NOAA Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over anadromous fish species and USFWS has jurisdiction over all other fish and wildlife species.
Section 7 of the FESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the FESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Federal agencies are also required to minimize impacts to all listed species resulting from their actions, including issuance of permits or funding. Section 7 requires consideration of the indirect effects of a project, effects on federally listed plants, and effects on critical habitat (FESA requires that the USFWS identify critical habitat to the maximum extent that it is prudent and determinable when a species is listed as threatened or endangered). This consultation results in a Biological Opinion prepared by the USFWS stating whether implementation of the HCP will result in jeopardy to any HCP Covered Species or will adversely modify critical habitat and the measures necessary to avoid or minimize effects to listed species.
Although federally listed animals are legally protected from harm no matter where they occur, Section 9 of the FESA provides protection for endangered plants by prohibiting the malicious destruction on federal land and other “take” that violates State law. Protection for plants not living on federal lands is provided by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
Clean Water Act
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. These waters and their lateral limit include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. 5 The
lateral limits of jurisdiction for a nontidal stream are measured at the line of the ordinary high-water mark6 or the limit of adjacent wetlands.7 Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the U.S., whether natural or human-made, results in a similar extension of USACE jurisdiction.
Waters of the U.S. fall into two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Other waters include waterbodies and watercourses generally lacking plant cover, such as rivers, streams, lakes, springs, ponds, coastal waters, and estuaries. Wetlands are aquatic habitats that support hydrophytic wetland plants and include marshes, wet meadows, seeps, floodplains, basins, and other areas experiencing extended
5 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(a). 6 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(e). 7 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(b).
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-3
seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal ponds, ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes, are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support wetland plant communities. Seasonally inundated water bodies or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics are classified as other waters of the U.S.
Waters and wetlands that cannot trace a continuous hydrologic connection to a navigable water of the U.S. are not tributary to waters of the U.S. These are termed “isolated wetlands.” Isolated wetlands are jurisdictional when their destruction or degradation can affect interstate or foreign commerce. 8 The
USACE may or may not take jurisdiction over isolated wetlands depending on the specific circumstances.
In general, a project proponent must obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE before placing fill or grading in wetlands or other waters of the U.S. Prior to issuing the permit, the USACE is required to consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the FESA if the project may affect federally listed species.
All USACE permits require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In the Santa Rosa area, this regulatory program is administered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Project proponents who propose to fill wetlands or other waters of the U.S. must apply for water quality certification from the North Coast RWQCB. The North Coast RWQCB has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for any loss of wetland, streambed, or other jurisdictional area.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” Most bird species native to North America are covered by this act. The MBTA prohibits the intentional or incidental killing of birds or destruction of their nests when in active use.
State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The CDFW has jurisdiction over State-listed endangered, threatened, and rare plant and animal species under CESA.9 CESA is similar to the FESA both in process and substance; it is intended to provide additional protection to threatened and endangered species in California. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered under both acts (in which case the provisions of both State and federal laws apply) or under only one act. A candidate species is one that the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by CDFW for addition to the State list. Candidate species are protected by the provisions of CESA.
8 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(a). 9 California Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-4 OCTOBER 2024
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are defined as having the potential to have physical impact on the environment. Under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, a species not included on any formal list “shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown by a local agency to meet the criteria” for listing. With sufficient documentation, a species could be shown to meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA and be considered a “de facto” rare or endangered species.
California Fish and Game Code
The CDFW is responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), which contains several protections from “take” for a variety of species. The CDFW also protects streams, water bodies, and riparian corridors through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Section 1601 to 1606 of the CFGC. The CFGC stipulates that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake” without notifying the CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement. CDFW’s jurisdiction extends to the top of banks and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation canopy cover .
The CFGC also lists animal species designated as Fully Protected or Protected, which may not be taken or possessed at any time. The CDFW does not issue licenses or permits for take of these species except for necessary scientific research, habitat restoration/species recovery actions, or live capture and relocation pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Fully protected species are listed in CFGC Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish), while protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42, respectively.
Several provisions in the CFGC provide for the protection of birds and bird nests in active use. Unless the CFGC or its implementing regulations provide otherwise, under California law it is unlawful to:
Take a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian.
Take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Take, possess, or destroy any bird of prey in the orders Strigiformes (owls) and Falconiformes (such as falcons, hawks and eagles) or the nests or eggs of such bird. Take or possess any of the thirteen fully protected bird species listed in CFGC Section 3511. Take any non-game bird (i.e., bird that is naturally occurring in California that is not a gamebird, migratory game bird, or fully protected bird).
Take or possess any migratory non-game bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such bird, except as provided by rules or regulations adopted by the Department of the Interior under the MBTA.
Take, import, export, possess, purchase, or sell any bird (or products of a bird), listed as an endangered or threatened species under the CESA unless the person or entity possesses an Incidental Take Permit or equivalent authorization from CDFW.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-5
Non-native species, including European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and rock pigeon (Columba livia), are not afforded any protection under the MBTA or CFGC.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
U
nder the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,10 the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the State’s waters. The RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over isolated waters and wetlands, as well as waters and wetlands that are regulated by the USACE. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit, it still requires review and approval by the RWQCB. When reviewing applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the “beneficial uses” associated with waters of the State. In most cases, the RWQCB seeks to protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of waste discharge requirements into projects that will require discharge into waters of the State. For most construction projects, the RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction best management practices.
California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 prohibits importation of rare and endangered plants into California, “take” of rare and endangered plants, and sale of rare and endangered plants. The CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act, which ensures that State-listed plant species are protected when State agencies are involved in projects subject to CEQA. In this case, plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act are not protected under the CESA but rather under CEQA.
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-governmental conservation organization that has developed a list of plants of special concern in California. The following explains the designations for each plant species:
11 Rank 1A. Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere Rank 1B. Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A. Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere Rank 2B. Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3. Plants about which more information is needed; a review list Rank 4. Plants of limited distribution; a watch list
California Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities are natural community types considered to be rare or of a “high inventory priority” by the CDFW. Although sensitive natural communities have no legal protective status under FESA or CESA, they are provided some level of consideration under CEQA. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies potential impacts on a sensitive natural community as one of six criteria to consider in determining the significance of a proposed project. While no thresholds are established as part of this
10 California Water Code Sections 13000 through 14920.
11 California Native Plant Society, 2020, CNPS Rare Plant Ranks, https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks, accessed November 25, 2020.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-6 OCTOBER 2024
criterion, it serves as an acknowledgement that sensitive natural communities are an important resource and, depending on their rarity, should be recognized as part of the environmental review process. The level of significance of a project’s impact on any particular sensitive natural community will depend on that natural community’s relative abundance and rarity.
As an example, a discretionary project that has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, native grassland, valley oak woodland, and/or other sensitive natural community would normally be considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural community could be interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its relative abundance, quality and degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the specific community type.
Oak Woodlands Conservation Act
The California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act
12 of 2001 acknowledges the importance of private land
stewardship to the conservation of the state’s valued oak woodlands. This act established the California Oak Woodlands Conservation Program, which aims to conserve oak woodlands existing in the state’s working landscapes by providing education and incentives to private landowners. The program provides technical and financial incentives to private landowners to protect and promote biologically functional oak woodlands.
Local Regulations
Santa Rosa City Code
The Santa Rosa City Code (SRCC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to biological resources in Santa Rosa. The SRCC is organized by title, chapter, and section, and in some cases, articles.
Most provisions related to biological resources are in Title 17, Environmental Protection, and Title 20, Zoning, as follows:
Chapter 17-24, Trees. Santa Rosa adopted a Tree Ordinance in 1990 to ensure proper tree removal and preservation. Article 2, Definitions, requires a permit to remove or alter “heritage trees”, “protected trees,” and “street trees” in all zoning districts. Each of these are defined in the Tree Ordinance as follows:
Heritage Tree. The City defines a “heritage tree” as, “a tree or grove of trees so designated by a resolution of the Planning Commission and after the holding of a noticed public hearing, having a specific historical or cultural association or value due to its age, species, character, location, height and/or the circumstances of its planting or origin.” Heritage trees also include native species with trunk diameters that exceed those specified in the Tree Ordinance for: California bay (Umbellularia californica), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), California live oak (Quercus agrifolia), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana),
12 California Fish and Game Code Section 1360 et seq.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-7
red alder (Alnus oregona), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and white alder (Alnus rhombifolia).
Protected Tree. “Protected trees” are defined as, “any tree, including a heritage tree, designated to be preserved on an approved development plan or as a condition of a tentative map, a tentative parcel map, or other development approval issued by the City.” Street Tree. The City defines a “street tree” as, “any tree having a single trunk circumference greater than six and one-quarter inches or a diameter greater than two inches, a height of more than six feet, and one half or more of its trunk is within a public right-of-way or within five feet of the paved portion of a City street or a public sidewalk.” Section 20-30.040, Creekside Development. This section defines minimum setbacks from designated creeks to provide reasonable protection from bank failures and flooding. It provides creek setback criteria for any new structures, specifying the distance new development must be set back from creeks and defined banks. For example, new structures must be a minimum of 50 feet from the top of the highest natural bank. Limited exceptions are permitted for any defined channel that is owned by Sonoma Water, for developments in compliance with setback requirements prior to September 3, 2004, for new developments that are surrounded by existing structures that were developed in compliance with setback requirements prior to September 3, 2004, and for bridges and utilities.
Santa Rosa Plain Vernal Pool Ecosystem Preservation Plan The Santa Rosa Plan Vernal Pool Ecosystem Preservation Plan was prepared in 1995 and was intended to provide regional protection for the vernal pool ecosystem in the Santa Rosa Plain, while allowing for planned urban development and land use changes.
13 The Plan identifies vernal pool ecosystem habitat,
targets potential preserves, and outlines a streamlined regulatory process to allow faster authorizations for development on low-quality vernal pool ecosystem wetlands. The Santa Rosa Plain Vernal Pool Ecosystem Preservation Plan was superseded by the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy in 2005.
Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy
The SRPCS seeks to create a long-term program to mitigate potential adverse effects on listed species due to future development on the Santa Rosa Plain, bordered on the south and west by the Laguna de Santa Rosa, on the east by the foothills, and on the north by the Russian River . The Plain and adjacent areas are characterized by vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and associated grassland habitat, which supports several species of plants and animals that are listed by the FESA as threatened or endangered, including the federally threatened California tiger salamander (CTS) and four federally endangered plant species - Burke’s goldfields, Sonoma sunshine, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and many-flowered navarretia.
The SRPCS was developed to (1) provide a plan for local agencies, developers, and community groups that would preserve and enhance populations and habitat of the listed species; (2) support the issuance of a USFWS authorization for incidental take of CTS and listed plants that may occur in the course of carrying out a broad range of activities on the Plain; and (3) protect stakeholders’ (public and private) interests.
13 CH2M Hill, June 30, 1995, Phase I, Final Report, Santa Rosa Plain Vernal Pool Ecosystem Preservation Plan.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-8 OCTOBER 2024
The SRPCS addresses various aspects of urban and rural growth and its effects on the above-listed species, mitigation for impacts to these listed species and wetlands, and the conservation and recovery of the listed species and their habitat. The SRPCS identified the Southwest Santa Rosa Preserve System (discussed below) and nine “Conservation Areas” through the Plain, where mitigation for project-related impacts to listed species and vernal pools should be directed. The designation of Conservation Areas was based on the following factors: (1) known distribution of CTS; (2) presence of suitable CTS habitat; (3) presence of large blocks of natural or restorable land; (4) adjacency to existing preserves; and (5) known location of the federally listed plants. A critical component of the Conservation Strategy is that 350 to 900 acres of actual preserved land ultimately will be established within each Conservation Area. The Southwest Santa Rosa Preserve System does not meet this Conservation Area size requirement, but nevertheless is critically important because of its proximity to near-term development in southwest Santa Rosa.
Southwest Santa Rosa Preserve System
The Southwest Santa Rosa Preserve System is part of the SRPCS, located in the southwest corner of Santa Rosa. This is an area that contains considerable existing development and is subject to future development under the City’s General Plan. This area contains an abandoned military air center with some of the runways still present. There are currently 101 acres of preserves and 52 acres of pending preserves in this Preserve System, with numerous wetlands, CTS breeding sites, and federally listed plant occurrences. The focus of the SRPCS is to interconnect these preserves with each other and neighboring Conservation Areas (in particular, the Llano Conservation Area to the south), and ensure their viability as future development occurs in southwest Santa Rosa. Until there are adequate viable preserves throughout the Conservation Areas, the SRPCS’s population of CTS is critical to the persistence of the species on the Santa Rosa Plain.
The Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permitted Projects That May Affect California Tiger Salamander and Three Endangered Plant Species on the Santa Rosa Plain, California (PBO) was originally issued by the USFWS in 2007.
14 The PBO was amended by the USFWS in 2009 and reissued in 2020.15 The PBO provides a framework for the USACE to meet its FESA requirements for permitting projects that adversely affect CTS, Burke’s goldfields, Sonoma sunshine, and Sebastopol meadowfoam.16 The PBO provides guidance to the USACE on projects that may affect these listed species, by defining “Conservation Areas” and “preserves” in the Santa Rosa Plain, describing mitigation and minimization requirements and procedures as they apply to projects that impact the four target species, and providing a comprehensive status report for these species, which includes species descriptions, historical and current distribution, habitat and life history, threats to survival, and environmental baseline information.
In 2016, the USFWS adopted a Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain (Recovery Plan) which was
14 USFWS, 2007, Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permitted Projects that May Affect California Tiger Salamander and Three Endangered Plant Species on the Santa Rosa Plain, California, File Number 1-1-98-F-0053. 15 USFWS, June 11, 2020, Reinitiation of Formal Consultation on Issuance of Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permits by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on the Santa Rosa Plain, Sonoma County, California. File Number 81420-2008-F-0261-R002. 16 The PBO does not include the many-flowered navarretia, which was part of the Santa Rosa Conservation Strategy, possibly because this species occurs mostly outside the Santa Rosa Plain and there is only one known site for this species in the Plain.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-9
considered as part of the latest PBO. The Recovery Plan identified actions to reduce the threats to these four species and ensure their long-term viability.17
Although the SRPCS has not been formally adopted, the USFWS PBO can still be invoked for projects that have suitable habitat for CTS, Burke’s goldfields, Sonoma sunshine, and Sebastopol meadowfoam, and that impact regulated wetlands in the Santa Rosa Plain requiring permit authorization by the USACE.
Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan
The City of Santa Rosa has specific goals related to waterways within its jurisdiction as defined in the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan. The Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan includes the portions of the Laguna de Santa Rosa watershed that are within the urban growth boundary surrounding the city of Santa Rosa, which includes nearly 100 miles of creeks. One of the Plan’s goals is to preserve, enhance, and restore habitat for fish, birds, mammals, and other wildlife in local creeks and riparian corridors. The following goals and objectives from the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan are related to biological resources and apply to the off-site infrastructure improvements of the proposed project:
Habitat (HA): Local creeks and riparian corridors are preserved, enhanced, and restored as habitat for fish, birds, mammals, and other wildlife.
Objective HA-1: Preserve healthy and/or environmentally sensitive creek areas. 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 defined within the Santa Rosa Zoning Code. Objective HA-5: Focus preservation, enhancement, and restoration efforts on habitat that supports one or more special-status species, including those species that are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered, or as a Species of Special Concern. Policy HA-5-1: Protect habitat for endangered species, through preservation, enhancement, and restoration of riparian corridors (as discussed above) and prevention of storm water pollution. Policy HA-5-2: Reestablish populations of special-status species as ecologically appropriate. Objective HA-6: Obtain and comply with all necessary regulatory agency permits. Policy HA-6-1: Coordinate, as appropriate, with regulatory agencies on Master Plan projects. Policy HA-6-2: Consistent with federal, state, and local regulations, impacts to existing habitat will be avoided if possible. Minimization and mitigation of any unavoidable impacts will be required.
17 USFWS, 2016, Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain: Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine); Lasthenia burkei (Burke’s goldfields); Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam); California Tiger Salamander Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (Ambystoma californiense). Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-10 OCTOBER 2024
Objective HA-7: Use the “best available science” when planning and implementing a creek project. Policy HA-7-1: Consult with knowledgeable experts as appropriate, including natural resources agency staff and other jurisdictions or organizations that have successfully completed similar projects.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing biological conditions in the EIR Study Area, which includes habitat types, special-status plant and animal species, sensitive habitats, and wildlife corridors.
Habitat Types
The EIR Study Area occupies the broad Santa Rosa Plain (also called Llano de Santa Rosa), bordered by the Laguna de Santa Rosa to the southwest and the foothills of the Mayacamas Mountains to the east. The Santa Rosa Plain is bisected by Santa Rosa Creek, which originates in the Mayacamas Mountains and runs from east to west through the city, draining into the Laguna de Santa Rosa and then the Russian River.
Tributaries of Santa Rosa Creek that also run through or near the city limits include Piner Creek, Brush Creek, and Matanzas Creek, among others.
Most of the EIR Study Area has been extensively altered by past agricultural production and urbanization and now consists of a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century and continuing to today, activities such as livestock grazing, timber operations, clearing and disking for agricultural production, road building, and urban and suburban development have markedly altered the remaining natural communities in the EIR Study Area. Native vegetation has typically been converted to structures, pavement, ornamental landscaping, and ruderal (weedy) cover in urbanized areas, but the riparian corridors that bisect the EIR Study Area and scattered areas of natural habitat continue to support native plants and wildlife, including populations of special-status species in some locations. This includes the vernal pools and surrounding grasslands west and southwest of the city, which are particularly important to a number of special-status species such as CTS; the riparian corridors that traverse urbanized areas; and the eastern upland woodlands and forests in the foothills of the Sonoma Mountains, which also support a number of special-status species and have high habitat value to native wildlife.
Vegetative cover types in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area were mapped as part of the Sonoma County Vegetation Mapping & LIDAR Program, the results of which are shown on Figure 4.4-1, Vegetation Cover.
Table 4.4-1, Estimated Vegetation Cover in the EIR Study Area, lists the various cover types, acreages, and their respective percentage of the 31,555 acres comprising the EIR Study Area. As indicated on Figure
4.4-1 and Table 4.4-1, development occupies an estimated 64.3 percent of the EIR Study Area. Grasslands and herbaceous cover occupy an estimated 15.41 percent, forests and woodlands occupy an estimated
13.51 percent, and agricultural crops an estimated 2.7 percent of the EIR Study Area. Sensitive habitat types such as wetlands, open water, and riparian cover occupy much smaller percentages of the total EIR Study Area, but are of high value because of the available surface water, protective cover, and other characteristics that make them critically important to native plants, fish, and wildlife. The following
4.4.1.2 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-11
paragraphs provide a summary of the various cover types in the EIR Study Area and the plant and animal species typically associated with them.
Urban Development/Ornamental Landscaping
Urban development, ornamental landscaping, and barren areas occupy most of the valley floors and lower eastern foothills in the EIR Study Area. As indicated on Figure 4.4-1, an estimated 20,286 acres or roughly 64 percent of the land cover types in the EIR Study Area are mapped as urban development or barren, which includes impervious surfaces, structures, ornamental landscaping and areas of remnant native vegetation, and locations with no vegetative cover . Most plant species used in landscaping are nonnative ornamentals, consisting of a wide variety of tree, shrub, ground cover, and turf species. Native trees are scattered throughout the established residential neighborhoods and urbanized areas, including specimen coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), valley oaks (Q. lobata), California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and black oak (Quercus kelloggii), among others. Larger ornamental and nonindigenous native species include: Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), American elm (Ulmus americana), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), among many others.
TABLE 4.4-1 ESTIMATED VEGETATION COVER IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Vegetation Cover EIR Study Area (Acres) EIR Study Areas (Percent of Total) Urban Development and Ornamental Landscaping 20,286 64.30% Developed 19,810 62.79%
Urban/Barren 46 0.15%
Nonnative forest 394 1.25%
Nonnative scrub 36 0.11%
Agriculture 853 2.70%
Forest and Woodlands 4,263 13.51%
Hardwood forest and woodland 3,228 10.23%
Conifer forest 659 2.09%
Mixed forest 376 1.19%
Herbaceous/Grasslands 4,865 15.41%
Scrub 146 0.46%
Riparian Forest and Scrub 557 1.77%
Riparian scrub 95 0.30%
Riparian forest 462 1.47%
Aquatic Vegetation/Herbaceous Wetland 307 0.97%
Herbaceous wetland 304 0.96%
Aquatic vegetation 3 0.01%
Open Water 278 0.88%
Combined Total 31,555
Source: Sonoma Vegetation Map, 2017.
Source: Sonoma Veg Map release date 9/21/2017 accessed on 4/5/2023; Basemap by: ESRI. Map produced bt www.digitalmappingsolutions.com 8/5/2024. 0 Scale (Miles)
2 Figure 4.4-1
Vegetation Cover
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
C I TY OF SANTA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS
J
~ i- ·
n'~i -: ... Q! • / :fi
•.,,, Ri
c:.;Ji
~
:c:, ,.., ~t'1r
~ .. ·1,,.i~ ~. i.1'-1 •l!;I a n""o .~~·w-..
I ·,- 'if ~
' ven~
J ~
lie cte f ./
. ~-. 11
'J' .
N
0 I
Miles
Boundaries
Planning Area
I - " Urban Growth Bounda ry
c:J Sphere of Influence
c::J City Limit
Cover Type
1111 Conifer Forest
1111 Hardwood Forest
1111 Mixed Forest
1111 Riparian Forest
1111 Non-native Forest
1111 Shrub
1111 Riparian Shrub
1111 Non-native Shrub
Herbaceous/Grassland
Herbaceous Wetland
.. Aquatic Vegetation
Agriculture
1111 Barren and Sparsely Vegetated
1111 Developed
1111 Water
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-13
Some nonnative ornamental species are considered highly invasive because of their ability to spread and eventually dominate natural areas if unmanaged. Many of these are common in the EIR Study Area in urbanized areas, along riparian corridors, and in hillside open space and remaining undeveloped private lands. These include silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), several species of broom (Genista monspessulana; G. juncea; and Cytisus scoparius), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster spp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Germany ivy (Delairea odorata), English ivy (Hedera helix), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), Himalaya blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), periwinkle (Vinca major), and Tasmanian blue gum. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) has developed a comprehensive database, the Invasive Plant Inventory, which ranks invasive species based on the threat they pose to natural habitat. All of the above species and others known to exist in the vicinity of Santa Rosa are considered to have a high to moderate ranking by Cal-IPC because of their invasive properties and the threat they pose to natural areas.
In general, urbanized areas tend to have low to poor wildlife habitat values due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance.
The diversity of urban wildlife depends on the extent and type of landscaping and remaining open space, as well as the proximity to natural habitat. Trees and shrubs used for landscaping provide nest sites and cover for wildlife adapted to developed areas. Typical native bird species include mourning dove, scrub jay, northern mockingbird, American robin, northern flicker, California towhee, and American kestrel.
Introduced species include rock dove, European starling, house finch, and house sparrow. Urban areas also provide habitat for several species of native mammals such as black-tailed deer, California ground squirrel, raccoon, gray fox, striped skunk, and coyote, as well as the introduced eastern fox squirrel and eastern red fox. Introduced pest species such as Norway rat, house mouse, and Virginia opossum are also abundant in developed areas.
Agricultural Cover
Agricultural lands, including vineyards, orchards, hayfields, and croplands, are fairly abundant in the Santa Rosa Plain west of urban core as indicated on Figure 4.4-1, occupying about 853 acres of the EIR Study Area. Fields, vineyards and orchards tend to be managed to maximize crop production, typically forming monotypic cover bordered by ruderal (weedy) grasslands and scattered shrubs and trees in some locations. Weedy species often grow between rows and along field margins and irrigation ditches. These include field knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), bull mallow (Malva nicaeensis), cheeseweed (M. parviflora), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspelliensis), and Farmer’s foxtail (Hordeum leporinum). The drainage ditches that are physically part of the agricultural fields and orchards support hydrophytic (i.e., water loving) plants, such as cattail (Typha spp.), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), and tall umbrella plant (Cyperus eragrostis).
The upper banks of these ditches tend to be covered with nonnative weedy species.
The value of agricultural crops to wildlife depends on a number of factors, including intensity and frequency of maintenance activities, available cover, and proximity to surface water . While intensive management tends to limit the diversity of wildlife species, agricultural areas may provide valuable habitat linkages for transient mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Numerous species of small mammals and birds frequent many of the crop types, especially where field margins and drainage ditches provide retreat habitat. These include ring-necked pheasant, red-winged blackbird, American crow, European starling, SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-14 OCTOBER 2024
house finch, California ground squirrel, Botta pocket gopher, meadow voles, black-tailed jackrabbit, and racoon. The abundant insect populations attract several species of bat, including the California myotis, Mexican free-tailed bat, big brown bat, and western red bat. The abundant prey attracts predatory birds and mammals such as northern harrier, American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, foxes, feral cats, and coyote.
Forest and Woodlands
Forest and woodlands occupy an estimated 4,263 acres or roughly 14 percent of the land cover types in the EIR Study Area. As summarized in Table 4.4-1, this includes areas of oak woodland dominated by coast live oak and other oak species, coniferous forest dominated by conifers, and mixed forest dominated by a mixture of hardwoods and conifers. As indicated on Figure 4.4-1, oak woodlands form the dominant native cover on the undeveloped hillsides around Taylor Mountain, Bennett Mountain, and the Fountaingrove area, with forest cover extending over higher elevations with steep slopes and drainages.
Dominant tree species vary and include: coast live oak, valley oak, canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), interior oak (Q. wislizenii) blue oak (Q. douglasii), Oregon white oak (Q. garryana), black oak, California bay laurel, and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Other tree and shrub species found in the forest and woodland habitats include: madrone, California buckeye, toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and hazelnut (Corylus cornuta ssp. californica), among others. Understory cover varies depending on the amount of available sunlight and other factors. Where dense canopy is present, understory species in areas of forest cover are generally sparse, but do include sword fern (Polystichum munitum), redwood sorrel (Oxalis oregano), and creeping snowberry (Symphoricarpos mollis). In areas with higher light levels, the understory consists of nonnative grassland species, miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), bedstraw (Galium aparine) and other herbaceous species. Highly invasive broom has spread through much of the understory of the forest and woodlands in the EIR Study Area, inhibiting foraging opportunities for wildlife and displacing native shrub and groundcover plant species.
Much of the areas mapped as forest and woodland in the EIR Study Area have been developed with residential uses, preserving a broken canopy of mature trees interspersed with structures and ornamental landscaping, much of which was severely affected during the Tubbs Fire in the fall of 2017.
The existing mature forests and woodlands provide important habitat for wildlife, even where affected by past fires, invasive species, and other factors. They provide nesting and foraging opportunities for numerous species of birds, including raptors. They also provide essential food resources for eastern fox squirrels, native grey squirrels, acorn woodpeckers, scrub jay, and other birds. Wildlife commonly associated with well-developed forest and woodland habitats include: dusky-footed woodrat, deer mouse, western flycatcher, chestnut-backed chickadee, plain titmouse, Hutton vireo, orange-crowned kinglet, rufous-sided towhee, fox sparrow, bushtit, ringneck snake, California newt, California slender salamander, and several species of native bats. Predatory species such as gray fox, coyote, bobcat, and mountain lion utilize these habitats, together with adjacent areas of remaining grassland, scrub, and even developed yards where prey is available and access is possible. Wildlife in the understory of the remaining forest and woodland varies depending on cover type and extent of development. In areas of mature woodland and coniferous forests the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), a federally threatened species, has been reported from some locations at the eastern edges of the EIR Study Area.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-15
While most forests and woodlands are not considered to have a high priority for mapping and protection as a sensitive natural community type by the CNDDB, they should be recognized as an important habitat type due to their relatively high wildlife habitat value, continued threats due to further tree removal associated with development, and their vulnerability to the effects of fire and Sudden Oak Death (SOD).
Tanoaks (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) and coast live oaks are dying in large numbers in Sonoma County, and other species are suspected hosts or potential carriers of the fungus suspected to cause oak mortality. This fungus, a species of Phytophthora, and several beetle species are consistently associated with the dying oaks. SOD is contributing to significant changes in vegetative cover over large parts of Sonoma County, altering habitat for woodland-dependent species and exacerbating hazardous fire conditions where wildlands interface with developed areas.
Grasslands
Grasslands occupy an estimated 4,865 acres or about 15 percent of the cover in the EIR Study Area, primarily on the lower slopes of Taylor Mountain and in the open fields in the southwest along the fringe of the Laguna de Santa Rosa. The grasslands are generally composed of introduced grasses and broadleaf species, although some remnant stands of native grasslands remain in the EIR Study Area and are considered a sensitive natural community type by the CNDDB. Intensive grazing and other disturbance factors have eliminated most of the native grasslands throughout California over the past 150 years, including the historic rangelands of the Santa Rosa vicinity. Common species in the grasslands today include: wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus mollis), and foxtail barley (Hordeum leporinum), In locations where the ground surface has been disturbed, ruderal species, which quickly recolonize disturbed areas, tend to dominate, including field mustard (Brassica campestris), wild radish (Rhaphanus sativus), bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), and yellow-star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). The remaining native species are common perennials, such as California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), Douglas' lupine (Lupinus nanus), and soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum).
Remnant native grasslands have been reported by the CNDDB from Taylor Mountain and may occur in other locations mapped as annual grassland, forming stands of needlegrass grasslands. This natural community is characterized by several species of native grasses such as purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), California melic (Melica californica), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), and beardless wildrye (Elymus triticoides), together with common wildflowers such as California poppy, lupines, soap plant, wild hyacinth (Dichelostemma pulchellum), and other native forbs. Most of the native grasslands throughout the state have been eliminated, which has led the CNDDB to now recognize native grasslands as a sensitive resource with a high inventory priority. The CNDDB typically considers grasslands containing 10 percent or greater cover by native grass species to represent a natural grassland community. This 10 percent threshold is a loosely applied standard that has been used by the state for many years. As most of the remaining native grassland communities have been highly modified by past and ongoing disturbance, the remaining native grassland communities generally form a mosaic of different cover classes, sometimes interspersed with areas dominated by nonnative species.
Nonnative and native grasslands support a variety of mammals, birds, and reptiles and provide foraging habitat for raptors. Many species use the grassland for only part of their habitat requirements, foraging in the grassland and seeking cover in the limited tree and scrub cover . Grassland cover provides foraging, SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-16 OCTOBER 2024
nesting, and denning opportunities for resident species such as western fence lizard, northern alligator lizard, gopher snake, western meadowlark, goldfinch, ring-necked pheasant, red-winged blackbird, California ground squirrel, California vole, Botta pocket gopher, black-tailed jackrabbit, and black-tailed d e e r. The rodent, bird, and reptile populations offer foraging opportunities for avian predators such as black-shouldered kite, northern harrier, American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, barn owl, and great horned owl, as well as mammalian predators such as striped skunk, grey fox, and coyote.
Riparian Woodland and Scrub
Riparian vegetation occurs along Santa Rosa Creek and tributary drainages that pass through the EIR Study Area, with trees and shrubs often forming stands characteristic of riparian forest and willow scrub natural communities, occupying an estimated 557 acres, as indicated in Table 4.4-1. Santa Rosa Creek drains approximately 78.6 square miles and is a 22-mile-long tributary to the Laguna de Santa Rosa. Major tributaries to Santa Rosa Creek include Brush Creek, Matanzas Creek, and Piner Creek, and smaller tributaries include Paulin Creek, Spring Creek, Ducker Creek and Austin Creek. Dominant cover in locations with well-developed riparian cover includes willows (Salix spp.), valley oak, coast live oak, California bay laurel, and California buckeye, together with shrub and vine species such as California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), wild grape (Vitis californica), and wild rose (Rosa californica). Stands of highly invasive nonnative species such as Himalaya blackberry, ivy, arundo (Arundo donax), periwinkle, and broom have become particularly problematic in some reaches of the riparian corridors in the EIR Study Area, outcompeting and replacing native shrub and groundcover species, and severely limiting wildlife habitat values.
Surface water along riparian corridors is available for aquatic-dependent organisms and as a source of drinking water for terrestrial mammals and birds. The creek channels serve as movement corridors for aquatic and terrestrial species which use the protective cover found along the creeks. Animal species associated with stream habitat include river otter, great blue heron, snowy egret, belted kingfisher, dark- eyed junco, and black phoebe. Channelized reaches of streams that lack shade canopy, habitat diversity, and water depth encourage warm water species such as California roach, Sacramento sucker, bluegill, green sunfish, mosquitofish, flathead minnow, common carp, and three-spined stickleback.
More natural creek reaches typically have increased shade canopies, pool habitat, cover, water velocity, channel slope, and cooler temperatures. These conditions make the creeks more hospitable for special- status aquatic species such as steelhead trout (Oncoryhynchus mykiss), Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), Russian River tule perch (Hysterocarpus traskii), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica), and northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata marmorata). Steelhead are known from Santa Rosa Creek, Rincon Creek, and the south fork of Santa Rosa Creek. Chinook salmon have been observed in Santa Rosa Creek. Several streams in the EIR Study Area could support salmonids if fish passage impediments are removed, including Matanzas, Austin, Rincon, Brush, Ducker, Piner, Paulin, and the upper reaches of Santa Rosa Creek. Wildlife dependent on the cover provided by the riparian woodland and scrub include black-tailed deer, black-tailed jackrabbit, brush rabbit, red and grey fox, rufous-sided towhee, scrub jay, flycatchers, and warblers. Mammals and birds typically found in the remaining adjacent grasslands most likely use areas of dense riparian growth as protective cover and refuge from summer heat and drought.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-17
Freshwater Marsh and Seasonal Wetlands
Freshwater marsh habitat is also associated with the creeks and drainage channels, ponds and other waterbodies, and in grasslands on the valley floor where seasonal wetlands and vernal pools remain, collectively occupying an estimated 307 acres of the EIR Study Area. Perennial marshlands occur around the margins of ponds, reservoirs, and in some locations along perennial drainages, and are typically dominated by emergent monocots such as narrow-leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia). Seasonal wetlands occur along small drainages, localized depressions, and the lower banks and in sediments that accumulate within creek channels. Where soils do not absorb water readily or are underlain by bedrock or hardpan soils, winter and spring rainfall ponds in shallow depressions known as vernal pools or swales. Much of this seasonal wetland habitat in the EIR Study Area has been converted to agricultural cover and urban uses, and intact vernal pools are considered sensitive habitat by the CDFW because of their rarity.
Vegetation in relatively undisturbed vernal pools and swales is typically characterized by native annual species that are capable of completing their life cycles and producing viable seed in an extremely variable habitat that is ponded at times and dry at others. Common vernal pool and swale plant species in the Santa Rosa Plain include fringed downingia (Downingia concolor), spiny coyote thistle (Eryngium armatum), sedge species (Eleocharis spp.), toad rush (Juncus bufonius), California goldfields (Lasthenia californica), and Douglas’ meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii ssp. douglasii). Special-status plant species found in vernal pools in the Santa Rosa Plain include Sonoma sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri), Burke’s goldfields (Lasthenia burkei), many-flowered navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha), and Sebastopol meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans), among others.
Freshwater aquatic habitats and the associated marsh vegetation are of high value to wildlife, providing a source of drinking water, protective cover, and nesting substrate. Species found in freshwater marsh habitats include: Wilson’s snipe, marsh wren, Samuel’s song sparrow, and red-winged blackbird, Pacific chorus frog, western toad, western pond turtle, western mosquito fish, green sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass. Vernal pools and swales provide seasonal aquatic habitat for invertebrates and tree frogs and are temporary water sources for birds and terrestrial wildlife. They serve as breeding habitat for the threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), which is known from southwestern and western portions of the EIR Study Area. Northern Hardpan Vernal Pools and Northern Vernal Pools are two vernal pool habitats found in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area, both which are considered sensitive communities by the CDFW.
Scrub Cover Types
A number of native and nonnative vegetative cover types occur along the margins or just outside the Planning Area, such as mixed chaparral and coastal scrub. Areas of chaparral and scrub are dominated by woody shrubs such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum), toyon, chamise (Adonostoma fasciculatum), poison oak, manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), ceanothus (Ceanothus sp.), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Coyote brush and other indicator species of scrub cover occupy an estimated 146 acres within the EIR Study Area, as indicated in Table 4.4-1.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-18 OCTOBER 2024
Chaparral and scrub cover provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife adapted to shrub-dominated communities. Numerous rodent species inhabit chaparral, and deer and other herbivores make extensive use of it for browse and protective cover. Some small herbivores use chaparral species in fall and winter when grass is not abundant. Brush rabbits eat twigs, evergreen leaves, and bark from chaparral plants.
Shrubs are important to many other mammals such as bobcat and gray fox as shade during hot weather .
Reptiles frequently observed in chaparral include western rattlesnake, western fence lizard, alligator lizard, and gopher snake. Representative bird species include: California quail, common poorwill, Anna’s hummingbird, western scrub-jay, bushtit, Bewick’s wren, California thrasher, rufous-crowned sparrow, and sage sparrow.
Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors link together areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or by areas of human disturbance or urban development.
Topography and other natural factors in combination with urbanization can fragment or separate large open-space areas. The fragmentation of natural habitat creates isolated “islands” that may not provide sufficient area to accommodate sustainable populations of animals or plants and can adversely impact genetic and species diversity. Movement corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, which in turn allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic exchange between separate populations.
As described above, much of the EIR Study Area has been developed with agricultural crops and urban uses, which disrupt opportunities for wildlife movement. However, natural linkages remain along riparian corridors; in the largely undeveloped lands of the forest and woodland habitats of the Mayacamas Mountains to the east; and the remaining riparian, marshland, and grasslands along the Laguna de Santa Rosa to the southwest.
Special-Status Species
Special-status species are defined as plants and animals legally protected under the State and/or federal Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA) or other regulations, as discussed in Section 4.4.1.1, Regulatory Framework. Special-status species also include species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or den locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under FESA and CESA often represent major constraints to development, particularly when they are wide-ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a “take” of these species. For the purposes of this EIR, special-status species are defined as follows:
Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal FESA.
Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under CESA.
Plant species with a Rank of 1A, 1B and 2 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Animal species designated as “Species of Special Concern” or “Fully Protected” by the CDFW.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-19
Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines.
Species considered to be a taxon of special concern by the relevant local agencies.
The CNDDB is California’s primary inventory on the distribution of special-status species and is maintained by the Biogeographic Data Branch of the CDFW. The CNDDB inventory provides the most comprehensive statewide information on the location and distribution of special-status species and sensitive natural communities. Occurrence data is obtained from a variety of scientific, academic, and professional organizations and private consulting firms and is entered into the inventory as expeditiously as possible.
The occurrence of a species of concern in a particular region is an indication that an additional population may occur at another location if habitat conditions are suitable. However, the absence of an occurrence in a particular location does not necessarily mean that special-status species are absent from the area in question, it only indicates that no data has been entered into the CNDDB inventory. Detailed field surveys are generally required to provide a conclusive determination on presence or absence of sensitive resources from a particular location, where there is evidence of potential occurrence.
Special-Status Plants
Review of the CNDDB and CNPS occurrence records indicates a total of 69 special-status plant species reported within or in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area. Of these, occurrence records of 19 special-status plant species actually extend over the EIR Study Area, as indicated on Figure 4.4-2, Special-Status Plants and Sensitive Natural Communities. Table 4.4-2, Special-Status Plant Species in the EIR Study Area, lists each of these 69 special-status plant species and summarizes their typical habitat characteristics, normal flowering season, and potential for occurrence in the EIR Study Area.
Of the special-status plant species known from the EIR Study Area, most are associated with the vernal pools and seasonal wetland habitat of the Santa Rosa Plain. Four of them—Sonoma sunshine, Burke’s goldfields, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and many-flowered navarretia—are federally and state-listed as endangered with occurrences throughout the western portion of the EIR Study Area, as indicated on Figure 4.4-2. Sonoma alopecurus (Alopecurus aequalis) and two-fork or showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum) are both federally listed endangered. Several others are believed to have been extirpated from the Santa Rosa Plain or have no legal protective status under the ESAs but have a CNPS Rank of 1B (rare and endangered in California and elsewhere) or 2 (plants rare and endangered in California but more common elsewhere). These include dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla), Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri), saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum), and the state-listed rare North Coast semaphore grass.
Many of the other occurrences of special-status plant species known from the EIR Study Area are populations of ceanothus, a perennial shrub which occurs in scrub, chaparral, and forest habitat to the north and southeast. These include: Rincon Ridge ceanothus (Ceanothus confusius), Sonoma ceanothus (Ceanothus sonomensis), and Calistoga ceanothus (Ceanothus divergens). None of these species has any legal protective status under the ESAs, but all have a CNPS Rank of 1B, which warrants consideration as part of any environmental review when a proposed project may impact their populations.
Source: California Natural Diversity Database release date 4/1/2023 accessed on 4/6/2023; Basemap by: ESRI. Map produced bt www.digitalmappingsolutions.com 8/5/2024. 0 Scale (Miles)
2 Figure 4.4-2
Special-Status Plants and Sensitive Natural Communities
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
C I TY OF SANTA ROSA
Grat on
gl
ii! Bg
Bg
Sm
·~·½'@ D l
A~ro
f I , t,,
~t1l;i,-
Cs ol~ _ , m I Counlrv Ci.lb ·S
Bg, • ~
•f' Bg--, Sme S
·\ sci
He :;; "' Sm
o-lv ·
S ff;_!Ppo1-
i■ ,Ave..l ••
Ss
ff ''"" ..,,'Id Sm
.. ,:;
'E
t
TAYLO ob•·· t..: IN - -Su
Northern Hardpan
SnYernal Pool
s11-i
~
' (<':)
:,,' .. ~mor,t J
UotlClul
c:<:c
r..,
•~r1 "· Cc ..::. ay
n-ao
VA LL E Y
;"•ntu c,._.,
W• IC,c,ut
q,'\
1-
0,
Cc
Sc J3~j
S Cc a,
! ,.
