Santa Rosa City Council
January 9, 2024

M E

M O R A N D U M
TO: Christopher Catbagan, Associate Civil Engineer, City of Santa Rosa FROM: Justin Witt, Senior Environmental Planner, Brelje & Race Consulting Engineers SUBJECT: Traffic Signalization at Hearn Avenue & Burbank Avenue (PID 02391) Addendum to the 2016 Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation EIR
State Clearinghouse No. 2016012030
DATE: October 12, 2022

OVERVIEW
T
he City of Santa Rosa (City) intends to implement signalization improvements at the intersection of Hearn Avenue and Burbank Avenue. To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to assess cultural resources and potential impacts to special status plant and animal species, the City has elected to prepare this Addendum for CEQA compliance and potential consultation with regulatory agencies.

BACKGROUND
T
he City adopted the Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and annexed the Roseland Area in 2016. The Specific Plan identified major transportation and utilities improvements necessary to serve existing and projected development of the Roseland Area. The proposed signalization project was included in those Specific Plan improvements, as follows:
• Table 4-1 Roadway Network: “Widen [Hearn Avenue] to two lanes in each direction plus a c
enter turn lane from just west of Dutton Avenue to the east side of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) system railroad crossing. Once the Northpoint Parkway extension is in place, on Hearn Avenue retain existing one lane in each direction plus center turn lane between Burbank Avenue and Stony Point Road, but reclassify this segment as a transitional/collector street.”
• Table 6-1 Implementation Action Plan: includes reference to 1) “Improve Hearn Avenue a
nd intersections (including bike lanes)” and, 2) “Improve Burbank Avenue and intersections (including bike lanes),” both designating responsibility to DTPW.

As part of the Specific Plan and annexation process, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project in 2016, the City of Santa Rosa Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan and Roseland Area Annexation Draft EIR (Specific Plan EIR). The Specific Plan EIR also specifically included the proposed signalization project, as follows:
• Table 2.0-1 Proposed Roadway Modifications and Configurations: “Widen to two lanes in e
ach direction plus center turn lane from just west of Dutton to the east side of the SMART Exhibit A
Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

railroad crossing. 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.”
• Table 2.0-2 Specific Plan Intersection Improvements: “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.”
Both documents included a reconfiguration of the in tersection to include the future extension of Northpoint Parkway, as shown on the included Figure 2.0-8 of the Specific Plan EIR.

The Specific Plan EIR included two mitigation measures that are specifically relevant to the proposed signalization project, MM 3.4.1a and MM 3.5.2a, rel ated to biological and cultural resources, respectively. Both identify circumstances that requ ire additional project-level analysis. They are included below for reference:
• MM 3.4.1a Implement General Plan Mitigation Measure 4.F-5: The City of Santa Rosa shall incorporate the avoidance and mitigation measures described in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy and the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opin ion, as conditions of approval for development in or near areas with suitable habitat for California tiger salamander, Burke’s goldfields, Sonoma sunshine, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and many-flowered navarretia. However, in accordance with the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion, pro jects 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 3.5.2a 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 surve y of the project area, development of a historic context, sensitivity assessment for buried prehisto ric 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 co nsultation with the City and appropriate Native American representatives to mitigate potential impa cts to a less than significant level based on the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

These mitigation measures necessitated preparation of a biological and cultural resources study for the signalization project, further described later in this Addendum.

HEARN /B URBANK SIGNALIZATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The portion of the overall project subject to revision and analysis in this Addendum is limited to the intersection improvement project at Hearn Avenue an d Burbank Avenue. The project does not include Northpoint Parkway extension, as shown on Figure 2.0-8 of the 2016 Specific Plan EIR, that would be completed at a future time. The project re presents an interim traffic control improvement until the entire roadway and signalization improvements in the project area envisioned in the Specific Plan and assessed in Specific Plan EIR are complete d. The project location is shown on Figure 1 at the end of this document.

The reduced interim signalization project that excl udes the Northpoint Parkway extension would include four-way signal control for traffic and ped estrians. Pedestrian sidewalks and curb and gutter improvements along the north side of Hearn Avenue as well as improvements along Burbank Avenue Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

would be deferred. The overall project design is shown on Figure 2, representing a 65 percent design level. Traffic sensors would be installed in both t he west and eastbound lanes of Hearn Avenue.

Traffic signal poles and pedestrian signal devices would be installed on all four corners of the intersection. The existing ADA ramps and curb and gutter at the northeast, southeast and southwest corners would be improved to current standards. The intersection would be restriped, including the existing cross walk on the east and south sides of the intersection.

Construction impacts would be minimal, as shown on Figure 3. Approximately 775 square feet of nonpaved area would be temporarily disturbed to construct the signal poles on the northwest corner and to install the traffic control wiring utilizing directional drilling. These areas would be restore d to current conditions once construction is complete. P ermanent impacts to unpaved areas would be approximately 80 square feet, including the signal pole foundations on the northwest corner and minor sidewalk improvements on the southwest corner . The rest of the project construction would occur within existing paved areas on the northeast, southeast and southwest corners.

