014). Emissions of CO
2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is la rgely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. N2O is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO 2 through sequestration and dissolution (CO2 dissolving into the water), respectively, two of the most common processes for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

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

3.7-3

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to provide the world with a scientific view on climate change an d its potential effects. According to the IPCC, global average temperature is expected to increase relative to the 1986–2005 period by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (°C) (0.5–8.6 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) by the end of the twenty-first century (2081– 2100), depending on future GHG emission scenar ios (IPCC 2014). According to the California Natural Resources Agency (2012, p. 2), temperatures in California are projected to increase 2.7°F above 2000 averages by 2050 and, depending on emission levels, 4.1–8.6°F by 2100.

Physical conditions beyond average temperat ures could be indirectly affected by the accumulation of GHG emissions. For example, changes in weather patt erns resulting from increases in global average temperature are expected to result in a decreased volume of precipitation falling as snow in California and an overall reduction in snowpack in the Sierra Nevada. Based on historical data and modeling, the California Department of Water Resources projects that the Sierra snowpack will experience a 25 to 40 percent reduction from its historic average by 2050 (DWR 2008, p. 4). An increase in precipitation falling as rain rather than snow also could lead to increased potential for floods beca use water that would normally be held in the Sierra Nevada until spring could flow into the Central Valley concurrently with winter storm events (CNRA 2012, p. 5). This scenario would place more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system.

Another outcome of global climat e change is sea level rise. The sea level rose approximately 7 inches during the last century and, assuming that sea level changes along the California coast continue to track global trends, the sea level along the state’s coastline in 2050 could be 10–18 inches higher than in 2000 and 31–55 inches higher by the end of this century (CNRA 2012, p. 9).

As the existing climate throughout California changes over time, the ranges of various plant and wildlife species could shift or be reduced, de pending on the favored temperature and moisture regimes of each species. In the worst cases, some species would become extinct or be extirpated from the state if suitable conditions are no longer available (CNRA 2012, pp. 11 and 12).

Changes in precipitation patterns and increased temperatures are expected to alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation and the associated moisture content of plants and soils. An increase in the frequency of extreme heat events and drought is also expected.

These changes are expected to lead to increased frequency and intensity of large wildfires (CNRA 2012, p. 11).

Cal-Adapt is a climate change scenario planni ng tool developed by the California Energy Commission (CEC) that downscales global climat e model data to local and regional resolution under two emissions scenarios: the A-2 scenario represents a business-as-usual future emissions scenario, and the B-1 scenario represents a lower GHG emissions future. According to Cal-Adapt, annual average temperatures in the project area are projected to rise by 3.0–5.3°F by 2100, with the range based on low and high emissions scenarios (Cal-Adapt 2016).

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

3.7-4

3.7.2 R EGULATORY FRAMEWORK
California has adopted various administrative init iatives and pieces of legislation relating to climate change, much of which set aggressive go als for GHG emissions reductions in the state.

Although lead agencies must evaluate climate change and greenhouse gas emissions of projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines do not require or suggest specific methodologies for performing an assessment or specific thresholds of significance and do not specify GHG reduction mitigation measures. Instead, the guidelines allow lead agencies to choose methodologies and make significance determinations based on substantial evidence, as discussed in further detail below. No state agency has promulgated binding regulations for analyzing GHG emissions, determining their significance, or mitigating significant effects in CEQA documents. Thus, lead agencies exercise their discretion in determining how to analyze greenhouse gases.

CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT (ASSEMBLY BILL 32) The primary acts that have driven GHG regulation and analysis in California include the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) (Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, 38550, 38560, 38561–38565, 38570, 38571, 38574, 38580, 38590, 38592–38599), which instructs the California Air Resources Board (CAR B) to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verifying of statewide GHG emission s. The act directed CARB to set a greenhouse gas emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner. The heart of the bill is the requirement that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

AB 32 Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level would require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 29 percent belo w what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business as usual”). The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates all CARB and the state’s Climate Action Team1 early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both entities, identifies additional measures to be purs ued as regulations, and outlines the adopted role of a cap-and- trade program. Additional development of thes e measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of year 2013. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include:
 Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.
 Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020.

1 The Climate Action Team, led by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is a group of state agency secretaries and heads of agency, boards, and departments. The CAT members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emissions reduction programs and the state’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.