Boundaries
c::I Citylimit
Planning Area
CJ Sphere of Influe nce
.-_ .. Urban Growth Boundary
Special-Status Plants/Sensitive Communities
c:] Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool Sensitive Natural Community CJ CNDDB Plant Occurrences
Species Names and Acronyms
Baker's goldfie lds (Bakg)
Baker's navarretia (Bn)
bent-flowered fiddleneck (b-ff)
big-scale balsamroot (b-sb)
brownish beaked-rush ( bb-r)
Burke's goldfie lds (Bg)
California beaked -rush (Cb-r)
Calistoga ceanothus (Cc)
Clara Hunt's milk-vetch (CHm-v)
coastal triquetrel la (ct)
Colusa layia (Clay)
congested-headed hayfield tarplant (c-hht)
Cunningham Marsh cinquefoil (CMc)
dwarfdowningia (dd)
fragrant friti llary (ff)
Franciscan onion (Fo)
golden larkspur (gl)
holly-leaved ceanothus (h-lc)
Jepson's leptos iphon (JI)
Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom (KMc)
legenere (leg)
many-flowered navarret ia (m-fn)
marsh microseris (mm)
Napa checkerb loom (Ne)
Napa false indigo (Nii)
narrow -anthered brodiaea (n-ab)
North Coast semaphore grass (NCse)
oval- leaved viburnum (o-lv)
pappose tarplant (pt)
Peruvian dodder (Pd)
Rincon Ridge ceanothus (RRc)
round-headed beaked- rush (r-hb-r)
saline dover (sci)
Santa Cruz clover (SCc)
Sebastopol meadowfoam (Sm)
slender silver moss (ssm)
Sonoma alopecurus (Sa)
Sonoma beardtongue (Sb)
Sonoma ceanothus (Sc)
Sonoma spineflowe r (Ssp)
Sonoma sunshine (Ss)
swamp harebell (sh)
th;in-lobed hork elia (t-lh)
two-fork clover (t-fc)
Vine Hill ceanothus (VHc)
Vine Hill clarkia (VHcl)
Vine Hill manzanita (VHm)
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-21
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List
CNPS
Rank General Habitat
Blooming
Period Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area
Allium
peninsulare var.
franciscanum
Franciscan
onion None None 1B.2 Dry valley grasslands and foothill woodlands May - June Low. Historic occurrence from Kenwood area outside EIR Study Area.
Alopecurus
aequalis
Sonoma
alopecurus Endangered None 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (freshwater), riparian scrub May - July Moderate. Known occurrences from
vicinity of EIR Study Area.
Amorpha
californica var.
napensis
Napa false
indigo None None 1B.2 Openings in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland April - July
Moderate. Known occurrences from
forests and woodlands in eastern vicinity
of EIR Study Area.
Amsinckia
lunaris
Bent-flowered
fiddleneck None None 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland
March -
June
Low. Historic occurrence from Oakmont
vicinity of EIR Study Area.
Anomobryum
julaceum
Slender silver
moss None None 4.2 Damp rock and soil on outcrops in broad- leafed upland and coniferous forest Year round Low. Occurrence record from vicinity of Porter Creek outside EIR Study Area.
Arctostaphylos
canescens
ssp.
sonomensis
Sonoma
canescent
manzanita
None None None Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest (sometimes serpentinite)
January -
June
High. Known from Rincon Ridge in EIR
Study Area.
Arctostaphylos
densiflora
Vine hill
manzanita None Endangered 1B.1 Chaparral (acid marine sand) February - April
Moderate. Historic occurrences from
vicinity of EIR Study Area.
Arctostaphylos
stanfordiana
ssp. decumbens
Rincon Ridge
manzanita None None 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland February - March
High. Known from Rincon Ridge in EIR
Study Area.
Astragalus
claranus
Clara Hunt’s
milk vetch Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland
March -
May
Moderate. Known from recent and historic
occurrences in vicinity of EIR Study Area.
Balsamorhiza
macrolepis
Big-scale
balsamroot None None 1B.2 Foothill woodland and valley grassland March - June
Low. No known occurrences reported by
CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Blennosperma
bakeri
Sonoma
sunshine Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic), vernal pools
March -
May
High. Known from vernal pools and
seasonal wetlands in western portion of
EIR Study Area
Brodiaea
californica var.
leptandra
Narrow-
anthered
California
brodiaea
None None 1B.2
Openings in broad-leafed forest, chaparral,
lower montane coniferous forest, valley and
foothill grassland
May - July High. Recent records from foothills in
eastern part of EIR Study Area.
Calamagrostis
crassiglumis
Thurber’s reed
grass None None 2B.1 Coastal scrub (mesic); marshes and swamps (freshwater)
May -
August
Low. Historic occurrence from Pitkin
Marsh but no other records
reported by
CNDDB in vicinity of EIR Study Area.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-22 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List
CNPS
Rank General Habitat
Blooming
Period Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area
Calystegia
collina ssp.
Oxyphylla
Mt. Saint
Helena
morning-glory
None None 4.2 Chaparral on serpentinite April - June Moderate. Known from occurrences to north of EIR Study Area.
Carex albida Sonoma white
sedge Endangered Endangered 1B Freshwater marsh, bogs and fens, meadows and seeps
March -
July
Moderate. Known from Pitkin Marsh and
suitable habitat present in EIR Study Area.
Campanula
californica Swamp harebell None None 1B.2
Bogs and marshes in a variety of habitats,
including coastal prairie,
meadows, and coniferous forests.
June -
October
Moderate. Known from Pitkin Marsh and
suitable habitat present in EIR Study Area.
Castilleja
uliginosa
Pitkin Marsh
Indian
paintbrush
None Endangered 1A Freshwater Wetlands, wetland-riparian June - July Low. Presumed extinct but previously known from Pitkin Marsh.
Ceanothus
confusius
Rincon Ridge
ceanothus None None 1B.1 Chaparral, woodland, closed-cone pine forest
February -
June
High. Numerous occurrences reported by
CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Ceanothus
divergens
Calistoga
ceanothus None None 1B.2 Chaparral (serpentinite or volcanic, rocky) February - April
High. Occurrences reported by CNDDB
from Annadel State Park and elsewhere in
EIR Study Area.
Ceanothus
foliosus var.
vineatus
Vine Hill
ceanothus None None 1B.1 Chaparral, endemic to Sonoma and Mendocino counties
March -
May
Moderate. Known from occurrences at
Vine Hill to west of EIR Study Area.
Ceanothus
purpureus
Holly-leaved
ceanothus None None 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland/volcanic, rocky
March -
May
Moderate. Numerous historic occurrences
reported by CNDDB from vicinity of EIR
Study Area.
Ceanothus
sonomensis
Sonoma
ceanothus None None 1B.2 Chaparral, in serpentine, sandy or volcanic soils
February -
April
Moderate. Numerous historic occurrences
reported by CNDDB from vicinity of EIR
Study Area.
Centromadia
parryi ssp.
parryi
Pappose
tarplant None None 1B.2
Chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows and
seeps, marshes and swamps,
valley and foothill grassland (often alkaline)
April -
November
Low. Known from scattered historic
occurrences reported by CNDDB in
Sonoma County.
Chorizanthe
valida
Sonoma
spineflower Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Coastal prairie (sandy) June - August
Low. Historic occurrences from Sebastopol
vicinity.
Clarkia
imbricata Vine Hill clarkia Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland June - August
Moderate. Known from occurrences at
Vine Hill to west of EIR Study Area.
Cuscuta
obtusiflora var.
glandulosa
Peruvian
dodder None None 2B.2 Marshes and swamps (freshwater) July - October
Low. Historic occurrence from Sebastopol
vicinity.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-23
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List
CNPS
Rank General Habitat
Blooming
Period Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area
Delphinium
luteum Golden larkspur Endangered Rare 1B.1 Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub March - May
Low. Historic occurrences from Sebastopol
vicinity.
Downingia
pusilla
Dwarf
downingia None None 2B.2 Mesic grasslands, vernal pools March - May
High. Known occurrences reported by
CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Erigeron
biolettii
Streamside
daisy None None 3
Broadleafed upland forest, cismontane
woodland, North Coast coniferous
forest
June -
October
Moderate. Numerous occurrences
reported by CNDDB from Mount Hood and
Sugarloaf Ridge southeast of EIR Study
Area.
Erigeron
serpentinus
Serpentine
daisy None None 1B.3 Chaparral (serpentinite, seeps) May - August
Low. No occurrences reported by CNDDB
in vicinity of EIR Study Area.
Eryngium
constancei
Loch Lomond
button-celery Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Vernal pools April - June Low. Known from Calistoga vicinity.
Eryngium
pinnatisectum
Tuolumne
button-celery None None 1B.2 vernal-pools in forest and woodlands, wetland-riparian
May -
August
Low. Historic occurrence from Calistoga
vicinity.
Fritillaria
liliacea
Fragrant
fritillary None None 1B.2
Often serpentinite; cismontane woodland,
coastal prairie, coastal scrub; valley and
foothill grassland
February -
April
High. Numerous occurrences reported by
CNDDB from Annadel State Park and
elsewhere in vicinity of EIR Study Area.
Gilia capitata
ssp. tomentosa
Wooly-headed
gilia None None 1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub and valley grasslands
(rocky outcrops and serpentine)
May - July Low. No known occurrences reported by
CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Hemizonia
congesta ssp.
congesta
Congested-
headed hayfield
tarplant
None None 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland, sometimes roadsides
April -
November
High. Numerous historic and recent
occurrences reported by
CNDDB in EIR
Study Area.
Horkelia
tenuiloba
Thin-lobed
horkelia None None 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, grasslands on sandy soils, mesic openings May - July Moderate. Numerous historic occurrences reported by CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Lasthenia
californica ssp.
bakeri
Baker’s
goldfields None None 1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest (openings),
coastal scrub, meadows and
seeps, marshes and swamps
April -
October
Moderate. Historic occurrence reported
from the Sebastopol vicinity.
Lasthenia burkei Burke’s
goldfields Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Vernal pools and swales April - June High. Known from vernal pools and
seasonal wetlands in western portion of
EIR Study Area.
Lasthenia
conjugens
Contra Costa
goldfield Endangered None 1B.1 Freshwater wetlands, valley grassland, wetland-riparian
March -
June Low. Reported from Petaluma vicinity.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-24 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List
CNPS
Rank General Habitat
Blooming
Period Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area
Layia
septentrionalis Colusa layia None None 1B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and
foothill grassland/sandy
serpentinite
April - May
High. Recent occurrence reported by
CNDDB from EIR Study Area in
Fountaingrove area.
Legenere limosa Legenere None None 1B.1 Vernal pools in valley grassland, wetland- riparian April - June Moderate. Historic occurrences reported from Santa Rosa vicinity in EIR Study Area.
Leptosiphon
jepsonii=
Linanthus
jepsonii
Jepson’s
leptosiphon =
Jepson’s
linanthus
None None 1B.2
Openings in chaparral, cismontane
woodland (usually volcanic or periphery
of serpentinite)
March -
May
High. Historic and recent occurrences
reported from Santa Rosa vicinity in EIR
Study Area.
Lessingia
hololeuca
Wooly-headed
lessingia None None 3
Broad-leafed upland forest, coastal scrub,
lower montane coniferous forest,
valley and foothill grassland
June -
October
Moderate. Historic occurrences reported
by CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Lilium
pardalinum ssp.
pitkinense
Pitkin Marsh lily Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Freshwater wetlands, ffoothill woodland, wetland-riparian June - July Low. Known from Pitkin Marsh to west of EIR Study Area.
Limnanthes
vinculans
Sebastopol
meadowfoam Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools April - May High. Known from vernal pools in EIR Study Area.
Lupinus
sericatus
Cobb Mountain
lupine None None 1B.2 Openings in forest, woodland, and chaparral March - June
Low. No known occurrences reported by
CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Micropus
amphibolus
Mt. Diablo
cottonweed None None 3.2
Broad-leafed upland forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and valley and
foothill grassland
March -
May
High. Numerous recent occurrences
reported by CNDDB in EIR Study Area from
Fountaingrove and Annadel State Park.
Microseris
paludosa
Marsh
microseris None None 1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland
April - June Moderate. Numerous historic occurrences
reported by CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Navarretia
leucocephala
ssp.
bakeri
Baker’s
navarretia None None 1B.1 Vernal pools and swales in grassland, woodland, wetland-riparian April - July
High. Numerous historic and recent
occurrences reported by CNDDB in EIR
Study Area.
Navarretia
leucocephala
ssp. plieantha
Many-flowered
navarretia Endangered Endangered 1B.2 Freshwater wetlands, yellow pine forest, wetland-riparian April - June
Moderate. Known from vernal pools along
Laguna de Santa Rosa just west of EIR
Study Area.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-25
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List
CNPS
Rank General Habitat
Blooming
Period Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area
Penstemon
newberryi var.
sonomensis
Sonoma
beardtongue None None 1B.3 Chaparral April -
August
Low. Several occurrences reported by
CNDDB from Hood Mountain area to the
southwest of EIR Study Area.
Perideridia
gairdneri ssp.
gairdneri
Gairdner’s
yampah None None 4.2 Moist places in grasslands and woodlands June - October
Moderate. Historic and recent occurrences
from Annadel State Park and wetlands to
the west of the EIR Study Area.
Plagiobothrys
strictus
Calistoga
popcorn-flower Endangered Threatened 1B.1
Meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grasslands, and vernal pools/alkaline areas
near thermal springs
March -
June Low. Known from Calistoga vicinity.
Pleuropogon
hooverianus
North Coast
semaphore
grass
None Threatened 1B.1
Wet grassy, usually shady areas, sometimes
in freshwater marsh, associated with forest
environments
April - June
Moderate. Reported by CNDDB from
vernal pools along Laguna de Santa Rosa
and Sonoma Mountain.
Poa napensis Napa blue grass Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Occurs in wetlands in valley grassland, wetland-riparian
May -
August Low. Known from Calistoga vicinity.
Potentilla
uliginosa
Cunningham
M
arsh
cinquefoil
None None 1A Marshes and swamps (freshwater) May -
August
Low. Presumed extinct. Type locality from
Cunningham Marsh.
Ranunculus
lobbii
Lobb’s aquatic
buttercup None None 4.2 Shallow vernal ponds at low elevations in grasslands, woodlands and forests
February -
May
High. Numerous occurrences reported by
CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Rhynchospora
alba
White beaked-
rush None None 2B.2 Bogs and fens, meadows and seeps,
marshes and swamps
July -
August
Moderate. Known from Pitkin Marsh to
west of EIR Study Area.
Rhynchospora
californica
California
beaked-rush None None 1B.1
Bogs, ferns, marshes, swamps, meadows
and seeps, lower montane
conifer forest
July -
August
Low. Historic occurrences reported by
CNDDB to west of EIR Study Area.
Rhynchospora
capitellata
Brownish
beaked-rush None None 2.2
Lower montane coniferous forest, meadows
and seeps, marshes and
swamps, and upper montane coniferous
forest
July -
August
Low. Historic occurrences reported by
CNDDB to west of EIR Study Area.
Rhynchospora
globularis
Round-headed
beaked-rush None None 2.B1 Marshes and swamps July -
August
Low. Historic occurrences reported by
CNDDB to west of EIR Study Area.
Sidalcea
hickmanii ssp.
napensis
Napa
checkerbloom None None 1B.1 Chaparral on rocky rhyolitic volcanic soil April - June Low. No known occurrences reported by CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-26 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List
CNPS
Rank General Habitat
Blooming
Period Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area
Sidalcea
hickmanii ssp.
Viridis
Marin
checkerbloom None None 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland; lower montane coniferous forest May - June Low. No known occurrences reported by CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Sidalcea
oregana ssp.
valida
Kenwood marsh
checkerbloom Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Freshwater wetlands, wetland-riparian June - September
Moderate. Known from Kenwood Marsh
just southeast of EIR Study Area.
Trifolium
amoenum Two-fork clover Endangered None 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill grassland, sometimes on serpentinite April - June Low. No known occurrences reported by CNDDB in EIR Study Area.
Trifolium
buckwestiorum
Santa Cruz
clover None None 1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest, cismontane woodland. coastal prairie
April -
October
Low. Vague occurrence reported by
CNDDB from Santa Rosa area, but no
known occurrences in EIR Study Area.
Trifolium
hydrophilum Saline clover None None 1B.2 Marshes and swamps; valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline); vernal pools April - June
High. Known occurrences reported by
CNDDB in the southern portion of EIR
Study Area.
Triquetrella
californica
Coastal
triquetrella None None 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub Year round High. Known occurrences reported by
CNDDB in the southeastern portion of EIR
Study Area at Howarth Park.
Viburnum
ellipticum
Oval-leaved
viburnum None None 2B.3
Openings in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest
May - June
Low. Several occurrences reported by
CNDDB from Hood Mountain area to the
southwest of EIR Study Area.
Notes:
Agencies
USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CNPS = California Native Plant Society
CNPS California Rare Plant Rank
1A: Plants presumed extinct in California.
1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2: Plants rare and endangered in California but more common elsewhere. 3: Plants about which additional data are needed – a review list. 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
Sources: California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-inventory-of-rare-plants; Calflora, on-line inventory at https://www.calflora.org; and California Natural Diversity Database Inventory, accessed June 13, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-27
Existing development limits the likelihood of continued occurrences of populations of special-status plant species in urbanized parts of the EIR Study Area. Many of the special-status plant species occurrences in the protected preserves, open space areas and undeveloped lands at the fringe of the EIR Study Area shown on Figure 4.4-2 most like remain today but are vulnerable to changes such as competition with invasive species, vegetation management, fires and other threats. There remains a possibility that additional populations of one or more species occurs on the remaining undeveloped lands in the EIR Study Area, and detailed systematic surveys would be necessary to confirm presence or absence as part of the environmental review of proposed development applications where suitable habitat is present.
Special-Status Animals
A total of 55 special-status animal species have been recorded or are considered to potentially occur in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area, as listed in Table 4.4-3, Special-Status Animal Species in the EIR Study Area, which includes animal species that may occur within or adjacent to the EIR Study Area, along with their listed status, general habitat characteristics, and their likelihood of occurrence in the EIR Study Area.
A total of 15 of these occurrences of special-status animal species have actually been reported by the CNDDB within the EIR Study Area. These include: CTS, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), California giant salamander (Dicampton ensatus),western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), steelhead, coho salmon, Chinook salmon, obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus), Blemnosperma vernal pool andrenid bee (Andrena blennospermatis), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). Most of the species listed in Table
4.4-3 that are not State and/or federally listed species are not closely monitored by the CNDDB and therefore occurrence records are not generally included in the database. These include species identified as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW.
Federally designated critical habitat for five special-status animal species occurs within or near the EIR Study Area, as shown on Figure 4.4-3, Special-Status Animals and Critical Habitats. This consists of designated critical habitat for CTS, California red-legged frog, northern spotted owl, steelhead, and coho salmon. Critical habitat is a specific term and designation under FESA. It serves to identify habitat considered essential to the conservation of a listed species, though the area need not actually be occupied by the species at the time it is designated. Designating an area as critical habitat does not preclude that area from possible future development. It affects federal agency actions such as federally funded programs or applications requiring a federal permit such as permit authorization from the USACE under the Clean Water Act.
For many of the special-status animal species known from Sonoma County, habitat suitability is severely limited by the direct and indirect effects of development. These include the direct loss of habitat as a result of conversion to urban uses, effects of ongoing habitat modifications due to vegetation management and agricultural practices, and indirect effects such as non-point discharge into aquatic habitat and recreational activities on open space lands. Habitat fragmentation is an important consideration in evaluating the recovery of listed species and the viability of natural communities as a whole. Identification and protection of essential habitat for special-status species must be recognized during the environmental review of proposed development applications and in planning future open SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-28 OCTOBER 2024
space acquisitions. Detailed surveys should be conducted for sites where there is a potential for occurrence of special-status animal species.
A number of special-status species known from Sonoma County and the Santa Rosa vicinity are wide ranging and are the focus of management efforts by trustee agencies. Listed species of particular concern include: CTS, California red-legged frog, coho salmon, steelhead trout, Chinook salmon, and northern spotted owl. Western pond turtle has no legal protective status under the ESAs, but has been reported throughout the EIR Study Area, as indicated on Figure 4.4-3. The following provides a summary of relevant management issues for each of these species.
Coho Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Chinook Salmon
Coho salmon, steelhead trout, and Chinook salmon are all listed as threatened under the federal ESA, and all are anadromous, spawning in coastal streams and rivers and then migrating to and maturing in the ocean. Timber harvest activities, overgrazing, gravel mining operations, channel modifications and removal of riparian vegetation, flood control facilities, hydroelectric facilities, and secondary water quality degradation have all contributed to a decline of these species. Coho and steelhead are native species of the county, which is part of the Central California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) defined as part of species listings. The Russian River and some tributary drainages such as the lower reach of Mark West Creek are part of the California Coastal ESU for Chinook salmon. As indicated on Figure 4.4-3, a number of creeks in or near the EIR Study Area have been designated critical habitat for steelhead and Chinook salmon. Where a record of Chinook or steelhead has been reported from a stream, the entire drainage has been indicated by the CNDDB as supporting the species, although habitat conditions have sometimes not been confirmed in the field.
Sonoma County participated in the FishNet 4C program, which is a county-based, regional salmonid protection and restoration program created under a Memorandum of Agreement between six central California coastal counties: Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma. FishNet 4C recognizes the need for these counties to meet the requirements of the ESA in protecting anadromous salmonids and their habitats. Given these requirements, a prime objective of the FishNet 4C program was to evaluate the land management practices of each county and any written policies related to protecting salmonid populations, and to make recommendations for improving these practices and policies.
Subsequent programs for salmonid restoration included the work of Russian River Coho Water Resources Partnership (Coho Partnership). The Coho Partnership prioritized water management planning and water storage projects with the goal of allowing people to meet water needs in ways that improve stream conditions for coho salmon. Key conservation strategies also included augmenting, monitoring, and evaluating coho populations, some of which continues today as part of the work Sonoma Water is undertaking as restoration on Dry Creek and monitoring at Mirabel Dam on the Russian River.
Source: California Natural Diversity Database release date 4/1/2023 accessed on 4/6/2023; USFWS critical hatitat data release dare 3/23/2023 accessed on 4/6/2023; Basemap by: ESRI. Map produced bt www.digitalmappingsolutions.com 8/5/2024. 0 Scale (Miles)
2 Figure 4.4-3
Special-Status Animals and Critical Habitats
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
C I TY OF SANTA ROSA
1 Graton
' \
~
ii ! '----~~ -7
... . r • "'"-
.. .,.
,.
\
i
wpt
/~ F
&
•
Cr-If
0 ,,
.. .. ..
Boundaries
Planning Area
I - " Urban Growth Boundary
c:::J Sphere of Influence
c::::J City Limit
Wetland Types
1111 Freshwater Emergent Wetland
1111 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
1111 Freshwater Pond
1111 Lake
1111 Other
1111 Riverine
6 N
0 I Miles
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-30 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.4-3 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List CDFW General Habitat Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area Fish
Hysterocarpus
traskii pomo
Russian River tule
perch None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Subspecies confined to Russian River drainage.
Requires clear, flowing water and abundant
cover
Low. Known from Russian River and tributary
drainages, possibly including Santa Rosa Creek
and possibly lower reach of Mark West Creek.
Lampetra ayresi River lamprey None None None
Clean gravelly riffle necessary for spawning;
ammocoetes require sandy
stream edges or
backwaters
Low. Presumably occupies lower reach of
Russian River.
Hesperoleucus
venustus
navarroensis a
Northern Coastal
roach None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Slow, warm reaches of streams, in Russian
River and Navarro River drainages
Low. Prefers estuarian conditions near mouth
of Russian River.
Oncorhynchus
kisutch
Coho salmon
(Central California
Coast ESU)
Endangered Endangered None
Coastal streams from Punta Gorda in northern
California down to and including the San
Lorenzo River in central California, as well as
some tributaries to San Francisco Bay
High. Known to occur in Mark West Creek and
tributary drainages at northern edge of EIR
Study Area.
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
pop. 17
Chinook salmon
(California Coastal
ESU)
Threatened None None
Requires clear, cool streams with pools and
riffles, with coarse gravel beds for spawning.
Sacramento River and its tributaries
High. Known to occur in Mark West Creek and
tributary drainages at northern edge of EIR
Study Area.
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 8
Steelhead (Central
California Coast
ESU)
Threatened None None
Coastal streams from Russian River south to
Aptos Creek (Santa Cruz Co.), including streams
tributary to San Francisco and San Pablo Bays
High. Known to occur in Mark West Creek and
tributary drainages at northern edge of EIR
Study Area.
Amphibians and Reptiles
Ambystoma
californiense
pop. 3
California tiger
salamander -
Sonoma
County DPS
Endangered Threatened None
Breed in stock ponds, vernal pools, and slow-
moving streams Retreats to aestivations habitat
in summer and winter, occupying mammal
burrows and other refugia
Moderate. Known throughout the western and
southern portions of EIR Study Area where
breeding and aestivation habitat remains and
designated critical habitat is present.
Rana boylii pop.
1 Foothill yellow-
legged frog - north
coast DPS
None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Perennial streams and drainages with cobble
substrate
Moderate. CNDDB occurrences to the north
and south of EIR Study Area.
Rana draytonii California red-
legged frog Threatened None
Species of
Special
Concern
Ponds, streams, drainages and associated
uplands; requires areas of deep, still, and/or
slow-moving water for breeding
Moderate. CNDDB occurrences from Annadel
State Park, Taylor Mountain and other
locations just outside EIR Study
Area with
designated critical habitat extending over a
portion of Annadel State Park and Sonoma
Mountains to the south.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-31
TABLE 4.4-3 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List CDFW General Habitat Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area Taricha rivularis Red-bellied newt None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Found along coast from Bodega in Sonoma
County, inland to Lower Lake, and north to
Honeydew, Humboldt County in coastal
woodlands, especially in redwood forests
Moderate. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present. CNDDB occurrences
from drainages in Mayacamas Mountains to
east of EIR Study Area.
Dicampton
ensatus
California giant
salamander None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Ponds, streams, drainages and associated
uplands; prefers fast moving water in coastal
forests and valley-foothill riparian habitats with
cover
Moderate. CNDDB occurrence from
drainages along Hood Mountain and upper
Mark West Creek watershed to east and north
of EIR Study Area.
Actinemys
marmorata
Western pond
turtle None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Ponds, streams with deep pools, drainages and
associated uplands for egg laying
High. Numerous CNDDB occurrences
throughout EIR Study Area.
Invertebrates
Andrena
blennospermatis
Vernal pool
andrenid bee None None None Upland areas near vernal pools High. CNDDB occurrences from vernal pools at western edge of EIR Study Area.
Bombus
caliginosus
Obscure bumble
bee None None None Coastal areas from Santa Barbara County to Washington
Low. Historic occurrence reported by CNDDB
from EIR Study
Area but most occurrences now
reported from coastal areas.
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee None Candidate None
Found in a variety of habitats. Once common
and widespread. Species has declined
precipitously, perhaps from disease
Low. Substantial decline in the northern part of
its range and is now believed to be possibly
extirpated from Santa Rosa vicinity.
Bombus
occidentalis
Western bumble
bee None Candidate None
Found in a variety of habitats. Once common
and widespread. Species has declined
precipitously, perhaps from disease
Low. Considerable range contraction and now
considered confined to higher elevations of
Sierra Nevada and portions of North Coast of
California.
Caecidotea
tomalensis Tomales isopod None None None
Prefers practically still to slow-moving,
vegetated water, such as from springfed
ponds
Low. Known from scattered occurrences in
Sonoma County, including along the coast and
south of Santa Rosa vicinity.
Hydrochara
rickseckeri
Ricksecker’s water
scavenger
beetle
None None None Found in freshwater ponds, shallow water of streams marshes and lakes
Moderate. General occurrence reported by
CNDDB from Sonoma Mountain and may occur
where suitable habitat is present.
Hydroporus
leechi
Leech’s skyline
diving beetle None None None Shallow water in vernal pools and ponds Moderate. Known occurrence reported by
CNDDB from Annadel State Park and may
occur where suitable habitat is present.
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella None None None Vernal pools, seasonal wetlands Moderate. No occurrences reported by CNDDB
in Santa Rosa vicinity, but suitable habitat is
present in Santa Rosa Plain.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-32 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.4-3 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List CDFW General Habitat Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area Syncaris pacifica California
freshwater shrimp Endangered Endangered None
Found in low-elevation, low gradient perennial
freshwater streams where banks are
structurally diverse with undercut banks,
exposed roots, or overhanging woody debris or
vegetation
Low. No known occurrences reported by the
CNDDB in EIR Study Area but reported from
Laguna de Santa Rosa, Blucher Creek and
Sonoma Creek.
Birds
Pelecanus
erythrorhynchos
American white
pelican None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Forages over shallow inland waters and coastal
marine habitats, nests on isolated islands or
peninsulas
Moderate. May forage and roost in the open
water habitat of larger water bodies b
ut does
not breed in San Francisco Bay Area.
Ardea alba Great egret (nesting
colony) None None None
Relatively common species, found foraging in a
variety of aquatic habitats including shorelines
of lakes, ponds, and drainages. Colonial nesting
areas are of concern to CDFW
High. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Ardea herodias Great blue heron
(nesting colony) None None None
Relatively common species, found foraging in a
variety of aquatic habitats including shorelines
of lakes, ponds, and drainages. Colonial nesting
areas are of concern to CDFW
High. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Egretta thula Snowy egret
(nesting colony) None None None
Relatively common species, found foraging in a
variety of aquatic habitats including shorelines
of lakes, ponds, and drainages. Colonial nesting
areas are of concern to CDFW
High. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Nycticorax
nycticorax
Black-crowned
night heron (nesting
colony)
None None None
Relatively common species, found foraging in a
variety of aquatic habitats including shorelines
of lakes, ponds, and drainages. Colonial nesting
areas are of concern to CDFW
High. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Accipiter
cooperii Cooper’s hawk None None None
Found in range of wooded habitats, including
openings in woodlands, forests, parklands and
riparian areas
High. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk None None None Heavily wooded areas along streams or near springs; forages in seasonal wetlands
High. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite None None
Fully
Protected
Species
Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes;
require dense- topped trees or shrubs for
nesting and perching
High. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-33
TABLE 4.4-3 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List CDFW General Habitat Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area Haliaeetus
leucocephalus Bald eagle Delisted Endangered
Fully
Protected
Species
Ocean shorelines, lake margins, and rivers for
both nesting and wintering; nests in large trees
with open branches
Moderate. Known to occasionally forage along
lower reaches of major drainages and
shoreline of larger water bodies
, but not likely
to remain for long periods or breed in EIR
Study Area.
Pandion
haliaetus Osprey None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Rivers, lakes, where fish can be obtained from
food
Moderate. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Circus cyaneus Northern harrier None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Nests in wet meadows and marshes, forages
over open grasslands and agricultural fields
High. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Aquila
chrysaetos Golden eagle None None
Fully
Protected
Species
Rolling foothills and mountain areas. Nests in
cliff- walled canyons or large trees in open
areas
Moderate. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Falco peregrinus American peregrine
falcon Delisted Delisted
Fully
Protected
Species
A variety of open habitats including coastlines,
mountains, marshes, bay shorelines, and urban
areas. Nest on cliffs, bridges, and tall buildings
Moderate. May occasionally forage in EIR
Study
Area, but not likely to breed due to the
lack of suitable nesting habitat.
Coturnicops
noveboracensis Yellow rail None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Shallow marshes with fairly short vegetation Moderate. Historic occurrence reported by CNDDB from EIR Study Area.
Athene
cunicularia Burrowing owl None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Open, dry grasslands that contain abundant
ground squirrel burrows
Moderate. Observed in Sonoma
County where
suitable habitat is present, with CNDDB
records to the south of EIR Study Area.
Asio flammeus Short-eared owl None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Found in open country and grasslands Moderate. Observed in Sonoma County where suitable habitat is present.
Asio otus Long-eared owl None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Conifer, oak, riparian, pinyon-juniper, and
desert woodlands adjacent to grasslands,
meadows, or shrublands
Moderate. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Strix occidentalis
caurina
Northern spotted
owl Threatened Candidate
Species of
Special
Concern
Dense forest and woodland, with suitable prey
Moderate
. CNDDB occurrences from Bennett
Mountain and western slopes of Mayacamas
Mountains, with designated critical habitat at
edge of EIR Study Area.
Contopus
cooperi
Olive-sided
flycatcher None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Coniferous forests with open canopies Moderate. Observed in Sonoma County where suitable habitat is present.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-34 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.4-3 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List CDFW General Habitat Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area Lanius
ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Open grasslands and woodlands with scattered
shrubs, fence posts, utility lines, or other
perches; nests in dense shrubs and lower
branches of trees
Moderate. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Progne subis Purple martin None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Woodlands; nests in tree snags and abandoned
woodpecker cavities and human-made
structures
Moderate. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Phalacrocorax
auritus
Double-crested
cormorant (nesting
colony)
None None None
Relatively common species, found foraging in a
variety of aquatic habitats including open water
and shorelines, including lakes and reservoirs
.
Colonial roosting areas are of concern to CDFW
High. Observed in Sonoma County where
suitable habitat is present.
Ammodramus
savannarum
Grasshopper
sparrow None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Grasslands with scattered shrubs Moderate. Observed in Sonoma County where suitable habitat is present.
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Nests in dense vegetation near open water;
forages in grasslands and agricultural fields
Moderate. Historic occurrence reported by
CNDDB from the Sebastopol vicinity west of
the EIR Study Area.
Mammals
Antrozous
pallidus Pallid bat None None
Species of
Special
Concern
A variety of open arid habitats (e.g., chaparral,
open woodland, deserts); primary roost sites
include bridges, old buildings, and in tree
hollows and/or bark; sometimes roost in caves
and rock crevices
Moderate. Suitable habitat present and
occurrences reported by CNDDB from
Kenwood vicinity southeast of EIR Study Area.
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend’s big-
eared bat None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Roots in the open in a variety of habitats,
including tree cavities, caves and old buildings.
Extremely sensitive to human disturbance
Moderate. Suitable habitat present but no
known occurrences reported by CNDDB from
EIR Study Area.
Lasiurus
blossevillii Western red bat None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Forested canyons and riparian woodlands for
roosting, a variety of open habitats for foraging;
typically roosts in snags and trees with
moderately dense canopies
Moderate. Suitable habitat present but no
known occurrences reported by CNDDB from
EIR Study Area.
Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat None None None Prefers open habitats with access to trees for cover, roosting in dense foliage
Moderate. Suitable habitat present but no
known occurrences reported by CNDDB from
EIR Study Area.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-35
TABLE 4.4-3 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
List
California
List CDFW General Habitat Potential for Occurrence in EIR Study Area Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis None None None
Occurs in semiarid shrublands, sage, chaparral,
agricultural areas, and most
frequently in coniferous forests. Roost under
exfoliating tree bark, hollow
trees, caves,
mines, cliff crevices, sink holes, rocky outcrops
Moderate. Suitable habitat present but no
known occurrences reported by CNDDB from
EIR Study Area.
Myotis
thysanodes Fringed myotis None None None
Inhabits a variety of habitats including pinyon-
juniper woodland, valley foothill
hardwood,
hardwood-conifer forests, and desert scrub
Moderate. Suitable habitat present but no
known occurrences reported by CNDDB from
EIR Study Area.
Myotis volans Long-legged myotis None None None Inhabits forests and woodland habitats, primarily oak and juniper woodlands
Moderate.
Suitable habitat present but no
known occurrences reported by CNDDB from
EIR Study Area.
Myotis
yumanensis Yuma myotis None None None
Occurs in riparian, arid scrublands and deserts,
and forests. Roosts in
bridges, buildings, cliff
crevices, caves, mines, and trees. Forages over
open water
Moderate. Suitable habitat present but no
known occurrences reported by CNDDB from
EIR Study Area.
Puma concolor Mountain lion None None None
Found in nearly all habitats, except croplands in
the Central Valley. Most abundant in riparian
areas, chaparral and scrub,
and brushy stages
of most habitats
High. Known from EIR Study Area where
suitable habitat and movement corridors are
present.
Taxidea taxus American badger None None
Species of
Special
Concern
Open habitats with friable soils and small
mammal prey base.
Moderate. Suitable habitat present and
CNDDB occurrence reported just southwester
of EIR Study Area.
Notes:
a. As of 2021, CDFW classifies roach in the Russian River watershed as "Northern Coastal", Hesperoleucus venustus navarroensis. Prior to 2021, the roach in the Russian River was known as Lavinia symmetricus navarroensis.
Agencies
USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
ESU = Evolutionary Significant Unit
DPS = Distinct Population Segment
Sources: California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-inventory-of-rare-plants; California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2019; and California Natural Diversity Database, accessed June 13, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-36 OCTOBER 2024
California Tiger Salamander
The Sonoma County population of CTS is listed as endangered by the USFWS and threatened by the CDFW. This species occurs in grassland and savanna habitat, breeding in vernal pools and swales, seasonal drainages, and man-made ponds, and spending most of the year in subterranean refugia such as rodent burrows, cracks, and under rocks and logs. Adults migrate to suitable breeding locations with the onset of sustained rainfall, and have been reported to move considerable distances. Most of the occurrences of CTS in Sonoma County are from the complex of vernal pools and drainages of the Santa Rosa Plain along the Laguna de Santa Rosa watershed, generally between Sebastopol, Santa Rosa, and Cotati. Extensive habitat conversion and fragmentation of breeding habitat has eliminated this species from much of its former range and is considered a serious threat to the Sonoma County population. As indicated on Figure
4.4-3, numerous occurrences of this species have been reported by the CNDDB in western and southwestern Santa Rosa, and designated critical habitat extends over or borders the western edge of the EIR Study Area.
California Red-L
egged Frog
This species is listed as threatened by the USFWS and is recognized as a CSC by the CDFW. It typically occurs in aquatic habitat of streams and ponds but can disperse considerable distances in search of breeding and aestivation sites. Scattered occurrences of California red-legged frog are known from the Taylor Mountain and Bennett Mountain vicinities. As indicated on Figure 4.4-3, designated critical habitat extends over part of Trione-Annadel State Park and the Sonoma Mountains further south. Continued loss of upland dispersal habitat, fragmentation of remaining breeding locations, competition and predation by bullfrog, and degradation of aquatic habitat are primary concerns regarding protection and recovery of this species.
Western Pond Turtle
This species has no State or federal listing but is recognized as a CSC by the CDFW. Western pond turtles occur in a wide variety of aquatic habitats, including ponds, lakes, marshes, rivers, streams, and canals that typically have a rocky or muddy bottom and contain stands of aquatic vegetation. The presence or absence of pond turtles at a given aquatic site is largely dependent on the availability of suitable basking sites and adjacent upland habitat for egg-laying (e.g., sandy banks or grassy open fields) and over- wintering. Nests are typically dug in dry substrate with a high clay or silt fraction since the female moistens the site where she will excavate the nest prior to egg-laying. Hatchlings require shallow water habitat with relatively dense submergent or short emergent vegetation in which to forage. Western pond turtles have been reported from scattered locations throughout the EIR Study Area where suitable habitat is present, as indicated on Figure 4.4-3. Other freshwater bodies and drainages with deep pools may provide suitable habitat for this species.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-37
Northern Spotted Owl
The USFWS listed the northern spotted owl as a threatened species in 1990. The southern limit of their range extends across the coastal and inland forests and woodlands of Sonoma County southward into Marin County. Occurrences of this species extend along the entire coast of the county, the Mayacamas Mountains, and Sonoma Mountain. Ongoing studies have been conducted to monitor population health and further define essential habitat. The southern population of spotted owl is subject to several threats, including: habitat loss and disturbance due to timber harvest, agricultural conversion, and development at the fringe of existing forest and woodland habitat; severe fires and hazardous fuel management; potential for catastrophic wildfire along the urban/wildland interface; and continued range expansion of the barred owl. Of particular concern is the continuing die-off of tanbark and coast live oaks throughout spotted owl habitat due to SOD, and the long-term impacts this may have on prey populations and owl nesting and foraging habitat.
Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive Natural Communities
The CDFW tracks the occurrences of “special” plant communities that are either known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the CNDDB. These plant communities are listed in the CDFW List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database publication, which is updated periodically and available online on CDFW’s website. 18 These communities
are sometimes addressed by lead or trustee agencies, but generally are not afforded the same protection as CNPS Rank 1B and 2 plant species. Many sensitive natural community types support special-status plants and animals and are addressed under CEQA as essential habitat for those species.
Sensitive natural community types in the EIR Study Area vicinity include vernal pools and swales, native riparian woodland and scrub, freshwater marsh, and remnant native grasslands, among other community types. Figure 4.4-2 shows the location of a number of larger vernal pools in the western portion of the EIR Study Area, and most of the features identified as riparian and aquatic wetlands on Figure 4.4-1 likely qualify as sensitive natural communities where they haven’t been compromised by past disturbance.
However, most of these sensitive natural community types have not been mapped and are not monitored by the CNDDB.
In addition, other sensitive natural community types are known from the EIR Study Area. Based on the Manual of California Vegetation classification system and latest list of terrestrial natural communities prepared by CDFW , these sensitive natural communities include Black Oak Forests and Woodlands, Coastal and Montane Redwood Forests, Douglas Fir Forests, California Bay Forests and Woodlands, California Buckeye Woodlands, Coyote Brush Scrub, freshwater marsh, freshwater seeps and springs, and native grasslands.
19 Occurrences of these sensitive natural community types are most likely present within
18 California Department of Fish and Game, 2003, List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
19 John Sawyer and Todd Keeler-Wolf, 1995, A Manual of California Vegetation, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-38 OCTOBER 2024
the remaining undeveloped woodland, forest, and grasslands in the EIR Study Area, but they have not been mapped as part of the CNDDB mapping program. Detailed surveys would be required to provide confirmation of presence or absence from undeveloped portions of the EIR Study Area where thorough studies have not been conducted.
Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters
As defined by the USACE, wetlands are areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water and support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil. Wetlands include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. As a significant natural resource, wetlands serve important functions relating to fish and wildlife. Such functions include food chain production, habitat, nesting spawning, rearing and resting sites for aquatic and land species. They also provide protection of other areas from wave action and erosion; storage areas for storm and flood waters; natural recharge areas where ground and surface water are interconnected; and natural water filtration and purification functions. 20 A formal jurisdictional delineation of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. and State was not conducted for the EIR Study Area. However, based on information available from the National Wetlands Inventory shown on Figure 4.4-4, Wetlands, numerous features within the EIR Study Area can be assumed to fall under jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB and CDFW , as discussed in Section 4.4.1.1, Regulatory Framework. Features within the EIR Study Area likely to be regulated waters include Santa Rosa Creek and the extensive network of tributary drainages mapped as riverine habitat on Figure 4.4-4, smaller tributaries to the Laguna de Santa Rosa in the southwestern part of the EIR Study Area such as Roseland Creek and Colgan Creek, scattered freshwater waterbodies (i.e. pond or lakes), and areas of freshwater marsh and seasonal wetlands present throughout the western undeveloped lands and periphery of the Laguna de Santa Rosa. Additional jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. may be present elsewhere in the EIR Study Area, but detailed site-specific assessments would be required to confirm presence or absence from undeveloped lands.
Federally regulated waters along the numerous drainages in the EIR Study Area are defined by the “ordinary high-water mark” rather than the band of adjacent riparian vegetation, limiting USACE jurisdiction where riparian scrub and forest extend a considerable distance from the channel bank.
However, the limits of State waters regulated by CDFW and North Coast RWQCB encompass both the bed and bank of drainageways, as well as the limits of the associated riparian vegetation where it extends beyond the top of bank. Both agencies typically request that an adequate setback be provided to avoid both direct and indirect impacts on riparian corridors as part of environmental review for specific development plans.
20 US Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters Website, Regulatory Program and Permits, https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/Frequently-Asked-Questions, accessed August 18, 2023.
Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service (https://www.fws.gov/node/264847). Downloaded on 4/27/2023; Basemap by: ESRI. Map produced bt www.digitalmappingsolutions.com 8/5/2024. 0 Scale (Miles)
2 Figure 4.4-4
Wetlands
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
C I TY OF SANTA ROSA
••
#
. .,. . .,... .
' +-re~
O~ i ' ... f; 6ii .. ., ,,
"' ;n
a.
..
1010 n
Boundaries
Planning Area
I - " Urban Growth Boundary
c:J Sphere of Influence
c::::J City Limit
Wetland Types
1111 Freshwater Emergent Wetland
1111 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
1111 Freshwater Pond
1111 Lake
1111 Other
1111 Riverine
6 N
0 I Miles
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-40 OCTOBER 2024
4.4.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impact to biological resources if it 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 plan, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2. 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
3. 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.
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.
7. Result in significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.
4.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
As described in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, some proposed General Plan 2050 policies and actions are required as means to mitigate environmental impacts under CEQA. These policies and actions are fully enforceable at the discretion of the decision-maker through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. These mitigating policies and actions use the imperative “shall,” include performance criteria, and are marked with an asterisk (*). Note that all actions are required to be implemented by the City and therefore the imperative “shall,” if not explicitly stated, is implied.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-41
BIO-1 Implementation of the proposed project could 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 plan, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Local, regional, State, and federal regulations provide varying levels of protection for special-status species, depending on a number of factors, including legal protective status, rarity and distribution, the magnitude of the potential impact on essential habitat, specific occurrence and overall population levels, and take of individual plants or animals. Activities requiring discretionary approvals by local, regional, State, and federal agencies provide for the greatest oversight because each potential future development that could occur from implementation of the proposed project must be evaluated for their potential impact on special-status species and other sensitive biological resources.
As indicated in Table 4.4-2, 69 special-status plant species are considered to have some potential for occurrence within or in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area, with a total of 19 of these special-status plant species having been reported by the CNDDB that occur within the EIR Study Area. Most of the special- status plant species occurrences in the EIR Study Area are associated with the vernal pools and seasonal wetland habitat of the Santa Rosa Plain, including Sonoma sunshine, Burke’s goldfields, Sebastopol meadowfoam, many-flowered navarretia, Sonoma Alopecurus, dwarf downingia, Baker’s navarretia, and saline clover . Other special-status plant species reported by the CNDDB from the EIR Study Area include several species of ceanothus found in scrub and chaparral habitats, and forb species found in grassland habitats such as big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis), narrow-anthered California brodiaea (Brodiaea californica va r. leptandra), and fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea). Further detailed investigation is typically necessary to determine whether any occurrences of special-status plant species are present on undeveloped sites with natural habitat and appropriate habitat conditions.
As indicated in Table 4.4-3, 55 special-status animal species have some potential to occur in or frequent the EIR Study Area. Of these, a total of 15 have been reported from or are considered to have a high potential to occur in or frequent the EIR Study Area. Many of these are also associated with the vernal pool, seasonal wetlands, and riparian corridors that provide essential habitat for these species, including:
CTS, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, coho salmon, Chinook salmon, yellow rail, and California giant salamander, among others. As shown in Table 4.4-3, these have varied legal status or are considered Species of Special Concern by the CDFW. A few have no special status but are monitored by the CDFW because of recent declines and abundance such as Cooper’s hawk and other birds. Further detailed investigation is typically necessary to determine whether any occurrences of special-status animal species are present on undeveloped sites with natural habitat and appropriate habitat conditions.
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, potential future development from implementation of the proposed project is expected to occur in the proposed General Plan 2050 Areas of Change and would be concentrated in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing development, where special-status species have a lower likelihood to be present. The potential for occurrence of special-status species in developed areas is typically remote in comparison to undeveloped lands with natural habitat that contain essential habitat SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-42 OCTOBER 2024
characteristics for the range of species known in the EIR Study Area vicinity. While the potential for adverse impacts on special-status species is relatively low, there remains a varying potential for loss or disruption due to conversion of areas of natural habitat, removal of trees and other vegetation, increases in light and noise, and other modifications and disturbance. Grading and other construction disturbance to existing natural habitat could eliminate occurrences of special-status plants and individuals or occurrences of special-status animal species, or further isolate them from other occurrences where urbanization creates barriers between the remaining areas of natural habitat. This includes possible loss or disturbance to bird nests in active use, conflicting with both the MBTA and CFGC. Of particular concern is the possible impact on CTS as a result of anticipated future development in the western and southern parts of the EIR Study Area given the importance of the Santa Rosa Plain to the Sonoma County population, where further fragmentation could isolate individuals from suitable aestivation and breeding habitat or increase the potential for take from intensified human activity.
As part of the permitting project with the USACE, projects affecting federally regulated waters must demonstrate that they would not have an adverse effect on federally listed species or would be required to provide adequate compensatory mitigation where avoidance is infeasible. For those projects within the boundaries of the SRPCS, including western and southern Santa Rosa, they must comply with the rigorous conditions of the Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS in addressing potential effects on CTS, Burke’s goldfields, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and Sonoma sunshine.
Furthermore, Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, including special-status species, on a project-by-project basis. The following goal, policies, and actions would serve to minimize impacts related to sensitive habitats and species in the EIR Study Area:
Goal 3-5: Protect, expand, maintain, and restore natural resources, open space, and the limited remaining agricultural land.
Policy 3-5.3: Conserve and protect creeks, wetlands, vernal pools, wildlife ecosystems, rare plant habitats, and waterways from development.
Action 3-5.5: Explore options that help to conserve wetlands and rare plants, riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, and essential habitat for special- status species, such as:
Avoidance of sensitive habitat.
Clustered development.
Transfer of development rights.
Compensatory mitigation, such as habitat restoration or creation. *Action 3-5.7: Continue to consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify significant environments and priorities for acquisition or maintenance of open space areas based on biological and environmental concerns and develop a strategy for maintaining areas that will preserve the populations of plants and animals currently found in the UGB. Action 3-5.9: Explore using mitigation fees to protect environmentally sensitive resource lands and/or endangered species habitat areas that are subject to development.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-43
*Action 3-5.10: Continue to implement existing regulations and procedures, including subdivision guidelines, zoning, design review, and environmental law, to conserve wetlands and rare plants, riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, and essential habitat for special-status species.
Policy 3-5.4: Use existing (and/or restore historical) natural features and ecosystem processes for conservation, preservation, or sustainable management of open space, including, but not limited to, aquatic or terrestrial vegetated open space, systems that provide clean water, conserve ecosystem values and functions, and provide a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife. *Action 3-5.11: Require a qualified biologist to prepare a biological resource assessment as part of project approval for proposed development on sites that may support special-status species, sensitive natural communities, important wildlife corridors, or regulated wetlands and waters to identify potential impacts and measures for protecting the resource and surrounding habitat.
*Action 3-5.12: Require that construction or other ground-disturbing activities avoid nests of native birds when in active use by implementing protection measures to ensure compliance with the California Fish and Game Code and federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Compliance guidelines are detailed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. *Action 3-5.13: Develop and adopt a bird-safe design ordinance to provide specific criteria and refined guidelines as part of design review of new buildings and taller structures to protect birds from injury and mortality from collisions with buildings, towers, and other human-made structures.
Because potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 has the potential to occur where there is habitat for special-status species and sensitive natural communities, including wetlands and nesting areas, impacts from the proposed project are potentially significant.
Impact BIO-1: Impacts to special-status species or the inadvertent loss of bird nests in active use, which would conflict with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), could occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, including special-status species and active bird nests, on a project-by-project basis.
Proposed General Plan 2050 *Action 3-5.7 requires the City to consult with CDFW to identify significant environments and develop a strategy for maintaining areas that will preserve special-status species; *Action 3-5.10 requires the City to continue to implement existing regulations to conserve habitat for special-status species; and *Action 3-5.11 requires the City to have biological resource assessments prepared that identify potential impacts and mitigation measures for protecting the resources for proposed development on sites that may support special-status species. In addition, proposed *Action 3-5.12 and *Action 3-5.13 require the protection of bird habitat, including the possible loss or disturbance to bird nests in active use, which conflicts with both the MBTA and CFGC.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 goal, policies, and actions listed above, in SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-44 OCTOBER 2024
conjunction with adherence to State and federal regulations related to the protection of special-status species, including the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy where applicable, would address potential impacts of anticipated future development under the proposed project. Future development would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA, when applicable, to ensure consistency with local, State, and federal regulations and all General Plan policies and actions intended to protect sensitive biological resources. Ultimately, potential future development in Santa Rosa over the buildout horizon of the proposed General Plan 2050 would be performed in accordance with the proposed General Plan 2050 goal, policies, and actions discussed above, which would ensure that potential impacts on special-status species would be less than significant.
BIO-2 Implementation of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Without adequate avoidance and thorough construction controls, potential impacts on riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities may occur as both direct and indirect impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Direct impacts occur as a result of converting areas of a sensitive natural community to new development. Direct impacts may also be temporary in nature if they disturb a habitat that is subsequently restored after construction. Indirect impacts could be caused by changes in hydrology and water quality or through increases in sedimentation as a result of grading , and the introduction of urban pollutants could also have indirect impacts on aquatic habitat and contribute to a reduction in the value of downgradient waters .
As discussed in Section 4.4.1.2, Existing Conditions, sensitive natural communities in the EIR Study Area include riparian habitat along the numerous creeks, areas of freshwater marsh, vernal pools and swales, and remnant stands of native grasslands. Figure 4.4-1 shows the known location of well-developed riparian habitat, freshwater marsh, and vernal pools. Most of these features are also identified as wetlands under the National Wetlands Inventory, as shown on Figure 4.4-4 and discussed further under impact discussion BIO-3. Other sensitive natural community types in the EIR Study Area, not mapped in the CNDDB inventory and as part of the National Wetland Inventory, include Black Oak Forests and Woodlands, Coastal and Montane Redwood Forests, Douglas Fir Forests, California Bay Forests and Woodlands, California Buckeye Woodlands, Coyote Brush Scrub, smaller locations of freshwater marsh, freshwater seeps and springs, and native grasslands. Additional occurrences of these sensitive natural community types are most likely present within the remaining woodland, forest, and grasslands in the EIR Study Area, but they have not been mapped as part of the CNDDB or other mapping programs. Further detailed investigation is typically necessary to determine whether any sensitive natural communities are present on undeveloped sites with natural habitat and appropriate setbacks to ensure their protection.
Potential future development that occurs from implementation of the proposed project would be required to comply with SRCC Section 20-30.040 related to creek setbacks standards as well as the policies and objectives of the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan. Furthermore, Chapter 3, Circulation, SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-45
Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, including riparian habitats and other sensitive natural community types, on a project- by-project basis. In addition to the goal, policies, and actions identified under impact discussion BIO-1, the following General Plan goal, policies, and actions would serve to minimize impacts on riparian, wetlands and other sensitive natural communities in the EIR Study Area:
Goal 3-5: Protect, expand, maintain, and restore natural resources, open space, and the limited remaining agricultural land.
Policy 3-5.3: Conserve and protect creeks, wetlands, vernal pools, wildlife ecosystems, rare plant habitats, and waterways from development.
Action 3-5.6: Protect high-quality wetlands and vernal pools from development and other activities.
Action 3-5.8: Inventory wetlands, floodplains, marshlands, and adjacent lands that could potentially support climate adaptation (e.g., through flood management, filtration, or other beneficial ecosystem services) and mitigation (e.g., carbon sequestration). Policy 3-5.5: Maintain, restore, and protect the city’s waterways. Action 3-5.14: Implement the Citywide Creek Master Plan and promote a “one water” approach that teaches preservation and stewardship of local creeks and water resources. Action 3-5.15: Periodically review the status of local creeks and plan for ongoing restoration, planning, and stewardship, as identified in the Citywide Creek Master Plan. Action 3-5.16: Seek funding to maintain and restore citywide creeks, including for recreational opportunities linked to creeks as well as for flood control. Action 3-5.17: Implement stormwater pollution prevention outreach to increase community awareness of pollution impacts to creeks and preserve waterways. Policy 3-5.6: Restore channelized waterways and avoid creating additional channelized waterways unless no other alternative is available to protect human health, safety, and welfare. Action 3-5.18: Restore and enhance the ecological function of channelized waterways, consistent with the Citywide Creek Master Plan, and avoid channelizing additional segments of the waterways system.
Policy 3-5.7: Ensure that construction adjacent to creek channels is sensitive to the natural environment, preserves topography and vegetation along the creek, does not disrupt or pollute the waterway, and provides an adequate setback buffer . *Action 3-5.19: Require new development along channelized waterways to establish an ecological buffer zone between the waterway and development that also provides opportunities for shared use paths and recreation.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-46 OCTOBER 2024
*Action 3-5.20: Require new development to maintain an adequate setback from channelized waterways to recognize the 100-year flood elevation, with setbacks in the Zoning Code as minimums and larger setbacks encouraged in accordance with Restoration Concept Plans to meet restoration and enhancement goals.
Policy 3-5.8: Encourage multiple use of waterways, including:
Flood mitigation and storage;
Groundwater recharge;
Opportunities for restoration
and stewardship;
Climate adaptation;
Wildlife habitats;
Passive recreational open space
uses;
Nature study;
Pedestrian and bicycle circulation;
and
Other compatible outdoor uses.
Because potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 has the potential to occur where there is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS, impacts from the proposed project are potentially significant.
Impact BIO-2: Impacts to riparian areas, drainages, and sensitive natural communities could occur from potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 where natural habitat remains.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, including riparian areas, drainages, and sensitive natural communities, on a project-by- project basis. Proposed *Action 3-5.19 requires that new development along channelized waterways establish an ecological buffer zone between the waterway and development and *Action 3-5.20 requires new development to maintain an adequate setback from channelized waterways to recognize the 100-year flood elevation, with setbacks in the zoning code as minimums and larger setbacks encouraged in accordance with Restoration Concept Plans to meet restoration and enhancement goals. Also, as described under impact discussion BIO-1, proposed *Action 3-5.7, *Action 3-5.10, and *Action 3-5.11 require agency consultation, implementation of existing regulations, and preparation of technical reports that identify and mitigate project-specific impacts. Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed above would serve to ensure that occurrences of sensitive natural communities are identified, avoided, or adequately mitigated. Future development would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with local, State, and federal regulations and all General Plan policies and actions intended to protect sensitive biological resources, including sensitive natural communities. Potential future development over the buildout horizon of the proposed General Plan 2050 would be performed in accordance with the proposed General Plan 2050 policies and actions discussed above, which would ensure that potential impacts on sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-47
BIO-3 Implementation of the proposed project could 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.
Development and land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could result in direct loss or modification to existing wetlands and unvegetated other waters, as well as indirect impacts due to water quality degradation. Affected wetlands could include both the wetland-related sensitive natural community types described under impact discussion BIO-2, as well as areas of open water, degraded and modified streams and channels, unvegetated waters, and isolated seasonal wetlands or freshwater seeps. Indirect impacts to wetlands and other jurisdictional waters include an increase in the potential for sedimentation due to construction grading and ground disturbance, an increase in the potential for erosion due to increased runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces, and an increase in the potential for water quality degradation due to increased levels in nonpoint pollutants.
Water quality degradation may occur even when wetlands and unvegetated channels are avoided by proposed development if setbacks are inadequate to provide critical vegetation filtration functions.
Indirect water quality-related issues are discussed further in Chapter 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR; as discussed under impact discussion HYD-1, water quality impacts were determined to be less than significant. Refer to Chapter 4.10 of this Draft EIR for a list of proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions that would serve to preserve water quality of all water resources in the EIR Study Area, including wetlands.
Because potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 has the potential to occur where there are state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, impacts from the proposed project are potentially significant.
Impact BIO-3: Potential future development from implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 could result in direct and indirect impacts to wetland habitat.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, including wetlands, on a project-by-project basis. The same proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed under impact discussions BIO-1 and BIO-2 would serve to mitigate potential adverse impacts on wetlands in the EIR Study Area. Many of these proposed General Plan 2050 actions call for identifying and protecting creeks, wetlands and other regulated waters. Site- specific assessments would be required as called for in proposed *Action 3-5.11 for developments proposed on or near sensitive habitats, such as wetlands. This project-specific assessment would serve to identify the presence or absence of any jurisdictional waters and would ensure adequate protection or appropriate compensatory mitigation is provided as part of new development. Proposed Action 3-5.5 and proposed *Action 3-5.10 call for avoidance of wetlands and other sensitive resources during the environmental review process, compliance with applicable regulations and standards, and adequate compensatory mitigation where potential impacts are unavoidable. Where regulated waters SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-48 OCTOBER 2024
are present, federal and State authorizations and adequate compensatory mitigation would be required where regulated waters would be affected. Potential future development that occurs from implementation of the proposed project would also be required to comply with Santa Rosa City Code Section 20-30.040 related to creek setbacks standards as well as the policies and objectives of the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan. Future development would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with local, State, and federal regulations and all General Plan policies and actions intended to protect sensitive biological resources, including wetlands. Potential future development over the buildout horizon of the proposed project would be performed in accordance with the proposed General Plan 2050 policies and actions discussed above, which would ensure that potential impacts on wetlands would be less than significant.
BIO-
4 Implementation of the proposed project could 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.
Development and land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would generally be in urbanized areas with few wildlife corridors or locations where wildlife is already acclimated to human activity. However, the EIR Study Area does contain some habitat areas that could be adversely affected by new development, particularly along creeks and other drainages, or adjacent to open space and undeveloped lands.
Additionally, new buildings associated with the future development under the proposed project would alter existing physical characteristics of the EIR Study Area and could contribute to an increased risk of bird collisions and mortalities. Avian injury and mortality resulting from collisions with buildings, towers, and other human-made structures is a common occurrence in city and suburban settings. Some birds are unable to detect and avoid glass and have difficulty distinguishing between actual objects and their reflected images, particularly when the glass is transparent and views through the structure are possible.
Night-time lighting can interfere with movement patterns of some night-migrating birds, causing disorientation or attracting them to the light source. The frequency of bird collisions in any particular area is dependent on numerous factors, including characteristics of building height, fenestration, and exterior treatments of windows and their relationship to other buildings and vegetation in the area; local and migratory avian populations, their movement patterns, and proximity of water, food and other attractants; time of year; prevailing winds; weather conditions; and other variables. The application of bird-safe design standards would reduce the potential for avian injury and mortality from collisions with buildings, towers, and other human-made structures. Common bird-safe design standards include the following design considerations and management strategies: (1) avoid the use of highly reflective glass as an exterior treatment, which appears to reproduce natural habitat and can be attractive to some birds, (2) limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass from attracting birds in building plans by utilizing low-reflectivity glass and providing other non-attractive surface treatments, (3) use low-reflectivity glass or other glazing treatments for the entirety of the building’s glass surface, not just the lower levels, (4) for commercial buildings, interior light “pollution” should be reduced during evening hours through the use of a lighting control system, (5) exterior lighting should be directed downward and screened to minimize illuminating SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-49
the exterior of the building at night, except as needed for safety and security, (6) glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass walls, and transparent building corners should not be allowed, (7) transparent glass should not be allowed at the rooflines of buildings, including in conjunction with green roofs, and (8) all roof mechanical equipment should be covered by low-profile angled roofing so that obstacles to bird flight are minimized. Implementation of bird-safe design standards would minimize impacts from bird strike.
As discussed under impact discussions BIO-1 and BIO-2, Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, including wildlife movement and nursery sites. The same proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions identified under impact discussions BIO-1 and BIO-2 would serve to minimize impacts wildlife movement and nursery sites in the EIR Study Area.
Because potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 has the potential to occur where there is habitat for wildlife movement, impacts from the proposed project are potentially significant.
Impact BIO-4: Potential future development in the EIR Study Area could result in impacts on the movement of wildlife and potential for increased risk of bird collisions.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. As described under impact discussions BIO-1, BIO- 2, and BIO-3, the proposed General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that would mitigate impacts to important wildlife habitats, such as essential habitat for special-status species, occurrences of sensitive natural communities, and regulated wetlands and waters are preserved and protected.
Specifically, proposed General Plan 2050 *Action 3-5.7, *Action 3-5.10, *Action 3-5.11, *Action 3-
5.19, and *Action 3-5.20 would all mitigate impacts to areas where there is the potential for migratory wildlife to use. These require agency consultation, implementation of existing regulations, the preparation of technical reports that identify and mitigate project-specific impacts, provide ecological buffer zones between waterways and development, and that new development maintain adequate setbacks from channelized waterways. The site-specific biological resource assessments on sites with natural habitat would also be required under proposed *Action 3-5.11, which would determine whether any important wildlife movement corridors are present on undeveloped lands where potential future development is proposed. This project-specific assessment would serve to identify the presence of any sensitive wildlife movement corridors and would ensure sensitive resources are adequately protected or appropriate compensatory mitigation is provided as part of new development. Furthermore, proposed *Action 3-5.13 regarding a bird-safe design ordinance would reduce the risk of bird collisions and ensure that opportunities for wildlife movement are adequately identified and protected. In addition to these proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, potential future development would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA, when applicable, to ensure consistency with local, State, and federal regulations and all General Plan policies and actions intended to protect sensitive biological resources, including wildlife corridors and nursery sites. Potential future development over the buildout horizon of the proposed General Plan 2050 would be performed in accordance with the proposed General Plan 2050 policies SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-50 OCTOBER 2024
and actions discussed above, which would ensure that potential impacts on sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
BIO-5 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
The City of Santa Rosa General Plan is the primary planning document for the City of Santa Rosa. The proposed revisions to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions are intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and provide for an update to the relevant provisions in the current General Plan. Because the General Plan is the overriding planning document for Santa Rosa and because the proposed project involves updating the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for internal consistency, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. As described under impact discussion BIO-2, potential future development that occurs from implementation of the proposed project would be required to comply with Section 20-30.040 of the SRCC related to creek setbacks standards as well as the policies and objectives of the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan, which contain provisions to protect wetlands, marshlands, and tidal areas within the EIR Study Area. Future development would also be required to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance, related to the protection of regulated trees.
Potential future development within the EIR Study Area would be required to comply with applicable SRCC regulations and the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions would reduce potential impacts on sensitive biological resources as a result of implementation of the proposed project. With adherence to these regulations, no conflicts with local plans and policies are anticipated, and impacts would be considered less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
BIO-6 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
The EIR Study Area is not in any local, regional, or State HCP areas. Therefore, the proposed General Plan 2050 would not conflict with the conservation strategy in any HCP or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Furthermore, several goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan 2050, listed under impact discussions BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-4 along with SRCC regulations, would serve to protect and enhance the sensitive natural communities and special-status species within the EIR Study Area.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, in conjunction with adherence to State and federal regulations related to the protection of special-status species and sensitive natural communities, including the SRPCS where applicable, would address potential impacts of anticipated future development under the proposed Project. Future development would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with local, State, and SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-51
federal regulations and all General Plan policies and actions intended to protect sensitive biological resources. As part of the permitting project with the USACE, projects affecting federally regulated waters must demonstrate that they would not have an adverse effect on federally listed species or would be required to provide adequate compensatory mitigation where avoidance is infeasible. Projects within the boundaries of the SRPCS, including western and southern Santa Rosa, must comply with the rigorous conditions of the Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS in addressing potential effects on CTS, Burke’s goldfields, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and Sonoma sunshine. Therefore, no impact would occur .
Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
BIO-7 Implementation of the proposed project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to biological resources.
The impacts of potential future development on biological resources tend to be site-specific, and the overall cumulative effects would be dependent on the degree to which significant vegetation and wildlife resources are protected on a particular site. This includes preservation of well-developed native vegetation (e.g., native grasslands, oak woodlands, and riparian woodland, among others), populations of special-status plant or animal species, and wetland features (e.g., freshwater marsh and seeps, vernal pools and seasonal wetlands, riparian corridors, and drainages). Further, biological resource assessments would be required for future projects proposed on or near sensitive habitats to mitigate project-specific impacts (proposed *Action 3-5.11). These biological resource assessments would serve to ensure that important biological resources are identified, protected, and properly managed and to prevent any significant adverse development-related impacts, including development for the remaining undeveloped lands in the EIR Study Area and surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands.
To some degree, cumulative development contributes to an incremental reduction in the amount of existing natural wildlife habitat, particularly for birds and larger mammals. Habitat for species intolerant of human disturbance can be lost as development encroaches into previously undeveloped areas, disrupting or eliminating movement corridors and fragmenting the remaining suitable habitat retained within parks, public and private open space, and undeveloped properties. New cumulative development in the region could result in further conversion of existing natural habitats to urban and suburban conditions, limiting the existing habitat values of the surrounding area. This could include further loss of wetlands and sensitive natural communities, reduction in essential habitat for special-status species, removal of mature native trees and other important wildlife habitat features, and obstruction of important wildlife movement corridors. Additional development may also contribute to degradation of the aquatic habitat in the creeks throughout the region, including the EIR Study Area. Grading associated with construction activities generally increases erosion and sedimentation, and urban pollutants from new development would reduce water quality.
However, increased development potential in the EIR Study Area is anticipated to occur primarily in existing urbanized areas. Potential future development that could occur elsewhere in the region, outside of the EIR Study Area, is also anticipated to occur largely in urbanized areas. In the event that potential future development in the region is proposed in an undeveloped area, the project would likely undergo SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-52 OCTOBER 2024
independent environmental review as required by the jurisdiction in which the project is proposed.
Further, the goals, policies, and actions of the proposed General Plan 2050 described under impact discussions BIO-1 through BIO-6 would serve to address any contributions to cumulative impacts on sensitive biological and wetland resources, as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact to biological resources with implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies and actions and other controls related to sensitive biological resources.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-1
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential impacts to cultural resources, and identifies proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions that would minimize any potentially significant impacts. See Chapter 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, for a discussion of tribal cultural resources.
4.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
TERMINOLOGY
The following terms are recurring and referenced throughout this chapter. Cultural Resource. This term is used to describe several different types of properties: pre-contact (prehistoric) and historic archaeological sites, buildings, objects, structures, and districts or any other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to a culture or a community for scientific, traditional, or religious reasons.
Historic Property. Federal regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations 800) define a historic property as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native American tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and that meet National Register criteria. Historical Resource. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define a historical resource as a resource listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register by the State Historical Resources Commission, a resource included in a local register of Historical Resources, or identified as significant in a Historical Resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1(g), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.
Unique Archaeological Resource. CEQA defines this term as 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 important scientific research questions and 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.
4.5.1.1 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-2 OCTOBER 2024
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 defines the responsibilities of federal agencies to protect and preserve historic properties and established the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as the official designation of historical resources, including districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Sites less than 50 years in age, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for the National Register . Listing in the National Register does not entail specific protection for a property, but project effects on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register must be evaluated under CEQA. For a property to be eligible for listing in the National Register, it must be significant and possess integrity. According to the National Register criteria for evaluation, 1 a property is significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture if it:
Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (United States Code [USC], Title 16, Sections 470aa–mm) became law on October 31, 1979, and has been amended four times. It regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on federal and Native American lands.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (USC, Title 25, Sections 3001 et seq.) protects Native American remains, including Native American graves on federal and tribal lands, and recognizes tribal authority over the treatment of unmarked graves. This act prohibits the selling of Native American remains and provides guidelines for the return of Native American human remains and cultural objects from any collection receiving federal funding, such as museums, universities, or governments.
Noncompliance with this act can result in civil and criminal penalties.
1 Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 60.4.
4.5.1.2 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-3
State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The CEQA Guidelines define four ways that a property can qualify as a historical resource for purposes of CEQA compliance:
The resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register, as determined by the State Historical Resources Commission.
The resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
The lead agency determines the resource to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The lead agency determines that the resource may be a historical resource, as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5), which means, in part, that it may be eligible for the California Register.
In addition, CEQA Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 specify lead agency responsibilities in determining whether a project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. If it can be demonstrated that a project will damage a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts for the resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Preservation in place is the preferred approach to mitigation. The PRC also details required mitigation if unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) requires that excavation activities stop whenever human remains are uncovered during a project or activity, and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency must consult with the appropriate Native American descendants, if any, as identified by the NAHC. Under certain circumstances, the lead agency (or applicant), is required to develop an agreement with the Native American descendants for the treatment and disposition of the remains. In addition to the mitigating provisions pertaining to accidental discovery of human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) also requires that a lead agency make provisions for the accidental discovery of historical or archaeological resources. These provisions should include an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be a Historical Resource or Unique Archaeological Resource, avoidance measures should be implemented, or appropriate mitigation should be available.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-4 OCTOBER 2024
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) establishes a list of properties to be protected from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1). A historical resource may be listed in the California Register if it is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California, and meets any of the following criteria:
It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
It is associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past. It 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 value. It has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The California Register includes properties that are listed or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register, State Historical Landmarks, and eligible Points of Historical Interest. Other potential resources require nomination for inclusion in the California Register .
For a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must possess integrity as well as be significant. Integrity is the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period. Loss of integrity, if sufficiently great, will render a resource ineligible for the California Register . Integrity is determined through application of seven factors:
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
Setting is the physical environment of the historic property. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
Health and Safety Code Sections 7052 and 7050.5
Health and Safety Code Section 7052 states that the disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. Section 7050.5(b) of the Health and Safety Code specifies protocol when human remains are discovered during activities involving ground disturbance. If human remains are discovered or identified in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there should be no further disturbance or excavation nearby until the county coroner has determined the area is not a crime scene that warrants further investigation into the cause of death and made recommendations to the persons responsible for the work in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98 (the California Native American Historical, Cultural, and SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-5
Sacred Sites Act). This section, which applies to both State and private lands, provides guidance for proceeding when human remains associated with Native American burials and associated items are encountered. This act stipulates the procedures the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.
Public Resources Code Section 5097
PRC Section 5097.5(a) specifies that a person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, or archaeological sites, which can include fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands. As used in this section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. County and city lands are exempt from this provision, except for parklands larger than 100 acres.
California Code of Regulations
Archaeological resources, on lands administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, are addressed in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Division 3, Chapter 1. Section 4308 of this chapter addresses archaeological features and states that no person shall remove, injure, disfigure, deface, or destroy any object of archaeological or historical interest or value.
Historical Building Code
The California Historical Building Code (CCR Title 24, Part 8) provides regulations for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions for the preservation, rehabilitation, relocation, reconstruction, change of use, or continued use of historical buildings, structures, and properties determined by any level of government as qualifying as a historical resource. A historical resource is defined in Sections 18950 to 18961 of Division 13, Part 2.7 of the Health and Safety Code, and subject to rules and regulations in the California Historical Building Code.
Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18)
California Government Code Section 65352.3-5, commonly known by its legislative bill number, Senate Bill (SB) 18, states that prior to the adoption or amendment of a city or county’s general plan, or specific plans, the city or county shall consult with California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the NAHC. The intent of this legislation is to preserve or mitigate impacts on places, features, and objects, as defined in PRC Section 5097.9 and PRC Section 5097.993, that are within the city or county’s jurisdiction. Government Code Section 65362.3-5 also states that the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects identified by Native American consultation. Government Code Section 65362.3-5 applies to all general and specific plans and amendments proposed after March 1, 2005.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-6 OCTOBER 2024
Local Regulations
Santa Rosa City Code
The Santa Rosa City Code (SRCC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to cultural resources in Santa Rosa. The SRCC is organized by title, chapter, and section, and in some cases, articles.
Most provisions related to cultural resources are in Title 17, Environmental Protection; Title 18, Buildings and Construction; and Title 20, Zoning, as follows:
Chapter 20-58, Historic and Cultural Preservation. This chapter provides procedures for the identification, protection, alteration and construction of buildings, structures, signs, neighborhoods, and districts that have special historical, archaeological, cultural, or architectural value in the city. The purpose of this chapter is to allow development to proceed while maintaining historic resources. Chapter 18-04, General Provisions. The City’s building regulations describe specific building standards in the city and prescribe the development standards and specifications that apply to each building in its given district, such as permit fees and improvement standards. The City has adopted the 2019 version of the California Historical Building Code, which provides regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, or reconstruction of qualified historical buildings or properties. Chapter 20-28, Combining District. Subsequent to the adoption of the Historic and Cultural Preservation Ordinance, the City adopted the Historic (-H) combining district into the City’s Zoning Code. The purpose of this code is to recognize, preserve, and enhance the city’s locally recognized built environment. The -H combining district applies to all properties in a historical district and outlines the standards for the planning and development of sites in these districts.
Santa Rosa Design Guidelines
The Santa Rosa Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines), adopted in 2002, supplement and enhance design concepts that promote “superior design” by exhibiting thoughtful relationships in the natural and built environment with respect to architecture, landscaping, placemaking and livability, and sustainability. The Design Guidelines provide a clear set of design policies to project sponsors such as developers, property owners, architects, designers, and public agencies and establish criteria for project review. The Design Guidelines apply to all projects that require design review, including most new buildings, subdivisions, infill development, and public improvements.
Chapter 4.7, Historic Districts, provides general design guidelines that apply to all historic structures and neighborhoods that have been adopted by the City. The goals of this chapter of the Design Guidelines are to preserve Santa Rosa’s historic heritage, encourage maintenance and retention of historic structures and districts, ensure that alterations to historic buildings are compatible with the character of the structure and the neighborhood, discourage the demolition of significant historic structures, and assist property owners and designers in developing plans for historic properties and to encourage the compatibility of new structures in historic districts, and having those plans approved by the City.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-7
Processing Review Procedures for Owners of Historic Properties Adopted in 2001, the Processing Review Procedures for Owners of Historic Properties assists owners, designers, and citizens in the preservation of Santa Rosa’s historic resources. These procedures are referenced in the Design Guidelines and apply to all historic properties in the city. The report includes background on design review, including historic preservation and landmarks, CEQA compliance, and the step-by-step procedures applicants need to follow in preparing and submitting their applications for design review.
2 It also provides the design guidelines and review procedures for historic properties.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Information in this section was obtained from the California Historical Resources Information System’s Northwest Information Center in Rohnert Park and the files of the City of Santa Rosa by Tom Origer and Associates for the preparation of this Draft EIR. Significant cultural resources include structures that may be eligible for the National Register, the California Register, or otherwise identified in the City of Santa Rosa’s Preservation Districts and inventory of landmark properties. Please see Chapter 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, for additional information on Native American resources and consultation pursuant to the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act.3 Ethnographic Setting
Linguists and ethnographers tracing the evolution of languages have found that most of the indigenous languages of the California region belong to one of five widespread North American language groups (the Hokan and Penutian phyla, and the Uto-Aztecan, Algic, and Athabaskan language families). The distribution and internal diversity of four of these groups suggest that their original centers of dispersal were outside, or peripheral to, the core territory of California, that is, the Central Valley, the Sierra Nevada, the Coast Range from Cape Mendocino to Point Conception, and the Southern California coast and islands. Only languages of the Hokan phylum can plausibly be traced back to populations inhabiting parts of this core region during the Archaic period, and there are hints of connections between certain branches of Hokan, such as that between Salinan and Seri, that suggest that at least some of the Hokan languages could have been brought into California by later immigrants, primarily from the Southwest and northwestern Mexico.
4 At the time of Euroamerican settlement, people inhabiting this area spoke Southern Pomo, one of seven mutually unintelligible Pomoan languages belonging to the Hokan language stock. The Southern Pomo’s aboriginal territory falls within present-day Sonoma County. To the north, it reaches the divide between Rock Pile Creek and the Gualala River, and to the south it extends to near the town of Cotati. The eastern
2 Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board, 2001, Processing Review Procedures, https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3259/Processing-Review-Procedures-for-Owners-of-Historic-Properties--- PDF?bidId=, accessed on May 30, 2023.
3 The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act, commonly referred to as it’s legislative bill number Assembly Bill (AB) 52, passed in 2014 and amended CEQA to address California Native American tribal concerns regarding how cultural resources of importance to tribes are treated under CEQA and created a new tribal cultural resources (TCR) category. 4 V. Golla, 2011, California Indian Languages, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
4.5.1.3 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-8 OCTOBER 2024
boundary primarily runs along the western flanks of Sonoma Mountain until it reaches Healdsburg, where it crosses to the west side of the Russian River . Within the larger area that constitutes the Southern Pomo homelands, some bands or tribelets occupied distinct areas.
The Bitagomtara were a triblet of the Southern Pomo and they occupied the lands south of Mark West Creek, north of Cotati and the boundary of the Coast Miwok, east of the Laguna de Santa Rosa, and west of Sonoma Canyon.
5, 6 Primary village sites of the Southern Pomo were occupied continually, while temporary sites were visited to procure resources that were especially abundant or available only during certain seasons. Sites often were situated near freshwater sources and in ecotones where plant life and animal life were diverse and abundant.
Primary village sites of the Southern Pomo were occupied continually, while temporary sites were visited to procure resources that were especially abundant or available only during certain seasons. Sites often were situated near freshwater sources and in ecotones where plant life and animal life were diverse and abundant. There are several ethnographic villages in the EIR Study Area. 7 The Southern Pomo population was decimated early in the historic period, especially in the southern part of their territory. Ethnic identity was severely impacted in the region of Santa Rosa and Sebastopol; McLendon and Oswalt reported that the few Southern Pomo speakers remaining in 1976 were from north of Healdsburg.
8 In 1992, the Southern Pomo and Coast Miwok established the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and were federally recognized in 2000.
Historic Setting
Much of Santa Rosa lies within the Rancho Cabeza de Santa Rosa, an 8,885-acre grant made to María Ignacia López de Carrillo, the mother-in-law of General Mariano Vallejo. Traveling from San Diego in 1837, she brought seven of her children to settle on the rancho and built the first European dwelling in the Santa Rosa area.
9 After Señora Carrillo’s death in 1849, the rancho was divided among seven claimants. As originally platted, the town of Santa Rosa included the blocks between 1st and 5th Streets and between present-day Morgan Street on the west and just beyond E Street to the east.10 Green’s Addition was the first expansion of the town, moving the limits northward. Outlying parcels varied in size, tending to increase in acreage as they got further from the town center .
5 R. Milliken, 1995, A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810, Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press.
6 O. Stewart, 1943, “Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography”, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 40, no. 2, pp.29–62.
7 S. Barrett, 1908, The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 6, no. 1, Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 8 S. McLendon and R. Oswalt, 1978, “Pomo,” In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp. 274–288, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. Sturtevant, general editor, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 9 M. Hoover, H. Rensch, E. Rensch, W. Abeloe, and D. Kyle, 2002, Historic Spots in California, 5th edition, Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press.
10 Brewster, J., 1854, Santa Rosa, California. Surveyor's original map folder #12, Sonoma County Recorder’s Office.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-9
With the end of World War II, Santa Rosa experienced a population boom, much like the rest of the nation. Census data show that the city had 12,605 people enumerated in 1940, and over the next 10 years, the number rose to 17,902.11 By 1960, Santa Rosa boasted a population of just over 31,000 people, nearly tripling in size in just 20 years. To accommodate this growth, entire neighborhoods were erected in short order, and the outward movement of families to the suburbs, begun during the late nineteenth century, recommenced with due speed. Much of this growth was bolstered by benefits extended to returning service members and their families. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (also known as the G.I. Bill of Rights) included several programs to ease World War II veterans back into the local economy while avoiding a return to the pre-war depression. Among those benefits was a military loan guarantee program to help purchase homes. In 1950, homeownership in California had risen 11 percent over the proceeding decade and was at an all-time high of 58 percent by 1960.
The years following World War II brought unprecedented well-being to Americans, and commerce flourished as people grew more comfortable with spending. Immediately after World War II, new commercial buildings generally were in downtown areas and other existing commercial centers. Bolstered by post-war consumer confidence, new housing developments appeared, and with them the need for more schools, new churches, and new commercial enterprises. By the end of the 1950s, new commercial construction was usually located in the new suburbs at the edge of town. In Santa Rosa, Hugh Codding led the way with several housing and commercial developments, including Brookwood Terrace, Town & Country Village, and Montgomery Village. These subdivisions tended to have their own commercial areas, and often social features as well.
Historic Resources of the Built Environment
In 1977 and 1989, architectural surveys of the city were completed by Dan Peterson and Anne Bloomfield, respectively, as well as numerous volunteers. Largely focused on the original core downtown and its immediate surroundings, these surveys identified several buildings and districts containing historical buildings. Though these surveys have been immensely helpful, they are over 30 years old and would not meet CEQA requirements by current standards. Based on the analysis of the Built Environment Resource Directory of the California Historical Resources Information System by Tom Origer and Associates for the preparation of this Draft EIR, over 900 buildings and structures have been subjected to some level of historical analysis in the EIR Study Area. The range of analysis includes buildings that have been listed on the National Register to those that have been formally evaluated and found ineligible for listing on any level (national, state, or local), and those identified as potentially important but not yet formally evaluated or listed on a register .