CEQA REVIEW BACKGROUND
A Notice of Preparation was issued January 15, 2016 , that included a public review period ending February 16, 2016. The Draft EIR for the project wa s released for public review on May 15, 2016, including a 45-day public review period that extended until July 5, 2016. The Final EIR was prepared in August 2016 and certified October 18, 2016. The project included four cumulatively considerable significant impacts and the City adopted a Statemen t of Overriding Considerations. The CEQA review was assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2016012030. The CEQA documents can be found here:
https://www.srcity.org/2437/Roseland-Area-Projects-Environmental-Imp ADDENDUM TO THE 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Since the 2016 Specific Plan EIR, the City has determined that it is beneficial to implement a portion of the proposed improvements associated with the Hearn/Burbank intersection until such time as the other roadway improvements are constructed. Mitigation in the Specific Plan EIR requires biological and cultural resources to be investigated associate d with ground disturbing projects. Those investigations are included in this Addendum. Addit ionally, revisions to the CEQA Guidelines have occurred since 2016, including the addition of and Energy, Tribal Cultural Resources and Wildfire analyses. To disclose Hearn/Burbank intersection re visions, incorporate the biological and cultural resources, and to address those additional areas of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum has been prepared to assess any potentially significant impacts. An Addendum is defined by CEQA as follows (emphasis added):
15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision making body shall consider the add endum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prep are a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

An Addendum is appropriate here due to the small scale of the proposed project changes (a reduced interim project), limited potential environmental i mpacts (as described in this Addendum) and the project’s consistency with the overall circulation improvements envisioned in the Specific Plan.

Section 15164 (b) specifically indicates an Addendu m may be prepared for minor technical changes or additions if conditions in Section 15162 do not exist requiring a subsequent EIR, as described below:
15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative de claration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project u nless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the c ircumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revi sions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable dil igence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Decla ration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantia lly reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances oc cur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.

In this case, none of the situations described in Section 15162 (a) exist, as described in this Addendum.

The project would be a reduced Hearn/Burbank signal ization project that does not meet the criteria defined in Section 15162 (a). No new or significant environmental effects, no substantial changes to Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

circumstances or to previously identified significa nt effects, no significant revisions to mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures or alternat ives would be associated with the proposed project, and none were identified associated with t he biological or cultural resources or expanded checklist analysis. As described in Section 15162 ( b), the Lead Agency has determined that an Addendum, consistent with Section 15164, is the app ropriate course to address potential environmental impacts associated with the signalization project. 2022 CEQA CHECKLIST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS The following sections assess the proposed Hearn/Bu rbank signalization project according to the checklist contained in the 2022 Guidelines and the degree to which, if any, they would change the findings of the 2016 Specific Plan EIR.

I. Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:

Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ □ ■ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
□ □ □ ■
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
□ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
□ □ ■ □

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR did not identify any pot entially significant impacts associated with aesthetics. All impacts were found to be less than significant or no impact. The proposed project is a reduced interim version of the signalization projec t originally assessed. None of the situations described in Section 15162 (a) exist that would req uire preparation of a Subsequent EIR. No new impacts to aesthetics would occur and the 2016 Specific Plan EIR findings remain valid.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
□ □ □ ■

b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
□ □ □ ■
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
□ □ □ ■
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
□ □ □ ■
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
□ □ □ ■

The findings contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EI R remain valid. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance was id entified within the annexation area. Similarly, no Forestland is within the annexation area. None o f the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

III. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations:

Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
□ □ ■
□
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
□ ■
MM3.3.3
□ □
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
□ ■
MM3.3.3
□ □
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
□ □ □ ■

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR included discussion of p otential air quality impacts. Impact 3.3.1 found that subsequent land use activities would not confl ict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan) as development would be subject to Specific Plan and General Plan guidelines (as sp ecified in Table 3.3-7 of the 2016 Specific Plan EIR) intended to implement the Clean Air Plan. The project would partially implement a portion of the roadway improvements associated with transportation elements in the Specific Plan and General Plan. Similarly, Impact 3.2.2 found that the projec t would not result in an air quality violation. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to sub stantial toxic air concentrations or involve new sensitive receptors.

Impact 3.3.3 identified the potential for construct ion related dust and emissions and noted General Plan Policy OSC-J-1 requires abatement, consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Handbook. While the potential for dust and emissions is relatively low with the small scale of the proposed improvements, those same dust control measures (con tained in MM 3.3.3 of the 2016 Specific Plan EIR) shall be implemented to remain consistent with the 2016 Specific Plan EIR.

None of the situations described in Section 15162 e xist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

IV. Biological Resources
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project 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 (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? □ ■
MM3.4.1a
MM3.4.1b
□ □
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ □ □ ■
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
□ □ □ ■
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
□ □ □ ■
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
□ □ □ ■
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an □ □ □ ■ Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
While the 2016 Specific Plan EIR provided a program -level analysis of biological resources, it concluded that site-specific biological resources i nvestigation is appropriate for some projects. MM

3.4.1a indicates:

MM 3.4.1a Implement General Plan Mitigation Measure 4.F-5: The City of Santa Rosa shall incorporate the avoidance and mitigation measures described in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy and the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion, as condition s of approval for development in or near areas with suitable habitat for California tiger salamander, B urke’s goldfields, Sonoma sunshine, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and many-flowered navarretia. However, in accordance with the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion, projects within the Southwest S anta Rosa Preserve System will be evaluated individ ually and mitigation may not necessarily adhere to the ratios described in the Conservation Strategy.

The project is located within an area that requires individual evaluation. Sol Ecology prepared a biological assessment for the proposed signalizatio n project 1 to comply with MM 3.4.1a. The study addresses potential sensitive biological resources, including federal and state protected natural communities, potential federal or state jurisdictio nal habitats, and/or species protected under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts (ESA/CESA) and under CEQA that may potentially be present on the site.