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

3.7-5
 Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate I n i t i a t i v e p a r t n e r p r o g r a m s t o c r e a t e a r e g i o n a l m a r k e t s y s t e m a n d c a p s s o u r c e s contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions.
 Establishing targets for transportation-rel ated GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets.  Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, heavy-duty truck measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
 Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation. (CARB 2008) In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis relies on emissions projections update d in light of current economic forecasts that account for the economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This reduced the projected 2020 emissions from 596 million metric tons (MMT) CO
2e to 545 MMTCO 2e. The reduction in
projected 2020 emissions means that the revised business-as-usual (BAU) reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is now 21.7 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory forecast that incorporated State-led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place. When this lower forecast is considered, the necessary reduction from BAU needed to achieve the goals of AB 32 is approximately 16 percent.

AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarizes the most recent science related to climate chan ge, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG reduction necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to re duce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. The Scoping Plan update also looks beyond 2020 toward the 2050 goal established in Executive Order S-3-05, though not yet adopted as state law, and observes that “a mid-term statewide emission limit will ensure that the State stays on course to meet our long-term goal.” The Scoping Plan update does not establish or propose any specific post-2020 goals, but identifies such goals adopted by other governments or recommended by various scientific and policy organizations.

Executive Order B-30-15 (signed April 29, 2015) endorses the effort to set interim GHG reduction targets for year 2030 (40 percent below 1990 levels).

Table 3.7-2 provides a brief overview of the other California legislation relating to climate change that may affect emissions associated with the proposed project.

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

3.7-6
TABLE 3.7-2

CALIFORNIA STATE CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION
Legislation Description
Assembly Bill 1493 and
Advanced Clean Cars
Program
Assembly Bill 1493 (“the Pavley Standard”) (Health and Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5) aims to reduce GHG emissions from noncommercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model years 2009–2016. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO 2e emissions and 75 percent
fewer smog-forming emissions.

Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS)
Executive Order S-01-07 (2007) requires a 10 percent or greater reduction in the average fuel carbon intensity for transportation fuels in California. The regulation took effect in 2010 and is codified at Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 95480–95490.

The LCFS will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California by at least 10 percent by 2020.

Renewables Portfolio
Standard (Senate Bill X1-2
& Senate Bill 350)
California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires retail sellers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible rene wable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020. The 33 percent standard is consistent with the RPS goal established in the Scoping Plan. The passage of Senate Bill 350 in 2015 updates the RPS to require the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. The bill will make other revisions to the RPS program and to certain other requirements on public utilities and publicly owned electric utilities.

Senate Bill 375*
Senate Bill (SB) 375 (codified in the Gover nment Code and the Public Resources Code) took effect in 2008 and provides a new planning process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding prior ities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy in their Regional Transportation Plans that will achieve GHG emissions reduction targets by reducing vehicle miles traveled from light-duty vehicles through the development of more compact, complete, and efficient communities.

California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards
In general, the California Building Energy E fficiency Standards require the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The California Energy Commission adopted changes to the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 (also known as the California Energy Code) and associated administrative regulations in Part 1. The amended standards took effect in the summer of 2014. The 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent more efficient than previous standards for residential construction and 30 percent better for nonresidential construction. The standards offer builders better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. Energy-efficient buildings re quire less electricity, and increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.

California Green Building
Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of H ousing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of plan ning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect July 1, 2014. * Senate Bill 375 is codified at Governm ent Code Sections 65080, 65400, 65583, 65584.01, 65584.02, 65584.04, 65587, 65588, 14522.1, 14522.2, and 65080.01, as well as at Public Resources Code Sections 21061.3 and 21159.28 and Chapter 4.2.

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

3.7-7
California Executive Orders
In addition to the legislation identified in Table 3.7-2, two Executive Orders—California Executive Order 5-03-05 (2005) and California Executive Order B-30-15 (2015)—highlight GHG emissions reduction targets, though such targets have no t been adopted by the State and remain only a goal of the Executive Orders. Specifically, Executive Order 5-03-05 seeks to achieve a reduction of GHG emissions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and Executive Order B-30-15 seeks to achieve a reduction of GHG emissions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Technically, a governor’s Executive Order does not have the effect of new law but can only reinforce existing laws.