Historic resources include sites, structures, districts, landmarks, or other physical evidence of past human activity generally greater than 50 years old. Table 4.5-1, Historical Resources in the EIR Study Area, shows the 34 national- and state-listed historical resources found in the EIR Study Area. Table 4.5-2, Buildings Classified as Locally Important in the EIR Study Area, lists the 54 resources classified as locally important.
11 State of California Department of Finance, 2011, Historical Census Populations of Counties and Incorporated Cities in California, 1850–2010, http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/historical_census_1850-2010/.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-10 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.5-1 HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA
Name Address Listing
Cnopius House 726 College Avenue National Register
Comstock House 767 Mendocino Avenue National Register
De Turk Round Barn 819 Donahue Street National Register Flamingo Hotel 2777 4th Street National Register
William Hood House 7501 Sonoma Highway National Register; California Historical Landmark Hotel La Rose 308 Wilson Street National Register
W. H. Lumsden House 727 Mendocino Avenue National Register Luther Burbank House and Garden 200 Santa Rosa Avenue National Register; California Historical Landmark McDonald Mansion 1015 McDonald Avenue National Register Old Post Office 425 7th Street National Register, California Register Park Apartments 300 Santa Rosa Avenue National Register Railroad Square District Downtown Santa Rosa National Register Rosenberg's Department Store 700 Fourth Street National Register; California Register Sweet House 607 Cherry Street National Register
Wasserman House 930 Mendocino Avenue National Register Pygmailon B&B | Briggs House 331 Orange Street California Register (listed individually and as a contributor to the Olive Park Historic District)
Olive Park Historic District |
Ludwig's Addition National Register; Locally recognized as a Historic Preservation District
Rosenberg Building 306 Mendocino Avenue California Register South Saint Rose Historic District California Register (overlaps with the boundary of the local St. Rose Historic Preservation District
120 7th Street 120 7th Street California Register
133 7th Street 133 7th Street California Register
Old Rose Street School 560 9th Street California Register (St. Rose Historic Preservation District) 515 Davis Street 515 Davis Street California Register
Junius Botts Residence 433 Olive Street California Register Burbank School 203 South A Street California Register
Pacific Tire Sales | Palin Brothers
Sales Room 35 Sebastopol Avenue California Register
Lincoln School 709 Davis Street California Register
Elmer Olsen House 400 Lincoln Street California Register (St. Rose Historic Preservation District) Healey Residence 806 McDonald Avenue California Register (McDonald Historic Preservation District) 1005 Cleveland Avenue 1005 Cleveland Avenue California Register A. H. Johnson 1591 Sebastopol Road California Register
L W Burris Distillery | Cold Storage
Plant 700 Donahue Street California Register (West End Historic Preservation District) Santa Rosa Wine Cellar | De Turks
Winery 722 Donahue Street California Register (West End Historic Preservation District) Twentieth Century Folk Ard
Environments (Thematic) – John
Medica Gardens
5000 Medica Road California Historical Landmark
Source: Tom Origer and Associates, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-11
TABLE 4.5-2 BUILDINGS CLASSIFIED AS LOCALLY IMPORTANT IN THE EIR STUDY AREA
ADDRESS ADDRESS
868 2nd Street 801 Humboldt Street (Summerfield House/Thurston House) 819 3rd Street 912 Humboldt Street
827 3rd Street 931 Humboldt Street
834 3rd Street 1011 Humboldt Street
850 3rd Street (Lafferty Residence) 1200 Humboldt Street 613 4th Street (Kress Building) 100 Junior Street
909 4th Street 622 King Street
1023 4th Street (Hiram and Mary Tripp Residence) 318 Mendocino Avenue (Title Insurance Building) 1032 4th Street 920 Mendocino Avenue
1040 4th Street 762 Orchard Street (The Redwoods)
1069 4th Street (E. A. Wilson Residence) 801 Orchard Street 840 5th Street 807 Orchard Street
710 7th Street (Patricia Geraghty Residence) 302 South E Street 120 10th Street 412 South E Street
722 Beaver Street 716 Slater Street
742 Beaver Street 826 Slater Street (Thompson Home)
881 Carr Avenue (Residential Rehabilitation) 467 Sonoma Avenue 934 Clark Street 473 Sonoma Avenue
446 College Avenue 1103 Sonoma Avenue
600 College Avenue 1145 Sonoma Avenue
705 College Avenue 522 Spencer Street
715College Avenue 602 Spencer Street
807 College Avenue 103 Stanford Street
812 College Avenue 117 Stanford Street
441 Denton Way 622 Wright Street
1324 Fair Oaks Avenue (Stewart Residence/Trussel
Residence) 729 Wright Street
716 Howard Street 909 Wright Street
Note: Buildings at 0 A Street (Kessings Bayler & Menheim & Klutes Additions), 17 Davis Street, 550 Elliott Avenue, 712 Elliott Avenue, 800 Sonoma Avenue, and 825 Sonoma Avenue no longer exist and therefore are not listed in this table.
Source: Tom Origer and Associates, 2023.
In addition to the resources listed in Tables 4.5-1 and 4.5-2, there are eight historic preservation districts in the city of Santa Rosa. The SRCC -H combining district zoning designation applies to all parcels in the listed designated preservation districts. Note that the boundaries of the Railroad Square and St. Rose districts overlap with the boundaries of the National Register district and the California Register district respectively.
Burbank Gardens Historic Preservation
District
Cherry Street Historic Preservation District
McDonald Historic Preservation District
Olive Park Historic Preservation District
Railroad Square Historic Preservation District
Ridgway Historic Preservation District
St. Rose Historic Preservation District
West End Historic Preservation District
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-12 OCTOBER 2024
Archaeological Resources
Beginning in the early twentieth century, avocational archaeologist Jesse Peter traversed the Santa Rosa area and documented over 100 Native American archaeological sites. Since the enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and the CEQA of 1970, hundreds of surveys have been conducted in the EIR Study Area, which has resulted in the documentation of over 1,000 cultural resources ranging from prehistoric habitation sites to mid-twentieth century developments. Remnants of Native American civilization have been discovered along Santa Rosa Creek and its tributaries, in the adjacent alluvial valleys and surrounding plains, in the hills, in the Trione-Annadel State Park area, in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, and in the Windsor area. The remains of entire settlements, including three former villages, were found in northern Santa Rosa. Given the environmental setting, the archaeologically rich nature of the Santa Rosa area, and the fact that the EIR Study Area has not been entirely surveyed, there is a high potential for finding additional Native American sites in Santa Rosa.
Native American Resources and Consultation
Native American Resources
Santa Rosa was a site of Native American habitation beginning approximately 7,000 years ago, and Santa Rosa contains approximately 190 recorded Native American resources. 12 The Santa Rosa Basin,
encompassing the EIR Study Area, contains six major drainages: Santa Rosa, Matanzas, Piner, Rincon, Austin, and Brush Creeks. These creeks may hold prehistoric resources because Native American archaeological sites tend to be near waterways as well as along ridge tops, mid-slope terraces, alluvial flats, the base of hills, and near vegetation ecotones. 13 Trione-Annadel State Park, in the southeast corner
of the EIR Study Area, was an important obsidian source for Native American tools. Resources may include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, pestles, dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials.
Native American Consultation: Senate Bill 18
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (SB 18), a request was sent to the NAHC for a Tribal Consultation List in April 2019 and due to the ongoing nature of the proposed project a new request was sent in August 2024. The NAHC identified 36 local Native American representatives from the following 25 tribes as potentially having local knowledge of Native American places, features, and objects, as defined in PRC Section 5097.9 and PRC Section 5097.993, that are within the EIR Study Area. Tribes denoted with an asterisk (*) were included on the list from the NAHC in 2019 and 2024.
12 Based on a 2001 review of records and literature on file with the California Historical Resources Information System. 13 Vegetation ecotones are transition areas between different plant communities.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-13
Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big
Valley Rancheria
Cahto Tribe
Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians*
Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians
Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians*
Elem Indian Colony Pomo Tribe
Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise
Rancheria
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria*
Guidiville Rancheria of California
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians
Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts
Point Rancheria*
Koi Nation of Northern California
Lytton Rancheria*
Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the
Manchester Rancheria
Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of
California*
Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley*
Noyo River Indian Community
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
Potter Valley Tribe
Redwood Valley or Little River Band of Pomo
Indians
Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians
Round Valley Reservation/ Covelo Indian
Community
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo
Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo
Yokayo Tribe
The City notified the tribal representatives for each of the seven tribes denoted with an asterisk (*) about the proposed project on July 26, 2021 and requested information regarding potential resources at or near the EIR Study Area. While not on the 2019 NAHC list, the City also reached out to Pinoleville Pomo Nation and Tomaras & Ogas, LLP on behalf of the Lytton Rancheria. Anthony Macias, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians, responded to the City on August 10, 2021 that the city is out of the Aboriginal Territory of the Stewarts Point Rancheria Kashia Band of Pomo Indians, and they had no comments or concerns. Additionally, the City received requests for consultation from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and Lytton Rancheria. The City met with representatives of Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and with representatives of Lytton Rancheria. In addition, the City maintained ongoing communication with representatives from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and Lytton Rancheria. As a result of the consultations to date (October 2024), only the listed requests have been made. A description of how the City has responded to each of these requests is provided in Section
4.16.3, Impact Discussion, under impact discussion TCR-1, in Chapter 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR.
Work to develop a better communication system for the required SB 18 and AB 52 consultation between City staff and tribes.14
Tribal acknowledgment to be added to the Housing Element and to be carried forward in the comprehensive General Plan.
Consider Phase 1 archaeological survey for all projects that involve ground disturbance: allowing potential exceptions where the ground has already been disturbed. Develop a threshold for when ministerial projects with ground disturbance can include consultation. Expand consideration of projects along waterways to include historical locations and trajectories. Ensure the plan includes adequate goals, policies, and actions related to resilience.
14 AB 52 stands for Assembly Bill 52 which was the legislation that enacted the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act. A detailed discussion of this Act is provided in Chapter 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-14 OCTOBER 2024
As stated, due to the ongoing nature of the project, the City notified the tribal representatives for each of the 25 tribes about the proposed project on September 11, 2024 and requested information regarding potential resources at or near the EIR Study Area.
Sacred Lands File Search
Concurrently with the request for the Tribal Consultation List in August 2024, a request was sent to the NAHC for a Sacred Lands File search. The NAHC reported on August 30, 2024 that the result of the Sacred Lands File search was negative.
4.5.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to cultural resources if it would:
1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5.
2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
4. In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to cultural resources.
4.5.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
As described in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, some proposed General Plan 2050 policies and actions are required as a means to mitigate environmental impacts under CEQA. These policies and actions are fully enforceable at the discretion of the decision maker through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. These mitigating policies and actions use the imperative “shall,” include performance criteria, and are marked with an asterisk (*). Note that all actions are required to be implemented by the City and therefore the imperative “shall,” if not explicitly stated, is implied.
CUL-
1 Implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The types of cultural resources that meet the definition of historical resources under CEQA Section 21084.1 generally consist of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant for their traditional, cultural, and/or historical associations. Under CEQA, both prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites may qualify based on historical associations. As such, the two main historical resources that are subject to impact, and that may be impacted by implementation of the proposed project, are historical archaeological deposits and historical architectural resources. Impacts to SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-15
archaeological resources are described under impact discussion CUL-2, and human remains are addressed under impact discussion CUL-3.
As discussed under Section 4.5.1.3, Existing Conditions, several historical resources exist in the EIR Study Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could have the potential to directly impact cultural resources by altering land use regulations that govern these properties or surrounding sites.
Implementation of the proposed project would allow for an increase in residential, commercial, and industrial development in Santa Rosa over the planning horizon of the proposed General Plan 2050.
Potential future development in the EIR Study Area could cause a significant impact on the historical resources in question if new construction were incompatible with the existing historical resources’ site relationships that contribute to the significance of the existing property, or if the massing (height and bulk) of new construction were incompatible with the historical resource. Lastly, the design characteristics and materials of new construction could impact adjoining or nearby historical buildings. If new development near historic properties is not compatible, impacts on historical resources could be significant. Additionally, if new development were to directly impact existing resources, impacts on historical resources could be significant.
SRCC Chapter 18-04 adopted the California State Historic Building Code, which provides regulations for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, relocation, related construction, change of use, or continued use of a qualified historical building or structure. SRCC Chapter 17-22 outlines the methods that items can be identified and protected as cultural and historical resources. Article V, Permits for Restoration, Rehabilitation, Alteration, Removal, or Demolition, bans alterations of any kind to any building in a preservation district without a permit from the City. The SRCC - H combining district applies to all properties in a historical district and outlines the standards for the planning and development of sites in these districts. Additionally, the City’s Design Guidelines contain guiding policies pertaining to historic properties to preserve historic heritage, limit the demolition of historical sites, and ensure alterations are compatible with the existing character of the structure and neighborhood. Standards include requesting a review from the City to determine any historic or architectural significance prior to demolition or alteration if it is determined that the exterior appearance of any designated landmark or any structure in a Preservation District may change.
The proposed General Plan 2050 Chapter 4, Urban Design, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Historic Preservation, and Art and Culture, contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to historic resources in the built environment. The following goals, policies, and actions would minimize impacts to historic resources:
Goal 4-1: Preserve and enhance Santa Rosa’s community character through attractive urban and environmental design and intentional development.
Policy 4-1.1: Preserve and enhance the visual beauty and value of the city’s natural waterways, hillsides, historic districts, buildings, structures, and landscapes. Policy 4-1.2: Strengthen and emphasize community focal points, visual landmarks, and features that contribute to the identity of Santa Rosa by applying the design concepts and standards of the Zoning Code, Design Guidelines, Historic Combining Districts, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and the Citywide Creek Master Plan.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-16 OCTOBER 2024
Goal 4-3: Protect the historic and cultural resources of Santa Rosa and enrich the sense of place and understanding of the city’s history and prehistory.
Policy 4-3.1: Preserve Santa Rosa’s historic sites, buildings, and neighborhoods. Action 4-3.1: Identify funding sources and resources to pursue designating new landmarks and historic preservation districts.
*Action 4-3.2: Follow the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction for the treatment of historic properties. Action 4-3.3: Provide owners of older and historic buildings, structures, and sites clear and cost-effective options to measurably enhance energy efficiency while maintaining the historic integrity to the greatest extent possible.
Action 4-3.4: Pursue designation as a Certified Local Government Program by the National Parks Service to assist in funding local historic preservation. Action 4-3.5: Seek funding and establish mechanisms, such as social media and periodic flyers, to educate property owners in preservation districts about the steps required for changes to historic properties.
*Action 4-3.6: Identify and minimize or remove obstacles for owners of historic properties to support preservation, including guides for repurposing facilities.
Identify resources to:
Keep cultural surveys relevant.
Periodically update the City’s Cultural Heritage Survey to ensure consistency with current guidelines and best practices, to reflect potential changes in status, and to include properties that have become age-eligible for listing.
Conduct cultural and/or historic inventories or surveys of areas of the city that have not been surveyed.
Install plaques and/or educational signage at locations of cultural significance and significant events.
Implement recommendations in the City’s Cultural Heritage studies. Partner with the local tourism industry, property owners, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other public agencies to develop and promote Heritage Tourism opportunities, integrating efforts with ongoing initiatives for economic development and the creative economy.
Work with local schools and historic organizations to engage and interest residents of all ages in Santa Rosa's history and historic sites, structures, and neighborhoods. *Action 4-3.7: Identify buildings that should be recognized for cultural significance and/or considered for landmark designation.
Action 4-3.8: Strongly encourage and incentivize adaptive re-use of historic buildings and structures over demolition.
*Action 4-3.9: Preserve historic aspects of parks while integrating modern uses and amenities.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-17
Action 4-3.10: Ensure that historic surveys are available on a dedicated City webpage, easily accessible and promoted online.
Policy 4-3.2: Promote conservation for efforts related to historic buildings, structures, or sites. Action 4-3.11: Explore programs, policies, or procedures that encourage the preservation of materials, such as historic windows, doors, siding, and trim, for potential reuse, as feasible when historic buildings are demolished or renovated.
Because future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 has the potential to occur where historic buildings and/or properties may exist, known and yet to be classified, impacts from the proposed General Plan 2050 are potentially significant.
Impact CUL-1: Impacts to known or yet to be classified historic buildings or structures could occur from potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. Implementation of the Santa Rosa City Code (SRCC), Design Guidelines, and the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, would ensure that new development and exterior remodels are compatible with cultural and historic resources; that landmarks and historic treasures would be preserved, enhanced, and rehabilitated, and that cultural and historic resources of Santa Rosa would be protected and restored. Specifically, proposed General Plan 2050 *Action 4-3.2 would mitigate potential impacts by requiring the City to follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction of historic structures in Santa Rosa, and *Action 4-3.6 would require the City to work with the owners of historic properties to promote preservation, renovation and rehabilitation of historic structures. Under proposed *Action 4-3.6, *Action 4-3.7, and *Action 4-3.9, the City would require cultural and/or historic inventories or surveys of the city and the identification of buildings and park properties that should be recognized for their cultural significance to further preserve qualifying historic properties in Santa Rosa. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 would require the preservation of historic resources and require new development to analyze and avoid any potential impacts to designated historic resources through record searches, preconstruction field surveys, ground-disturbance monitoring, and implementation of appropriate measures or project alternatives to avoid identified significant impacts. Finally, CEQA would require that future potential projects in the EIR Study Area with the potential to significantly impact historical resources be subject to project-level CEQA review wherein the future potential project’s potential to affect the significance of a surrounding historical resource would be evaluated and mitigated to the extent feasible. The requirement for subsequent CEQA review, pursuant to State law, would minimize the potential for new development to indirectly affect the significance of existing historical resources to the maximum extent practicable.
Potential impacts from future development on historical resources could lead to (1) demolition, which by definition results in the material impairment of a resource’s ability to convey its significance; (2) inappropriate modification, which may use incompatible materials, designs, or construction techniques in a manner that alters character-defining features; and (3) inappropriate new construction, which could introduce incompatible new buildings that clash with an established architectural context. While any of these scenarios, especially demolition and alteration, have the SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-18 OCTOBER 2024
potential to change the historic fabric or setting of an architectural resource such that the resource’s ability to convey its significance may be materially impaired, compliance with federal and State laws as described in Section 4.5.1.2, Regulatory Framework, SRCC, and the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions identified would ensure future development would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and impacts would be less than significant.
CUL- 2 Implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5.
Historical and pre-contact archaeological deposits that meet the definition of archaeological resources under CEQA could be damaged or destroyed by ground-disturbing activities associated with potential future development in Santa Rosa. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource would occur from its demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1). Should this occur, the ability of the deposits to convey their significance, either through containing information important in prehistory or history, or through possessing traditional or cultural significance to Native American or other descendant communities, would be materially impaired.
The overall pre-contact archaeological sensitivity of the EIR Study Area is generally considered high. As discussed in Section 4.5.1.3, Existing Conditions, remnants of Native American civilization have been discovered throughout Santa Rosa. Given the environmental setting, the archaeologically rich nature of the Santa Rosa area, and the amount of unsurveyed land, there is a high potential for finding additional Native American sites in Santa Rosa.
Implementation of the proposed project could result in development on a number of vacant, rural, or agricultural sites that may not have been as extensively disturbed as urbanized areas. The potential remains that archaeological deposits could be discovered because implementation of the proposed project could result in development on or in the vicinity of areas with the potential to contain significant resources. In addition, development in proximity to known archaeological sites in Santa Rosa would have the potential to contain significant resources that could be permanently damaged by potential future development over the buildout horizon of the proposed project. Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, excavation, and trenching for utilities) associated with the proposed project may result in unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or the damage or destruction of previously undiscovered resources. As described in Section 4.5.1.3, Existing Conditions, the creeks in the EIR Study Area may hold prehistoric resources because Native American archaeological sites tend to be near waterways.
The proposed General Plan 2050 Chapter 2, Land Use and Economic Development; Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction; and Chapter 4, Urban Design, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Historic Preservation, and Art and Culture, contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to archaeological resources.
The following goals, policies, and actions would minimize impacts to archaeological resources:
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-19
Goal 2-2: Promote city-centered growth and investment with a neighborhood-focused approach to create complete and connected communities that provide community members' daily needs within easy walking or biking distance.
Policy 2-2.2: Encourage a compact, rather than a scattered, development pattern for new development proposals, particularly in Areas of Change. Goal 3-5: Protect, expand, maintain, and restore natural resources, open space, and the limited remaining agricultural land.
Policy 3-5.2: Preserve, enhance, and expand a connected network of open spaces for recreation, natural and cultural resource protection, and mobility of species by way of critical linkages between open space lands.
Action 3-5.4: Collaborate with regional agencies and private landowners to link inaccessible open spaces to benefit the protection of special environments and ecosystems, such as wetlands, plant communities, wildlife habitats and corridors, historic resources, and tribal and cultural resources.
Policy 3-5.3: Conserve and protect creeks, wetlands, vernal pools, wildlife ecosystems, rare plant habitats, and waterways from development.
Policy 3-5.5: Maintain, restore, and protect the city’s waterways. Policy 3-5.7: Ensure that construction adjacent to creek channels is sensitive to the natural environment, preserves topography and vegetation along the creek, does not disrupt or pollute the waterway, and provides an adequate setback buffer . *Action 3-5.19: Require new development along channelized waterways to establish an ecological buffer zone between the waterway and development that also provides opportunities for shared use paths and recreation.
*Action 3-5.20: Require new development to maintain an adequate setback from channelized waterways to recognize the 100-year flood elevation, with setbacks in the Zoning Code as minimums and larger setbacks encouraged in accordance with Restoration Concept Plans to meet restoration and enhancement goals.
Goal 4-2: Protect tribal cultural resources in Santa Rosa and enrich the sense of place and understanding of the city’s history and prehistory.
Policy 4-2.1: Protect Native American heritage, honor the early stewards of this land, and treat Native American remains and resources with sensitivity. *Action 4-2.1: Continue to review proposed developments 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, both prehistoric and/or historic-era, and tribal cultural resources, or if they have the potential to hold such resources and if so, implement mitigation to protect the resource.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-20 OCTOBER 2024
*Action 4-2.2: Work in good faith with interested communities to evaluate proposed development sites for the presence of subsurface historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources. These efforts may include:
Consideration of existing reports and studies.
Consultation with Native American tribes as required by State law. Appropriate site-specific investigative actions.
On-site monitoring during excavation if appropriate.
*Action 4-2.3: Continue to require that project areas found to contain significant archaeological resources be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist with recommendations for protection and preservation.
Policy 4-2.2: Collaborate with the most likely descendants, as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission.
*Action 4-2.4: If tribal cultural resources are encountered during development, halt work 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 tribal cultural resources—which may include animals, structures, landscapes, or plants—and determined suitable mitigation measures.
Because future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 may occur where there is the potential for archeological resources, known and unknown, impacts from the proposed General Plan 2050 are potentially significant.
Impact CUL-2: Impacts to known and unknown archeological resources could occur from potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions would ensure that new development in the EIR Study Area reduces and mitigates potential impacts to archaeological resources. As demonstrated, the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions encourage infill development, adaptive reuse of structures, and development on underutilized land, which would reduce the potential for disturbing archaeological deposits since ground-disturbing activities have already taken place in developed areas. Specifically, proposed Policy 2-2.2 encourages compact development in the Areas of Change. Proposed Policy 4-
1.1 requires the preservation and enhancement of the city’s natural waterways and landscapes, Policy 3-5.7 requires that construction adjacent to creek channels is sensitive to the natural environment, preserves topography and vegetation along the creek, does not disrupt or pollute the waterway, and provides an adequate setback buffer, and *Action 3-5.19 and *Action 3-5.20 require new development along channelized waterways to establish an ecological buffer zone between the waterway and development. Additionally, implementation of the proposed *Action 4-2.1 and *Action 4-2.2 would require the preservation of archaeological and historic resources that are found in the EIR Study Area and would require new development to analyze and avoid any potential impacts to archaeological resources through record searches, preconstruction field surveys, ground-disturbance monitoring, and implementation of appropriate measures or project alternatives to avoid identified significant impacts. Proposed *Action 4-2.3 requires the City to continue to require that project areas SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.5-21
found to contain significant archaeological resources be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist with recommendations for protection and preservation and *Action 4-2.4 requires the evaluation and mitigation of tribal cultural resources by a qualified consulting archaeologist and Native American representative as appropriate. The proposed General Plan 2050 requires development project applicants to consult with Native American representatives regarding cultural resources to identify locations of importance to Native Americans, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties. Compliance with federal and State laws, as described in Section 4.5.1.2, Regulatory Framework, and the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed previously, would protect recorded and unrecorded archaeological deposits in the EIR Study Area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation would ensure that potential impacts from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
CUL-
3 Implementation of the proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Previously undiscovered human remains associated with pre-contact archaeological deposits may exist in the EIR Study Area, as ground-disturbing activities sometimes uncover such previously unrecorded remains. As described under impact discussion CUL-2, ground-disturbing activities and excavation for the project would have the potential to uncover buried resources. It is possible that human remains may be present in the EIR Study Area. Descendant communities may ascribe religious or cultural significance to such remains, making any such disturbances a potentially significant impact.
As described under impact discussion CUL-2, the proposed General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to minimize impacts to archaeological resources, including human remains. Specifically, proposed Policy 2-2.2 encourages infill development, particularly in the Areas of Change, which reduces opportunities to unearth human remains, Action 3-5.4 requires the City to collaborate with regional agencies to expand open space that would protect historic and tribal cultural resources, which could include human remains, and *Action 4-2.4 outlines required procedures to follow in the event TCRs are encountered. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains have been mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and the CCR Section 15064.5(e) (CEQA), as described in Section 4.5.1.2, Regulatory Framework. According to the provisions in CEQA, in the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately until the find can be properly treated. The Sonoma County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Coroner shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours, who will, in turn, notify the person the NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of any human remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified, or the landowner rejects the SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-22 OCTOBER 2024
recommendation of the MLD, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.
Therefore, compliance with the mandatory regulatory procedures described and the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, potential impacts related to the potential discovery or disturbance of any human remains accidently unearthed during construction activities associated with future development in the EIR Study Area would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
CUL-4 Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less- than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources.
The impacts of potential future development under implementation of the proposed project on cultural resources tend to be site specific, and cumulative impacts would occur when a series of actions leads to the loss of a substantial type of site, building, or resource. For example, while the loss of a single historic building may not be significant to the character of a neighborhood or streetscape, continued loss of such resources on a project-by-project basis could constitute a significant cumulative effect. This is most obvious in historic districts, where destruction or alteration of a percentage of the contributing elements may lead to a loss of integrity for the district overall. For example, changes to the setting or atmosphere of an area by adding modern structures on all sides of a historically significant building, thus altering the aesthetics of the streetscape, would create a significant impact. Destruction or relocation of historic buildings would also significantly impact the setting.
Potential future development under the proposed project would be primarily within the developed portions (Areas of Change) of the EIR Study Area. This, in conjunction with buildout of the city and the region, has the potential to cumulatively impact cultural resources. As previously discussed, impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains in the EIR Study Area would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions described in impact discussions CUL-1 through CUL-3. Additionally, the existing federal, state, and local regulations and the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions described throughout this chapter serve to protect cultural resources in the EIR Study Area. Continued compliance with these regulations substantially decreases potential impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, human remains, and TCRs to the maximum extent practicable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-1
4.6 ENERGY
This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of Santa Rosa Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Study Area and evaluates the potential energy impacts from adopting and implementing the proposed project and from future development and activities that could occur under the proposed project. Section 21100(b)(3) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR include a detailed statement with mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including, but not limited to, measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Appendix F, Energy Conservation, of State CEQA Guidelines states that, to ensure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the potential energy implications of a project shall be considered in an EIR, to the extent relevant and applicable to the project.
Appendix F further states that a project’s energy consumption and proposed conservation measures may be addressed, as relevant and applicable, in the project description, environmental setting, and impact analysis portions of technical sections, as well as through feasible mitigation measures and alternatives.
In accordance with Appendices F, Energy Conservation, and G, Environmental Checklist, of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Draft EIR includes relevant information and analyses that address the energy implications of the proposed project. This chapter summarizes the proposed anticipated energy needs, impacts, and conservation measures associated with future development and activities under the proposed project.
Other aspects of the proposed project’s energy implications are also discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR.
4.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.6.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was established in response to the 1973 oil crisis. The act created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, established vehicle fuel economy standards, and prohibited the export of United States crude oil (with a few limited exceptions). It also created Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars starting in model year 1978. The CAFE standards are updated periodically to account for changes in vehicle technologies, driver behavior, and/or driving conditions.
The federal government issued new CAFE standards in 2012 for model years 2017 to 2025 that required a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) for model year 2025. However, on March 30, 2020, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) finalized an updated CAFE and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021 through 2026. Under SAFE, the fuel economy standards will increase 1.5 percent per SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-2 OCTOBER 2024
year compared to the 5 percent per year under the CAFE standards established in 2012. Overall, SAFE requires a fleet average of 40.4 MPG for model year 2026 vehicles. On March 31, 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized new fuel standards, which will increase fuel efficiency 8 percent annually for model years 2024 to 2025 and 10 percent annually for model year 2026. Overall, the new CAFE standards require a fleet average of 49 MPG for passenger vehicles and light trucks for model year 2026, which will be a 10 MPG increase relative to model year 2021. 1 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) seeks to provide the nation with greater energy independence and security by increasing the production of clean renewable fuels; improving vehicle fuel economy; and increasing the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles. It also seeks to improve the energy performance of the federal government. The act sets increased CAFE Standards; the Renewable Fuel Standard; appliance energy-efficiency standards; building energy-efficiency standards; and accelerated research and development tasks on renewable energy sources (e.g., solar energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies), carbon capture, and sequestration.
2 Energy Policy Act of 2005
Passed by Congress in July 2005, the Energy Policy Act includes a comprehensive set of provisions to address energy issues. This Act includes tax incentives for energy conservation improvements in commercial and residential buildings, fossil fuel production and clean coal facilities, and construction and operation of nuclear power plants, among other things. Subsidies are also included for geothermal, wind energy, and other alternative energy producers.
National Energy Policy
Established in 2001 by the National Energy Policy Development Group, the National Energy Policy is designed to help the private sector and State and local governments promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future. Key issues addressed by the energy policy are energy conservation, repair and expansion of energy infrastructure, and ways of increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment.
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 authorizes the United States Department of Transportation to regulate pipeline transportation of flammable, toxic, or corrosive natural gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the United States Department of Transportation develops and enforces regulations
1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1, 2022, USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model year 2024-2026, https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-model- year-2024-2026, accessed July 24, 2023.
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, updated May 12, 2022, Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-independence-and-security-act, accessed July 24, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-3
for the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation’s 2.6-million-mile pipeline transportation system.
State Regulations
Warren-Alquist Act
Established in 1974, the Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in response to the energy crisis of the early 1970s and the state’s unsustainable growing demand for energy resources. The CEC’s core responsibilities include advancing State energy policy, encouraging energy-efficiency, certifying thermal power plants, investing in energy innovation, developing renewable energy, transforming transportation, and preparing for energy emergencies. The Warren-Alquist Act is updated annually to address current energy needs and issues, and its latest edition was in January 2023.
California Energy Commission
The CEC was created in 1974 under the Warren-Alquist Act as the State’s principal energy planning organization to meet the energy challenges facing the state in response to the 1973 oil embargo. The CEC is charged with six basic responsibilities when designing state energy policy:
Forecast statewide electricity needs
License power plants to meet those needs
Promote energy conservation and efficiency measures
Develop renewable energy resources and alternative energy technologies Promote research, development, and demonstration
Plan for and direct the State’s response to energy emergencies California Public Utilities Commission
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, which provides a framework for energy efficiency in California through the year 2020 and beyond. It articulates a long-term vision, as well as goals for each economic sector, identifying specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving these goals. This Plan sets forth the following four goals, known as Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies, to achieve significant reductions in energy demand:
All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020;3 All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030; Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California’s climate; and
All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income energy-efficiency program by 2020.
3 Zero net energy buildings are buildings that the total amount of energy used by the building on an annual basis is equal to or less than the amount of renewable energy created on the site.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-4 OCTOBER 2024
With respect to the commercial sector, the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan notes that commercial buildings, which include schools, hospitals, and public buildings, consume more electricity than any other end-use sector in California. The commercial sector’s five-billion-plus square feet of space accounts for 38 percent of the state’s power use and over 25 percent of natural gas consumption.
Lighting, cooling, refrigeration, and ventilation account for 75 percent of all commercial electric use, while space heating, water heating, and cooking account for over 90 percent of gas use. In 2006, schools and colleges were in the top five facility types for electricity and gas consumption, accounting for approximately 10 percent of the state’s electricity and gas use. 4 The CPUC and CEC have adopted the following goals to achieve zero net energy levels by 2030 in the commercial sector:
Goal 1: New construction will increasingly embrace zero net energy performance (including clean, distributed generation), reaching 100 percent penetration of new starts in 2030. Goal 2: 50 percent of existing buildings will be retrofitted to zero net energy by 2030 through achievement of deep levels of energy efficiency and with the addition of clean distributed generation. Goal 3: Transform the commercial lighting market through technological advancement and innovative utility initiatives.
Renewable Portfolio: Carbon Neutrality Regulations
Senate Bills 10 78, 107, X1-2, and Executive Order S-14-08 The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and was amended in 2006, 2011, and 2018. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the use of eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020. Initially under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order (EO) S 14 08 was signed in November 2008, which expanded the state’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020.
This standard was adopted by the California legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). The CPUC is required to provide quarterly progress reports on progress toward RPS goals. This has accelerated the development of renewable energy projects throughout the state.
Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number SB 350 was enacted on October 7, 2015, which expands the RPS by establishing a goal of 50 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030. In addition, this Act includes the goal to double the energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses upon which an energy-efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency. This Act also requires the CPUC, in
4 California Public Utilities Commission, January 2011, CA Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/- /media/cpuc-website/files/legacyfiles/c/5303-caenergyefficiencystrategicplan-jan2011.pdf, accessed July 25, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-5
consultation with the CEC, to establish efficiency targets for electrical and gas corporations consistent with this goal. This Act also provides for the transformation of the California Independent System Operator into a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the western states and to improve the access of consumers served by the California Independent System Operator to those markets, pursuant to a specified process.
Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, SB 100 was signed into law to replace the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350) requirements. Under SB 100, the RPS for public-owned facilities and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Additionally, SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. Furthermore, the bill also establishes an overall State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under SB 100, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
The Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of
2022
The Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022, commonly known as its legislative bill number SB 1020 was signed into law on September 16, 2022. This Act requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040. Additionally, this Act requires all State agencies to procure 100 percent of electricity from renewable energy and zero- carbon resources by 2035.
Energy-Efficiency Regulations
Appliance E
fficiency Regulations
California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations contain energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design standards for appliances (including refrigerators, ice makers, vending machines, freezers, water heaters, fans, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are sold or offered for sale in California (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Parts 1600–1608). These standards are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy-efficiency technologies and methods. 5 California Building Energy Code: Title 24, Part 6, Energy-E fficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2022 (CCR Title 24, Part 6). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and
5 California Energy Commission, 2017, 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, https://pdf4pro.com/cdn/2016-appliance- efficiency-regulations-5104f7.pdf, accessed July 25, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-6 OCTOBER 2024
building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy-efficiency technologies and methods.
On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which were subsequently approved by the California Building Standards Commission in December 2021. The 2022 standards became effective and replaced the 2019 standards on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards require mixed-fuel single-family homes to be electric-ready to accommodate replacement of gas appliances with electric appliances. In addition, the new standards also include prescriptive photovoltaic system and battery requirements for high-rise, multifamily buildings (i.e., more than three stories) and noncommercial buildings such as hotels, offices, medical offices, restaurants, retail stores, schools, warehouses, theaters, and convention centers.
6 California Building Code: Title 24, Part 11, Green B uilding Standards On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). It includes mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings throughout California. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor . The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2022. The 2022 CALGreen update, which was approved as part of the 2022 Energy Code, became effective on January 1, 2023, and provides updates to the residential and nonresidential voluntary measures.
Overall, the code is established to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for construction site selection, stormwater control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency. 7 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006.
The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. They contain energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design
6 California Energy Commission, 2021, Amendments to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022 Energy Code), Draft Environmental Report. CEC-400-2021-077-D.
7 California Building Standards Commission, July 2022, 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1/copyright, accessed July 25, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-7
standards for appliances (including refrigerators, ice makers, vending machines, freezers, water heaters, fans, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are sold or offered for sale in California (CCR Title 20, Parts 1600–1608). These standards are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy-efficiency technologies and methods.
Off-road Equipment and Transportation-Related Regulations Assembly Bill 1493 (Pa
vley Law)
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and was anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the USEPA. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles (see also the discussion on the update to the CAFE standards under Federal, above). In January 2012, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the Pavley Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.
8 Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449
Section 2449 of the CCR, Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8 was adopted on May 2, 2008, that limits non- essential idling of fleets to no more than five consecutive minutes at any location. This idling restriction applies to all vehicles in California with a diesel-fueled or alternative diesel-fueled off-road engine, unless a waiver provides sufficient justification that such idling is necessary.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
In 2008, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, commonly known as its legislative bill number, SB 375, was adopted to connect the GHG emissions-reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior . Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. Specifically, this act required CARB to establish GHG emissions-reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) is the MPO for the cities of Sonoma County, which includes the City of Santa Rosa. Pursuant to the recommendations of the
8 California Air Resources Board, January 18, 2017, California’s Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/ACC%20MTR%20Summary_Ac.pdf, accessed July 25, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-8 OCTOBER 2024
Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC), CARB adopted per-capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target.
Executive Order N-79 -20
On September 23, 2020, EO N-79-20 was issued, which sets a time frame for the transition to zero- emissions (ZE) passenger vehicles and trucks in addition to off-road equipment. It directs CARB to develop and propose the following:
Passenger vehicle and truck regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) sold in California toward the target of 100 percent of in-state sales by 2035. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new ZE trucks and buses sold and operated in California toward the target of 100 percent of the fleet transitioning to ZEVs by 2045 everywhere feasible, and for all drayage9 trucks to be ZE by 2035. Strategies to achieve 100 percent zero emissions from all off-road vehicles and equipment operations in California by 2035, in cooperation with other State agencies, the USEPA, and local air districts.
On August 25, 2022, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II regulations that codify the EO goal of 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger vehicles and trucks be ZE by 2035. Starting in year 2026, Advanced Clean Cars II requires that 35 percent of new vehicles sold be ZE or plug-in hybrids.
Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation
In April 2023, CARB released the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation to accelerate the transition to zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
10 In conjunction with the Advanced Clean Trucks
regulation, the ACF regulations helps to ensure that medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs are brought to the market, by requiring certain fleets to purchase ZEVs. The ACF ZEV phase-in approach, which provides initial focus where the best fleet electrification opportunities exist, sets clear targets for regulated fleets to make a full conversion to ZEVs, and creates a catalyst to accelerate development of a heavy-duty public infrastructure network.
The ACF regulations covers four main elements:
Manufacturer sales mandate. Manufacturers may sell only zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles starting in 2036.
Drayage fleets. Beginning January 1, 2024, trucks must be registered in the CARB Online System to conduct drayage activities in California. Non-zero-emission “legacy” drayage trucks may register in the CARB Online System through December 31, 2023. Legacy drayage trucks can continue to operate through their minimum useful life. Beginning January 1, 2024, only zero-emission drayage trucks may
9 Drayage refers to short-distance transportation of goods between various transportation hugs, including ports, rail yards and warehouses, contributing to the smooth flow of goods. 10 California Air Resources Board, April 14, 2023, Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets/about, accessed July 25, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-9
register in the CARB Online System. All drayage trucks entering seaports and intermodal railyards would be required to be zero-emission by 2035.
High priority and federal fleets. High priority and federal fleets must comply with the Model Year Schedule or may elect to use the optional ZEV Milestones Option to phase-in ZEVs into their fleets:
Model Year Schedule: Fleets must purchase only ZEVs beginning 2024 and, starting January 1, 2025, must remove internal combustion engine vehicles at the end of their useful life, as specified in the regulation.
ZEV Milestones Option (Optional): Instead of the Model Year Schedule, fleets may elect to meet ZEV targets as a percentage of the total fleet starting with vehicle types that are most suitable for electrification.
State and local agencies. State and local government fleets, including city, county, special district, and State agency fleets, would be required to ensure 50 percent of vehicle purchases are zero-emission beginning in 2024 and 100 percent of vehicle purchases are zero-emission by 2027. Small government fleets (those with 10 or fewer vehicles) and those in designated counties would start their ZEV purchases beginning in 2027. Alternately, State and local government fleet owners may elect to meet ZEV targets using the ZEV Milestones Option. State and local government fleets may purchase either ZEVs or near-ZEVs, or a combination of ZEVs and near-ZEVs, until 2035. Starting in 2035, only ZEVs will meet the requirements.
The ACF regulations would also establish requirements that transform the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sector and demonstrate independent utility through achievement of the following objectives:
Achieve criteria and GHG emissions reductions consistent with the goals identified in the State Implementation Plan Strategy and Scoping Plan.
Provide emissions reductions in disadvantaged communities, thereby supporting the implementation of AB 617 (Garcia, C., Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017).
Support the goals of EO N-79-20, which calls for accelerated ZEV deployment with these targets:
100 percent ZE drayage by 2035
100 percent ZE trucks and buses where feasible by 2045 Ensure requirements, such as ZEV deployment schedules and related infrastructure build-out, are technologically feasible, cost-effective, and support market conditions. Lead the transition away from petroleum fuels and towards electric drivetrains. Contribute towards achieving carbon neutrality in California pursuant to SB 100, and in accordance with EO B-55-18.