On April 7, and May 3, 2022, Sol Ecology biologists conducted a biological resources study at the project site to evaluate the site for the potential presence of sensitive biological communities, including potential jurisdictional areas such as wetlands, wa ters, or riparian habitat areas, or habitats that m ay contain sensitive species protected under federal or state laws. A desktop assessment was performed to evaluate whether special status species or other sensitive biological resources (e.g., wetlands) could occur in the study area and vicinity.

A reconnaissance ‐level biological resources survey was conducted on the project site and included the entire project area and immediate surrounding habit ats. The focus of the survey was to identify whether suitable habitat elements for special statu s species documented in the surrounding vicinity are present on the project site and whether the pro ject would have the potential to result in impacts to any of these species and/or their habitats eithe r directly or indirectly. The project site was also evaluated for the presence of wetland and non ‐wetland waters potentially subject to regulation by the federal government (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [U SACE]) and the state of California (Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB] and CDFW). This preliminary assessment was based primarily on the potential presence of wetland plan t indicators, hydrology, or wetland soils. A preliminary waters assessment was based on the pote ntial presence of unvegetated, ponded areas or flowing water, or evidence indicating their presenc e such as a high ‐water mark or a defined drainage course.

Existing Conditions
Ruderal and annual grassland vegetation was observe d within the project site at the four corners of the intersection, with the rest of the site consist ing of paved surfaces of the roadway and sidewalks.

The vegetated areas consisted primarily of non ‐native grasses and weedy forbs including wild oats

1 Biological Resources Review for Traffic Signalization at Hearn Ave & Burbank Ave . Sol Ecology. May 11, 2022.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

(Avena sp.), Italian rye grass ( Festuca perennis ), spring vetch ( Vicia sativa ), ribwort ( Plantago lanceolata ), and wild geranium ( Geranium dissectum ) among others. Soils within the project site consi st of Clear Lake clay, ponded, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Clear Lak e clay is not rated as a hydric soil, supporting th e conclusion that jurisdictional wetlands are absent from the project site.

Special Status Species
Special status species evaluated include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the ESA or CESA, and under CEQA. These acts afford protection to bot h listed species and those that are formal candidates for listing. Other laws governing plant and wildlife species include the California Plant Protection Act, California Fish and Game Code (CDFW), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which prohibits the take of actively nesting birds as well as common bats and their roosts.

Eleven (11) federal and/or state listed plants have been documented within the vicinity of the project site based on a 9 ‐quad CNPS and CNDDB search, and USFWS Information f or Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database search (Figure IV-1). Of these species, none are likely to occur within the project site due to the absence of associated v egetation communities (e.g., mesic grassland, wetland, riparian, chaparral, etc.), suitable soil types (e.g., sandy friable soils for burrowing), and highly disturbed nature of the project site.

Twenty ‐three (23) federal and/or state listed animals have been documented within the vicinity of the project site based on a 4 ‐quad CNDDB search, and USFWS IPaC database search (Figure IV-2). Due to the surrounding land uses, the project site does not support any of these wildlife species due to the absence of aquatic habitat primarily, as well as the absence of any suitable upland habitat for special ‐ status terrestrial animals. Similarly, the project site provides limited nesting substrate for most bi rds and roosting bats, and proposed work is not likely to have any impacts due to existing ambient conditions compared with proposed activities. The project site is near to documented occurrences of California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) and is also near a documented occurrence of a nesting pair of white ‐tailed kites ( Elanus leucurus ) and as such, focused assessments for these specie s were performed and provided below.

California Tiger Salamander
The California Tiger Salamander (CTS) Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was emergency listed as endangered on July 22, 2002. Cr itical Habitat for CTS on the Santa Rosa Plain was designated July 2011 and revised on August 31, 2011. This population is geographically isolated from other CTS in the state and known to occur in t he Santa Rosa area (or Plain) and possibly the Petaluma River watershed, historically. CTS in the Santa Rosa Plain inhabit low elevation (below 500 feet) vernal pools and seasonal pools, associated grassland, and the grassy understory of oak savannah plant communities.

CTS requires two primary habitat components: aquatic breeding sites and upland terrestrial estivation or refuge sites. Adult and juvenile CTS spend most of their time underground in upland subterranean refugia including small mammal burrows (namely pock et gophers), but also under logs and piles of lumber. CTS emerges from underground to breed and l ay eggs primarily in vernal pools and other ephemeral water bodies. Adults migrate from upland habitats to aquatic breeding sites during the first major rainfall events, between November and February, and return to upland habitats after breeding.

Following metamorphosis, juveniles move into the su rrounding uplands where they may live for several years before returning to aquatic habitats to breed.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

The project site is within the designated Critical Habitat for CTS and is located within the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy Area. The site is located within the Urban Growth Boundaries in an area designated as “Future Development” on the Figure 3 (revised) Conservation Strategy Map 2.

There are three CNDDB occurrences for CTS within pr oximity to the project site. The nearest is occurrence #11 which is 0.18 mile south. Larvae and adults were observed in a large vernal pool at the Community Park between 1995 and 2010. Despite t he historical presence, no CTS have been documented at the location since 2011. Other nearby occurrences include #72 for CTS recorded 1.2 miles east, and occurrence #62 is for CTS recorded 0.24 mile west. There are no occurrences located to the north of the project site.