For instance, as a result of the AB 32 legislatio n, the State’s 2020 reduction target is backed by the adopted AB 32 Scoping Plan, which provides a specific regulatory framework of requirements for achieving the 2020 reduction target. The State-led GHG reduction measures identified in Table 3.7-2, such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Renewables Portfolio Standard, are largely driven by the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15 do not have any such framework and provide no specific emissions reduction mechanisms.

REGIONAL
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) (2011) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were developed to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The guidelines were updated in 2010 to include guidance on assessing GHG and climate change impacts as required under CEQA Section 15183.5(b) and to establish thresholds of significance for impacts related to GHG emissions. These thresholds can be used to assess plan-level and project-level impacts.

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 greenhouse gas emissions.

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.

Goal LUL-I: Maintain vibrant, convenien t, and attractive commercial centers.

Policy LUL-I-8: Encourage commercial properties to be retrofitted for energy efficiency and water conservation.

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

3.7-8
Urban Design Element
Goal UD-D: Avoid strip patterns of commerc ial development. Improve the appearance and functioning of existing commercial strip corridors, such as Santa Rosa Avenue and Sebastopol Road.

Policy UD-D-4: Provide continuous sidewalks and bi cycle lanes on both sides of major regional/arterial streets.

Goal UD-E: Create a framework of public spac es at the neighborhood, city, and regional scale.

Goal UD-G: Design residential neighborhood s to be safe, human-scaled, and livable by addressing compact development, multi-modal connectivity and reducing energy use.

Policy UD-G-2: Locate higher density residential uses adjacent to transit facilities, shopping, and employment centers, and link thes e areas with bicycle and pedestrian paths.

Policy UD-G-3: Design new residential streets to be in scale with the adjacent structures and uses, and appropriate to their intended purpose. Neighborhood streets should be scaled for slow moving traffic, pedestrian and bicycle access, and children’s play.

Policy UD-G-4: Provide through-connections for pedestrians and bicyclists in new developments. Avoid cul-de-sac streets, unless public pedestrian/bikeways interconnect them.

Transportation Element
Goal T-B: Provide a safe, efficient, free-flowing circulation system.

Policy T-B-1: Require site design to focus through-traffic on regional/arter ial streets. Employ the following design techniques to increase driver safety and traffic efficiency:
 Reduce the number of driveways and intersections;
 Combine driveways to serve numerous small parcels;
 Avoid residential access;
 Install and facilitate timing of traffic signals; and  Ensure continuous sidewalks.

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

3.7-9
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.

Goal T-K: Develop a safe, convenient, and co ntinuous network of pedestrian sidewalks and pathways that link neighborhoods with schools, parks, shopping areas, and employment centers.

Policy T-K-4: Require construction of attractive pedestrian walkways and areas in new residential, commercial, office, and industrial developments. Provide landscaping or other appropriate buffers between sidewalks and heavily traveled vehicular traffic lanes, as well as through and to parking lots. Include pedestrian amenities to encourage and facilitate walking.

Goal T-L: Develop a citywide system of designated bikeways that serves both experienced and casual bicyclists, and which maximize d bicycle use for commuting, recreation, and local transport.

Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal OSC-I: Conserve water and maintain water quality.

Policy OSC-I-4: Consider water conservation measures in the review of new residential development projects.

Policy OSC-I-5: Expand the infrastructure network as possible to allow use of reclaimed water for use at residences, businesses, and city parks and facilities.

Goal OSC-J: Take appropriate actions to help Santa Rosa and the larger Bay Area region achieve and maintain all ambient air quality standards.

Policy OSC-J-3: Reduce particulate matter emissions from wood burning appliances through implementation of the City’s Wood Burning Appliance code.

Goal OSC-K: Reduce energy use in existing and new commercial, industrial, and public structures.

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

3.7-10
Policy OSC-K-1: Promote the use of site planning, solar orientation, cool roofs, and landscaping to decrease summer cooling and winter heating needs. Encourage the use of recycled content construction materials.

Policy OSC-K-2: Identify opportunities for decreasing energy use through installation of energy efficient lighting, reduced thermostat settings, and elimination of unnecessary lighting in public facilities.

Policy OSC-K-3: Identify and implement energy conservation measures that are appropriate for public buildings. Implement measures that are at least as effective as those in the retrofit ordinances for commercial and office buildings.