Mindfully set requirements to allow time for public ZE infrastructure buildout for smaller fleets or for regional haul applications who would be reliant on a regional network of public chargers. Ensure manufacturers and fleets work together to place ZEVs in service suitably and successfully as market expands.
Establish a fair and level playing field among fleet owners. Craft the proposed project in a way that ensures institutional capacity for CARB to manage, implement, and enforce requirements.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-10 OCTOBER 2024
Energy Storage
California has set ambitious long-term goals for energy storage beyond 2026 to support its clean energy and climate goals. The State aims to reach 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, which will require significant investment in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, as well as energy storage technologies to balance the variability of these sources.
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has a total energy storage capacity of more than 3,160 megawatts (MW) as of June 2022.11 This includes both large-scale and distributed energy storage systems, such as batteries, pumped hydroelectric storage, and thermal storage. CAISO is responsible for managing the electricity grid for much of California, and it has set a target of adding 3,300 MW of additional energy storage capacity by 2024 to support the integration of more renewable energy sources like wind and solar. As part of SB 100, load-serving entities (LSEs) were required to procure no less than
1.3 gigawatts (GW) of energy storage capacity by 2020, and 3 GW by 2030. Additionally, the CPUC has established a target of 15 GW of energy storage capacity by 2030. 12 The Integrated Resource Plan
CAISO develops a coordinated grid management plan to integrate the generation and storage capacities of LSEs, called the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP is a comprehensive planning document that outlines CAISO’s forecasts for electricity demand, supply, and transmission needs over a 20-year planning horizon, as well as its strategies for integrating renewable energy resources and other grid services to meet those needs. The plan is developed in collaboration with LSEs, regulators, and other stakeholders, and is updated periodically to reflect changes in the energy landscape and evolving policy goals. Overall, the IRP plays a critical role in ensuring the reliability and resilience of California’s electricity grid as the state continues to transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system.
When an individual Battery Energy Storage (BES) facility or generation infrastructure (i.e., solar panels) comes online in California, it is typically included in the IRP through a process known as the Interconnection Queue. The Interconnection Queue is managed by the CAISO, which oversees the operation of the State’s electricity grid.
The Interconnection Queue
The Interconnection Queue is an application process that functions as a waiting list of proposed electricity generation and storage projects that are seeking to connect to the grid. When a new BES facility or generation infrastructure is proposed, the developer submits an application to CAISO to request an interconnection to the grid. CAISO evaluates the application to ensure that the facility meets technical and
11 California Independent System Operator, June 14, 2022, “A golden age of energy storage,” http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/Blog/Posts/A-golden-age-of-energy-storage.aspx, accessed July 25, 2023. 12 California Public Utilities Commission, December 1, 2022, CPUC Creates New Framework to Advance California’s Transition Away From Natural Gas, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2019- integrated-energy-policy-report, accessed July 25, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-11
operational requirements, such as voltage regulation and frequency response, and that it can be integrated effectively into the grid.
Once the BES facility or generation infrastructure is approved by CAISO, it is assigned a point of interconnection on the grid, and its output is added to the IRP as a resource that can provide electricity and other grid services, such as frequency regulation or ramping support. The facility is then dispatched by CAISO based on its bids into the day-ahead and real-time electricity markets, and its output is used to help balance supply and demand on the grid in real-time.
Overall, the Interconnection Queue is an important mechanism for integrating new BES facilities and other electricity resources into the California grid, and for ensuring that the grid remains reliable and resilient as the state continues to transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system.
Regional Regulations
Sonoma County Transportation Authority
The SCTA is the congestion management agency for Sonoma County. SCTA is tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions that will reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision-making and air quality. SCTA’s latest congestion management program is the 2016 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. SCTA’s countywide transportation model must be consistent with the regional transportation model developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) data. The countywide transportation model is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the congestion management program system. In addition, SCTA’s updated Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes multi-modal performance standards and trip reduction and transportation demand management strategies consistent with the goals of reducing regional VMT in accordance with Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375).
As part of the implementing framework for the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, communities in Sonoma County have identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) to focus future population and employment growth. Increased density in PDAs is intended to locate more people near jobs and services in an effort to reduce travel and transportation-related energy impacts. 13 Plan Bay Area
As described in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21, 2021.14 Plan Bay Area provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375). Under the Plan Bay Area strategies, just under half of all Bay Area
13 Sonoma County Transportation Authority, September 2016, Moving Forward 2040: Sonoma County’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CTP16_090616.pdf. 14 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed July 21, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-12 OCTOBER 2024
households would live within 0.5 miles of frequent transit by 2050. Transportation and environmental strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use pattern, are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from over 50 percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2050. As described in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR, to achieve Plan Bay Area’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for the region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in PDAs15 and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs).16 As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR, the EIR Study Area has six PDAs and three TPAs, including the Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor PDA, North Santa Rosa Station PDA and TPA, Downtown Station Area PDA and TPA, Sebastopol Road Corridor PDA, Roseland PDA, Santa Rosa Avenue PDA, and Santa Rosa Transit Mall TPA. Development in PDAs and TPAs leverage existing infrastructure and therefore can minimize development in greenfield (undeveloped) areas and maximize growth in transit-rich communities to help lower VMT and consequently reduce GHG emissions, air quality pollutants, and noise from vehicles with internal combustion engines dependent on fossil fuels and reduce wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Local Regulations
Santa Rosa City Code
The Santa Rosa City Code (SRCC) includes various directives pertaining to energy. The SRCC is organized by title, chapter, and section, and in some cases, articles. Most provisions related to energy conservation and use are in Title 3, Revenue and Finance; Title 18, Buildings and Construction; and Chapter 19, Subdivisions, as follows:
Chapter 3-32, Utility Users Tax. This chapter is also known as the utility users tax ordinance. Section 3-
32.060, Electricity Users Tax, outlines the tax that electric energy users in the city must pay. This code also defines what a charge and what using electric energy use means in this context. Section 3-
32.070, Gas Users Tax, outlines the tax imposed on every person in the city that uses gas through a main or pipes. Some exclusions from the tax are applicable and described in this code as well. Title 18, Buildings and Construction. This title adopts by reference, with the additions, insertions, deletions, and changes listed throughout, the California Energy Code in Chapter 18-33, California Energy Code, and the California Green Building Standards Code in Chapter 18-42, California Green Building Standards Code. This title also includes Chapter 18-68, Expedited Permit Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Energy Systems, which provides for an expedited, streamlined solar permitting process that complies with the Solar Rights Act and AB 2188 to achieve timely and cost- effective installations of small residential rooftop solar energy systems. Chapter 19-04, Energy Conservation. This chapter provides for subdivisions to be designed to include passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. Some examples of these opportunities include having the alignment of the subdivision be in the east-west direction and taking advantage of the available shade and prevailing breezes on the site.
15 Priority development areas (PDAs) are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas in existing communities. 16 Transit priority areas (TPAs) are half-mile buffers surrounding major transit stops or terminals.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-13
4.6.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity is quantified using kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt-hours (kWh), and natural gas is measured in therms. A therm is a measurement of the amount of heat energy in natural gas, equal to 100,000 British thermal units (BTUs). The volumetric billing unit used for natural gas delivered to customers is typically expressed in hundreds of cubic feet (Ccf)—approximately 0.01 therm per Ccf—or thousands of cubic feet (Mcf)—approximately 10.37 therms per Mcf.17 A kW is a measure of 1,000 watts of electrical power and a kWh is a measure of electrical energy equivalent to a power consumption of 1,000 watts for one hour . The kWh is commonly used as a billing unit for energy delivered to consumers by electric utilities. According to the CEC’s “Tracking Progress” regarding statewide energy demand, total electric energy usage in California was 280,738 gigawatt hours in 2021.
18 A gigawatt is equal to one million kW.
Energy Providers
Two energy providers, Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), serve the EIR Study Area, as described herein.
Sonoma Clean Power
SCP is the public electricity provider for Sonoma and Mendocino Counties.19 As a not-for-profit public agency, SCP is independently run by Sonoma County and the participating cities of Coverdale, Cotati, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, unincorporated Sonoma County, and the Town of Windsor . SCP provides electricity generated from renewable sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower. Individuals residing or working in the SCP service area are automatically enrolled in SCP .
SCP offers three program options: the CleanStart program, which provides 42 percent renewable power service; the EverGreen program, which provides 100 percent local renewable power service; or the OptOut program, which allows individuals to continue to receive PG&E’s basic service. 20 The electric
energy provided by SCP is conveyed to customers through PG&E’s existing infrastructure. PG&E continues to maintain the grid, repair lines, and provide customer billing services in the SCP service area.
17 United States Energy Information Administration, June 1, 2021, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=45&t=7, accessed July 25, 2023. 18 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by Planning Area, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyplan.aspx, accessed July 25, 2023. 19 Sonoma Clean Power, 2023, Who We Are, https://sonomacleanpower.org/whoweare, accessed July 25, 2023. 20 Sonoma Clean Power, 2023, You have the Power, https://sonomacleanpower.org/cleanstart-evergreen, accessed July 25, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-14 OCTOBER 2024
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Electricity
PG&E is a publicly traded utility company that generates, purchases, and transmits energy and natural gas under contract with the CPUC. PG&E’s service territory is 70,000 square miles, roughly extending north to Eureka, south to Bakersfield, west to the Pacific Ocean, and east to the Sierra Nevada. PG&E’s electricity distribution system consists of 106,681 circuit-miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit-miles of interconnected transmission lines.21 PG&E owns and maintains above-ground networks of electric transmission and distribution facilities throughout the EIR Study Area.
PG&E electricity is generated by a combination of sources such as coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, and hydro-electric dams, as well as newer sources of energy, such as wind turbines and photovoltaic plants, also known as solar farms. The bulk electric grid (collectively referred to as “The Grid”) is a network of high-voltage transmission lines, linked to power plants in the PG&E system. The distribution system, made up of lower-voltage secondary lines, is at the street and neighborhood level, and consists of overhead or underground distribution lines, transformers, and individual service “drops” that connect to the individual customer .
Natural Gas
PG&E gas transmission pipeline systems serve approximately 4.5 million gas customers in northern and central California.
22 The system is operated under an inspection and monitoring program. The system operates in real time on a 24-hour basis, and includes leak inspections, surveys, and patrols of the pipelines. PG&E also adopted the Pipeline 2020 program, which aims to modernize critical pipeline infrastructure, expand the use of automatic or remotely operated shut-off valves, catalyze development of next-generation inspection technologies, develop industry-leading best practices, and enhance public safety partnerships with local communities, public officials, and first responders. Total natural gas consumption in PG&E’s service area was 449,302,071,200 kilo-BTU for 2021.23 In 2021, roughly half of PG&E’s energy generated came from renewable resources, including biopower, geothermal, small hydroelectric, solar, and wind power. PG&E’s portfolio consists of 7 percent natural gas, 39 percent non-emitting nuclear generation, 4 percent large hydroelectric facilities, and 50 percent eligible renewable energies, which includes small hydroelectric and wind.24
21 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2023, Company profile, https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company- information/profile/profile.page, accessed July 25, 2023. 22 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2023, Company profile, https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company- information/profile/profile.page, accessed July 25, 2023. 23 California Energy Commission, 2021, Gas Consumption by Planning Area, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyplan.aspx, July 25, 2023. 24 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2023, Exploring clean energy solutions, https://www.pge.com/en_US/about- pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy- solutions.page#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20roughly%20half%20of,nuclear%20and%20large%20hydroelectric%20power, accessed July 25, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-15
The existing electricity and natural gas consumption attributable to nonresidential and residential land uses in the EIR Study Area is shown in Table 4.6-1, Estimated Existing Electricity and Natural Gas Demand.
TABLE 4.6-1 ESTIMATED EXISTING ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS DEMAND Parameter
Electricity Usage
(kWh/year) a
Natural Gas Usage
(Therms/year) a
Residential 367,395,591 28,371,401
Nonresidential 525,542,438 15,954,672
Total 892,938,028 44,326,074
2019 Service Population b 275,569
Per Service Population Consumption 3,240 161
Notes:
a. Based on electricity and natural gas usage inventory as part of the development of the GHG Reduction Strategy. b. Service population = residents + jobs.
Source: See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR and Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, of the proposed General Plan 2050.
Fuel Consumption
California is among the top producers of petroleum in the country, with crude oil pipelines throughout the state connecting to oil refineries in the Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay, and Central Valley regions. In addition to producing petroleum, California is also one of the top consumers of fuel for transportation.
With this sector accounting for approximately 35 percent of California’s total energy demand in 2020, amounting to approximately 2,355.5 trillion BTUs.
25 In addition, in 2020, California’s transportation sector consumed approximately 433 million barrels of petroleum fuels.26 Furthermore, according to the CEC, California’s 2019 fuel sales were approximately 15,365 million gallons of gasoline and 1,756 million gallons of diesel.27 In Sonoma County, approximately 204 million gallons of gasoline and 32 million gallons of diesel fuel were sold in 2019.28 Table 4.6-2, Existing Operation-Related Annual VMT, shows the estimated annual VMT currently generated under existing baseline conditions. VMT is based on vehicle trips beginning and ending in the EIR Study Area and from external/internal trips (i.e., trips that either begin or end in the EIR Study Area).
25 United States Energy Information Administration, 2020, Table F33: Total Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_te.pdf, accessed July 25, 2023. 26 United States Energy Information Administration, 2020, Table F16: Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_te.pdf, accessed July 25, 2023. 27 California Energy Commission, 2023, California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting, accessed July 25, 2023.
28 California Energy Commission, 2023, California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CEC-A15), https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting, accessed July 25, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-16 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.6-2 EXISTING OPERATION-RELATED ANNUAL VMT
Gas VMT Diesel VMT Compressed Natural Gas VMT Electricity VMT 1,093,443,760 111,134,150 1,713,800 12,792,080
Source: See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.
4.6.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant energy impact if it would:
1. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
2. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
3. In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to energy.
To determine whether the proposed project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, this analysis uses the guidance provided in Appendix F, Energy Conservation, of the CEQA Guidelines as well as the analytical precedent set by League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) (75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168).
According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy is translated to include decreasing overall per-capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) (75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168), the Appellate Court concluded that the analysis of wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption was not adequate because it did not consider whether additional renewable energy features could be added to the project.
The proposed project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Considering the guidance provided by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and the Appellate Court decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) (75 Cal.App.5
th 63, 164-168), the proposed project would be
considered to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources if it would conflict with the following energy conservation goals:
Decreasing overall per-capita energy consumption;
Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, or oil; and Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-17
4.6.2.1 METHODOLOGY
The following is a summary of the assumptions used for the City’s energy analysis:
Energy (Natural Gas and Electricity): Energy use for residential and nonresidential land uses in the city were modeled using electricity and natural gas data provided by PG&E and SCP. Residential energy and nonresidential energy forecasts are adjusted for increases in housing units and employment, respectively.
On-Road Fuel Use: Daily VMT was used as an indicator of fuel use and was based on Origin- Destination Method VMT provided by W-Trans (see Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR).
The VMT provided includes the full trip length for land uses in the EIR Study Area (origin-destination approach) and a 50 percent reduction in the trip length for external-internal/internal-external trips, consistent with the recommendations of CARB’s RTAC. Accounting of VMT is based on the recommendations of CARB’s RTAC created under Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375).
Due to varying conditions that influence fuel consumption, such as vehicle fuel type and fuel economy, VMT generation is used herein as a performance metric to measure anticipated fuel consumption during baseline (2019) and future (2050) conditions. At the programmatic level, it is speculative to discuss the specific types of vehicles and fuels that would be used and consumed during operation of future development and activities under the proposed project.
4.6.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
ENE-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Potential future development projects from implementation of the proposed project would create temporary demands for electricity. Natural gas is not generally required to power construction equipment, and therefore is not anticipated during construction phases. Electricity use would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Additionally, it is anticipated that most electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities.
Construction of potential future development projects over the buildout horizon of the proposed project would also temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation. Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode.
Energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-18 OCTOBER 2024
construction and would be temporary. It is anticipated that most off-road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, would be gas or diesel powered. In addition, all operation of construction equipment would cease upon completion of project construction. Furthermore, the construction contractors would be required to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction, in accordance with CCR Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449. Such required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption.
Also, potential future projects in the EIR Study Area would be similar to projects currently in the EIR Study Area. Overall, there would be no unusual project characteristics anticipated that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of California. Therefore, short-term construction activities that occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption.
Long-Term Impacts During Operation
Decreasing Overall Per-Capita Energy Consumption
Operation of potential future development over the buildout horizon of the proposed project would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to existing conditions. Operational use of electricity and natural gas would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; use of on-site equipment and appliances; lighting; and charging electric vehicles. Land uses under the proposed General Plan 2050 would also result in additional demands for transportation fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity) associated with on- road vehicles.
Building Electricity
Electrical service to the EIR Study Area is provided by PG&E and SCP through connections to existing off- site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Table 4.6-3, Year 2050 Forecast Electricity Consumption, by horizon year 2050, electricity use in the EIR Study Area would increase by 63,691,182 kWh/year, or approximately 7 percent, from existing conditions.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-19
TABLE 4.6-3 YEAR 2050 FORECAST ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
Land Use
Electricity Usage (kWh/year)
Existing Conditions
Proposed General Plan
2050 a Net Change
EIR Study Area
Residential 367,395,591 415,787,730 48,392,139
Nonresidential 525,542,438 540,841,480 15,299,042
Total 892,938,028 956,629,210 63,691,182
Service Population 275,569 355,425 79,856
Per Service Population Annual Consumption 3,240 2,692 -548 Note:
a. Modified with State Actions.
Source: See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR and Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, of the proposed General Plan 2050.
As a result, the per-service population electricity consumption was estimated to decrease from 3,240 kWh per person per year in 2019 to 2,692 kWh per person per year in 2050, or a reduction of approximately 548 kWh annually. The 2050 electricity consumption estimates reflect the electricity consumption rates of the existing community, which is made up of a building stock that consists of varying ages and energy- efficiency performances. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, potential future development from implementation of the proposed project is expected to occur in the proposed General Plan 2050 Areas of Change and would be concentrated in the form of infill/intensification on sites already developed and/or underutilized or in close proximity to existing development and infrastructure. Further, the majority of the projected growth would occur in PDAs and TPAs.
All potential future development over the buildout horizon of the proposed General Plan 2050 would be required to demonstrate compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards in effect at the time the individual development applications are submitted and can therefore be expected to be more energy-efficient than the use being replaced, resulting in reductions in electricity consumption on a per-dwelling-unit and per-square-foot basis when compared to existing development. It should be noted that it is unknown how much more energy-efficient future iterations of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would be in 2050 compared to existing conditions as those code updates are released on a three-year cycle.
Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, and Chapter 5, Safety, Climate Resilience, Noise, and Public Services and Facilities, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider energy efficiency and impacts. The following goals, policies, and actions would serve to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use:
Goal 3-7: Strive to achieve net carbon neutrality no later than 2045. Policy 3-5.3: Increase the use of renewable, carbon free, and distributed energy resources throughout the city.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-20 OCTOBER 2024
Action 3-7.5: Require regular energy audits of existing City-owned and operated structures, identifying levels of existing energy use and potential conservation and efficiency measures. Action 3-7.6: Develop a capital project list and funding strategy to complete energy-efficiency projects for City-owned and operated structures and adjust the list annually to add new projects as needed.
Action 3-7.7: Provide information on the cost-savings potential and other benefits of energy audits and energy-efficient retrofits to encourage their preparation for buildings throughout the city.
Action 3-7.9: Identify incentives to encourage new buildings to exceed State energy efficiency requirements and/or meet or exceed the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Program or equivalent standards. Action 3-7.11: Use education and incentives to promote and sustain energy-conserving design and practices.
Policy 3-7.3: Increase the use of renewable, carbon-free, and distributed energy resources throughout the city.
Action 3-7.12: Revise any existing codes and policies that constrain or prohibit the installation of environmentally acceptable forms of distributed energy generation. Action 3-7.13: Identify incentives and other means to encourage new and existing buildings to include battery energy storage systems, especially buildings with solar energy installations and municipal buildings that provide essential community services.
Action 3-7.14: Participate in State and local efforts to develop appropriate policies and review procedures for the installation of photovoltaic solar and other forms of distributed energy generation.
Action 3-7.15: Continue to participate in utility-sponsored renewable energy programs that allow the city to receive a significant portion of energy from renewable sources. Action 3-7.16: Seek and identify resources to assist low-income homeowners and small business owners with identifying financing options for installation of rooftop solar energy systems, energy storage, and electrification of existing buildings. Action 3-7.17: Support the development of local-serving renewable energy projects that expand the availability of local renewable energy, provide sustainable local jobs, and support local and regional housing, economic development, and sustainability goals and initiatives. Action 3-7.18: Encourage the establishment of neighborhood renewable energy microgrids to support resilience.
Action 3-7.19: Support State and utility efforts to improve grid resilience and capacity.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-21
Goal 5-6: Santa Rosa is a resilient city able to adapt to, recover from, and thrive under changing climate conditions.
Policy 5-6.4: Encourage collaboration among City departments and with nonprofit organizations to create a network of equitably located resilience centers throughout the city. Action 5-6.10: Seek funding to upgrade existing warming and cooling centers to offer refuge from extreme heat events and poor air quality due to regional wildfire smoke and be equipped with renewable energy generation and backup power supplies. Policy 5-6.7: Strengthen the community’s ability to respond to the risks and negative effects of power outages, including public safety power shutoffs (PSPS) and other climate-related threats. Action 5-6.27: Collaborate with PG&E, Sonoma Clean Power, and nonprofit organizations to ensure that those who depend on electricity supply for medical devices and refrigerated medication have backup energy supplies during outages, including extreme heat and wind events.
Policy 5-6.8: Increase the resiliency of City-owned buildings and structures to severe weather events and support home and business owners to increase the resilience of their buildings and properties.
Action 5-6.29: Seek funding for backup power, preferably from renewable energy sources, and water resources at emergency shelters, resilience centers, and cooling centers.
As a result of compliance with Title 24 energy-efficiency standards and implementation of these proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, per service population building electricity consumption is expected to decrease in 2050 compared to existing conditions.
Building Natural Gas
As shown in Table 4.6-4, Year 2050 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption, natural gas use under the proposed project is estimated to total 48,851,700 therms annually. To provide a conservative assessment of what energy consumption may be in 2050 resulting from implementation of the proposed project, the new growth in building space anticipated through 2050 was assumed to include natural gas for space and water heating. With this assumption, by 2050, natural gas use in the EIR Study Area would increase by 4,525,626 therms annually, or approximately 10 percent, from existing conditions. Service population would also increase by 79,856 people under the proposed project. Thus, the per service population natural gas consumption is estimated to decrease from 161 therms per person per year in 2019 to 137 therms per person per year in 2050 for natural gas. As described above, this number can be considered to represent a conservative (i.e., “worst-case” scenario) as some residential projects in the EIR Study Area may opt for voluntary all-electric features.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-22 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.6-4 YEAR 2050 FORECAST NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION
Land Use
Natural Gas Usage (Therms per year)
Existing Conditions
Proposed General Plan
2050 a Net Change
EIR Study Area
Residential 28,371,401 31,665,210 3,293,809
Nonresidential 15,954,672 17,186,490 1,231,818
Total 44,326,074 48,851,700 4,525,626
Service Population 275,569 355,425 79,856
Per Service Population Annual Consumption 161 137 -24
Note:
a. Modified with State Actions.
Source: See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.
Similar to electricity consumption, all potential future development over the buildout horizon of the proposed General Plan 2050 would be required to demonstrate compliance with the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen and would result in reductions in heating fuel (i.e., natural gas or propane) consumption on a per-dwelling-unit and per-square-foot basis when compared to existing development in the city.
Moreover, Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider energy efficiency and impacts. In addition to the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed previously, the following goals, policies, and actions would serve to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption in potential future development in the EIR Study Area:
Goal 3-6: Use nature- and science-based strategies to preserve and create environments that provide ecosystem benefits.
Policy 3-6.9: Achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards. Action 3-6.33: Require all new development to be electric vehicle charging ready at a minimum. Explore opportunities to amend the City’s municipal codes to require new development to install electric vehicle charging infrastructure beyond the minimum State requirements.
Action 3-6.35: Review and amend the City’s Building Code and Zoning Code to facilitate the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Action 3-6.36: Explore efforts to require charging or clean fuel stations on private property, including hydrogen and sustainably sourced biofuels.
Action 3-6.37: Expand installation and operation of electric vehicle charging stations on City properties, including curbside in areas of the community where other options are limited.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-23
Action 3-6.38: Budget for clean fuel and zero-emission vehicles in the City’s long-range capital expenditure plans to transition the existing fleet of gasoline- and diesel- powered vehicles, and work to make the City’s fleet among the cleanest in the North Bay by:
Purchasing zero-emission vehicles whenever possible that meet or exceed requirements under the California Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation. If zero- emission vehicles are not available, purchase plug-in hybrids, or other vehicle types to minimize emissions. Using biodiesel and pollution- reducing fuel additives in the City’s diesel fuel vehicles. Goal 3-7: Strive to achieve net carbon neutrality no later than 2045. Policy 3-5.3: Increase the use of renewable, carbon free, and distributed energy resources throughout the city.
Action 3-7.10: Assess the effectiveness of the City’s environmentally sensitive preferred purchasing and green fleet conversion programs and update the programs, as needed, to support the City’s GHG reduction goals.
Policy 3-7.3: Increase the use of renewable, carbon-free, and distributed energy resources throughout the city.
Action 3-7.20: Require all new electric vehicle (EV) chargers installed by the City to have bi- directional charging capabilities. Encourage private property owners to select EV chargers with bi-directional charging capabilities when installing EV chargers on their properties.
Policy 3-7.4: Reduce the use of fossil fuels as an energy source in new and existing buildings. Action 3-7.21: Evaluate and adopt changes to the building code or other municipal codes and policies to decarbonize the building stock while also maximizing energy efficiency. Action 3-7.22: Amend the building or energy code to incentivize building owners to upgrade residential appliances, including water and space heaters, to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions.
Action 3-7.23: Develop new and retrofit existing City facilities to be zero net energy. Action 3-7.24: Continue to update the Building Code, consistent with State law, to increase the use of low-carbon construction materials.
As a result of implementation of these General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, the per-service population heating fuel consumption is expected to decrease in 2050 compared to existing conditions.
Transportation Energy
The potential growth that is projected to occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed project would consume transportation energy from the use of motor vehicles (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, electricity). Table 4.6-5, Operation-Related Annual Fuel Usage: Net Change from Existing, shows the net change in VMT, fuel usage, and fuel efficiency under forecast year 2050 conditions from existing baseline year conditions.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-24 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.6-5 OPERATION-RELATED ANNUAL FUEL USAGE: NET CHANGE FROM EXISTING Land Use Existing Conditions Proposed General Plan 2050 Net Change Gasoline
VMT a 1,093,443,760 78,870,070 -1,014,573,690
Gallons 50,236,587 2,419,159 -47,817,428
Miles Per Gallon 21.77 32.6 10.84
Diesel
VMT a 111,134,150 4,557,910 -106,576,240
Gallons 11,490,536 493,229 -10,997,307
Miles Per Gallon 9.67 9.24 -0.43
Compressed Natural Gas
VMT a 1,713,800 39,610 -1,674,190
Gallons 326,690 6,623 -320,067
Miles Per Gallon 5.25 5.98 0.73
Electricity
VMT a 12,792,080 931,669,180 918,877,100
Gallons 4,674,096 528,941,104 524,267,008
Miles Per kWh 2.74 1.76 -0.98
Hydrogen
VMT a 0 75,221,400 75,221,400
Gallons - 857,847 857,847
Miles Per kg 0 87.69 87.69
Total VMT 1,219,083,790 1,090,358,170 -128,725,620
Daily VMT 2,229,977 2,745,678 515,701
Service Population (SP) 275,569 355,425 79,856
VMT/SP 8.1 7.7 -0.4
Note:
a Daily VMT is provided by W-Trans, 2023. VMT modeled by W-Trans is conservative because it assumed slightly higher population and employees. VMT identified in this table is consistent with the accounting recommendations of CARB’s RTAC created under Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) (see Methodology above) and is not the same as accounting for VMT under SB 74.
Source: Based as part of the City’s GHG Reduction Strategy, see Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR and Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, of the proposed General Plan 2050.
As shown in Table 4.6-5, implementation of the proposed project would increase daily VMT from 2,229,977 in 2019 to 2,745,678 vehicle miles per day in 2050 in the EIR Study Area, or an increase of approximately 23 percent. Service population would also increase more under the proposed project, from approximately 275,569 to 355,425 people, or an increase of approximately 29 percent. As a result, per- person daily VMT would decrease from approximately 8.1 miles traveled to approximately 7.7 miles traveled daily.
The overall VMT as shown in the table would be primarily attributable to the overall growth associated with the proposed project compared to existing conditions. As discussed in Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, buildout of the proposed project would serve to accommodate expected population, housing, and job growth in the city for the next three Regional Housing Needs Allocation SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-25
(RHNA) cycles. Thus, this growth would not represent unplanned population growth for which inadequate planning has occurred.
As described in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan 2050 includes land use designations, goals, policies, and actions that will help reduce VMT and therefore reduce emissions from automobiles. Please see Chapter 4.15 of this Draft EIR for a complete list of these goals, policies, and actions.
Furthermore, the average vehicle fuel economy would improve between 2019 and 2050 as vehicle manufacturers comply with CAFE standards and other fuel economy standards, resulting in lower transportation energy consumption per mile traveled. The CAFE standards are not directly applicable to residents or land use development projects, but to car manufacturers. Thus, the City of Santa Rosa and its residents do not have direct control in determining the fuel efficiency of vehicles manufactured and that are made available. However, compliance with the CAFE standards by car manufacturers would ensure that vehicles produced in future years have greater fuel efficiency and would generally result in an overall benefit of reducing fuel usage by providing the population of the county more fuel-efficient vehicle options.
While the demand in electricity would increase under the proposed project, in conjunction with the regulatory (i.e., Renewables Portfolio Standard, SB 100, and Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022 [SB 1020]) and general trend toward increasing the supply and production of energy from renewable sources, it is anticipated that a greater share of electricity used to power electric vehicles would be from renewable sources in future years (e.g., individual photovoltaic systems, purchased electricity from PG&E, and/or purchased electricity from SCP that is generated from renewable sources).
In addition to regulatory compliance that would contribute to more fuel-efficient vehicles and less demand in fuels, Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that would contribute to minimizing overall VMT, and thus associated fuel usage. The following goal, policy, and actions would support environmental review process for VMT analysis and encourage work with the SCTA to support VMT reduction techniques to mitigate VMT impacts associated with future development projects:
Goal 3-1: Provide an integrated land use and transportation system with safe and efficient movement of people and goods for all modes of travel that prioritizes reduction of VMT and transportation- related GHG emissions.
Policy 3-1.1: Work with partner agencies to reduce VMT using existing techniques and explore feasibility of new techniques as they arise.
Action 3-1.2: Work with SCTA and other local and regional partners to explore developing a VMT mitigation bank alternative for eligible projects to fund VMT reduction efforts. Action 3-1.3: Continue to participate in discussions addressing regional through-traffic with SCTA, the County of Sonoma, MTC, and other municipalities, prioritizing investments that will reduce VMT and GHG emissions.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-26 OCTOBER 2024
Action 3-1.4: Coordinate transportation plans with those of Sonoma County, MTC, and the State of California, to support interregional travel improvements, particularly connections to public and active transportation modes.
Additionally, the goals, policies, and actions listed under impact discussion TRAN-2 in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, would contribute to minimizing overall VMT, and thus associated fuel usage. In combination with improvements in fuel economy standards through 2050, the proposed project would result in a decrease in transportation energy consumption, and thus an overall decrease in energy consumption.
Decreasing Reliance on Fossil Fuels
The proposed project would be considered to conflict with this criterion if it did not take steps to decrease the reliance on fossil fuels. As discussed in Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR, future potential development projects over the buildout horizon of the proposed General Plan 2050 would be required to comply with the CBSC current at the time of their building application submittal, including the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. As the current CBSC is the 2022 CBSC, individual development projects going through the application process today would result in greater energy efficiency than the current performance of existing structures in the city. In addition, the 2022 CBSC currently includes provisions for development projects to include rooftop photovoltaic systems and BES infrastructure or demonstrate energy-efficiency performance equivalent to including photovoltaic and BES features.
In addition to improvements in energy efficiency and on-site renewable energy generation and energy storage standards, SB 100 requires that LSEs incrementally increase their energy procurement sources to include eligible renewable and carbon-free sources. By January 1, 2046, all LSEs in California are required to source 100 percent of their in-state electricity sales from renewable and carbon-free sources. As a result, potential future development projects over the buildout horizon of the proposed General Plan 2050 would improve their energy efficiency through compliance with the CBSC current at the time of their building application submittal and LSEs would supply electricity that is increasingly sourced from carbon- free sources. Moreover, consistent with EO N-79-20 and CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation, which require that 100 percent of in-state vehicle sales starting in 2035 are electric or hybrid electric, vehicles utilized by future residents and employees accommodated by the proposed project are expected to consist more of EVs than what is experienced under existing conditions.
Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that are intended to reduce the use of nonrenewable energy. The same proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed above encourage the reduction of nonrenewable energy use and the use of new energy sources and building electrification. Furthermore, the following goals, policies, and actions would also support the decrease reliance on fossil fuels by reducing VMT through the promotion of active transportation:
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-27
Goal 3-1: Provide an integrated land use and transportation system with safe and efficient movement of people and goods for all modes of travel that prioritizes reduction of VMT and transportation- related GHG emissions.
Policy 3-1.2: Promote a citywide mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles to support ambitious VMT and GHG reduction goals.
Action 3-1.5: Develop a process that invests in and prioritizes non-automobile modes of transportation in capital improvement projects to reduce VMT and GHGs, prioritizing, in order:
1. Active transportation modes, including walking, bicycling, and rolling.
2. Public transportation, including inter-city and regional systems.
3. Other shared vehicles such as carpool, vanpool, and rideshare/transportation network companies.
Action 3-1.7: Prioritize transportation alternatives such as active and public transportation, that reduce demand on existing facilities in lieu of widening roadways and further impacting the natural environment.
Action 3-1.8: Work with regional partners to develop mobility hubs as locations for multi- modal transportation, specifically accommodating active and public transportation modes. Action 3-1.14: Provide information on funding opportunities and other incentives designed to encourage developers of sites in Transit Priority Areas and Priority Development Areas to integrate transit-supportive components, such as unlimited pass programs, transit-serving pedestrian infrastructure, and/or transit subsidies, as appropriate. Goal 3-2: Provide a safe and accessible active and public transportation network that emphasizes active transportation connections and service to Equity Priority Areas and Areas of Change. Policy 3-2.1: Ensure that the active transportation network remains in good condition by maintaining facilities, tracking the state of infrastructure, and managing the network in a way that serves all users.
Action 3-2.2: Use mapping to identify gaps in the active transportation network, and complete those gaps, except where it may be infeasible due to lack of City right-of way. Action 3-2.4: Improve connections in the active transportation network to ensure that all who choose to walk, roll, or ride have adequate access to public transportation amenities, especially in Equity Priority Areas and Areas of Change. Action 3-2.6: Ensure that major arterials have active transportation infrastructure that accommodates all road users and does not present a barrier to regional travel for any mode. Action 3-2.7: Improve active transportation crossings of major transportation barriers, such as the SMART rail lines, Highway 101, and Highway 12.
Policy 3-2.2: Continue to expand and improve the active transportation network toward completing a safe, continuous, convenient, and attractive network of designated routes that connect all neighborhoods and that is equitably accessible for all ages and abilities.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-28 OCTOBER 2024
Action 3-2.9: Implement and update the City’s Active Transportation Plan, as appropriate, recognizing that:
The Active Transportation Plan will create a blueprint for the City to construct a low-stress active transportation network for all ages and abilities. The Active Transportation Plan will prioritize separating network users in time and space to increase user safety and comfort.
Each update of the Active Transportation Plan will result in a General Plan Amendment and will therefore become policy and action incorporated into the General Plan. Action 3-2.10: Use the Urban Streets Design Guide and the Urban Bikeways Design Guide created by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) as guides to update City Street Design and construction standards and implement a low-stress network for all ages and abilities, specifically through protected and separated bicycle lanes. Action 3-2.12: Identify and analyze arterial corridors and improve them by preparing and implementing corridor plans to address all transportation modes, specifically active transportation, focusing on separated or protected facilities for all ages and abilities. Action 3-2.18: Prioritize addressing active transportation deficiencies in Equity Priority Areas. Policy 3-2.5: Address traffic volumes and speeds in neighborhoods to reduce cut-through traffic and promote use of existing low-stress streets for active transportation travel. Action 3-2.31: Implement traffic-calming measures, where appropriate, to improve neighborhood livability and preserve low-stress active transportation routes, such as:
Narrowing street widths.
Adding curb extensions to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians. Adding or removing on-street parking, depending on feasibility and right-of-way. Adding chicanes, chokers, or diverters to slow traffic. Creating rough-paved crosswalks to increase visibility and encourage slow vehicle movement.
Adding rumble strips or speed tables with bicycle cutouts to slow vehicles but allow for seamless bicycle passage.
Adding planted islands.
Action 3-2.32: Include active transportation network improvements and traffic calming in regular paving and maintenance projects unless infeasible due to engineering or conflict with emergency access.
Goal 3-3: Transition away from single-occupancy vehicles. Policy 3-3.1: Continue to offer and improve TDM programs that incentivize a shift away from single-occupancy vehicles.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-29
Action 3-3.1: Work with local employers and existing residential and commercial development to expand TDM and related efforts to help meet employee transportation needs through modes that reduce VMT from single-occupancy automobile trips less than five miles, such as:
Unlimited free access to transit service (CityBus, Sonoma County Transit, and SMART). Funding for increased transit frequency.
Paid incentives to active transportation and micromobility users, including a transportation allowance and secure on-site bicycle parking, lockers, showers and other facilities that support bicycling commuting to and from work. Programs and incentives to expand carpooling, vanpooling, and car sharing. Staggered work shifts, flex time (e.g., 9/80 work schedule), and telecommuting. Paid-parking disincentives for single-occupant vehicles and/or parking cash-out incentives.
As a result of implementation of these General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, the proposed project would incrementally decrease reliance on fossil fuel energy resources through 2050.
Increasing Reliance on Renewable Energy
Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider renewable resources and active modes of transportation. The same proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed previously would support the use of renewable energy resources.
In addition to the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, the 2022 CBSC currently includes provisions for development projects to include rooftop photovoltaic systems and BES infrastructure or demonstrate energy-efficiency performance equivalent to including photovoltaic and BES features. In addition, it is anticipated that each new code cycle for the CBSC improves on the last one and requires higher performance for energy efficiency and incorporates additional requirements for on-site renewable energy and EV charging infrastructure. Potential future development projects over the buildout horizon of the proposed General Plan 2050 would therefore result in a net increase from existing conditions in on-site photovoltaic electricity generation and EV charging stations and associated infrastructure, further supporting and accelerating the adoption of EVs and the use of renewable energy in future years.
Similarly, LSEs that serve future development projects in the EIR Study Area, such as PG&E and SCP , would be required to incrementally increase their energy procurement sources to include eligible renewable and carbon-free sources through 2045 under SB 100. As a result, electricity consumed by individual development projects as well as existing structures in the EIR Study Area would rely more on renewable and carbon-free sources for electricity in future years than is experienced under existing conditions.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-30 OCTOBER 2024
Summary
Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations (e.g., Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, Renewables Portfolio Standard, and CAFE standards) would increase building energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce building energy demand and transportation-related fuel usage. Additionally, the proposed General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions related to land use and transportation planning and design, energy efficiency, public and active transit, and renewable energy generation that will further contribute to minimizing building, transportation-related energy, and nonrenewable sources of energy demands. As stated, the buildout that could occur under the proposed project would reduce the per-capita transportation energy consumption, decrease reliance on fossil fuels, and increase reliance on renewable energy sources.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements, would ensure that energy demand associated with potential growth under the proposed project would decrease overall energy consumption, decrease reliance on fossil fuels, and increase reliance on renewable energy. As such, the energy consumption under the proposed project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, energy impacts associated with implementation and operation of land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
ENE-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. In general, California has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 (SB X1-2), 44 percent by 2024 (SB 100), 50 percent by 2026 (SB 100), 52 percent by 2027 (SB 100), 60 percent by 2030 (SB 100), 90 percent by 2035 (SB 1020), 95 percent by 2040 (SB 1020), and 100 percent by 2045 (SB 100). Additionally, SB 1020 requires all State agencies to procure 100 percent of electricity from renewable energy and zero- carbon resources by 2035.
The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as PG&E and SCP, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. In addition, customers in Sonoma County will automatically receive electric generation service from SCP’s Clean Energy program, which uses approximately 50 percent renewable energy and 91 percent carbon-free. 29 Even if customers in the EIR
Study Area were to opt out of SCP’s service, and therefore receive all their electricity from PG&E, 48
29 Sonoma Clean Power, Frequently Asked Questions, https://sonomacleanpower.org/frequently-asked- questions#:~:text=Why%20is%20Sonoma%20Clean%20Power,you%20choose%20to%20opt%20out., accessed July 25, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.6-31
percent of PG&E’s base plan electricity is generated from renewable energy in 2021.30 By 2030, PG&E is set to meet the State’s new 60 percent renewable energy mandate set forth in SB 100.
The net increase in energy demand associated with implementation of the proposed project would be within the service capabilities of PG&E and SCP and would not impede their ability to implement California’s renewable energy goals. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program, and impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
ENE-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to energy.
Cumulative impacts would occur if a series of actions lead to a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
All the development projects in the vicinity of the project’s EIR Study Area are within the service area of PG&E and SCP. These projects would result in a long-term increase in operational energy demand for electricity and natural gas use associated with population growth. In addition, construction activities would require the use of energy for purposes such as the operation of construction equipment and tools, and construction of development projects may overlap. However, all projects developed within the SCP and PG&E service area would implement the requirements of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11).
Furthermore, new buildings would use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations.
As shown in Table 4-6.5, future development would decrease annual VMT, and thus fuel consumption.