The vegetated areas within the project site at the four corners of the intersection do not provide suitable breeding habitat nor suitable upland refug ia for CTS. None of the vegetated areas contain suitable aquatic conditions for breeding habitat, a nd while the northwest corner exhibits rodent burrows, the connectivity of these burrows to known breeding habitat locations is extremely limited due to the presence of barriers in the form of Hear n Avenue and Burbank Avenue, as well as developed residential areas and surrounding curbs. Furthermore, given there are no occurrences to the north of the project site and given the lack of available cover or refugia on ‐site, it is unlikely that CTS would disperse through the project site to nearby breeding and upland habitats.

Most of the work will occur within paved and previously disturbed areas, in a small project footprint.

An approximate 1,043 square feet (0.024 acre) would be impacted in non ‐paved areas, primarily on the north side of Hearn Avenue away from documented breeding and upland habitats. Given the small size of the project footprint, disturbed natu re of the site, and lack of connectivity with nearb y breeding and upland habitats south of Hearn Avenue, Critical Habitat would not be adversely modified or destroyed by the project and in accorda nce with the guidelines of the Conservation Strategy, no compensatory mitigation is required. I n addition, avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to ensure that the project does not result in the take of CTS. For these reasons, biologists concluded that the project is not likely to adversely affect CTS individuals or habitat.

Concurrence with the biologists’ not likely to adversely affect will be sought from CDFW.

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR included mitigation meas ure MM 3.4.1a to provide protections to CTS.

That mitigation remains appropriate and shall be in cluded in the proposed project. Sol Ecology provided current avoidance and minimization measures that have been included in MM 3.4.1b at the end of this document.

White-tailed kite
The white ‐tailed kite is resident in open to semi ‐open habitats throughout the lower elevations of California, including grasslands, savannahs, woodla nds, agricultural areas, and wetlands. Vegetative structure and prey availability seem to be more imp ortant habitat elements than associations with specific plants or vegetative communities. Nests ar e constructed mostly of twigs and placed in trees, often at habitat edges. Nest trees are highly varia ble in size, structure, and immediate surroundings,

2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain: Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine); Lasthenia burkei (Burke’s goldfields); Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam); Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ). U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. vi + 132 pp Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

ranging from shrubs to trees greater than 150 feet tall. This species preys upon a variety of small mammals, as well as other vertebrates and invertebrates.

A pair of white ‐tailed kites routinely nest in the vicinity (personal observation). The nearest CNDDB occurrence (#77) is for kites nesting in a tree located approximately 0.6 miles east. Many trees suitable for nesting are near the project site both along He arn Avenue and in the vicinity of the Community Park and the residential areas to the north and southwest. Additionally, prey availability is potentially suitable given the relative abundance of grasslands near the project site that support rodent populations. However, the project impacts to white ‐tailed kite prey habitat are minimal, and the current project plans indicate no impact to trees.

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR included mitigation measure MM 3.4.1b to provide protections to nesting and special status birds. That mitigation remains a ppropriate and shall be included in the proposed project. Sol Ecology provided current methodology t hat has been included in MM 3.4.1b at the end of this document.

Conclusion
The biological resources findings contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR remain valid and no new impacts associated with the project additions have been identified. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

V. Cultural Resources

Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
□ ■
MM3.5.2a
□ □
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
□ ■
MM3.5.2b
□ □
c. Would the project disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? □ □
□ ■

A programmatic assessment of cultural resources was conducted for the 2016 Specific Plan EIR. To provide for site-specific assessments, MM 3.5.2a indicated that:

MM 3.5.2a Phase 1 Archaeological Resource Study. Wh en specific projects are proposed within the projec t area that involve ground-disturbing activity, a sit e-specific Phase I archaeological resource study sh all 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 t echnical report that meets federal and state requir ements. If significant or unique resources are identified and cannot be avoided, treatment plans will be develope d 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.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

Consistent with MM 3.5.2a, a cultural resources inv estigation was conducted for the project because it contains ground disturbing elements. Tom Origer & Associates conducted an archival and site review for cultural resources 3.

As part of the study, a request was sent to the Sta te of California’s Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) seeking information from the Sacr ed Lands File and the names of Native American individuals and groups that would be appropriate to contact regarding this project. Letters were also sent to the following groups: Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Lytton Rancheria of California, Middleto wn Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley, Pinolevil le Pomo Nation, and Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians. No response has been received.

A review (NWIC File No. 20-1651) was completed of the archaeological site base maps and records, survey reports, and other materials on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park on April 6, 2022. Archival research found that the study area has been subject to six prior cultural resources studies and surveys, which did not identify cultural resources .

Twenty additional studies have been conducted within a quarter mile of the study area. There are three recorded cultural resources within a quarter mile o f the study area, none of which extend into the study area. There are no reported ethnographic sites within one mile of the study area.

A field survey was completed on April 5, 2022. The study area was examined intensively by walking in a zigzag pattern within five-meter-wide corridor s. Visibility for most of the study area was poor, with vegetation, asphalt, and concrete being the ch ief hindrances. A hoe was used as needed to clear vegetation to improve surface visibility. No archae ological site indicators were observed within the study area and no built environmental elements were observed. No further action was recommended.