Policy OSC-K-5: Implement measures of the Climate Action Plan which increase energy efficiency, including retrofitting existing buildings and facilitating energy upgrades.

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-4: Require provision of attractive, convenient recycling bins and trash enclosures in residential and non-residential development.

Noise and Safety Element
Goal NS-H: Prepare for climate change.

Policy NS-H-1: Participate in regional efforts for the impacts of climate change.

Policy NS-H-2: Engage the community in preparing for climate change through the promotion of Climate Action Plan measures, distribution of information, and through local schools.

City of Santa Rosa City Code
City Code Chapter 17-35 makes it unlawful to install a wood-burning appliance that is not a pellet- fueled heater; an EPA-Certified Phase II wood he ater or newer; a solid fuel burning appliance certified for use by the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District; a gas log fireplace; or a fireplace certified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should the EPA develop a fireplace certification program.

City of Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan
The City’s (2012a) Climate Action Plan (CAP) was prepared consistent with the BAAQMD’s expectations for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. The framework of the CAP consists of (1) an inventory of GHG emissions that identifies and qu antifies existing emissions and projected future emissions; (2) reduction targets to reduce GHG emissions incrementally by 2015, 2020, and 2035; and (3) the goals, objectives, and strategies that have been devised to reduce existing emissions to meet state, regional, and local GHG emissions reduction targets. The framework of the CAP has b e e n d e s i g n e d t o r e s u l t i n c o m m u n i t y - w i d e G H G e m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n s b y 2 0 3 5 t o l e v e l s o n a trajectory toward the Executive Order S-3-05 target for 2050 (i.e., 80 percent below 1990 levels by

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

3.7-11
2050). As described in the City CAP, the City will need to reduce community-wide emissions by 51 percent by 2035 to be on a trajectory toward the Executive Order S-3-05 target for 2050. The City’s CAP and its reduction targets are consistent with AB 32, post-2020 statewide GHG reduction goals, and CARB recommendations to ensure that California emissions are reduced.

City of Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 14-30 (Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance) The City adopted a Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance No. 3925) 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 ce rtificate: 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.

3.7.3 I MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance. An impact related to greenhouse gas emissions is considered significant if the project would:
1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The California Natural Resources Agency has note d that impacts of GHG emissions should focus on the cumulative impact on climate change. Thus, CEQA amendments continue to make clear that the significance of GHG emissions is most appropriately considered on a cumulative level.

Addressing GHG generation impacts requires an agency to make a determination as to what constitutes a significant impact. The CEQA Guidelines give authority to lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions will have a significant impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to desc ribe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.4(a)).

A number of expert agencies throughout the state, including the BAAQMD, have drafted or adopted varying threshold approaches and guidelines for analyzing 2020 operational greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA documents. The different thresholds include (1) compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, (2) performance-based reductions, (3) numeric “bright‐ line” thresholds, and (4) efficiency‐based thresholds.

The California Supreme Court decision in the Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Newhall Land and Farming Company (November 30, 2015, Case No. S217763) (hereafter Newhall Ranch) confirmed that when an “agency chooses to rely completely on a single quantitative method to justify a no-significance finding, CEQA demands the agency research and document the quantitative parameters essential to that method.”

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

3.7-12
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include guidance on assessing greenho use gases and climate change impacts as required under CEQA Sect ion 15183.5(b) and establish thresholds of significance for impacts related to GHG emissions. The City of Santa Rosa has determined that these guidelines are based on substantial evidence to “attribute an appropriate share of greenhouse gas emission reductions necessar y to reach AB 32 goals to new land use development projects in the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction that are evaluated pursuant to CEQA” (BAAQMD 2011). The City has elected to apply the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines to determine the level of impact from the proposed project’s contribution of GHG emissions.

The BAAQMD threshold of significance for GHG emissions is the project generation of 1,100 metric tons of CO
2e per year during operations; or the generation of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population (residents + employees) per year during operations; or compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. For the purposes of this assessment, the project is evaluated for compliance with the City of Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan.