Moreover, vehicles would be subject to the USEPA CAFE standards for vehicular fuel efficiency, and average corporate fuel economy continues to increase as a result of State and federal laws, including the Pavley Advanced Clean Cars program. Vehicle turnover also improves the overall fuel economy of California’s vehicle fleets. The proposed General Plan 2050 also includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce energy use and measures to align with the State’s goals for carbon neutrality. Cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
30 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2021, Power Content Label, https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your- account/your-bill/understand-your-bill/bill-inserts/2022/1022-Power-Content-Label.pdf, accessed August 29, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN TA ROSA
ENERGY
4.6-32 OCTOBER 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-1
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the potential impacts to geology and soils associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential impacts to geology and soils, and identifies proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions that would minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2002 limits the collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency. Additionally, it specifies that these researchers must agree to donate any materials recovered to recognized public institutions, where they will remain accessible to the public and to other researchers. This act incorporates key findings of a report, Fossils on Federal Land and Indian Lands, issued by the Secretary of Interior in 2000, which establishes that most vertebrate fossils and some invertebrate and plant fossils are considered rare resources. 1 State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture to structures used for human occupancy.2 The main purpose of this act is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on top of active faults. This act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as earthquake- induced liquefaction or landslides.3 This act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones) around surface traces of active faults, and to issue appropriate maps.4 The maps, which are developed using existing United States Geological Survey’s
1 U.S. Department of the Interior, May 2000, Fossils on Federal & Indian Lands, Report of the Secretary of the Interior. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/programs_paleontology_quick%20links_Assessment%20of%20Fossil%20Management% 20on%20Federal%20%26%20Indian%20Lands%2C%20May%202000.pdf, accessed January 31, 2022. 2 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist- priolo, accessed January 31, 2022.
3 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist- priolo, accessed January 31, 2022.
4 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist- priolo, accessed January 31, 2022.
4.7.1.1 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-2 OCTOBER 2024
(USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map bases, are then distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Generally, construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone is prohibited.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which was passed in 1990, addresses seismic hazards such as liquefaction and seismically induced landslides.5 Under this act, seismic hazard zones are mapped by the State Geologist to assist local governments in land use planning. Section 2691(c) of this act states that “it is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to adequately prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.” Section 2697(a) of the act states that “cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.” California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The California Building Code (CBC) is in Part 2 of Title 24. The CBC is updated every three years. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Through the CBC, the State provides a minimum standard to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. They also regulate grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.
California Environmental Quality Act
Paleontological resources are afforded protection under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has set significance criteria for paleontological resources. 6 Most
practicing professional vertebrate paleontologists adhere closely to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most State regulatory agencies with paleontological laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards accept and use the professional standards set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.
5 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist- priolo, accessed January 31, 2022.
6 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010, Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-3
California Public Resources Code Section 5097
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits the destruction or removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency.
California Penal Code Section 622.5
The California Penal Code Section 622.5 details the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources from private or public lands.
Regional Regulations
Sonoma County Emergency Operations Plan
The Sonoma County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is the foundation for disaster response and recovery operations for Sonoma County and outlines how the County complies with and implements the requirements of the California Emergency Services Act to protect the lives and property within Sonoma County. The Sonoma County EOP establishes the emergency organization, specifies policies and general procedures, and provides for coordination of the responsibilities of the County departments in all phases of an emergency or disaster . The Sonoma County EOP provides an overview of the Emergency Operations Center and outlines the various modes of activation of the EOP . Most provisions related to geology, soils, and seismic events are in the Hazard Analysis Summary o f t h e E O P.
Local Regulations
Santa Rosa City Code
The Santa Rosa City Code (SRCC) includes various directives pertaining to geology and soils. The SRCC is organized by title, chapter, and section, and in some cases, articles. Most provisions related to geology, soils, and seismic events are in Title 14, Potable and Recycled Water; Title 15, Sewers; Title 17, Environmental Protection; Title 18, Buildings and Construction; Title 19, Subdivisions; and Title 20, Zoning, as follows:
Chapter 14-30, Water Efficient Landscape. Section 14-30.055, Grading Design Plan, sets forth the requirements for the submittal of grading plans that demonstrate that the project has been designed to minimize soil erosion. This plan must be submitted along with the landscape design plan and the irrigation design plan.
Chapter 15-08, Pretreatment. Section 15-08.210, Hauled Wastewater, requires that septic tanks can only be introduced by the Director of Facilities, and that the waste shall not violate any requirements established by the City. This section also states that haulers/generators of industrial wastewater need to obtain wastewater discharge permits.
Chapter 15-16, Sewer Connections. Section 15-16.021, Discovery and Repair of Illegal Connections, adopts certain rules and regulations against property owners making connections that direct surface water runoff or groundwater to a sewer service lateral which in turn is connected to a public sanitary sewer .
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-4 OCTOBER 2024
Chapter 17-08, Seismic Safety. Section 17-08.020, Earthquake Fault Zones, sets forth the requirements for a State Geologist to delineate active and recently active earthquake fault zones that are a potential hazard. Any projects within the delineated earthquake fault zone require specialized approval authority from the decision-making body. Section 17-08.060, Building Permits for Projects within Earthquake Fault Zones, states that the decision-making body shall evaluate the suitability of a project and can attach conditions to the project if necessary. The decision-making body also can deny permits if it is found that the site is unsuitable for the proposed project. Chapter 17-12, Storm Water. Section 17-12.100, Purpose and Intent of Article, states that the purpose and intent of this chapter is to protect and enhance the water quality of watercourses and water bodies from erosion and other sources of contamination. Sections in this chapter require applicants to comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit to control and monitor erosion and loss of soil.
Chapter 18-16, California Building Code. Section 18-16.010, Citation of California Building Code, adopts the CBC in its entirety, subject to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter . The purpose of the CBC is to prescribe regulations governing the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within the city. By regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other structures, the City’s Building Code provides protections during the design, permitting, and construction of structures intended for human occupancy.
Chapter 19-64, Grading and Erosion Control. Section 19-64.010, Requirements, outlines the Grading and Erosion Control standards new subdivisions must adhere to prevent sedimentation or damage to on-site and off-site property.
Chapter 20-32, Hillside Development Standards. This chapter includes the regulations required to preserve the City’s natural waterways and hillsides, amongst other areas, conserves open spaces and natural features, design standards to ensure the hillside development will be sensitive to existing terrain. Section 20-32.050, Site Planning and Development Standards, specifically requires that
development on hillsides be located on the most geologically stable portion of the site. Section 20-32.060, Hillside Development Permit, requires a review process for the City to consider the appropriateness of proposed development on hillside parcels to ensure that a proposed project minimizes its environmental impact, including the preparation of geotechnical reports that identify and mitigate impacts.
Hazard Mitigation Plan
On December 7, 2021, the Santa Rosa City Council adopted the Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), which also provides an update to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).7 The MJHMP consists of two volumes. Volume 1 includes all federally required elements of a disaster mitigation plan as they apply to the entirety of Sonoma County. Volume 2 consists of chapters, or
7 City of Santa Rosa, 2021, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, https://www.srcity.org/540/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan, accessed March 9, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-5
annexes, for each local agency and special district participating in the MJHMP . The LHMP identifies the natural hazards faced by the city, assesses vulnerabilities to these hazards, and identifies mitigation strategies that can be taken to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage that otherwise might result from these natural hazards. Mitigation actions are suggested and carried out by various City departments. The City of Santa Rosa Annex serves as a five-year update to the LHMP and is in Volume 2, Chapter 3. It includes a section on earthquake hazards and mitigating actions for Santa Rosa.
Mitigation actions for earthquakes include the following:8 Continue to update the City’s emergency planning documents every five years to ensure consistency with state and federal law, local conditions, and best practices and the most recent science. Replace or retrofit water-retention structures determined to be structurally deficient, including levees, dams, reservoirs, and tanks. Continue to analyze and identify needs for future upgrades.
Evaluate, reinforce, and/or enhance wastewater treatment facility structures with seismic risk. Create inventory and develop funding mechanisms to assist building owners to retrofit unreinforced masonry, soft-story, and/or non-ductile concrete structures. Require the retrofit of seismically vulnerable structures consistent with City Code. This program should include community education and outreach.
Conduct seismic evaluations on City-owned leased buildings that contain critical facilities/operations to determine the need for upgrades/retrofitting.
Conduct Microgrid feasibility study.
Secure redundant power supply for City-owned and leased facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate back-up power .
Relocate/Update Emergency Operations Center (EOC)9 to City-owned facility that can accommodate use and renovation to permanent warm/hot EOC with appropriate equipment for communication and situational awareness.
Actively participate in the annual maintenance protocols outlined in Volume I of the MJHMP Support the County-wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the MJHMP. Integrate the LMHP into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions within the community including the General Plan, Specific Plans, and the City Code. Develop a plan for expediting the repair and functional restoration of water and wastewater systems through stockpiling of shoring materials, temporary pumps, surface pipelines, portable hydrants, and other supplies, such as those available through the Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network.
Communicate that plan to local governments and critical facility operators. Explore the feasibility of resilience hubs within the City of Santa Rosa.
8 Sonoma County, 2021, Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, Volume 2: Chapter 3: City of Santa Rosa, https://permitsonoma.org/Microsites/Permit%20Sonoma/Documents/Planning/Long%20Range%20Plans/Hazard%20Mitigation% 20Plan/Adopted-Sonoma-County-MJHMP-Volume-2-December-2021.pdf, accessed October 21, 2022. 9 Warm/hot refers to the level of Emergency Operations Center staffing.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-6 OCTOBER 2024
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Geology
Santa Rosa is on the eastern side of the Santa Rosa Plain, a northwest-trending intermountain valley of the California Coast Ranges. The valley is bounded on the west by the Mendocino Ridge and on the east by the Sonoma and Mayacamas Mountains. The city’s geology varies from consolidated sedimentary and volcanic rock in the highland areas to the east, to deep, uncompressed sediments of sand, silt, clay, and gravel underneath the flat valley floor . Recent geophysical studies indicate that depositional basins underlying the Santa Rosa Plain in the vicinity of Santa Rosa may extend for more than a mile beneath the surface and may be the source of increased levels of ground shaking at the surface during earthquakes.
The Santa Rosa Plain is also bounded and transected by major faults, including the active northwest- striking, right-lateral Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg fault zone running along the east side of the plain. The west and southwest side of the plain is bounded by a system of poorly defined faults generalized as the Sebastopol fault.
Soils
Most soils within Santa Rosa are clayey alluvial soils, riverwash, and some silty and gravelly soils and loams.10 The most prominent soil type in the city is the Zamora silty claim loam found on 0 to 2 percent slopes, although many other soil units are also mapped in the area, including Arbuckle, Clear Lake, Guenoc, Haire Clays, Spreckles, Wright, and Yolo soil series units.11 Zamora soils are moderately permeable and exhibit slow runoff and slight susceptibility to erosion hazards.12 Regional Seismicity
The Earth’s crust includes tectonic plates that locally collide with or slide past one another along plate boundaries. California is particularly susceptible to such plate movements, notably the largely horizontal or “strike-slip” movements of the Pacific Plate as it impinges on the North American Plate. In general, earthquakes occur when the accumulated stress along a plate boundary or fault is suddenly released, resulting in seismic slippage. This slippage can vary widely in magnitude, ranging in scale from a few millimeters or centimeters to tens of feet.
Santa Rosa and communities across the San Francisco Bay region reside within the active boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates, where the Pacific plate slowly and continually slides northwest past the North American plate. Several major and active faults are part of this complex plate boundary, most notably the San Andreas, Hayward, Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, Maacama, San Gregorio, Concord, Green Valley, and Greenville Faults, all of which are capable of producing ground shaking in Santa Rosa.
10 Santa Rosa General Plan EIR, p. 4.M-2.
11 Santa Rosa General Plan EIR, p. 4.M-2.
12 Santa Rosa General Plan EIR, p. 4.M-2.
4.7.1.2 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-7
The performance of human-made structures during a major seismic event varies widely due to a number of factors, including:
Location, with respect to active fault traces or areas prone to liquefaction or seismically-induced landslides.
Type of building construction (i.e., wood frame, unreinforced masonry, non-ductile concrete frame). Proximity, magnitude, depth, and intensity of the seismic event itself as well as many other factors.
In general, evidence from past earthquakes shows that wood-frame structures tend to perform well during a seismic event, especially when their foundations are properly designed and anchored.
Conversely, older, unreinforced masonry structures and nonductile reinforced concrete buildings (especially those built in the 1960s and early 1970s) do not perform as well if they have not undergone appropriate seismic retrofitting. Applicable building code requirements, such as those found in the CBC, include seismic requirements that are designed to ensure the satisfactory performance of building materials under prescribed seismic conditions.
The Richter Scale is used to describe the magnitude of an earthquake. Each one-point increase in magnitude (M) represents a 10-fold increase in earthquake wave size and a 30-fold increase in energy release (strength). For example, an M8 earthquake produces 10 times the ground motion amplitude of an M7 earthquake, 100 times that of an M6 quake, and 1,000 times the motion of a M5 earthquake.
However, the M8 earthquake is 27,000 times stronger than an M5 quake. Typically, earthquakes of M5 or greater are considered strong earthquakes capable of producing damage.
Seismic activity in the nearby Coast Ranges is generally associated with active faults of the San Andreas system, which includes major active faults. Over the width of the San Francisco Bay region, approximately
1.5 inches per year of relative horizontal movement occurs between the North American and Pacific Plates. This movement is partially accommodated by earthquakes and creep along several active faults.
Locations of these active faults relative to Santa Rosa are shown on Figure 4.7-1, Regional Faults.
The San Andreas Fault, approximately 20 miles to the west of Santa Rosa, is the fastest-slipping fault along the plate boundary and the source of two magnitude 7.8 to 7.9 earthquakes in history, including the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which destroyed much of downtown Santa Rosa, toppled City Hall, and killed at least 85 people; the city’s population was approximately 7,000 at the time.
The Rodgers Creek Fault runs through the central part of Santa Rosa and was the source of two moderate earthquakes—of magnitudes 5.6 and 5.7, respectively—that struck below the north end of the city within a period of two hours on the night of October 1, 1969. Fortunately, no one died in the earthquakes, but many old commercial buildings downtown; homes in several residential neighborhoods; and a few modern, engineered buildings were all damaged. Although none collapsed, at least 74 buildings in the central business district sustained damage and about a third of those were beyond repair . The shaking toppled brick chimneys and broke windows over a wide area; locally, the earthquake ruptured water mains and buckled sidewalks and curbs. Total damage, including building contents, exceeded $7 million ($50.6 million in 2020 dollars).
(/101116
12 1
12 29
Figure 4.7-1
Regional Faults
Source: USGS, 2019; City of Santa Rosa, 2020; ESRI, 2022; PlaceWorks, 2024. 0 1.5 30.75
Miles
Planning Area
Urban Growth Boundary
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space
RODGERS CREEK FAULT
BENNETT VALLEY FAULT
BLOOMFIELD FAULT
MT. JACKSON
FAULT
ALEXANDER-
REDWOOD HILL FAULT
MAACAMA
FAULT
HEALDSBURG
FAULT
WEST NAPA
FAULT
PETRIFIED FOREST
THRUST FAULT
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Faul
t Zone
Faults
Late Quaternary
Latest Quaternary
Undifferentiated Quaternary
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
S A N T A R O S A G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 5 0 D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F S A N T A R O S A
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-9
Table 4.7-1, Distances and Directions to Active Faults, provides a summary of the key faults that could produce significant earthquakes (exceeding M5) that could impact Santa Rosa. The table also includes the maximum associated magnitudes of earthquakes along each fault. Due to the proximity of active fault lines, Santa Rosa is historically susceptible to earthquake-related hazards, which include ground shaking and liquefaction.
TABLE 4.7-1 DISTANCES AND DIRECTIONS TO ACTIVE FAULTS
Fault
Approx. Distance and
Direction from Site
Fault Length
(miles)
Maximum
Magnitude
Slip Rate
(mm/yr)
Rodgers Creek Within City 39 7.0 9.0
Bennett Valley 0.75 miles southeast 24 Unspecified Unspecified Alexander-Redwood Hill 0.75 miles north 12 Unspecified Unspecified Maacama 3 miles northeast 113 7.5 9.0
Healdsburg 3 miles northwest 19 7.5 1.0
Tolay 4.5 miles southwest 21 Unspecified 1.0
Bloomfield 7.5 miles southwest 11 Unspecified Unspecified Note: Distances are approximate; mm/yr = millimeters per year Sources: Cao, T., W. A. Bryant, B. Rowshandel, D. Branum, and C. J. Wills, June 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/PSHA/2002%20California%20Hazard%20Maps.pdf, accessed August 28, 2023; United States Geological Surve, 2023, U.S. Quaternary Faults website, https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf, accessed August 28, 2023.
Landslides
Landslides are gravity-driven movements of earth materials that can include rock, soil, unconsolidated sediment, or combinations of such materials. The rate of landslide movement can vary; some move rapidly, as in a soil or rock avalanche, while other landslides creep or move slowly for long periods of time.
The susceptibility of a given area to landslides depends on many variables, although the general characteristics that influence landslide hazards are widely acknowledged. Some important factors are:
Slope Material. Loose, unconsolidated soils and soft, weak rocks are more hazardous than are firm, consolidated soils or hard bedrock.
Slope Steepness. Most landslides occur on moderate to steep slopes. Structure and Physical Properties of Materials. This includes the orientation of layering and zones of weakness relative to slope direction.
Water Content. Increased water content increases landslide hazard by decreasing friction and adding weight to the materials on a slope.
Vegetation Coverage. Abundant vegetation with deep roots promotes slope stability. Proximity to Areas of Erosion or Human-Made Cuts. Undercutting slopes can greatly increase landslide potential.
Earthquake Ground Motions. Strong seismic ground motions can trigger landslides in marginally stable slopes or loosen slope materials and also increase the risk of future landslides.
Santa Rosa has experienced landslides in the past ranging from small, localized events to events that caused injury and substantial damage. On December 31, 2005, a mudslide on Montgomery Drive collided with houses and automobiles as it extended into the middle of the road. Two houses were damaged and a third was destroyed. The home that sustained the heaviest damage also involved a person that was SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-10 OCTOBER 2024
trapped alone for an hour and sustained minor injuries before being rescued by Santa Rosa Fire Department. An additional fire department engine was sent to the end of Sullivan Court to evaluate the home above the slide, secure utilities, and evacuate residents at risk.
Decreased vegetation from wildfires can combine with excessive ground moisture from heavy rains to cause landslides. These conditions occurred in 1997 to activate the Hidden Acres landslide in the Bennett Valley area (outside of the Santa Rosa city limit). Landslides were also a major concern following the 2017 wildfires, with preventative actions taken to cover and protect exposed slopes in fire-damaged hillside areas of the city.
Landslide-prone areas in the EIR Study Area are depicted in Figure 4.7-2, Landslide Map, and broken down into three categories: “Mostly landslides” cover areas with the largest and most concentrated landslides; “few landslides” indicates smaller, more scattered landslides; and “flat land” is unlikely to have a landslide.
Portions of the northern and southern reaches of the city have experienced few to many landslides. The landslide hazard for both earthquake- and moisture-induced landslides is increased with steep slopes close to the Rodgers Creek Fault Zone.
Outside of these larger areas, localized landslides are possible along small slopes elsewhere in the city, including the sides of the Santa Rosa Creek and the Santa Rosa Flood Control Channel. Landslides in these areas are unlikely to cause substantial injuries or destruction but may result in limited damage.
Liquefaction and Related Ground Failure
Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or gravel deposits that lose their load-supporting capability when subjected to intense shaking. Liquefaction potential varies based on three main contributing factors:
(1) cohesionless, granular soils having relatively low densities (usually of Holocene age); (2) shallow groundwater (generally less than 50 feet); and (3) moderate to high seismic ground shaking. Cohesionless and granular soils are sand or gravel, typically with little or no clay content. Soil liquefaction generally occurs in submerged granular soils and nonplastic silts during or after strong ground shaking.
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) directed the State Geologist to delineate regulatory “zones of required investigation” to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property posed by earthquake-triggered ground failures. Zones of required investigation, referred to as Seismic Hazard Zones in the California Code of Regulations, Article 10, Section 3722, are areas shown on Seismic Hazard Zone Maps where site investigations are required to determine the need for mitigation of potential liquefaction and/or earthquake-induced landslide ground displacements.
Lateral spreading involves lateral ground movements caused by seismic shaking. These lateral ground movements are often associated with a weakening or failure of an embankment or soil mass overlying a layer of liquefied sands or weak soils. Shallow groundwater; liquefiable, cohesionless soils; and the presence of a free face, such as a stream bank, are all contributing factors in determining the likelihood of lateral spreading. Figure 4.7-3, Liquefaction Susceptibility, shows the liquefaction susceptibility of the EIR Study Area.
HoenAve
Olivet Rd
Mendocino A
ve
Grange Rd
Ben
net t Valley Rd
W Steele Ln
W College Ave Sonoma Ave
Sebastopol Rd
Guerneville Rd
College Ave
Fulton Rd
Crane Canyon Rd
Stony Point Rd
Mark WestSpringsR d
W
atertro
ugh Rd
Millbrae Ave
Petalu
maHill Rd
OldRed
wood
Hwy
Brush C
reek Rd
Su
mmerfieldRd
Fount ainGrovePky
Co
ffey Ln
Warm
SpringsRd
Piner Rd
4th
St
Todd Rd
Bodega Hwy
Marlo
wRd
River Rd Calisto
gaRd
Dutton Ave
Pleasa
ntHill Rd
Llano Rd
S Wright Rd
Hearn Ave
Montgome
ry Dr
Santa Rosa Ave
Occidental Rd
S
lusser Rd
Blo omfiel d R
d
Airport Blvd
(/101
12 12
116
Figure 4.7-2
Landslide Map
Source: USGS, 1997; City of Santa Rosa, 2020; ESRI, 2022; PlaceWorks, 2024. 0 1 20.5
Miles
Planning Area
Urban Growth Boundary
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Creeks and Waterways
Landslide Susceptibility
Most landslides
Few landslides
Flat Land
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
S A N T A R O S A G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 5 0 D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F S A N T A R O S A
--
••
• f
-
~
'-·~-.
-~= __ Jl
l
HoenAve
Olivet Rd
Mendocino A
ve
Grange Rd
Ben
net t Valley Rd
W Steele Ln
W College Ave Sonoma Ave
Sebastopol Rd
Guerneville Rd
College Ave
Fulton Rd
Crane Canyon Rd
Stony Point Rd
Mark WestSpringsR d
W
atertro
ugh Rd
Millbrae Ave
Petalu
maHill Rd
OldRed
wood
Hwy
Brush C
reek Rd
Su
mmerfieldRd
Fount ainGrovePky
Co
ffey Ln
Warm
SpringsRd
Piner Rd
4th
St
Todd Rd
Bodega Hwy
Marlo
wRd
River Rd Calisto
gaRd
Dutton Ave
Pleasa
ntHill Rd
Llano Rd
S Wright Rd
Hearn Ave
Montgome
ry Dr
Santa Rosa Ave
Occidental Rd
Slusser Rd
Blo omfiel d R
d
Airport Blvd
(/101
12 12
116
Figure 4.7-3
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Source: USGS, 2006; City of Santa Rosa, 2020; ESRI, 2022; PlaceWorks, 2024. 0 1 20.5
Miles
Planning Area
Urban Growth Boundary
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Creeks and Waterways
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
Very low
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
S A N T A R O S A G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 5 0 D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F S A N T A R O S A
----
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-13
Erosion
Erosion occurs when the upper layers of soil are displaced by erosive agents such as water, ice, snow, air, plants, animals, or anthropogenic forces. Sandy soils on moderate slopes, or clayey soils on steep slopes are susceptible to erosion when exposed to these forces. Erosion can become more frequent when established vegetation is disturbed or removed due to grading, wildfires, or other factors. Within the valley areas of the EIR Study Area, water flow in streams is generally sluggish, and erosion is nearly imperceptible. With a greater slope gradient, erosion can cause the soil underneath buildings and structures to become compromised or fail, which is typically limited to localized areas. Based on a review of the Web Soil Survey, the soils within the EIR Study Area have a low to moderate risk from erosion. 13 The
risk of erosion is greatly increased during grading and construction activities when soils are loosened and bare of vegetation. Erosion-control measures prevent downstream sedimentation and surface water degradation.
Subsidence
Subsidence is the gradual sinking of the ground as a result of loss of subsurface materials, with little or no horizontal motion. It is often accompanied by large-scale ground cracking, and in some cases, the cracking has movement across it, making it into incipient faulting. Ground cracking from subsidence in the future would be expected to occur along the boundaries of groundwater basins, such as a contact between alluvium and bedrock, or over prominent geologic structures, i.e., faults.
Subsidence of the ground surface has been reported in alluvial basins where significant amounts of groundwater (often in an overdraft condition) or petroleum are withdrawn over long periods. The primary cause of non-tectonic subsidence has been the alluvial compaction by closing of porosity due to removal of large quantities of groundwater or petroleum and a significant lowering of the groundwater levels.
Shifts in the water table or loss of groundwater are major causes.
Subsidence may occur over a small or large area depending on the amount of subsurface movement.
Subsidence can also be caused by excavation work, hydrocompaction, or oxidation of organic soils. On rare occasions, subsidence may occur due to earthquake-induced ground movement.
Expansive/Shrink-Swell Soils
Expansive soils can change dramatically in volume depending on moisture content. When wet, these soils can expand; when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moisture that can trigger this shrink-swell phenomenon can include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched groundwater . Expansive soil can exhibit wide cracks in the dry season, and changes in soil volume have the potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils.
13 United States Department of Agriculture, 2023, Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed August 29, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-14 OCTOBER 2024
Expansive soils are typically very fine-grained with a high to very high percentage of clay, typically montmorillonite, smectite, or bentonite clay. Linear extensibility soil tests are often used to identify expansive soils, where soil sample volume/length changes in response to reduced moisture content.14 A linear extensibility of 3 percent or greater connotes moderate to high shrink-swell potential. This soil behavior has the potential to cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures.
Most soils within Santa Rosa are clayey alluvial soils, riverwash, and some silty and gravelly soils and loams.15 The soils most prone to expansion in the EIR Study Area include Raynor clay, Clear Lake clay, Diablo clay, Wright loam, and Yorkville clay loam.16
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These are valued for the information they yield about the history of the Earth and its past ecological settings. There are two types of resources: vertebrate and invertebrate. These resources are found in geologic strata conducive to their preservation, typically sedimentary formations. Paleontological sites are areas that show evidence of prehumen activity. Often, they are simply small outcrops visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading. While the sites are important indications, it is the geologic formations that are the most important, since they may contain important fossils. Potentially sensitive areas for the presence of paleontological resources are based on the underlying geologic formations. The EIR Study Area is an area filled with fertile sediments as a result of terrestrial deposits from millions of years ago. Based on this and the alluvium of the EIR Study Area, it is likely that paleontological resources would be found within the EIR Study Area. The Pliocene Sonoma Volcanics are the only unit besides recent artificial fill that do not have a potential for paleontological resources within the EIR Study Area.
Unique Geologic Features
Unique geologic features are those that are unique to the field of geology. Each rock unit tells a story of the natural processes operating at the time it was formed. The rocks and geologic formations exposed at the earth’s surface or revealed by drilling and excavation are our only record of that geologic history. What makes a geologic unit or feature unique can vary considerably. For example, a geologic feature may be considered unique if it is the best example of its kind and has distinctive characteristics of a geologic principle that is exclusive locally or regionally, is a key piece of geologic information important to geologic history, contains a mineral that is not known to occur elsewhere in the area, or is used as a teaching tool.
Unique geological features are not common in Santa Rosa or the EIR Study Area. The geologic processes are generally the same as those in other parts of the state, country, and even the world. The previously described geology and soils in the EIR Study Area are common throughout the city and region and are not considered unique.
14 US Army Corps of Engineers, 1983, Field Manual TM 5-818-7, https://www.discountpdh.com/wp- content/themes/discountpdh/pdf-course/foundation-in-expansive-soils.pdf, accessed July 7, 2023. 15 Santa Rosa General Plan EIR, p. 4.M-2.
16 United States Department of Agriculture, 2023, Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed August 29, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-15
4.7.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant geology and soils impacts if it would:
1. 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; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; (iv) Landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards.
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 by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
5. 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.
6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
7. In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to geology and soils.
4.7.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
As described in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, some proposed General Plan 2050 policies and actions are required as means to mitigate environmental impacts under CEQA. These policies and actions are fully enforceable at the discretion of the decision-maker through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. These mitigating policies and actions use the imperative “shall,” include performance criteria, and are marked with an asterisk (*). Note that all actions are required to be implemented by the City and therefore the imperative “shall,” if not explicitly stated, is implied.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-16 OCTOBER 2024
GEO-1 Implementation of the proposed project could 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; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; (iv) Landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards.
The location and underlying geology in the EIR Study Area make it likely to experience seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking and secondary hazards. As described in Section 4.7.1.1, Regulatory Setting, the State and City have established regulations to protect the residents of Santa Rosa from seismic hazards. The following discussions address the potential impacts from implementation of the proposed project with respect to earthquake faults, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic related ground shaking, and landslides.
Earthquake Faults
As stated in Section 4.7.1.2, Existing Conditions, there are active faults that are very nearby and within the EIR Study Area. Due to this, there is the possibility that surface fault rupture could occur along the active trace or within the associated Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone of the Rodgers Creek fault. SRCC Chapter 17-08 requires the State Geologist to delineate active and recently active earthquake fault zones and that an evaluation of the suitability of a project can attach conditions to the project if necessary.
Pursuant to SRCC Chapter 17-08, the decision-making body also can deny permits if it is found that the site is unsuitable for the proposed project. Compliance with SRCC regulations would reduce impacts related to fault rupture.
Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is responsible for most of the damage from earthquakes and can damage or destroy buildings, structures, pipelines, and infrastructure. The intensity of shaking depends on the type of fault, distance to the epicenter, magnitude of the earthquake, and subsurface geology. Rodgers Creek Fault, Maacama Fault, and Healdsburg Fault are the most likely faults and potentially capable of producing the most intense ground accelerations within the EIR Study Area. Secondary effects of earthquakes are nontectonic processes such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced landslides, and ground lurching, which can lead to ground deformation. Ground deformation, including fissures, settlement, displacement, and loss of bearing strength, are the leading causes of damage to structures during a moderate to large earthquake.
In northern California, there is no method to completely avoid earthquake hazards. However, appropriate measures to minimize the effects of earthquakes are included in the CBC, with specific provisions for seismic design. The design of structures in accordance with the CBC would minimize the effects of ground shaking to the greatest degree feasible, except for during a catastrophic seismic event. The City has adopted the CBC in SRCC Chapter 18-16. Additionally, potential future development projects under the SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-17
proposed project would be required to comply with SRCC Chapter 17-08, which would reduce impacts related to ground shaking.
Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Secondary effects of earthquakes are nontectonic processes such as ground deformation, including fissures, settlement, displacement, and loss of bearing strength, and are the leading causes of damage to structures during a moderate to large earthquake. Secondary effects could lead to ground deformation, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced landslides, and ground lurching.
Based on the potential for strong ground shaking, combined with a groundwater depth of under 50 feet in much of the EIR Study Area,
17 much of the city is within an area with high liquefaction susceptibility. All potential future structures constructed in the EIR Study Area would be designed in accordance with current seismic design standards as found in the CBC, which the City has adopted in SRCC Chapter 18-16.
Design measures would be implemented according to the most recent CBC, which would reduce the impact of liquefaction and seismic settlement, including, but not limited to, ground improvement techniques such as in-situ densification, load transfer to underlying nonliquefiable bearing layers, and over-excavation and recompaction with engineered fill method. These design measures would reduce the potential exposure of people and structures to the hazard from liquefaction and seismic settlement.
Landslides
Marginally stable slopes (including existing landslides) may be subject to landslides caused by earthquakes. The landslide hazard depends on many factors, including existing slope stability, shaking potential, and presence of existing landslides. Landslides, debris flows, or any movement of earth or rock are most common in areas of high topographic relief, such as steep canyon walls or steep hillsides.
Landslide-prone areas in the EIR Study Area are depicted in Figure 4.7-2. The landslide hazard for both earthquake- and moisture-induced landslides are increased with steep slopes close to the Rodgers Creek Fault Zone. In addition, localized landslides are possible along small slopes elsewhere in the city, including the sides of the Santa Rosa Creek and the Santa Rosa Flood Control Channel. While these landslide-prone areas exist within Santa Rosa, the potential future development under the proposed project is expected to occur in existing urban areas and would be concentrated on a limited number of vacant parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development where the topography is generally flat. New development or redevelopment in any of the portions of the EIR Study Area deemed to be within landslide-susceptible areas would be required to comply with grading, erosion, and sediment control regulations in the CBC (SRCC Chapter 18-16) and the provisions in SRCC Chapters 14.30 and 19-64.
17 Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency, 2023, Basin Conditions, https://santarosaplaingroundwater.org/conditions/, accessed August 29, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-18 OCTOBER 2024
Summary
In addition, Chapter 5, Safety, Climate Resilience, Noise, and Public Services and Facilities, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider geological and soil impacts. The following General Plan goal, policy, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts from earthquakes:
Goal 5-1: Minimize community exposure to seismic and geologic hazards. *Policy 5-1.1: New development, redevelopment, and major remodels shall avoid or adequately mitigate seismic and geologic hazards.
*Action 5-1.1: Prior to new development approval, ensure geologic studies and analyses are deemed acceptable by a California Certified Engineering Geologist and/or Geotechnical Engineer for applicable hazard conditions.
*Action 5-1.2: Restrict development in areas where adverse impacts associated with known natural or human-caused geologic hazards cannot be effectively mitigated, as determined by a California Certified Engineering Geologist and/or Geotechnical Engineer . Action 5-1.3: Avoid or adequately mitigate any development of critical facilities—hospitals, fire stations, emergency management headquarters, broadcast services, sewage treatment plants, and places of large congregations—in high-risk geologic hazard zones (e.g., Rodgers Creek Fault zone, liquefiable soils, areas of slope instability. Action 5-1.4: Establish and periodically update an inventory of seismically vulnerable structures that includes unreinforced masonry construction, soft-story construction, and nonductile concrete construction.
Action 5-1.5: Require retrofitting and abatement of structural hazards to levels of risk acceptable to the Building Official.
Action 5-1.6: Prioritize retrofitting and abatement of City-owned buildings in areas determined to experience strong ground shaking during an earthquake. Action 5-1.7: Provide owners of potentially vulnerable structures, such as unreinforced masonry, soft-story construction, and/or nonductile concrete, with information needed to retrofit to meet the latest State seismic safety requirements. Action 5-1.8: Retrofit and harden water storage facilities, wastewater conveyance, electricity transmission lines, roadways, water detention facilities, levees, and other utilities near the Rodgers Creek Fault.
Because potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 has the potential to be constructed where there is the potential for geological hazards, impacts are considered potentially significant.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-19
Impact GEO-1: Impacts from potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 where there are known geological hazards could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed project.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, as well as compliance with State, regional, and local regulations pertaining to structural safety regarding fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides, would ensure that potential future development under the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause or worsen the likelihood of or substantial adverse effects from seismic hazards related to earthquakes, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Specifically, proposed General Plan 2050 *Policy 5-1.1 requires that potential future development avoid or mitigate seismic hazards; *Action 5-1.1 requires potential future development to prepare geologic studies are prepared by qualified engineers; and *Action 5-1.2 requires that potential future development be restricted in areas where adverse impacts associated with known natural or human-caused geologic hazards cannot be effectively mitigated, as determined by a qualified engineer . This includes prohibiting development that would be subject to geological hazard due to its location and/or design and that cannot be mitigated to safe levels. Compliance with the Santa Rosa City Code (SRCC) regulations and proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions would mitigate impacts by permitting development only in areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the community can be adequately mitigated.
Because potential future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with both the California Building Code and the SRCC as well as proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, implementation of the proposed project would not cause or worsen seismic ground shaking; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
GEO-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Soils are particularly prone to erosion during the grading phase of development, especially during heavy rains. Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction of future development could undermine structures or minor slopes, which would be a concern during implementation of the proposed project.
The CBC provides regulations for construction to provide proper grading, drainage, and erosion and sediment control. In addition, SRCC Chapter 17-12 protects and enhances the water quality of watercourses and water bodies from erosion and other sources of contamination. Erosion-control measures can include seeding slopes, installation of temporary dikes and swales, placement of straw bales and filter fences, outlet protection, grass-lined swales, and installation of sediment retention structures, as appropriate for specific sites. In addition, SRCC Section 14-30.055 and Section 19-64.010 sets forth the requirements for the submittal of grading plans that demonstrate that potential future development has been designed to minimize soil erosion.
As described in further detail in Chapter 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, to minimize potential impacts related to erosion, future development pursuant to the proposed project would require compliance with the Construction General Permit (CGP) Water Quality Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, which includes the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-20 OCTOBER 2024
SWPPP requires an erosion-control plan with the incorporation of best management practices to control erosion during construction. Typical construction best management practices include silt fences, fiber rolls, catch basin inlet protection, water trucks, street sweeping, and stabilization of truck entrance/exits.
While this regulation is primarily aimed at water quality, it is another mechanism routinely applied by the City that would help to minimize the risk of erosion.
In addition, Chapter 5, Safety, Climate Resilience, Noise, and Public Services and Facilities, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider potential geological and soil impacts. The following goal, policy, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts from soil erosion:
Goal 5-1: Minimize community exposure to seismic and geologic hazards. Policy 5-1.5: Promote erosion-control strategies that reduce hazards to structures, properties, and drainages.
Action 5-1.9: Identify enhanced erosion-control measures for properties that exhibit high erosion potential, are in areas of steep slopes, or have experienced past erosion problems. Action 5-1.10: Ensure each update to the Community Wildfire Protection Plan identifies slope stability and wildfire hazard areas and mitigation strategies to reduce post-wildfire erosion.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 goal, policy, and actions identified above, as well as adherence to existing regulatory requirements that include, but are not limited to, the CBC and the SRCC grading and drainage requirements for new developments, would ensure that impacts associated with substantial erosion and loss of topsoil from potential future development would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GEO-3 Implementation of the proposed project could 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.
Unstable geologic units are known to be present within the EIR Study Area. The following sections discuss the hazards associated with landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Landslides
As stated under impact discussion GEO-1, the EIR Study Area includes landslide-prone areas; however, the majority of the potential future development under the proposed project is expected to occur in existing urban areas and would be concentrated on a limited number of vacant parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development where the topography is generally flat. The areas of high landslide susceptibility are not located in the highly urbanized portions within the EIR Study Area where potential future development is anticipated to occur; therefore, implementation of General Plan SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-21
2050 would not be intentionally located on a geologic unit or on soil that is unstable. However, there is the potential that future development could occur near areas of potential landslides. As described under impact discussion GEO-1, new development or redevelopment in any of the portions of the EIR Study Area deemed to be within landslide-susceptible areas would be required to comply with grading, erosion, and sediment control regulations in the CBC (SRCC Chapter 18-16), SRCC Chapter 14.30 and 19-64, SRCC Chapters 17-08 and 20-32, and proposed General Plan 2050 *Policy 5-1.1, *Action 5-1.1, and *Action 5-
1.2, which would mitigate impacts from the potential of landslides.
Subsidence
Subsidence has not been observed within Santa Rosa and groundwater levels have not declined significantly. The probability of subsidence impacts is generally low in Santa Rosa, due to the lack of significant groundwater overdraft conditions within the EIR Study Area. As described in further detail in Chapter 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, in groundwater basins that are designated as medium and high priority, local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies must assess conditions in their local groundwater basins and then prepare groundwater sustainability plans. The act encourages sustainable groundwater management practices to reduce the potential for future land subsidence, and ongoing surveying of the ground surface by the California Department of Water Resources and the USGS provides a way to verify that efforts in preventing subsidence are effective. The Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s groundwater programs continue to prevent long-term groundwater overdraft conditions and reduce the impact of subsidence.
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
As stated under impact discussion GEO-1, based on the potential for strong ground shaking combined with a groundwater depth of under 50 feet in much of the EIR Study Area, much of the EIR Study Area is within an area susceptible to liquefaction. All structures constructed in the EIR Study Area would be designed in accordance with current seismic design standards as found in the CBC. Design measures would be implemented according to the most recent CBC, which would reduce the impact of liquefaction and seismic settlement, including, but not limited to, ground improvement techniques such as in-situ densification, load transfer to underlying nonliquefiable bearing layers, and over-excavation and recompaction with engineered fill method. These design measures would reduce the potential exposure of people and structures to the hazard from liquefaction and seismic settlement such that there would not be a significant impact. Further, the requirements for the preparation of site-specific assessments that include project-specific mitigation pursuant to SRCC Chapter 17-08 and proposed General Plan 2050 *Policy 5-1.1, *Action 5-1.1, and *Action 5-1.2 to reduce the impacts from ground lurching or lateral spreading.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-22 OCTOBER 2024
Settlement and Collapse
Settlement and collapse are likely to exist in areas with alluvial soils. Areas of large settlement can damage, or in extreme cases, destroy structures. The presence of compressible soils in the EIR Study Area represents a hazard to structures and people.18 CBC’s design code has been adopted by the City (SRCC Chapter 18-16) and requires that structures be designed to mitigate compressible soils. Methods that could be used to reduce the impact of compressible soils include in-situ densification, transferring the load to underlying non-compressible layers with piles, and over excavation of compressible soil and recompaction with engineered fill.
Summary
Because potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 has the potential to be constructed where there are unstable soils or soils that could become unstable over the buildout horizon of the proposed project, impacts are considered potentially significant.