Accidental discovery mitigation was provided in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR for cultural or historic resources discovered during construction as MM 3.5.2b:

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

3.5.2a. Additionally, Public Resources Code Section 5097.993 stipulates that a project sponsor must inform project personnel that collection of any Native American artifacts is prohibited by law.

Those mitigation measures would similarly reduce the potential for impacts from accidental discovery associated with the signalization project to a leve l of less than significant. The findings contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR remain valid. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

3 Cultural Resources Study for the Traffic Signalization at the Intersection of Hearn Avenue and Burbank Avenue Project, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California . Tom Origer & Associates. April 12, 2022.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

VI. Energy
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation?
□ □ □ ■
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
□ □ □ ■

The Energy section of the CEQA Checklist was implem ented after the 2016 Specific Plan EIR was prepared. Two Checklist items are included in the Energy section, and are assessed below:
a. Would the project result in potentially signific ant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficie nt, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Project construction would only account for a minor use of energy, primarily associated with fuels used in construction vehicles. All constructi on vehicles would be California-compliant to ensure state goals of energy efficiency and air quality are maintained. The project is necessary to partially implement traffic circulation improvements specified in the Specific Plan that are intended to improve traffic flow, reducing congestion. The project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Sonoma County is provided electricity by Sonoma Clean Power, a community choice aggregation, through PG&E maintained infrastructure. As of 2020, Sonoma Clean Power’s power mix was ahead of California’s renewable energy goal and supplied 49 percent of its electricity from renewable resources under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard.

Additionally, in 2020, 44 percent of Sonoma Clean Power’s supply was hydroelectric, for a total of 93 percent greenhouse gas free electricity4.

The project would not conflict with or obstruct a s tate or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project is essentially energ y neutral and located in an area that is exceeding renewable energy goals.

The Energy section does not result in any new potentially significant impacts being identified with the project and does not require any new mitigation measures. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

4 https://sonomacleanpower.org/power-sources
Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

VII. Geology and Soils
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
□ □ ■ □
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
□ □ ■ □
iv. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
□ □ □ ■

c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
□ □ ■ □
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
□ □ ■ □
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
□ □ □ ■

f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
□ □ □ ■

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR assessed potential project impacts to/from geology and soils and did not find any potentially significant impacts or provide mitigation measures. The signalization project would be subject to the same geologic and seismic c onditions of the original project and adherence to modern design standards would ensure that any potential impact to or from the signalization project would be less than significant. The project’s disturbance area would be approximately 855 square feet, considerably below the thresholds of the City’s LID program and the need to file for coverage under the General Construction Permit (Notice of Intent). The findings contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR remain valid. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
□ □ ■ □
b. Would the project Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
□ □ □ ■

The City has a climate action plan, adopted in 2012. The 2016 Specific Plan EIR found that:

The proposed project is consistent with the GHG inventory contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Both the existing and projected GHG inventory contained in the City’s CAP were based on the land use designations and associated densities defined for the Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary in the City’s General Plan. The Urban Growth Boundary encompasses approximately 45 square miles and includes the incorporated portions of the city as well as unincorporated lands adjacent to the city, including the project area.

The 2016 Specific Plan did not identify any potenti ally significant greenhouse gas-related impacts or provide mitigation. The signalization project imple ments a portion of the Specific Plan’s circulation improvements and would be consistent with the findi ng of no significant impact. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
□ □ □ ■
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
□ □
■ □
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
□ □ □ ■
d. Would the project be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
□ ■
MM3.8.4b
□ □
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the □ □ □ ■

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Would the project impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
□ □ ■
□
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
□ □ □ ■

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR assessed potential hazar ds and hazardous materials associated with the Specific Plan. Generally, impacts were considered t o be less than significant. Impact 3.8.4, contaminated sites, was found to be potentially sig nificant. More than 30 known open hazardous materials sites are located within the Specific Pla n area. The 2016 Specific Plan EIR found that “because there is the potential for future projects that could be constructed in the project area to encounter hazardous materials contamination that co uld pose a risk to the public and the environment, this is considered a potentially significant impact.” Mitigation MM3.8.4a requires developers to complete a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for each property to be developed or redeveloped. The project is being undertaken by the City and is not representative of a development or redevelopment pr oject. A query of the State Water Board’s Geotracker system indicates there are no hazardous materials sites within 500 feet of the signalization project (Figure IX-1). There is a remediated site approximately 600 feet northwest of the project. Due to its closed (remediated) status and distance from the project, there is no reason to expect contaminated soils at the project site. Due to the extremely limited ground disturbance of the signalization project (less than 900 square feet), its previously disturbed nature (adjacent to existi ng roadways), long-standing history of being roadway a nd the lack of any known hazardous materials sites within 500 feet, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was not considered to be necessary for the signalization project. Additionally, Mitiga tion MM3.8.4b includes measures for inadvertent discovery of hazardous materials that would be added to the project specifications. MM3.8.4b states:

In the event previously unknown contaminated soil, groundwater, or subsurface features are encountered or have the potential be present during ground-disturbing a ctivities at any site, work shall cease immediately , and the developer’s contractor shall notify the City of San ta Rosa Fire Department for further instruction. Th e City shall ensure any grading or improvement plan or bui lding permit includes a statement specifying that i f hazardous materials contamination is discovered or suspected during construction activities, all work shall stop immediately until the City of Santa Rosa Fire Depar tment has determined an appropriate course of actio n.