CEQ A au th o r i zes r e li an ce o n pr e vi o usly a ppr o ved GHG reduction plans (i.e., a climate action plan) prepared as a “Plan for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. This section of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that quantified plans “may be used in the cumulative impacts analysis of later projects.” More specifically, “later project-specific environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference” the “programmatic review” conducted for the GHG reduction plan. “An environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas reduction plan fo r a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5).

Tiering from an approved program-level GHG reduction document is recommended by the BAAQMD as a preferred method to address GHG emissions in project-level CEQA documents. The Newhall Ranch decision affirmed that the AB 32 Scoping Plan encourages the use of adopted local GHG reduction plans, and consistency with a geographically specific GHG reduction plan, or CAP, can relieve some of the burden take n on by local governments in analyzing the cumulative contribution of projec t-level GHG emissions. Consequently, if a project is consistent with a local climate action plan and that plan is consistent with AB 32 and future GHG targets, then the project would be considered consistent with statewide GHG reduction goals for 2020 and the trajectory of statewide GHG planning in the post-2020 period. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, project buildout is assumed for the year 2040. After buildout of the Specific Plan in 2040, the next milestone year under the state’s GHG emission reduction strategy is the year 2050. As previously stated, the CAP has been designed to achieve community-wide GHG emission reductions by 2035 to levels on a trajectory toward the Executive Order S-3-05 target for 2050 (i.e., 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050). As descri bed in the City CAP, community-wide emissions reductions of up to 51 percent by 2035 are necessa ry in order for the City to be on a trajectory toward the Executive Order S-3-05 GHG reduction target for 2050.

METHODOLOGY
Greenhouse gas-related impacts were asse ssed in accordance with methodologies recommended by the BAAQMD in conjunction with guidance from the Association of Environmental Professionals White Paper (AEP 2016). Where quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model desi gned to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.

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

3.7-13

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Compliance with Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan, a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan (Standards of Significance 1 and 2)
Impact 3.7.1 The project would not conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact.

The Santa Rosa CAP is a strategic planning docu ment that identifies sources of GHG emissions within the city’s boundaries, presents current and future emissions estimates, identifies a GHG reduction target for future years, and presents reduction strategies, measures, and action items to reduce emissions from the energy, transportation, land use, water use, and waste sectors. The CAP has been designed to instigate community-wide GHG emission reductions by the year 2035 to levels on a trajectory toward the Executive Order S-3-05 target for the year 2050. The emissions reduction program developed by the City follows the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2011) and the corresponding criteria for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program as defined by the BAAQMD, which in turn were developed to comply with the requirements of AB 32 and achieve the goals of the AB 32 Scoping Plan. A Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program adopted by a lo cal jurisdiction should include the elements below, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.  Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area.  Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.
 Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas em issions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area.  Specify measures or a group of measures , including performance standards, which substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.
 Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels.  Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

The City’s Climate Action Plan meets BAAQMD guidelines as follows (City of Santa Rosa 2012a):
 The CAP quantifies citywide GHG emissions, both existing and projected over the specified time period, resulting from activities within the city as defined by the City’s General Plan.  The CAP establishes a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution of emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.

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

3.7-14
 CAP policy provisions reduce emissions by more than 15 percent below 2007 levels by 2020.

According to the General Plan Amendment and Climate Action Plan Draft Supplemental Program EIR (SCH No. 2011092010; Santa Rosa 2012b), CAP policy provisions would reduce emissions by approximately 35.8 percent below 2007 levels by 2020.  CAP policy provisions reduce emissions to approximately 70 percent below 2007 levels by 2035.
 CAP policy provisions provide a foundation for the City to reach the goal of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (i.e., a 51 percent reduction in emissions by the year 2035).
 The CAP identifies and analyzes the emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the city.
 The CAP specifies measures or a group of measures, including performance standards.  The CAP establishes a mechanism to monitor its progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specific levels.

The reduction measures proposed in the CAP bu ild on inventory results and key opportunities prioritized by City staff, the City Council, and members of the public. The strategies in the CAP consist of measures and actions that identify the steps the City will take to support reductions in GHG emissions. The City of Santa Rosa will achieve these reductions in GHG emissions through a mix of voluntary programs and new strategic st andards. All standards presented in the CAP respond to the needs of development, avoidi ng unnecessary regulation, streamlining new development, and achieving more efficient use of resources.

Santa Rosa City CouncilMarch 15, 2022

Santa Rosa City Council
March 15, 2022