Impact GEO-3: Impacts from potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 where there are potentially unstable soils could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed project.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. As determined under impact discussions GEO-1 and GEO-2, potential future development from implementation of the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Building Code, as adopted in Santa Rosa City Code (SRCC) Chapter 18-16, which provides regulations for building design and construction to ensure geologic and soil stability. In addition to protections afforded by State laws, the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed under impact discussions GEO-1 and GEO-2 would require local planning and development decisions to consider potential risks of development on unstable soils or geologic units. Specifically, SRCC Chapters 17-08 and 20-32 and proposed General Plan 2050 *Policy 5-1.1, *Action 5-1.1, and *Action 5-1.2 requirements for geotechnical reports that identify and mitigate impacts related to unstable soils.
All potential future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with State, regional, and local regulations, including SRCC provisions and the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, to ensure that potential future development that results from implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
18 United States Department of Agriculture, 2023, Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed August 29, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-23
GEO-4 Implementation of the proposed project could be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
Based on the presence of alluvial materials in the EIR Study Area, there is some potential for expansive/shrink-swell soils throughout Santa Rosa.19, 20 Expansive soils are possible wherever clays and elastic silts may be present, including alluvial soils and weathered granitic and fine-grained sedimentary rocks. The presence of expansive soils represents a hazard to structures and people.
As discussed under impact discussion GEO-1, Chapter 5, Safety, Climate Resilience, Noise, and Public Services and Facilities, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains policies and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider potential geological and soil impacts. Additionally, SRCC Chapters 17-08 requires that an evaluation of the suitability of a project can attach conditions to the project if necessary to mitigate impacts from expansive soils and SRCC Chapter 20-32 requires a review process for the City to consider the appropriateness of proposed development on hillside parcels to ensure that a proposed project minimizes its environmental impact, including the preparation of geotechnical reports that identify and mitigate impacts. As part of the City review process regulations from the CBC shall be followed, including the use of a soils engineer, as outlined in SRCC Chapter 18-16, Appendix J. Specific engineering methods that could be used to reduce the impact of expansive soils include drainage-control devices to limit water infiltration near foundations, over-excavation and recompaction of engineered fill method, or support of the foundation with piles.
Because potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 has the potential to be constructed where there are expansive soils in the EIR Study Area, impacts are considered potentially significant.
Impact GEO-4: Impacts from potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 where there are expansive soils could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed project.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions would mitigate potential impacts as a result of developing on expansive soils. Specifically, proposed *Policy 5-1.1, *Action 5-1.1, and *Action 5-1.2 include requirements for geotechnical reports that would ensure that new development, redevelopment, and major remodels avoid or adequately mitigate seismic and geologic hazards as part of the City project review process.
Additionally, compliance with existing State, regional, and local regulations, would ensure that potential future development under the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risks to life or property. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
19 Wagner, D. L., and E. J. Bortugno, 1982, Geologic Map of the Santa Rosa Quadrangle, scale 1:250,000, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_518.htm , accessed August 29, 2023. 20 United States Department of Agriculture, 2023, Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed August 29, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-24 OCTOBER 2024
GEO-5 Implementation of the proposed project would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where soils would be incapable of adequately supporting such systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
As discussed in Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR, wastewater from new lots or parcels would be discharged into the existing public sanitary sewer system serviced by the City of Santa Rosa. Therefore, potential future development in the EIR Study Area is not anticipated to result in the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
In the event septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are required, SRCC Chapter 15-16 would allow for the construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems provided that the applicant obtains a City permit and the wastewater disposal system is only employing subsurface soil absorption facilities where such facilities would not endanger or affect the public water supply. In addition, such a wastewater disposal system is subject to inspection by City personnel, who have the authority to deny the permit if conditions are not up to City standards.
Compliance with State, regional, and local regulations for structural safety regarding inadequate soils would ensure that potential future development under the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects. Therefore, potential future development would not result in septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where soils are not capable of adequately supporting such systems, and the impact would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GEO-6 Implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
As stated in Section 4.7.1.2, Existing Conditions, the geology and soils in the EIR Study Area are common throughout the city and region and are not considered unique. However, geological formations underlying the EIR Study Area have the potential to contain unique paleontological resources. Potential future development would be required to comply with the federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, which limits the collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency, and PRC Section 5097, which prohibits the removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency. Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., grading and excavation) associated with potential future development in the EIR Study Area could uncover fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments that have not been recorded. The implementation protocols and adherence to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards would ensure the protection of unique paleontological resources during construction of future development. Some protocols include, but are not limited to:
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-25
Excavations within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. Ground-disturbance work shall cease until a City-approved, qualified paleontologist determines whether the resource requires further study.
The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards as appropriate, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. If is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City of Santa Rosa review and approval prior to implementation.
All construction activities shall adhere to the recommendations in the excavation plan.
Compliance with federal, state, regional, and local regulations pertaining to paleontological resources, would ensure that potential future development under the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects to paleontological resources. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GEO-7 Implementation of the proposed project would not in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to geology and soils.
As discussed in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, the cumulative setting includes growth within the EIR Study Area in combination with projected growth in the rest of Sonoma County and the surrounding region. As discussed previously, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils. Although the project site includes some potentially significant hazards—strong ground shaking, subsidence, settlement, collapse, seismic-related ground failure, and erosion—anticipated development in the EIR Study Area would be subject to regulations pertaining to seismic safety, including the CBC and SRCC requirements and proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions identified under impact discussions GEO-1 through GEO-7. Compliance with these requirements would, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce cumulative, development-related impacts that pertain to seismic shaking, seismic-related ground failure, seismically induced landslides, soil erosion, and unstable soils. Similarly, compliance with relevant SRCC requirements and the requirements of the CBC would minimize the cumulative impacts associated with substantial erosion or loss of topsoil.
Though none of the soils in the EIR Study Area are considered to have unique geological resources, unique paleontological resources may occur. Site-specific evaluation in the event that previously unknown resources are discovered during construction activities for new development or redevelopment would be required. Future development would be focused on specific sites or areas, which would be evaluated for site development constraints on a case-by-case basis. Cumulative development in adjacent jurisdictions would be subject to the same federal, state, and local regulations. Since impacts associated with geology SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-26 OCTOBER 2024
and soils are by their nature focused on specific sites or areas, the less-than-significant impacts in the EIR Study Area to avoid impacts related to geology and soils from the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the immediate vicinity of the EIR Study Area or greater Sonoma County. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-1
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the potential impacts from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential impacts from GHG emissions, and identifies proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, as well as feasible mitigation measures, that would minimize any potentially significant impacts. The GHG emissions modeling prepared for the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy is included in Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.
Discussions regarding climate-related hazards, such as air quality, landslides, sea-level rise, flooding, drought, and wildfires are in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality; Chapter 4.7, Geology and Soils; Chapter 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Chapter 4.18, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR.
4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
TERMINOLOGY
The following are definitions for terms used throughout this chapter:
Greenhouse gases (GHG). Gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light, thereby retaining heat in the atmosphere and contributing to a greenhouse effect. Global warming potential (GWP). Metric used to describe how much heat a molecule of a GHG absorbs relative to a molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) over a given period (20, 100, and 500 years).
CO2 has a GWP of 1.
Carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e). The standard unit to measure the amount of GHGs in terms of the amount of CO2 that would cause the same amount of warming. CO2e is based on the GWP ratios between the various GHGs relative to CO2.
MTCO2e. Metric ton of CO2e.
MMTCO2e. Million metric tons of CO2e.
GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHGs, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHGs is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs— water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed in the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHGs identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent are nitrous oxide (N 2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
4.8.1.1 4.8.1.2
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-2 OCTOBER 2024
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.1,2 The major GHGs are briefly described below.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (i.e., sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock, and other agricultural practices, and from the decay of organic waste in landfills and water treatment facilities.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high global warming potential (GWP) gases. The GWP of applicable GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.8-1, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2- equivalence (CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) GWP values for methane (CH4), a project that generates 10 metric tons (MT) of CH4 would be equivalent to 280 MT of CO2.
TABLE 4.8-1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND THEIR RELATIVE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL COMPARED TO CO2 GHGs
Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4) Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2 a
Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5) Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2 a
Sixth Assessment Report
(AR6) Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2 a
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 1 1
Methane (CH4) b 25 28 30
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 298 265 273
Notes: The IPCC published updated GWP values in its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) that reflects the latest information on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. However, GWP values identified in AR5 are used by the 2022 Scoping Plan for long- term emissions forecasting. Therefore, this analysis utilizes AR5 GWP values consistent with the current Scoping Plan. a. Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant compared to CO2. b. The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.
Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013, Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013; IPCC 2021, Sixth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2022.
1 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 2 Black carbon contributes to climate change directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing component of particulate matter emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. The share of black carbon emissions from transportation is dropping and is expected to continue to do so between now and 2030 as a result of California’s air quality programs. The remaining black carbon emissions come largely from woodstoves/fireplaces, off-road applications, and industrial/commercial combustion. However, state and national GHG inventories do not include black carbon due to work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-3
Human Influence on Climate Change
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that is attributable to human activities.
The recent Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the IPCC summarizes the latest scientific consensus on climate change. It finds that atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 have increased by 50 percent since the
industrial revolution and continue to increase at a rate of two parts per million each year . By the 2030s, and no later than 2040, the world will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) warming. 3 These recent changes in
the quantity and concentration of climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone.
Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants.
4 In the past, gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. Human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime.
5 Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are hard to predict.
Projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are based on different emission scenarios that account for historical trends in emissions and on observations of the climate record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather events. Climate-change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty—for example, on the magnitude of the trends for:
Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas. Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas. An increase in frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas. An increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) over most areas.
Larger areas affected by drought.
Intense tropical cyclone activity increases.
Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis).
3 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023. 4 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, March 2006, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/ucldc-nuxeo-ref-media/ 0bdec21c-ca2b-4f4d-9e11-35935ac4cf5f, accessed July 24, 2023. 5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-4 OCTOBER 2024
Potential Climate Change Impacts for California
There is at least a greater than 50 percent likelihood that global warming will reach or exceed 1.5°C in the near-term, even for the very low GHG emissions scenario.6 Climate change is already impacting California and will continue to affect it for the foreseeable future. For example, the average temperature in most areas of California is already 1 degree Fahrenheit (°F) higher than historical levels, and some areas have seen average increases in excess of 2°F.
7 The California Fourth Climate Change Assessment identifies the following climate change impacts under a business-as-usual scenario:
Annual average daily high temperatures in California are expected to rise by 2.7°F by 2040, 5.8°F by 2070, and 8.8°F by 2100 compared to observed and modeled historical conditions. These changes are statewide averages. Heat waves are projected to become longer, more intense, and more frequent. Warming temperatures are expected to increase soil moisture loss and lead to drier seasonal conditions. Summer dryness may become prolonged, with soil drying beginning earlier in the spring and lasting longer into the fall and winter rainy season. High heat increases the risk of death from cardiovascular, respiratory, and other diseases. Droughts are likely to become more frequent and persistent. Climate change is projected to increase the strength of the most intense precipitation and storm events affecting California.
Mountain ranges in California are already seeing a reduction in the percentage of precipitation falling as snow. Snowpack levels are projected to decline significantly by 2100 due to reduced snowfall and faster snowmelt. California’s water storage system is designed with the expectation that snow will stay frozen for many months, and that as it melts, it will be stored in a series of reservoirs and dams, many of which are used to generate electricity. Changing waterfall patterns therefore impact both water supply and electricity supply.
Marine layer clouds are projected to decrease, though more research is needed to better understand their sensitivity to climate change.
Extreme wildfires (i.e., fires larger than 10,000 hectares or 24,710 acres) would occur 50 percent more frequently. The maximum area burned statewide may increase 178 percent by the end of the century. Drought and reduced water supplies can increase wildfire risk. Exposure to wildfire smoke is linked to increased incidence of respiratory illness. Sea level rise is expected to continue to increase erosion of beaches, cliffs, and bluffs.8
6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2021, Sixth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2022, https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023. 7 California Office of Emergency Services, June 2020, California Adaptation Planning Guide, https://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardMitigationSite/Documents/CA-Adaptation-Planning-Guide-FINAL-June-2020-Accessible.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023.
8 California Office of Emergency Services, June 2020, California Adaptation Planning Guide, https://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardMitigationSite/Documents/CA-Adaptation-Planning-Guide-FINAL-June-2020-Accessible.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-5
Table 4.8-2, Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Risk to California, shows the global climate change risks to California, which includes impacts public health, water resources, agriculture, coastal sea level, forest and biological resources, energy, and wildfire.
TABLE 4.8-2 SUMMARY OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS RISK TO CALIFORNIA Impact Category Potential Risks
Public Health
Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer
Poor air quality made worse
Higher temperatures increase ground-level ozone (i.e., smog) levels Water Resource
Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack
Challenges in securing adequate water supply
Potential reduction in hydropower
Loss of winter recreation
Agricultural
Increasing temperature
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds
Declining productivity
Irregular blooms and harvests
Coastal Sea Level
Accelerated sea level rise
Increasing coastal floods
Shrinking beaches
Worsened impacts on infrastructure
Forest and Biological Resource
Increased risk and severity of wildfires
Lengthening of the wildfire season
Movement of forest areas
Conversion of forest to grassland
Declining forest productivity
Increasing threats from pest and pathogens
Shifting vegetation and species distribution
Altered timing of migration and mating habits
Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species
Energy Demand Potential reduction in hydropower
Increased energy demand
Wildfire
Earlier snowmelt, higher temperatures, and longer dry periods over a longer fire season will directly increase wildfire risk. Indirectly, wildfire risk will also be influenced by potential climate-related changes in vegetation and ignition potential from lightning. Human activities will continue to be the biggest factor in ignition risk. The number of large fires statewide is estimated to increase by 58 percent to 128 percent above historical levels by 2085. Under the same emissions scenario, estimated burned area will increase by 57 percent to 169 percent, depending on location.
Sources: California Climate Change Center, July 2012, Our Changing Climate 2012, Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California; Climate Change Center, July 2006, Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California; Climate Change Center, May 2009, The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California; California Natural Resources Agency, July 2014, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, An Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy; California Office of Emergency Services, June 2020, California Adaptation Planning Guide; California Council on Science and Technology, September 2012, California’s Energy Future: Portraits of Energy Systems for Meeting Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets, https://ccst.us/wp-content/uploads/2012ghg.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-6 OCTOBER 2024
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not impose any emission reduction requirements but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.
9 To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, the EPA was required to issue an endangerment finding. The finding identified emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists around the world. The first three are applicable to the project’s GHG emissions inventory because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions and, according to guidance by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s GHG emissions inventory.
United States Mandatory Report Rule for GHGs (2009)
In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more of CO
2e per year are required to submit an annual report.
Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2017 to 2026) The federal government issued new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 2012 for model years 2017 to 2025, which required a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) in 2025. However, on March 30, 2020, the EPA finalized an updated CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new standards covering model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021 to 2026. Under SAFE, the fuel economy standards will increase 1.5 percent per year compared to the 5 percent per year under the CAFE standards established in 2012. Overall, SAFE requires a fleet average of 40.4 MPG for model year 2026 vehicles (85 Federal Register 24174 (April 30, 2020)).
9 United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009, EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment. Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity, https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.html, accessed July 24, 2023.
4.8.1.3 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-7
On December 21, 2021, under the direction of Executive Order (EO) 13990, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration repealed SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One, which had preempted state and local laws related to fuel economy standards. In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced new proposed fuel standards on March 31, 2022. Fuel efficiency under the new standards proposed will increase 8 percent annually for model years 2024 to 2025 and 10 percent annual for model year 2026. Overall, the new CAFE standards require a fleet average of 49 MPG for passenger vehicles and light trucks for model year 2026, which would be a 10 MPG increase relative to model year 2021. 10 State Regulations
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in EO S-03-05, EO B-30-15, EO B-55-18, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, AB 1279, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and SB 375.
Executive Order S-03-05
EO S-03-05 was signed June 1, 2005, and set the following GHG reduction targets for the state:
2000 levels by 2010
1990 levels by 2020
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)
The Global Warming Solutions Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. This Act follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in EO S-03-05. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline a plan to achieve the GHG emissions reduction targets of this Act.
Executive Order B-30-15
EO B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, set a goal of reducing GHG emissions in the state to 40 percent of 1990 levels by year 2030. EO B-30-15 also directed CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the state and requires State agencies to implement measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in EO S-03-05. It also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California adaption strategy, Safeguarding California, in order to ensure climate change is accounted for in state planning and investment decisions.
10 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1, 2022, USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model year 2024-2026, https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel -economy-standards-model-year-2024-2026, accessed July 24, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-8 OCTOBER 2024
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
In September 2016, SB 32 and AB 197 were signed into law, making the executive order goal for year 2030 into a statewide mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires CARB to prioritize direct emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources.
Executive Order B-55-18
EO B-55-18, signed September 10, 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” EO B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is in addition to other statewide goals, meaning not only should emissions be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, but that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO 2e from the
atmosphere, including through sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes. 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update
CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on December 15, 2022, which lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier and to reduce the State’s anthropogenic GHG emissions.
11 The Scoping Plan was updated to address the carbon neutrality goals of EO B-55-18 (discussed below) and the ambitious GHG reduction target as directed by AB 1279. Previous Scoping Plans focused on specific GHG reduction targets for our industrial, energy, and transportation sectors—to meet 1990 levels by 2020, and then the more aggressive 40 percent below that for the 2030 target. This plan expands upon earlier Scoping Plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. Carbon neutrality takes it one step further by expanding actions to capture and store carbon including through natural and working lands and mechanical technologies, while drastically reducing anthropogenic sources of carbon pollution at the same time. The path forward was informed by the recent AR6 of the IPCC and the measures would achieve 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance AB 1279. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan identifies strategies as shown in Table 4.8-3, Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans, that would be most impactful at the local level for ensuring substantial process towards the State’s carbon neutrality goals.
11 California Air Resources Board, December 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-9
TABLE 4.8-3 PRIORITY STRATEGIES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLIMATE ACTION PLANS Priority Area Priority Strategies
Transportation
Electrification
Convert local government fleets to zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) and provide electric vehicle (EV) charging at public sites.
Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as building standards that exceed state building codes, permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, preferential parking policies, and ZEV readiness plans).
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) Reduction
Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards.
Implement Complete Streets policies and investments, consistent with general plan circulation element requirements.
Increase access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, improving transit service by increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing or eliminating fares, microtransit, etc.
Increase public access to clean mobility options by planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, and walking.
Implement parking pricing or transportation demand management pricing strategies.
Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented, and compact infill development (such as increasing allowable density of the neighborhood).
Preserve natural and working lands by implementing land use policies that guide development toward infill areas and do not convert “greenfield” land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation easements)
Building
Decarbonization
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes for residential and commercial uses.
Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings, such as weatherization, lighting upgrades, and replacing energy-intensive appliances and equipment with more efficient systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment and equipment controllers).
Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings such as appliance rebates, existing building reach codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances.
Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately owned land uses (e.g., permit streamlining, information sharing) Deploy renewable energy production and energy storage directly in new public projects and on existing public facilities (e.g., solar photovoltaic systems on rooftops of municipal buildings and on canopies in public parking lots, battery storage systems in municipal buildings).
Source: California Air Resources Board, December 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, accessed July 24, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf.
For residential and mixed-use development projects, CARB recommends this first approach to demonstrate that these land use development projects are aligned with State climate goals based on the attributes of land use development that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing. Attributes that accommodate growth in a manner consistent with the GHG and equity goals of SB 32 have all the following attributes:
Transportation Electrification
Provide EV charging infrastructure that, at a minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standards in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-10 OCTOBER 2024
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction
Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer). Does not result in the loss or conversion of the State’s natural and working lands; Consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units/acre), or is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS); Reduces parking requirements by:
Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per dwelling unit; or For multifamily residential development, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit.
At least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income residents; Result in no net loss of existing affordable units.
Building Decarbonization
Use all electric appliances without any natural gas connections and does not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.
The second approach to project-level alignment with State climate goals is net zero GHG emissions. The third approach to demonstrating project-level alignment with State climate goals is to align with GHG thresholds of significance, which many local air quality management and air pollution control districts have developed or adopted.12
Assembly Bill 1279
Assembly Bill 1279, signed in September 2022, codified the carbon neutrality targets of EO B-55-18 for year 2045 and sets a new legislative target for year 2045 of 85 percent below 1990 levels for anthropogenic GHG emissions. CARB will be required to update the scoping plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve the net-zero and GHG emissions-reduction goals.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number SB 375, was adopted in 2008 to connect the GHG emissions reduction targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior . Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with
12 California Air Resources Board, December 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-11
goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, this Act required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the Bay region, which includes Napa, Marin, San Francisco, and Contra Costa counties. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target.
2017 Update to the SB 375 Targets
CARB is required to update the targets for the MPOs every eight years. In June 2017, CARB released updated targets and technical methodology and recently released another update in February 2018, which became effective in October 2018. CARB adopted the updated targets and methodology on March 22, 2018. All SCSs adopted after October 1, 2018, are subject to these new targets. The updated targets consider the need to further reduce VMT, as identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, while balancing the need for additional and more flexible revenue sources to incentivize positive planning and action toward sustainable communities. Like the 2010 targets, the updated Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) targets are in units of percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks compared to 2005. This excludes reductions anticipated from implementation of state technology and fuels strategies and any potential future state strategies such as statewide road user pricing. The proposed targets call for greater per-capita GHG emission reductions from Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) than are currently in place, which for 2035 translates into proposed targets that either match or exceed the emission reduction levels in the MPOs’ currently adopted SCS. As proposed, CARB staff’s proposed targets would result in an additional reduction of over 8 MMTCO
2e in 2035 compared to the current targets.13
Transportation Sector Specific Regulations
Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley Law)
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles. (See also the previous discussion of federal regulations under subheading “Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards [2017 to 2026].”)
13 California Air Resources Board, February 2018, Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/SB375_Updated_Final_Target_Staff_Report_2018.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-12 OCTOBER 2024
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) into a single package of standards.
Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025 new automobiles will emit 34 percent less GHG emissions and 75 percent less smog-forming emissions.
Advanced Clean Fleets and Advanced Clean Trucks
In April 2023, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II rule, which requires all new passenger vehicles, trucks, and SUVs sold in California to be zero emissions by 2035. The regulation amends the Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of ZEVs to support Governor Newsom’s 2020 EO N-79- 20 and amends the Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations to include increasingly stringent standards for gasoline cars and heavier passenger trucks to continue to reduce smog-forming emissions. This rule will substantially reduce air pollutants that threaten public health and would further develop the ZEV market starting with the 2026 model year .
In April 2023, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Fleets, which requires a phased-in transition toward zero-emission medium-and-heavy duty vehicles. Under the new rule, fleet owners operating vehicles for private services (such as Postal Service, state and local government fleets) will begin their transition toward ZEVs starting in 2024. The rule also requires an end to combustion truck sales in 2036 and follows the 2020 adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which put in place a requirement for manufacturers to increase the sale of zero-emission trucks.
Executive Order S-01-07
On January 18, 2007, the state set a new Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold in the state. EO S 01 07 set a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS required a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The standard applied to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels, and used market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose the most economically feasible methods for reducing emissions during the “fuel cycle.”
Executive Order B-16-2012
On March 23, 2012, the state identified that CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate ZEVs in major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g., electric vehicle (EV) charging stations).
EO B 16-2012 also directed the number of ZEVs in California’s state vehicle fleet to increase through the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles are zero emission by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also established a target for the transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-13
Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, EO N-79-20 was signed into law. The goal of this EO is for 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks to be zero emission by 2035. Additionally, the fleet goals for trucks are for 100 percent of drayage trucks to be zero emission by 2035, and 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state to be zero emission by 2045, where feasible. The EO’s goal for the state is to transition to 100 percent zero-emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible.
Renewables Portfolio: Carbon Neutrality Regulations
Senate Bills 1078, 107, and X1-2 and Executive Order S 14 08 A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard established under SB 1078 (Sher) and SB 107 (Simitian). Under the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. EO S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the state’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production decreases indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.
Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number SB 350, was enacted on October 7, 2015. This Act establishes tiered increases to the RPS—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. This Act also sets a new goal to double energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, SB 100 was signed into law to replace the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350) requirements. Under SB 100, the RPS for public-owned facilities and retail sellers consists of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. Furthermore, the bill establishes an overall state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-14 OCTOBER 2024
The Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act Of 2022
The Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act Of 2022, commonly known as its legislative bill number SB 1020 was signed into law on September 16, 2022. SB 1020 provides interim RPS targets (90 percent renewable energy by 2035 and 95 percent renewable energy by 2040) and requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to reach 100 percent clean electricity by 2045.
Energy Efficiency Regulations
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted on August 11, 2021, and went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthen ventilation standards, and more. The 2022 standards require mixed-fuel single-family homes to be electric-ready to accommodate replacement of gas appliances with electric appliances. In addition, the standards also include prescriptive photovoltaic system and battery requirements for high-rise, multifamily buildings (i.e., more than three stories) and noncommercial buildings such as hotels, offices, medical offices, restaurants, retail stores, schools, warehouses, theaters, and convention centers. 14 California Building Code: CALGreen
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2022. The 2022 CALGreen standards became effective on January 1, 2023. 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR Sections 1601–1608) were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006.
The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated
14 California Energy Commission, May 19, 2021, Amendments to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022 Energy Code) Draft Environmental Report, CEC-400-2021-077-D.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-15
appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business as usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.
Solid Waste Diversion Regulations
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code Section 40050 et seq.) set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the state to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the Act requires that each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element.
This Act also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.
AB 341
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multifamily residential land uses. Section 5.408 of CALGreen also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, Public Resources Code Section 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.
AB 1826
In October of 2014, AB 1826 was signed into law requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multifamily residential dwellings with five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed with food waste.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-16 OCTOBER 2024
Water Efficiency Regulations
SBX7-7
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010 pursuant to SB 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized the DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirement (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan). In addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SBX7-7 required urban water providers to adopt a water conservation target of a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use.
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated DWR model ordinance or an equivalent. AB 1881 also requires the CEC to consult with the DWR to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves, to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water .
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
On September 19, 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383 to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and methane. Black carbon is the light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter produced during the incomplete combustion of fuels. SB 1383 required the state board, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The bill also established targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. On March 14, 2017, CARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which identifies the state’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of short-lived climate pollutants. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use. In-use on-road rules were expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on- road sources by 80 percent between 2000 and 2020.
Regional Regulations
Sonoma County Transportation Authority
The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) is the congestion management agency for Sonoma County. SCTA is tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions that will reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision-making and air quality.
SCTA’s latest congestion management program is the 2016 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP).
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-17
SCTA’s countywide transportation model must be consistent with the regional transportation model developed by the MTC with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) data. The countywide transportation model is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the congestion management program system. In addition, SCTA’s updated CTP includes multimodal performance standards and trip reduction and transportation demand management strategies consistent with the goal of reducing regional VMT in accordance with SB 375.
As part of the implementing framework for the CTP, communities in Sonoma County have identified Priority Development Areas (PDA) to focus future population and employment growth. Increased density in PDAs is intended to locate more people near jobs and services in an effort to reduce travel and transportation related GHG emissions.
15 Plan Bay Area
As described in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21, 2021.16 Plan Bay Area provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375). Under the Plan Bay Area strategies, just under half of all Bay Area households would live within 0.5 miles of frequent transit by 2050. Transportation and environmental strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use pattern, are forecast to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from over 50 percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2050. GHG emissions from transportation would decrease significantly as a result of these transportation and land use changes, and the Bay Area would meet the state mandate of a 19 percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2035—but only if all strategies are implemented. 17 As described in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR, to achieve Plan Bay Area’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for the region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in PDAs18 and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs).19 Development in PDAs and TPAs leverage existing infrastructure and therefore can minimize development in green field (undeveloped) areas and maximize growth in transit-rich communities to help lower VMT and consequently reduce GHG emissions, air quality pollutants, and noise from vehicles with internal combustion engines dependent on fossil fuels and reduce wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR, the EIR Study Area has six PDAs and three TPAs—the Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor PDA, North Santa Rosa Station PDA and TPA, Downtown Station Area
15 Sonoma County Transportation Authority, September 2016, Moving Forward 2040: Sonoma County’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CTP16_090616.pdf, accessed August 24, 2023. 16 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed July 21, 2023. 17 Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed August 24, 2023.
18 PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. 19 TPAs are half-mile buffers surrounding major transit stops or terminals.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-18 OCTOBER 2024
PDA and TPA, Sebastopol Road Corridor PDA, Roseland PDA, Santa Rosa Avenue PDA, and Santa Rosa Transit Mall TPA.
Bay Area Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the state’s 2030 GHG reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following:
Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy. Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous public transit fleets.
Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and putting organic waste to productive use.20
A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next 3 to 5 years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following sectors: 1) stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working lands; 6) waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. Overall, the proposed control strategy is based on the following key priorities:
Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources. Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases. Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas). Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems. Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services. Decarbonize the energy system.
Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
Electrify the transportation and building sectors.
Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program
Under BAAQMD Regulation 14, Model Source Emissions Reduction Measures, Rule 1, Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, employers with 50 or more full-time employees within the BAAQMD are required to register and offer commuter benefits to employees. In partnership with the BAAQMD and the MTC, the rule’s purpose is to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and decrease the Bay Area’s traffic congestion by encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes, such as transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycling, and walking. The benefits program allows employees to choose from one of four
20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Spare the Air: Cool the Climate, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_ -proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed July 24, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-19
commuter benefit options including a pre-tax benefit, employer-provided subsidy, employer-provided transit, and alternative commute benefit.
Local Regulations
Santa Rosa City Code
The Santa Rosa Municipal Code (SRCC) includes various directives pertaining to GHG emissions. The SRCC is organized by title, chapter, and section, and in some cases, articles. Most provisions related to GHG emissions are in Title 18, Building Regulations, as follows:
Title 18, Buildings and Construction. This title adopts by reference, with the additions, insertions, deletions, and changes listed throughout, the California Green Building Standards Code in Chapter 18-42, California Green Building Standards Code. This title also includes Chapter 18-68, Expedited Permit Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Energy Systems, which provides for an expedited, streamlined solar permitting process that complies with the Solar Rights Act and AB 2188 in order to achieve timely and cost-effective installations of small residential rooftop solar energy systems.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory
The City’s community-wide GHG emissions inventory conducted for the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy (see Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR, and Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, of the proposed General Plan 2050) includes the following sectors:
Transportation. GHG emissions created by driving on-road vehicles, including passenger and freight vehicles, in Santa Rosa. In the 2019 inventory, this sector also includes emissions from fuel use on Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) trains.
Residential energy. GHG emissions are attributed to the use of electricity and natural gas in residential buildings.
Nonresidential energy. GHG emissions are attributed to the use of electricity and natural gas in nonresidential buildings.
Solid waste. GHG emissions released from trash collected from residents and businesses in Santa Rosa.
Off-road equipment. GHG emissions from equipment that does not provide on-road transportation, such as tractors for construction or equipment used for landscape maintenance. Agriculture. GHG emissions from fertilizer used for crop cultivation. Water and wastewater. This sector accounts for the electricity used to process and transport from the water used by and the wastewater generated from city community members, as well as direct emissions from processing wastewater .
4.8.1.4 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-20 OCTOBER 2024
Land use and sequestration. Emissions released into the atmosphere from development of previously undeveloped land and GHG emissions absorbed and stored in trees and soils on locally controlled lands as part of healthy ecosystems.
Stationary sources. Emissions from fuel use at major industrial facilities permitted by state and regional air quality authorities. Stationary source emissions are informational and are not included in the community total.
Wildfire and controlled burns. Emissions released by wildfires and controlled burns.
Industrial sources of emissions that require a permit to operate from BAAQMD are not included in the community inventory. However, due to the 15/15 Rule,21 natural gas and electricity use data for industrial land uses may also be aggregated with the nonresidential land uses in the data provided by Pacific Gas & Energy (PG&E) and Sonoma Clean Power (SCP). Life-cycle emissions are not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the proposed project, and therefore, would be speculative. Black carbon emissions are not included in the GHG analysis because CARB does not include this short-lived climate pollutant in the state’s GHG emissions inventory but treats it separately.
GHG Emissions Factors
Table 4.8-4, Existing Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors, shows the emissions factors for the baseline year .
Some sectors, including agriculture and off-road emissions, are calculated using formulae or models and do not have specific emission factors.
TABLE 4.8-4 EXISTING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FACTORS
Emissions Sector Unit Baseline Year Rate Source
On-road transportation (light and medium-
duty vehicles) MTCO2e/ mile 0.000347 California Air Resources Board On-road transportation (heavy-duty vehicles) MTCO2e/ mile 0.001124 California Air Resources Board On-road transportation (all vehicles) MTCO2e/ mile 0.00044 California Air Resources Board PG&E electricity MTCO2e/ kWh 2.65062E-05 PG&E
SCP electricity (CleanStart) MTCO2e/ kWh 1.87125E-05 SCP SCP electricity (EverGreen) MTCO2e/ kWh 1.75747E-05 SCP Direct access electricity MTCO2e/ kWh 0.0004 California Energy Commission Natural gas MTCO2e/ therm 0.0053 US Community Protocol
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) MTCO2e/ ton 0.2779 CalRecycle Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) MTCO2e/ ton 0.2419 CalRecycle Source: Based on the emissions inventory and forecast being conducted for the City’s GHG Reduction Strategy Plan, 2024. See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR, and Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, of the proposed General Plan 2050.
21 The 15/15 Rule was adopted by the California Public Utility Commission in the Direct Access Proceeding (CPUC Decision 97-10-031) to protect customer confidentiality. The 15/15 Rule requires that any aggregated information provided by the utilities must be made up of at least 15 customers (100 for residential sectors) and a single customer’s load must be less than 15 percent of an assigned category.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-21
Community Emissions
Emissions associated with the EIR Study Area are shown in Table 4.8-5, Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory in the EIR Study Area.
TABLE 4.8-5 EXISTING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Emissions Sector Existing MTCO2e % of Total
On-Road Transportation 541,140 58%
Nonresidential Energy 162,400 17%
Residential Energy 158,340 17%
Off-road Equipment 40,570 4%
Solid Waste/Landfills 33,630 4%
Water and Wastewater 5,510 1%
Agriculture 280 <1%
Land Use and Sequestration -13,060 -1%
Total Community Emissions 928,810 100%
Service Population (SP) 275,569 --
MTCO2e/SP 3.4 --
Stationary Sources a 12,400 --
Source: Based on the emissions inventory and forecast being conducted for the City’s GHG Reduction Strategy Plan, 2024. See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR and Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, of the proposed General Plan 2050.
Notes: All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows. a. Stationary sources are not included in the community-wide GHG inventory total. They are provided as informational items.
The existing land uses in Santa Rosa consist of single-family and multi-family residences, recreation/parks, retail, office, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. Operation of these land uses generates GHG emissions from natural gas used for energy, heating, and cooking; electricity usage; vehicle trips for employees and residents; area sources such as landscaping and agricultural equipment and consumer cleaning products; water demand; waste generation; and solid waste generation. 22 4.8.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would:
1. Generate GHG 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 GHG emissions.
3. In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative GHG emission impacts in the area.
22 Emissions from water demand and wastewater are emissions associated with electricity used to supply, treat, and distribute water.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-22 OCTOBER 2024
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IMPACTS
BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (GHG Justification Report) contains instructions on how to evaluate, measure, and mitigate GHG impacts generated from land use development projects and plans. For purposes of this analysis, the City of Santa Rosa is using BAAQMD’s current GHG plan-level significance thresholds to evaluate the proposed project’s potential impacts related to GHG emissions.
BAAQMD, in its GHG Justification Report, recommends the use of one of two plan-level criteria to determine the GHG emission impact resulting from a proposed plan. If a proposed plan cannot demonstrate consistency with the BAAQMD-recommended Criterion A or Criterion B, that plan would result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions.
A. The proposed plan must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5(b); or B. The proposed plan must meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045.
The proposed project includes the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy which is an update to the City’s current Santa Rosa Community-wide Climate Action Plan (CCAP) adopted on June 5, 2012. The proposed GHG Reduction Strategy demonstrates consistency with the latest legislative reduction target established by SB 32 for year 2030 and AB 1279 for year 2045. Therefore, Criterion A and B are used herein to determine the proposed project’s GHG emissions impacts.
GREENHOUSE GAS PLAN CONSISTENCY
To determine whether the proposed project is consistent with the applicable plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, the proposed project is analyzed for consistency with applicable policies contained in the State’s Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area. It should be noted that the proposed project builds on the City’s proposed GHG Reduction Strategy’s emission reduction objectives, emissions inventory, and forecast to align with current legislative reduction targets established by SB 32 and AB 1279.
4.8.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
GHG-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not generate GHG, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Future potential development over the buildout horizon of the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHGs from land uses within the EIR Study Area.
4.8.2.1 4.8.2.2
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-23
Forecast Emissions Compared to Existing Conditions
Potential buildout over the buildout horizon of the proposed project is not linked to a specific development time frame but is assumed over a 25-year project horizon through 2050. For purposes of evaluating if the proposed project would achieve State’s GHG reduction goal for year 2030 (SB 32) and year 2045 (AB 1279), forecasted GHG emissions for year 2030, 2045, and 2050 are shown.
Table 4.8-6, EIR Study Area GHG Emissions Business-as-Usual Forecast, provides a comparison of the change in GHG emissions in the EIR Study Area between the CEQA baseline (2019), year 2030, year 2045, and the proposed General Plan 2050 horizon year (2050) conditions. As shown in Table 4.8-6, the increase in residential units and population associated with the proposed General Plan 2050 results in an increase in on-road transportation, residential and nonresidential building energy use, solid waste, off-road equipment, water and wastewater, and agriculture.
Table 4.8-6 accounts for reductions from State measures that have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions, including:
The RPS requires increases in renewable electricity supplies. The Clean Car Standards require increased fuel efficiency of on-road vehicles and decreased carbon intensity of vehicle fuels.
The updated Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require new buildings to achieve increased energy efficiency targets.
The LCFS mandates reduced carbon intensity of fuels used in off-road equipment. The short-lived climate pollutants law (SB 1383) proposes a comprehensive strategy to reduce methane and other emissions of short-lived GHGs through regulations on dairy operations and urban landfills, including higher diversion rates of food waste from landfills.
After accounting for reductions from State and regional actions, projected development in the years 2030, 2045, and 2050 would result in a net increase of 45,260 MTCO2e, 106,960 MTCO2e, and 127,580 MTCO2e GHG emissions from existing conditions, respectively. The primary reason for the overall increase in community-wide GHG emissions is mainly due to the net increase in service population of 28,335 people at year 2030, 66,976 people at year 2045 and 79,856 people at year 2050. Without additional local GHG reduction strategies, the EIR Study Area would not achieve consistency with the GHG reduction goals of SB 32 (i.e., 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030) and AB 1279 (i.e., 85 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2045).
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-24 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.8-6 EIR STUDY AREA GHG EMISSIONS BUSINESS-AS-USUAL FORECAST Emissions Sector
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year)
Baseline Year 2030
Net Change 2030
from Baseline Year 2045
Net Change 2045
from Baseline Year 2050
Net Change 2050
from Baseline
On-Road Transportation 541,140 549,620 8,480 561,180 20,040 565,020 23,880 Nonresidential Energy 162,400 168,310 5,910 176,380 13,980 179,080 16,680 Residential Energy 158,340 176,180 17,840 200,520 42,180 208,620 50,280 Off-road Equipment 40,570 51,300 10,730 63,400 22,830 67,490 26,920 Solid Waste 33,630 37,090 3,460 41,810 8,180 43,380 9,750 Water and Wastewater 5,510 5,550 40 5,540 30 5,540 30
Agriculture 280 180 -100 50 -230 10 -270
Land Use and Sequestration -13,060 -14,160 -1,100 -13,110 -50 -12,750 310 Total Community Emissions (BAU) 928,810 974,070 45,260 1,035,770 106,960 1,056,390 127,580 Reductions from State and Regional Actions ― -170,570 ― -344,240 ― -363,680 ― Total Community Emissions
(with Existing State Actions)
― 803,500 ― 691,530 ― 692,710 ―
SB 32 (2030) and AB 1279 (2045) Target ― 669,420 ― 167,350 ― 167,350 ― Target achieved? ― No ― No ― No ―
Source: Based on the emissions inventory and forecast being conducted for the City’s GHG Reduction Strategy, 2024. See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR and Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, of the proposed General Plan 2050.
Notes: BAU = business as usual; estimates do not incorporate any emission reductions from statewide or GHG reduction measures.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-25
Local GHG Reduction Measures
The proposed General Plan 2050 directs implementation of the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy. The proposed GHG Reduction Strategy is an update to and replacement of the City’s 2012 CCAP . Like the previous 2012 CCAP , the integrated GHG Reduction Strategy includes GHG reduction measures and implementation programs based on the City’s ongoing implementation of the 2012 CCAP , an updated GHG emissions inventory, and projections of future GHG emissions. The GHG emissions impact of the following existing actions have been quantified in the EIR Study Area:
Participation in SCP. The City of Santa Rosa is a participant in SCP , a community choice electricity provider that provides higher levels of renewable energy than PG&E. In 2019, SCP provided approximately 86 percent of Santa Rosa’s residential and 90 percent of its nonresidential electricity, excluding direct access electricity.
Solar system installations. Since 2019, approximately 4,500 residential and 80 commercial solar systems have been installed in Santa Rosa.
Micromobility programs. Between July 2022 and June 2023, the City’s Bird Scooter program provided nearly 9,000 scooter rides. In February 2019, the SCTA released a request for proposals for implementation of a county-wide bike sharing program, which would also operate in Santa Rosa. Installation of public EV chargers. The City of Santa Rosa contains approximately 162 publicly available EV chargers.
Installation of graywater systems. Since the beginning of 2020, the City has rebated the installation of seven graywater systems.
Cash for Grass Rebate Program. The City’s Cash for Grass Rebate Program provides rebates for qualifying residents and building owners who replace their lawns with water-efficient landscaping. Expansion and upgrading of the City’s bike network. Since 2020 the City has constructed 0.6 miles of new bike lanes and has upgraded 5.6 miles, primarily from Class II to Class IIB bikes lanes. The City committed to adding another 4 miles of bike lanes to the bike network by the end of 2023. Electric new construction reach code. On November 19, 2019, the City passed a reach code that required new residential construction of three stories and below to be all electric.23 The City’s GHG Reduction Strategy identifies GHG emissions reductions for the EIR Study Area that would ensure consistency with the State GHG reduction mandates of SB 32, AB 1279, and the State’s carbon neutrality goals. Table 4.8-7, Proposed GHG Reduction Strategies, shows the local GHG emission reductions associated with each of the GHG reduction measures.