Such actions may include, but would not be limited to, site investigation, human health and environmental risk assessment, implementation of a health and safety plan, and remediation and/or site management controls. The City of Santa Rosa Fire Department shall be responsible for notifying the appropriate regulatory agencies and providing evidence to the City Planning and Economic Development Department that potential risks have been mitigated to the extent required by regulatory agen cies. Work shall not recommence on an impacted site until the applicable regulatory agency has determined further work would not pose an unacceptable human health or environmental risk. Deed restrictions may be required as provided under mitigation measure MM 3.8.4a.

The findings contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EI R remain valid and no new impacts have been identified. None of the situations described in Sec tion 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
□ □
□ ■
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
□ □ □ ■
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

i. result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?
□ □ □ ■
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite?
□ □ □ ■
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
□ □ □ ■

iv. impede or redirect flows? □ □ □ ■
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
□ □ □ ■

e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
□ □
□ ■

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Generally, the City has plans for the prot ection and provision of water resources within the annexation area according to projections within its Urban Growth Boundary.

Since 2016, item (e) was added to the Checklist and is described below as it is relevant to both on- going City and County water management and current drought conditions:
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

The signalization project would not increase water withdrawals, decrease groundwater recharge or contribute polluted water. The project will therefore not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

The signalization project represents a reduced project from that assessed in 2016 and would not have a significant impact to hydrology and water quality. The findings contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR remain valid. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

XI. Land Use and Planning
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project physically divide an established
community?
□ □ □ ■
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
□ □ □ ■

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR did not identify any pot entially significant impacts to land use and planning. The Specific Plan area has since been ann exed into the City. The findings contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR remain valid. The signalization project would not impact land use and planning in a negative way but would partially implement a p ortion of the transportation improvements envisioned by the Specific Plan. None of the situa tions described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

XII. Mineral Resources
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
□ □ □ ■
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
□ □ □ ■

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR did not assess mineral r esources beyond noting none are designated in the annexation area by the City’s General Plan. Non e of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

XIII. Noise
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
□ □ ■ □
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
□ □ □ ■
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
□ □ □ ■

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR did not identify any pot entially significant noise impacts associated with the Specific Plan. Construction noise was determined to be less than significant.

Impact 3.11.4 Construction activities could cause a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise le vels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses, which may result in increased levels of annoyance, activity interfer ence, and sleep disruption. This impact is considered less than significant.

Construction-related noise associated with the signalization project would utilize less noise-intensive equipment than that assessed in the 2016 Specific P lan EIR as the project requires only minimal use of heavy construction equipment. The findings contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR remain valid.

None of the situations described in Section 15162 e xist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

XIV. Population and Housing
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
□ □ □ ■

b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of
people or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
□ □ □ ■

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR did not identify any pot entially significant impacts to population and housing. The signalization project would not have a ny impact to population and housing. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

XV. Public Services
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:

i. Fire protection? □ □ □ ■
ii. Police protection? □ □ □ ■
iii. Schools? □ □ □ ■
iv. Parks? □ □ □ ■
v. Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR did not identify potenti ally significant impacts to public services.

Generally, annexation into the City would transfer responsibility for provision of public services from the County to the City. The signalization project w ould have no negative impact to public services.

None of the situations described in Section 15162 e xist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

XVI. Recreation
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
□ □ □ ■

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
□ □ □ ■

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR did not identify potenti ally significant impacts to recreation. The signalization project would increase safe vehicular and pedestrian access to Southwest Community Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

Park, a beneficial impact. The findings contained i n the 2016 Specific Plan EIR remain valid. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

XVII. Transportation
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
□ □ □ ■

b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
□ □ □ ■
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
□ □ □ ■

d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency
access?
□ □ ■ □

An intensive traffic analysis was conducted for the 2016 Specific Plan EIR, specifically including the Hearn Avenue/Burbank Avenue intersection, as described in the Background section at the beginning of this document. Since then, the CEQA-required analysis for traffic impacts has changed. The 2022 CEQA Guidelines generally now require a “vehicle miles traveled” analysis for development projects (Section 15064.3), a departure from the analysis co ntained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR. However, relying on the old analysis is sufficient for the s ignalization project since the Hearn/Burbank signalization project is not a land development pro ject and will have no long-term impact to vehicle miles travelled. It does not induce population grow th or provide a “destination” that would increase vehicle miles traveled.

Further, Section 15064.3 (b)(2) of the CEQA Guideli nes indicates the “transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles travele d should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” Implementation of the signalization project is consistent with the overall transportation system envisioned in the Specific Plan. The 2016 Specific Plan EIR conducted a Level of Service analysis of anticipated Specific Plan area roadway and street improvements and determined that the overall annexation project woul d have a less than significant impact (Impact

3.14.1). While the Level of Service analysis has been replaced by the vehicle miles traveled analysis, it can be concluded that the signalization project would not alter the 2016 Specific Plan EIR findings.

The 2016 Specific Plan EIR found that overall emergency access would be improved by the proposed roadway improvements (Impact 3.14.5). The proposed project would provide signalized traffic control at the intersection until full Specific Pla n improvements are implemented. The 2016 Specific Plan EIR also found that the proposed improvements would benefit alternative transportation and pedestrian and bicycle circulation (Impact 3.14.6 and 3.14.7, respectively). The 2016 Specific Plan EIR findings remain valid. None of the situations descr ibed in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
□ ■
MM3.5.2a
MM3.5.2b
□ □
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
□ ■
MM3.5.2a
MM3.5.2b
□ □

Tribal Cultural Resources were assessed under the C ultural Resources section of the 2016 Specific Plan EIR. It indicated that:

The City of Santa Rosa contacted the Lytton Rancher ia of California and the Federated Indians of Grato n Rancheria regarding consultation with local Native American tribes pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52.

Lytton Rancheria did not request consultation in th eir response but did request that cultural resource s 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…. City- initiated consultation with the Lytton Rancheria an d the Graton Rancheria did not yield any specific information regarding tribal 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.

Understanding that project-level assessment of cultural resources would be required, the 2016 Specific Plan EIR included mitigation MM 3.5.2a below:

MM 3.5.2a Phase 1 Archaeological Resource Study. Wh en specific projects are proposed within the projec t area that involve ground-disturbing activity, a sit e-specific Phase I archaeological resource study sh all 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 t echnical report that meets federal and state requir ements. If significant or unique resources are identified and cannot be avoided, treatment plans will be develope d 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.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

As indicated in the Cultural Resources section of this Addendum, a cultural resources assessment was conducted for the signalization project. No resources were identified so no treatment plan is required.

Additionally, the project is approximately 1,000 fe et southeast of Roseland Creek and approximately 2,800 feet northwest of Colgan Creek. Since AB52 co nsultation for annexation of the Specific Plan area occurred during the 2016 environmental review, the signalization project is not located near the creeks and the cultural resources investigation did not identify resources, no further action is warranted. Measures for the incidental discovery of cultural resources were provided in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR (MM 3.5.2b) and shall be a part of the signalization project. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

XVIIII. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
□ □ □ ■

b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
□ □ □ ■
c. Would the project result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
□ □ □ ■

d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
□ □ □ ■
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
□ □ □ ■

The original project assessed in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts associated with utilities and service systems. The Specific Plan as well as the General Plan and other City long-range planning documents address utility and service system needs of the annexation area. The signalization project would not alter the long-range plans for utility and service systems and findings contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR re main valid. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

XX. Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporation
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
□ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
□ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
□ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
□ □ □ ■

The Wildfire section of the Checklist was not conta ined in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR. The four Checklist items included in the Wildfire section are assessed below:

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones:
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project location and its surroundings are entir ely within a local responsibility area, now within the City limits, as shown on Figure XX-1. Th e project is not located within a City- designated wildland-urban interface zone or a very high fire hazard severity zone, as indicated on Figure 12-5 of the City’s General Plan.

As indicated in the Transportation section of this Addendum, the signalization project is part of the overall Specific Plan strategy to improve ci rculation and would benefit emergency response as well as evacuation.
b. Would the project, due to slope, prevailing wind s, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, an d thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The signalization project would not exacerbate wild fire risks. The project is surrounded by development within the City limits.
c. Would the project require the installation or ma intenance of associated infrastructure (such as roa ds, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
The signalization project would not exacerbate fire risks in the project area. The project would not otherwise require the installation or maintenan ce of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. The project would improve overall traffic circulation, emergency response and evacuation in the project area.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The project would not alter existing risks, includi ng downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The signalization project would only include very minor grade changes associated with signal installation.

The Wildfire section does not result in any new pot entially significant impacts being identified with the signalization project and does not require any new mitigation measures. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.

The proposed signalization project is required to meet the original traffic circulation objectives of the Specific Plan, as assessed in the 2016 Specific Pla n EIR. No new, collective or cumulative impacts have been identified with the entirety of the proje ct that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant with mitigation measures contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR. No impacts associated with the entirety of the project would trigger a ma ndatory finding of significance. The findings contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR remain vali d. None of the situations described in Section 15162 exist that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

Required Mitigation Measures
This Addendum has not identified any new impacts or mitigation measures that were not identified in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR. However, certain mitigation measures identified in 2016 are appropriate to reduce construction-related impacts associated with projects similar to the signalization project. The following mitigation measures, as contained in the 2016 Specific Plan EIR and updated by Sol Ecology (indicated in italics ), shall be incorporated into the project plans and specifications:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

MM 3.4.1a (Required study completed) Implement General Plan Mitigation Measure 4.F-5:

The City of Santa Rosa shall incorporate the avoidance and mitigation measures described in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy and the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion, as conditions of approval for development in or near areas with suitable habitat for California tiger salamander, Burke’s goldfields, Sonoma sunshine, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and many-flowered navarretia. However, in accordance with the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion, projects within the Southwest Santa Rosa Preserve System will be evaluated individually and mitigation may not necessarily adhere to the ratios described in the Conservation Strategy.

The 2022 Sol Ecology biological resources letter report specifies the following CTS avoidance and minimization measures that shall be implemented:

1. Develop and implement an approved erosion and sediment control plan to prevent impacts of construction on habitat outside the work areas.

2. The City shall hire a USFWS approved biological monitor to conduct a training session for all construction workers before work begins. The biological monitor shall be present on-site during excavation activity, and each morning when an open trench is uncovered to check for trapped animals or animals under equipment. The biological monitor shall check all excavated steep ‐walled holes or trenches greater than one foot deep for any CTS. If CTS are found, work shall be halted and the USFWS and/or CDFW contacted. Only a USFWS CTS recovery permit holder may relocate CTS. Translocation will be performed as described in USFWS 2005 protocol to a location outside the project site, as directed by USFWS or CDFW.

3. Fencing to exclude CTS shall be installed between the grasslands and the construction footprint.

The biological monitor shall assist with making sure the correct fence material is utilized and that it is installed properly.

4. A pre ‐construction survey shall be performed by the biological monitor prior to the start of work.

Any burrows shall be examined by the biologist and then carefully excavated by hand to ensure CTS are not present prior to work occurring in non ‐paved areas of the site.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

5. Limit access routes and number and size of staging and work areas to the minimum necessary to achieve the project goals. Clearly mark routes and boundaries of the roadwork prior to initiating construction/site disturbance.

6. Enclose all foods and food ‐related trash items in sealed trash containers at the end of each day and remove completely from the site once every three days.

7. No pets shall be allowed anywhere in the Project site during construction

8. Maintain all equipment such that there will be no leaks of automotive fluids such as gasoline, oils, or solvents.

9. Store any hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, etc., in sealable containers in a designated location that is at least 200 feet from aquatic habitats. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment, and staging areas shall occur at least 200 feet from any aquatic habitat.

10. Conduct any grading and clearing between June 15 and October 15, of any given year, depending on the level of rainfall and/or site conditions.

11. Revegetate project areas temporarily disturbed by construction activities with native plants.

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.

The 2022 Sol Ecology biological resources letter report specifies the following nesting bird survey protocol that shall be implemented:

1. If construction begins between February 1 and August 31, a pre ‐construction nesting bird (both passerine and raptor) survey of the habitats within 100 feet of all work areas shall be performed within 7 days of groundbreaking. If no nesting birds are observed, no further action is required, and grading must occur within one week of the survey to prevent “take” of individual birds that could begin nesting after the survey.

2. If active bird nests (passerine and/or raptor) are observed during the pre ‐construction survey, a disturbance ‐free buffer zone shall be established around the nest tree(s) until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. The radius of the required buffer zone can vary depending on the species (i.e. 75 ‐100 feet for passerines and 200 ‐300 feet for raptors), with the dimension of any required buffer zone to be determined by a qualified biologist.

3. To delineate the “no ‐work” buffer zone around a nesting tree, orange construction fencing must be placed at the specified radius from the base of the tree within which no construction related activity or machinery shall intrude.

MM 3.5.2a (Required study completed) 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 a less than significant level based on the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Mr. Catbagan
October 12, 2022

MM 3.5.2b Should any archaeological artifacts be discovered during construction of any subsequent project, all construction activities shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the City shall be notified, and a professional archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Professional Qualifications in archaeology and/or history shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery.

The professional archaeologist shall prepare a plan to identify, record, report, evaluate, and recover the resources as necessary, which shall be implemented by the developer.

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

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

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

N
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
Units: Foot US
4/27/2022 AUTHOR J:\J\4893\GIS\4893 Project Location.mxd FIGURE 1
MAY 2022

CITY OF SANTA ROSA

PROJECT LOCATION
0 750 1,500375 Feet

PROJECT

PROJECT

èé
èé
èéèé
èé
èé
èé
èé
N
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
Units: Foot US
4/28/2022 AUTHOR J:\J\4893\GIS\4893 Aerial.mxd
FIGURE 3
MAY 2022

CITY OF SANTA ROSA

PROJECT AERIAL VIEW
0 20 4010 Feet
Legend
èé Signal Poles
Disturbance Type
Permanent
Temporary
Source: W-Trans
T:\_CS\Work\Santa Rosa, City of\Roseland Area Specific Plan\Figures FIGURE 2.0-8
Specific Plan Roadway Network

Figure 3: Special Status Plant Species within 5 Miles of the Project Site Intersection of Hearn Avenue and Burbank Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 5 Miles
solecology.com
Date: 5-2-2022
Data: Sol Ecology Inc., Sonoma Co.,
CDFW
Base: ESRI
GIS: ArcGIS Pro 2.9.2
Figure IV-1
Figure 4: Special Status Animal Species within 5 Miles of the Project Site Intersection of Hearn Avenue and Burbank Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 5 Miles
solecology.com
Date: 5-2-2022
Data: Sol Ecology Inc., Sonoma Co.,
CDFW
Base: ESRI
GIS: ArcGIS Pro 2.9.2
Figure IV-2
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
A-1 MINI STORAGE

RAY'S FOOD CENTER

PRIVATE RESIDENCE

JDSU/OCLI (FORMER)

FOUCHE AUTO WRECKERS

RAWLY HENKINS, ESTATE OF

SANTA ROSA CORPORATE CENTER
Legend

SITE STATUS
!( COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED
!( OPEN - REMEDIATION
N
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
Units: Foot US
4/28/2022 AUTHOR J:\J\4893\GIS\4893 Geotracker.mxd
Data Source Information:

Geotracker: State Water Board (2022)
FIGURE IX-1
MAY 2022

CITY OF SANTA ROSA

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
0 500 1,000250 Feet

PROJECT
Legend
City Limits
Fire Responsibility Area
Federal
Local
State
Fire Hazard Zone
Moderate
High
N
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
Units: Foot US
4/27/2022 AUTHOR J:\J\4893\GIS\4893 Fire.mxd
Data Source Information:

CalFire (2019)
FIGURE XX-1
MAY 2022

CITY OF SANTA ROSA

FIRE RESPONSIBILITY AREA
0 0.5 10.25 Miles

PROJECT