23 The City has suspended its enforcement of Ordinance 2022-015 because of a decision on January 2, 2024, by the U.S.
Court of Appeals 9th Circuit that invalidated a City of Berkeley ordinance that prohibited natural gas infrastructure in new buildings, precluding cities and counties from adopting ordinances that prohibit the installation of gas plumbing in buildings. The City is currently evaluating options for a replacement reach code that will achieve similar objectives for energy efficiency and GHG emissions reductions in a manner that is consistent with the recent court decision.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-26 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.8-7 PROPOSED GHG REDUCTION MEASURES
GHG Reduction Measures
2030 GHG
Reductions
(MTCO2e/Year)
2045 GHG
Reductions
(MTCO2e/Year)
2050 GHG
Reductions
(MTCO2e/Year)
1. Locate and design new development to minimize vehicle dependence 13,740 11,560 13,550
2. Improve the frequency, coverage, and effectiveness of local and regional transit and rail networks. 10,860 14,930 17,120
3. Develop and expand transportation demand management
(TDM) programs to reduce VMT and dependence on single-
occupancy vehicle trips.
610 1,090 1,160
4. Enhance active transportation and micromobility systems. 1,680 2,990 3,500
5. Accelerate the adoption of zero-emission light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. 50,500 248,880 256,420
6. Transition to zero-emission motorized equipment, including construction and landscaping. 13,240 32,120 39,270
7. Reduce community-wide energy use and increase energy efficiency in new and existing buildings, including municipal buildings.
31,580 182,370 191,560
8. Transition to carbon neutral new buildings. 1,730 8,940 10,230
9. Increase local renewable energy generation and the use of renewable, carbon free, and distributed energy systems, including energy storage, throughout the city.
70 ― ―
10. Reduce the amount of recyclable and compostable material sent to landfills. 6,930 10,820 11,220
11. Reduce total waste generation. 2,080 3,840 5,230
12. Improve indoor and outdoor water use efficiency. ― ― ―
13. Expand water catchment and reuse opportunities. ― ― ―
14. Increase local natural carbon sequestration opportunities in Santa Rosa. 4,550 15,470 19,020
15. Reduce embedded carbon in goods and services used by the City and community members. ― ― ―
16. Maximize opportunities for local food production. ― ― ―
17. Integrate climate action across all City departments and programs. ― ― ―
Total GHG Reductions from Proposed GHG Reduction Measures 137,570 533,020 568,290 Source: Santa Rosa GHG Reduction Strategy, 2024. See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR and Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, of the proposed General Plan 2050.
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. Based on GWPs in the IPCC’s AR6.
Table 4.8-8, GHG Emissions Reduction Target Analysis with the Proposed GHG Reduction Strategy, shows that with the additional local measures identified in the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy, the EIR Study Area would achieve the SB 32 GHG reduction target for year 2030, AB 1279 GHG reduction targets for year 2045 and beyond to horizon year 2050. With implementation of the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy, the EIR Study Area would achieve a 40 percent decrease in GHG emissions in the EIR Study Area by 2030 from 1990 levels, an 86 percent decrease in GHG emissions in the EIR Study Area by 2045 from 1990 levels, 89 percent decrease in GHG emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels, and would make substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the magnitude of community-wide GHG emissions and would be consistent with the GHG reduction goals identified under SB 32 and AB 1279.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-27
TABLE 4.8-8 GHG REDUCTION TARGET ANALYSIS WITH THE PROPOSED GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY Scenario
2030 GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e/Year)
2045 GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e/Year)
2050 GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e/Year)
Total Community Emissions (BAU) 974,070 1,035,770 1,056,390 GHG Reductions from State & Regional Actions -170,570 -344,240 -363,680 GHG Reductions from Proposed GHG Reduction
Measures -137,570 -533,020 -568,290
Total Community Emissions
(with State Actions & Regional Actions + Proposed
GHG Reduction Measures)
665,930 158,510 124,420
SB 32 (2030) and AB 1279 (2045) Target 669,420 167,350 167,350 Achieves Target Yes Yes Yes
Source: Santa Rosa GHG Reduction Strategy, 2024. See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR and Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, of the proposed General Plan 2050.
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. Based on GWPs in the IPCC’s AR6.
As identified in Table 4.8-8, the proposed project would be consistent with the current long-term legislative reduction targets under SB 32 and AB 1279, which is attributable to both Statewide emission reduction strategies such as CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars II and Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations.
Furthermore, Chapter 3, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider GHG emissions (see Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR for a complete list of these goals, policies, and actions).
Potential future development projects over the buildout horizon of the proposed project would experience emission reductions from implementation of State measures and strategies to reduce Statewide GHG emissions, such as the LCFS mandate or RPS requirements. The proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed above, and the strategies that would be maintained from the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy would serve to further support potential GHG reductions for potential future development projects in the EIR Study Area.
Furthermore, the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy is consistent with State and BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, which establishes it as a “qualified” GHG Reduction Plan and allows it to support streamlined environmental review of GHG emissions for new development. A project-specific environmental review that relies on the Reduction Strategy for its cumulative impact analysis must show consistency with the Reduction Strategy by preparing a Consistency Checklist, which allows the applicant to identify specific GHG reduction strategies from the Reduction Strategy that are applicable to the project and demonstrate how the project will implement these strategies to ensure that the project’s emissions are consistent with community-wide emissions forecast contained herein.
In summary, implementation of the proposed project would result in a net decrease in emissions from existing conditions. Additionally, with implementation of the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy, emissions from existing and planned development in the EIR Study Area would achieve the GHG reduction goals identified under SB 32 for year 2030, AB 1279 for year 2045, and additional reductions for horizon year 2050, which is consistent with the thresholds identified by BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, growth SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-28 OCTOBER 2024
within the EIR Study Area associated with the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions and this impact would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GHG-2 The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
The following discusses consistency other applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, which include CARB’s Scoping Plan and MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area.
CARB Scoping Plan
The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require local jurisdictions to adopt its policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies from the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. So local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS mandate and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards.
Potential future development projects over the buildout horizon of the proposed project would be required to adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by State, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. Future development projects would be required to comply with these state GHG emissions reduction measures because they are statewide strategies. For example, new buildings over the buildout horizon of the proposed project would be required to meet the CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for building permits. Furthermore, the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed under impact discussion GHG-1 would help achieve GHG reduction goals.
Moreover, the proposed General Plan 2050 directs implementation of the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy. As described under impact discussion GHG-1, the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy aligns the GHG reduction goals for the EIR Study Area for existing and new development with SB 32, AB 1279, and the carbon neutrality goals identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a net benefit because implementation of the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy would align future development in the EIR Study Area with the policies and objectives identified by CARB.
Implementation of the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-29
Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area aims to achieve the passenger vehicle emissions reductions identified under SB 375 and build a sustainable vision for the Bay Area.24 In addition to significant transit and roadway performance investments to encourage focused growth, Plan Bay Area directs funding to neighborhood active transportation and complete streets projects, climate initiatives, lifeline transportation and access initiatives, safety programs, and PDA planning. The EIR Study Area contains six PDAs and three TPAs, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR.
While Plan Bay Area does not override local land use control, it provides guidance to the local jurisdictions such as the City of Santa Rosa on how future development can be consistent with the State’s GHG and VMT reduction goals. This includes constructing more infill development in downtowns and centers in close proximity to jobs and services.
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the expansion of the city into surrounding lands is no longer a focus of City planning efforts, and the City has identified 21 Areas of Change where the City will focus on housing, services, connectivity, and/or infrastructure needed to make these complete neighborhoods. Table 4-2, General Plan 2050 Areas of Change by Priority Development and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR shows the 11 Areas of Change that are within or directly adjacent to a PDA and/or TPA. Accordingly, future development is projected to occur primarily in the form of infill/intensification on sites already developed or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing development and infrastructure. While the proposed project does not prohibit development opportunities outside of infill locations, the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider GHG and VMT reduction goals consistent with Plan Bay Area (see subheading “Plan Bay Area” under impact discussion LU-2 in Chapter
4.11, Land Use, of this Draft EIR for a complete list of these goals, policies, and actions).
Furthermore, the proposed General Plan 2050 itself would not introduce a substantial number of unplanned population growth in the EIR Study Area, as described in Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR. The proposed General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that would limit development in certain areas and control the growth within the EIR Study Area. All potential future development would be required to comply with any required site-specific infrastructure improvements and to pay any project-specific impact fees.
Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area in concentrating new development in locations where there is existing infrastructure and transit. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area and impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
24 Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SA NTA ROSA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8-30 OCTOBER 2024
GHG-3 The proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative GHG emission impacts in the area.
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide.
Therefore, impacts under impact discussions GHG-1 and GHG-2 are not project-specific impacts to global warming, but the proposed project’s contribution to this cumulative impact. As discussed above, the EIR Study Area would experience a reduction in GHG emissions for the years 2030, 2045, and 2050 from existing conditions despite the anticipated population and employment growth. Additionally, with implementation of the proposed GHG Reduction Strategy, implementation of the proposed project would meet the legislative reduction target that aligns with SB 32 and AB 1279 and substantial progress with the State’s carbon neutrality targets. be consistent with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Consequently, GHG emissions generated by the proposed project and their contribution to global climate change would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-1
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project.
This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts, and identifies proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions that would minimize any
potentially significant impacts. A discussion of wildland fire hazards is provided in Chapter 4.18, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR.
4.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the primary federal agency that regulates hazardous materials and waste. In general, the USEPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The agency is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, delegating the responsibility for issuing permits, and monitoring and enforcing compliance to states and Native American tribes. USEPA programs promote handling hazardous waste safely, cleaning up contaminated land, and reducing waste volumes through such strategies as recycling. California falls under the jurisdiction of USEPA Region 9.
Under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and in cooperation with State and tribal partners, the USEPA Region 9 Waste Management and Superfund Divisions manage programs for site environmental assessment and cleanup, hazardous and solid waste management, and underground storage tanks.
United States Department of Transportation
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has the regulatory responsibility for the safe transportation of hazardous materials between states and internationally. The USDOT regulations govern all means of transportation, except for those packages shipped by mail, which are covered by United States Postal Service regulations. The federal RCRA of 1976 imposes additional standards for the transport of hazardous waste.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires specific training for hazardous materials handlers, provision of information to employees who may be exposed to hazardous materials, and acquisition of material safety data sheets from materials manufacturers. The material safety data
4.9.1.1 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-2 OCTOBER 2024
sheets describe the risks, as well as proper handling and procedures, related to specific hazardous materials. Employee training must include response and remediation procedures for hazardous materials releases and exposures.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
Federal hazardous waste laws are generally promulgated under the RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. These laws provide for the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous waste. Any business, institution, or other entity that generates hazardous waste is required to identify and track its hazardous waste from the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, or disposed.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for implementing the RCRA program as well as California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are collectively known as the Hazardous Waste Control Law. Under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program, California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has in turn delegated enforcement authority to the Sonoma County Fire and Emergency Services Department Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Division.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,” on December 11, 1980. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) amended CERCLA on October 17, 1986. SARA stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites, required Superfund actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other State and federal environmental laws and regulations, provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools, increased State involvement in every phase of the Superfund program, increased the focus on human health problems posed by hazardous waste sites, encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should be cleaned up, and increased the size of the trust fund to $8.5 billion.
Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act
The Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as SARA Title III, was enacted in October 1986. This law requires State and local governments to plan for chemical emergencies.
Reported information is then made publicly available so that interested parties may become informed about potentially dangerous chemicals in their community. EPCRA Sections 301 through 312 are administered by USEPA’s Office of Emergency Management. USEPA’s Office of Information Analysis and Access implements the EPCRA Section 313 program. In California, SARA Title III is implemented through California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-3
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The USDOT regulates hazardous materials transportation under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The California State Fire Marshal’s Office has oversight authority for hazardous materials liquid pipelines. The California Public Utilities Commission has oversight authority for natural gas pipelines in California. These agencies also govern permitting for hazardous materials transportation.
Federal Response Plan
The Federal Response Plan of 1999 is a signed agreement among 27 federal departments and agencies and other resource providers, including the American Red Cross, that: (1) provides the mechanism for coordinating delivery of federal assistance and resources to augment efforts of State and local governments overwhelmed by a major disaster or emergency; (2) supports implementation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, as well as individual agency statutory authorities; and (3) supplements other federal emergency operations plans developed to address specific hazards. The Federal Response Plan is implemented in anticipation of a significant event likely to result in a need for federal assistance or in response to an actual event requiring federal assistance under a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency. The Federal Response Plan is part of the National Response Framework, which was most recently updated on March 22, 2008.
The Stafford Act
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) of 1988 authorizes federal government assistance for emergencies and disasters when State and local capabilities are exceeded. The Stafford Act forms the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities, especially as they relate to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and FEMA programs.
National Response Framework
The 2016 National Response Framework, published by the United States Department of Homeland Security, is a guide for the nation to respond to all types of disasters and emergencies. 1 This framework
describes specific authorities and best practices for managing incidents that range from serious local or large-scale terrorist attacks to catastrophic natural disasters. In addition, the 2016 National Response Framework describes the principles, roles, and responsibilities, and coordinating structures for responding to an incident, and further describes how response efforts integrate with those of the other mission areas.
1 United States Department of Homeland Security, October 28, 2019, National Response Framework, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/NRF_FINALApproved_2011028.pdf, accessed March 8, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-4 OCTOBER 2024
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 authorizes the USDOT to regulate pipeline transportation of flammable, toxic, or corrosive natural gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) within the USDOT develops and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation’s 2.6-million-mile pipeline transportation system. USDOT’s and PHMSA’s regulations governing natural gas transmission pipelines, facility operations, employee activities, and safety are found in the Code Regulations Title 49, Transportation, Parts 190 through 192, Part 195, and Part 199.
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act mandates that the USDOT, the Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Department of Commerce carry out a program of research, development, demonstration, and standardization to ensure the integrity of pipeline facilities. 2 The purpose of the Research and Design Program is to identify safety and integrity issues and develop methodologies and technologies to characterize, detect, and manage risks associated with natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.
Pipeline Inspection, Enforcement, and Protection Act of 2006 The Pipeline Inspection, Enforcement, and Protection Act confirms the commitment to the Integrity Management Program and other programs enacted in the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. The 2006 legislation includes provisions on:
Preventing excavation damage to pipelines through the enhanced use and improved enforcement of State “One-Call” laws that preclude excavators from digging until they contact the State One-Call system to locate the underground pipelines;
Minimum standards for Integrity Management Programs for distribution pipelines (including installation of excess flow valves on single-family residential service lines based on feasibility and risk); Standards for managing gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to reduce risks associated with human factors (e.g., fatigue);
Authority for the Secretary to waive safety standards in emergencies; Authority for the Secretary to assist in restoration of disrupted pipeline operations; Review and update incident reporting requirements;
Requirements for senior executive officers to certify operator integrity management performance reports; and
2 United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, last updated October 27, 2017, Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/congressional- mandates/pipeline-safety-improvement-act-2002, accessed March 8, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-5
Clarification of jurisdiction between states and PHMSA for short laterals that feed industrial and electric generator consumers from interstate natural gas pipelines.3 Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 was designed to examine and improve the state of pipeline safety regulation. This act accomplishes the following:
Reauthorizes PHMSA’s federal pipeline safety programs through fiscal year 2015. Provides the regulatory certainty necessary for pipeline owners and operators to plan infrastructure investments and create jobs.
Improves pipeline transportation by strengthening enforcement of current laws and improving existing laws where necessary.
Ensures a balanced regulatory approach to improving safety that applies cost-benefit principles. Protects and preserves Congressional authority by ensuring certain key rulemakings are not finalized until Congress has an opportunity to act.4
State Regulations
California Environmental Protection Agency
One of the primary State agencies that regulate hazardous materials is CalEPA. CalEPA is authorized by the USEPA to enforce and implement certain federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. The California DTSC, a department of the CalEPA, protects California and its residents from exposure to hazardous waste, primarily under the authority of the RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. 5 The DTSC
requirements include the need for written programs and response plans, such as Hazardous Materials Business Plans. The DTSC programs include dealing with aftermath clean-ups of improper hazardous waste management, evaluation of samples taken from sites, enforcement of regulations regarding use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, and encouragement of pollution prevention.
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Like OSHA at the federal level, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) is the State-level agency responsible for ensuring workplace safety. CalOSHA assumes primary responsibility for the adoption and enforcement of standards regarding workplace safety and safety practices. In the event
3 United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, December 29, 2006, Pipeline Inspection, Enforcement, and Protection Act of 2006, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/technical-resources/pipeline/gas-distribution-integrity- management/61781/pipesact2006.pdf, accessed March 8, 2023. 4 United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, last updated February 16, 2023, Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/legislative- mandates/pipeline-safety-act/pipeline-safety-regulatory-certainty-and-job-creation-act-2011, accessed March 8, 2023. 5 Hazardous Substance Account, Chapter 6.5 (Section 25100 et seq.) and the Hazardous Waste Control Law, Chapter 6.8 (Section 25300 et seq.) of the Health and Safety Code.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-6 OCTOBER 2024
that a work site is contaminated, a Site Safety Plan must be crafted and implemented to protect the safety of workers. Site Safety Plans establish policies, practices, and procedures to prevent the exposure of workers and members of the public to hazardous materials originating from the contaminated site or building.
California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) was established as part of the Governor’s Office on January 1, 2009. It was created pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 38, which merged the duties, powers, purposes, and responsibilities of the former Governor’s Emergency Management Agency with those of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security. Cal OES is responsible for the coordination of overall State agency response to major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for ensuring the State’s readiness to respond to and recover from all hazards—natural, humanmade, emergencies, and disasters—and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation efforts.
California Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol Caltrans and the CHP are the two State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Caltrans manages more than 50,000 miles of California’s highways and freeways, provides intercity rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies.
Caltrans is also the first responder for hazardous material spills and releases that occur on highways, freeways, and intercity rail lines. The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations designed to prevent leakage and spills of materials in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an accident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and shipping documentation are all part of the responsibility of the CHP , which conducts regular inspections of licensed transporters to ensure regulatory compliance. In addition, the State of California regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating or passing through the state. Common carriers are licensed by the CHP , pursuant to Section 32000 of the California Vehicle Code. This section requires licensing every motor (common) carrier who transports, for a fee, in excess of 500 pounds of hazardous materials at one time and every carrier, if not for hire, who carries more than 1,000 pounds of hazardous material of the type requiring placards. Common carriers conduct a large portion of the business in the delivery of hazardous materials.
California Building Code
The State of California provided a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is found in Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC is updated every three years. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis and may be subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local City and County building officials for compliance with the typical fire safety requirements of the CBC, including the installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings and the establishment of fire-resistance standards for fire doors and building materials. Section 414 of the CBC includes requirements for buildings SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-7
and structures occupied for the manufacturing, processing, dispensing, use, or storage of hazardous materials.
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and California Code of Regulations Title 19, Section 2729 set out the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These regulations require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a hazardous material chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on-site. A business that uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and implement a business plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities.
California Office of Emergency Services
The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), formerly the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), was established on January 1, 2009, created by AB 38 (Nava), which merged the duties, powers, purposes, and responsibilities of the CalOES with those of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security. CalOES is responsible for the coordination of overall State agency response to major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for ensuring the state’s readiness to respond to and recover from all hazards – natural, humanmade, emergencies, and disasters – and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation efforts.
California Fire Code
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, contains the California Fire Code (CFC), included as Part 9. Updated every three years, the CFC includes provisions and standards for emergency planning and preparedness, fire service features, fire protection systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution. Similar to the CBC, the CFC is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions.
Senate Bill 379
Senate Bill 379, approved October 8, 2015, requires all cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the Safety Elements of their General Plans upon the next revision beginning January 1, 2017. The bill requires the climate adaptation update to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives for their communities based on the vulnerability assessment, as well as implementation measures, including the conservation and implementation of natural infrastructure that may be used in adaptation projects. Specifically, the bill requires that upon the next revision of a General Plan or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), the Safety Element is to be updated as necessary to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city or county.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-8 OCTOBER 2024
Regional Regulations
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act6 established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The North Coast Region RWQCB – Region 1 regulates water quality in the Southeast Greenway Area. The North Coast RWQCB has the authority to require groundwater investigations and/or remedial action if the quality of groundwater or surface waters of the state are threatened.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has primary responsibility for control of air pollution from sources other than motor vehicles and consumer products. The latter are typically the responsibility of CalEPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The BAAQMD is responsible for preparation of attainment plans for non-attainment criteria pollutants, control of stationary air pollutant sources, and issuance of permits for activities, including demolition and renovation activities affecting asbestos-containing materials (District Regulation 11, Rule 2) and lead (District Regulation 11, Rule 1). The BAAQMD’s boundaries embrace the southern part of Sonoma County, including the Southeast Greenway Area.
Sonoma County Department of Health Services, Environmental Health and Safety Branch
A CUPA is a local agency that has been certified by CalEPA to implement the local Unified Program. The CUPA can be a County, City, or joint powers authority. A participating agency is a local agency that has been designated by the local CUPA to administer one or more Unified Programs within their jurisdiction on behalf of the CUPA. The Sonoma County Fire and Emergency Services Department Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Division is the certified CUPA for the County of Sonoma, including the City of Santa Rosa and vicinity.
7 Funding for this Division is provided through fees charged to the businesses, which are regulated by the County under these CUPA programs.8
6 California Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.
7 Hazardous Materials Unit and CUPA Programs,
https://permitsonoma.org/divisions/firepreventionandhazmat/servicesandfees/hazardousmaterialsunitandcupaprogram, accessed June 23, 2023.
8 Hazardous Materials Unit and CUPA Programs,
https://permitsonoma.org/divisions/firepreventionandhazmat/servicesandfees/hazardousmaterialsunitandcupaprogram, accessed June 23, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-9
Local Regulations
Santa Rosa City Code
The Santa Rosa City Code (SCCC) includes various directives pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials. The SRCC is organized by title, chapter, and section, and in some cases, articles. Most provisions related to hazards and hazardous materials are in Title 18, Buildings and Construction as follows:
Chapter 18-04, General Provisions. Section 18-04.015, Adoption by Reference, this section adopts multiple codes, including the 2019 Edition of the CFC and the CBC. This CFC in its entirety, is subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter . The Santa Rosa Fire Prevention Code is intended to regulate and govern the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous substances, materials, and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings in Santa Rosa.
The CBC is adopted in its entirety, subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter . The CBC includes several provisions regarding the storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Such provisions include storage of flammable and combustible liquids in aboveground tanks and the storing and dispensing of liquified petroleum gas and other flammable liquids and gases.
Chapter 18-16, 2019 California Building Code. This chapter includes provisions to store flammable and combustible liquids in aboveground tanks and the storing and dispensing of liquified petroleum gas and other flammable liquids and gases.
Chapter 18-44, 2019 California Fire Code. This chapter includes provisions to prevent fire and protect the residents and visitors of Santa Rosa from fire-related hazards.
Hazard Mitigation Plan
On December 7, 2021, the Santa Rosa City Council adopted the Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), which also provides an update to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).9 The MJHMP consists of two volumes. Volume 1 includes all federally required elements of a disaster mitigation plan as they apply to the entirety of Sonoma County. Volume 2 is made up of Annexes (chapters) for each local agency and special district participating in the MJHMP . The City of Santa Rosa Annex, which serves as a five-year update to the LHMP is found in Volume 2, Chapter 3. The LHMP identifies the natural hazards faced by the city, assesses vulnerabilities to these hazards, and identifies mitigation strategies that can be taken to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage that otherwise might result from said natural hazards. Mitigation actions are suggested and carried out by various City departments.
9 City of Santa Rosa, 2021, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, https://www.srcity.org/540/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan, accessed March 9, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-10 OCTOBER 2024
Santa Rosa Fire Department
The Santa Rosa Fire Department (SRFD) is responsible for the registration, installation, operation, and abandonment of underground storage tanks (USTs) in the city. In addition, they maintain responsibility for enforcement of the CFC (with local amendments) and emergency abatement regulations in the SRCC.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Hazardous Materials Sites
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the CalEPA to compile, maintain, and update specified lists of hazardous material release sites. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21092.6 requires the lead agency to consult the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to determine whether the project and any alternatives are identified on any of the following lists:
USEPA National Priorities List. The USEPA’s National Priorities List includes all sites under the USEPA’s Superfund program, which was established to fund cleanup of contaminated sites that pose risks to human health and the environment.
USEPA CERCLIS and Archived Sites. The USEPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) includes a list of 15,000 sites nationally identified as hazardous sites. This would also involve a review of archived sites that have been removed from CERCLIS due to No Further Remedial Action Planned status. USEPA RCRIS (RCRA Info). The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS or RCRA Info) is a national inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. Generators, transporters, handlers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information for this database. DTSC Cortese List. The DTSC maintains the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) list as a planning document for use by the State and local agencies to comply with the CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. This list includes the Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database. DTSC HazNet. DTSC uses this database to track hazardous waste shipments. SWRCB LUSTIS. Through the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUSTIS), the SWRCB maintains an inventory of USTs and LUSTs, which tracks unauthorized releases.
The required lists of hazardous material release sites are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List,” named after the authoring legislator . Because the statute was enacted more than 20 years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency activities that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being implemented and, in some cases, the information required in the Cortese List does not exist. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese Lists are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on internet websites hosted by the boards or departments referenced in the statute, including DTSC’s online EnviroStor database and the SWRCB’s online GeoTracker database. These two databases include hazardous material release sites, along with other categories of sites or facilities specific to each agency’s jurisdiction. A search of the databases on March 8, 2023, identified 596 sites in the EIR Study
4.9.1.2 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-11
Area: 11 from EnviroStor, 580 from Geotracker, and 5 duplicated in both. Of the 596 sites, 103 are designated as active and the remaining 493 sites are designated as “closed” or “completed – case closed,” indicating that they have been investigated and/or remediated to the satisfaction of the lead responsible agency (i.e., RWQCB, DTSC, Sonoma County Department of Health Services) based on land use at the time of closure. The 103 active hazardous materials sites are listed in Table 4.9-1, Active Hazardous Materials Sites. The majority of the active sites are classified undergoing site assessment.
Schools
Because sensitive population groups include children, CEQA requires an evaluation of hazardous emissions or handling hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles (1,320 feet) of an existing or proposed private or public school. As discussed in detail in Chapter 4.14, Public Services, Parks, and Recreation, of this Draft EIR, Santa Rosa is served by 8 public school districts, 1 community college, and 27 private schools in the EIR Study Area. There are currently no known proposals for new schools in the EIR Study Area.
Airport Hazards
The Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport is 2.7 miles northwest of Santa Rosa in the unincorporated County of Sonoma, approximately 1 mile from the Santa Rosa North SMART station. The Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport is adjacent to, but outside of, the EIR Study Area.10
Emergency Response and Evacuation Planning Areas
As described in Section 4.9.1.1, Regulatory Framework, the EIR Study Area is in the planning area of the Sonoma County Emergency Operations Plan and the MJHMP. The City has developed designated evacuation zones for the entire community.11 Approximately 30 zones have been identified and are used for large-scale emergencies that require mass evacuations. The Santa Rosa Police Department (SRPD) manages evacuations in the city and developed evacuations zones working with the SRFD, Emergency Management, and Traffic Engineering staff to develop a plan for Santa Rosa. Law enforcement agencies will typically be responsible for enforcing an evacuation order and a number of tools to alert the community will be used, these include SoCoAlert, WEA, CivicReady, and Hi/Lo Sirens. Evacuation routes are determined by public safety officials at the time of the emergency based on current and anticipated conditions as well as the nature of the threat or hazard.12
10 Sonoma County, 2001, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan: Sonoma County Airport Referral Area, https://permitsonoma.org/longrangeplans/adoptedlong-rangeplans/airportlanduseplan/chapter8/sonomacountyairport, accessed March 8, 2023.
11 City of Santa Rosa, Evacuation Zone Look-Up Tool for the City of Santa Rosa, https://www.srcity.org/3368/Evacuation- Zones, accessed June 22, 2023.
12 City of Santa Rosa, Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.srcity.org/3183/Frequently-Asked-Questions, accessed June 22, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-12 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.9-1 ACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
SITE NAME ADDRESS SITE TYPE STATUS
EnviroStor Sites a
C&D Batteries 265 Roberts Avenue Evaluation Refer: RWQCB Cogwheel Shop 4025 Sebastopol Road Evaluation Refer: RWQCB Former Point St. George Fisheries 8 Sebastopol Road Voluntary Cleanup Refer: RWQCB Fountain Grove Plaza Site 3975 Old Redwood Highway State Response Active Golden Technology Site 3017 and 3019 Santa Rosa Avenue State Response Active Hewlett-Packard Company (Valley Site) 1201 Piner Road Corrective Action Refer: RWQCB McMinn Avenue 841 McMinn Avenue Evaluation Refer: RWQCB Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Santa Rosa Finley Avenue and Wright Road Military Evaluation Refer: RWQCB PG&E – Santa Rosa Gas Plant First Steet, East of B Street Refer: RWQCB Redwood Chemicals 2450 Stony Point Road Evaluation Refer: Local Agency Santa Rosa Circuits 35 and 48 West Barham Avenue Evaluation Refer: RWQCB Geotracker Sites b
A. F. O'Connor Station 1333 Fourth Street Lust Cleanup Site Open - Remediation Am/Pm Mini Mart 440 Hearn Avenue Lust Cleanup Site Open - Remediation Beacon #489 (Former) 921 Sebastopol Road Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring Bega Property 1470 Mendocino Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive Bennett Valley Cleaners 2753 Yulupa Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation Bepex Corporation 150 Todd Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Verification Monitoring Best Cleaners 1007 College Avenue, West Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation Boomers Fabricare Center 1321 Guerneville Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Bp / Redwood Oil #110 760 Sebastopol Road Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring Bradley 1143 Briggs Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation - Land Use Restrictions Bromley Property 1500 Santa Rosa Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Bsc Cleaners 800 Sebastopol Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment C & D Batteries 265 Roberts Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive Chevron #9-2642 / Redwood Oil 1100 Bennett Valley Road Lust Cleanup Site Open - Remediation Chevron, Herron's 4180 Montgomery Drive Lust Cleanup Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-13
TABLE 4.9-1 ACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
SITE NAME ADDRESS SITE TYPE STATUS
Chevron, Herron's 4180 Montgomery Drive Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Cloudburst Car Wash 1322 Fourth Street Lust Cleanup Site Open - Remediation Coddingtown Former Dry Cleaner 733 Coddingtown Mall Drive Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation Crown Cleaners 1975 Mendocino Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment D&J Cleaners (Former) 400 Todd Road, East Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Dalley Property 175 Scenic Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Downey 109 Chestnut Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Downey Property 121 Chestnut Street Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Empire Cleaners 526 Sonoma Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Exxon #7-3035 4501 Sonoma Highway Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring Fast & Easy Mart 5321 Old Redwood Hwy Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring Fouche Auto Wreckers 2290 Dutton Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation Gartin Cleaners 2320 Midway Drive Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Golden Technology 3017 Santa Rosa Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Verification Monitoring Hewlett Packard Valley Site 1201 Piner Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Hirsch, Phil - Slic Site 230 South A Street Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Industrial Machine & Engine Rp 928 Dutton Avenue, North Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive Jdsu/Ocli (Former) 2789 Northpoint Parkway Cleanup Program Site Open - Verification Monitoring Jean's Shell 3785 Santa Rosa Ave Lust Cleanup Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Jemco (Former) 365 Todd Rd Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring Lakeside Cleaners 4211 Montgomery Drive Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation Malm Fireplaces, Inc. 368 Yolanda Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation McGowen Auto Wrecking (Former) 112 Holbrook Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive McMinn Avenue Area Sebastopol Road / Roseland Area Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive McPhail's 975 Wright Street Lust Cleanup Site Open - Eligible for Closure McPhail's 975 Wright Street Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-14 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.9-1 ACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
SITE NAME ADDRESS SITE TYPE STATUS
Pegg Oil Company 21 Frances Street Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive Peter Pan Cleaners 2231 Mendocino Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment PG&E Santa Rosa Manufactured Gas Plant
(Former) 111 Santa Rosa Avenue Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring PG&E Santa Rosa Manufactured Gas Plant
(Former) 111 Santa Rosa Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Verification Monitoring - Land Use Restrictions
PG&E Substation B (Former) 10 E Street Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Private Residence Private Residence Lust Cleanup Site Open - Eligible for Closure Private Residence Private Residence Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Redwood Oil #114 1855 Guerneville Road Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring Redwood Oil #141 (Bulk Plant) 455 Yolanda Avenue Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring Redwood Oil & Chevron Bulk Plant
#206308 258 Roseland Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Revard Cleaners 2410 Montgomery Drive Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Roseland Cleaners 761 Sebastopol Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation Round Barn Project Round Barn Boulevard Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Santa Rosa Air Center 3842 Finley Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Air Center 3842 Finley Avenue Lust Cleanup Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa City Pump Station #6 5204 Montgomery Drive Lust Cleanup Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa City, Freeway Well #3 Ridgway & Cleveland Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Cleaners 1415 Fulton Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital 1160 Montgomery Drive Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Santa Rosa Naas (General File) 3842 Finley Avenue Military Cleanup Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station - AOC
1 - Former Operations Control
Tower/Building 5
3842 Finley Avenue Military Cleanup Site Open - Inactive Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station - AOC
5 - Kodiak Hanger/Building 5 3842 Finley Avenue Military Cleanup Site Open - Inactive Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station - AOC
6 - Former Incinerator/Building 27 3842 Finley Avenue Military Cleanup Site Open - Inactive SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-15
TABLE 4.9-1 ACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
SITE NAME ADDRESS SITE TYPE STATUS
Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station –
AOC 10 - Former Firing Range 3842 Finley Avenue Military Cleanup Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station –
AOC 15 - Former Fuel Farm 3842 Finley Avenue Military Cleanup Site Open - Inactive Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station -
SRNAAS Tank 1 Finley Avenue Military UST Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station -
SRNAAS Tank 26 Finley Avenue Military UST Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station -
SRNAAS Tank 28 Finley Avenue Military UST Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station -
SRNAAS Tank 38 Finley Avenue Military UST Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station -
SRNAAS Tank 9-1 Finley Avenue Military UST Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station -
SRNAAS Tank 9-2 Finley Avenue Military UST Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station -
SRNAAS Tank 9-3 Finley Avenue Military UST Site Open - Site Assessment Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station - Us
Santa Rosa Federal Center (Fuds) (FEMA
Area)
Military Cleanup Site Open - Inactive
Santa Rosa Old Town Sewer Replacement College Avenue Condu Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive Santa Rosa U-Haul Center 3601 Santa Rosa Ave Lust Cleanup Site Open - Eligible for Closure SCWA - Hewett And North Dutton Avenue Hewett Street/North Dutton Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive Shell 2005 Guerneville Road Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring Shell Service Station - Dutton Avenue 255 Dutton Avenue Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring Shell, Dz Products Facility 257 Dutton Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Simoncini'S Automotive 1244 Central Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive Sonoma County Administration Complex 2688 Ventura Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Sonoma French Dry Cleaners 946 College Avenue, West Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Srdpw College Avenue College Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive Srdpw Garage No 9 97 D Street Lust Cleanup Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Standard Oil Bulk Facility 205 Chestnut Street Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-16 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4.9-1 ACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
SITE NAME ADDRESS SITE TYPE STATUS
Stevenson Equipment 3975 Redwood Highway, Old Cleanup Program Site Open - Verification Monitoring Texaco 1101 Yulupa Avenue Lust Cleanup Site Open - Verification Monitoring Texaco Farmers Lane 1400 Farmers Lane Lust Cleanup Site Open - Remediation The Bird 1150 Santa Rosa Avenue Lust Cleanup Site Open - Site Assessment Thompson Cleaners 4040 Montgomery Drive Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation U Save Cleaners 600 Lewis Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Union Pacific Railroad Company - Frances
St 99 Frances Street Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation Unocal #3312 1311 Fourth Street Lust Cleanup Site Open - Remediation Von Tillow Burbank Cleaners 1730 Fourth Street Lust Cleanup Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
Westside Engine & Machine 12 3Rd St West (Aka 211 Roberts Avenue) Lust Cleanup Site Open - Site Assessment Westside Plaza Dry Cleaners 320 W 3Rd St, Suite H Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Zedrick, Dave 164 Calistoga Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive Note: Some sites are duplicated under EnviroStor and GeoTracker sites. a: Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2023, EnviroStor, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed March 8, 2023. b: State Water Resources Control Board, 2023, GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed March 8, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-17
4.9.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts related to wildland fires are fully discussed in Chapter 4.18, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR. Therefore, the following standard is not discussed in this chapter:
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
4. Be located on a site that 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.
5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
7. In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts in the area.
4.9.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
As described in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, some proposed General Plan 2050 policies and actions are required as means to mitigate environmental impacts under CEQA. These policies and actions are fully enforceable at the discretion of the decision-maker through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. These mitigating policies and actions use the imperative “shall,” include performance criteria, and are marked with an asterisk (*). Note that all actions are required to be implemented by the City and therefore the imperative “shall,” if not explicitly stated, is implied.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-18 OCTOBER 2024
HAZ-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in potential new development in the EIR Study Area.
Hazardous materials would be routinely used, transported, and handled throughout the city.
Residential land uses could use common cleaning products, building maintenance products, paints and solvents, fertilizers and pesticides used in landscaping and yard care, along with other similar items. In general, these potentially hazardous materials would not be of the type to occur in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or to the environment.
Companies in the Industrial or Commercial land use designations of the proposed General Plan 2050 could use, store, or generate hazardous materials for research, manufacturing, cleaning, or other commercial uses, and the proposed project would include agricultural uses in the EIR Study Area that may also use or transport hazardous materials such as pesticides. These commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities are subject to a variety of federal, state, and local laws, policies, and regulations, as described in Section 4.9.1.1, Regulatory Framework. All hazardous materials to be transported must remain in compliance with USDOT regulations. Potential future development in the EIR Study Area would be subject to regulatory programs such as those overseen by RWQCB and DTSC. Nonresidential development that would require the use of hazardous materials regulated by federal, state, regional, and local agencies would issue permits for the use of the hazardous materials, which would be monitored and routinely updated by the responsible agency depending on the type of material. These agencies also require applicants for development of potentially contaminated properties to perform investigation and cleanup if the site is found to be contaminated with hazardous substances. In addition, the Sonoma County Fire and Emergency Services Department Hazardous Materials Division has responsibility in Santa Rosa for the implementation and enforcement of hazardous material regulations as a CUPA. The Hazardous Materials Division also keeps track of aboveground petroleum storage tanks, underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators within county jurisdictional boundaries. 13 Potential future development that would introduce hazardous materials to a site, or that would generate hazardous waste, would be regulated pursuant to federal, state, regional, and local laws. Compliance with these regulations would minimize the potential for a significant adverse effect on the environment due to the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, Chapter 5, Safety, Climate Resilience, Noise, and Public Services and Facilities, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider the impacts of hazards and hazardous materials. The following goal, policies, and actions would serve to further minimize exposure to hazardous materials from routine transport, use, or disposal in the EIR Study Area and ensure that new development would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through routine transport, use, or handling of hazardous materials:
13 Sonoma County Fire and Emergency Services Department, Services, 2023, https://permitsonoma.org/divisions/firepreventionandhazmat/servicesandfees/hazardousmaterialsunitandcupaprogram/services , accessed June 23, 2023.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-19
Goal 5-4: Protect all community members and businesses from hazardous materials exposures and releases.
Policy 5-4.1: Reduce the potential for hazardous materials exposure to community members, visitors, and employees.
Action 5-4.2: Continue to require that hazardous materials used in business and industry be used, handled, transported, and stored in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations.
Action 5-4.3: Continue to restrict future siting of businesses—including hazardous waste repositories, incinerators, or other hazardous waste disposal facilities—that use, store, process, or dispose of large quantities of hazardous materials or wastes in areas subject to seismic fault rupture or significant ground shaking.
Policy 5-4.3: Ensure adequate capacity and safeguards on routes used to transport hazardous materials to prevent or minimize impacts from accidental release. Action 5-4.8: Where applicable, ensure regional and local routes for transportation of hazardous materials and waste are adequately marked and unsafe conditions are adequately addressed, where feasible.
As part of the City’s project approval process, potential future development and redevelopment would be required to comply with existing federal, state, regional, and local regulations, including the proposed General Plan 2050 goal, policies, and actions that have been prepared to minimize impacts related to hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulations would minimize the risk of an adverse effect on the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not 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.
The proposed project would facilitate potential future development in the EIR Study Area. Some of the potential new development could occur on properties that possibly are contaminated and inactive, undergoing evaluation, and/or undergoing corrective action, as indicated in Table 4.9.1, Active Hazardous Materials Sites. Construction of new buildings and improvements could have the potential to release potentially hazardous soil-based materials into the environment during site grading and excavation operations. Likewise, demolition of existing structures could potentially result in the release of hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos, lead paint, etc.) into the environment. Use of hazardous materials on newly developed properties after construction could potentially include cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in the regular maintenance and operation of the proposed uses.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-20 OCTOBER 2024
As described in impact discussion HAZ-1, companies in the Industrial or Commercial land use designation of the proposed General Plan 2050 could use, store, or generate hazardous materials for research, manufacturing, cleaning, or other commercial uses, and agricultural uses within the EIR Study Area may also use or transport hazardous materials such as pesticides. Chapter 5, Safety, Climate Resilience, Noise, and Public Services and Facilities, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider the impacts of hazards and hazardous materials. In addition to the proposed General Plan 2050 goal, policy, and action identified in impact discussion HAZ-1, the following goal, policy, and action would serve to minimize the potential for release of hazardous materials into the environment:
Goal 5-4: Protect all community members and businesses from hazardous materials exposures and releases.
Policy 5-4.1: Reduce the potential for hazardous materials exposure to community members, visitors, and employees.
Action 5-4.1: Continue to coordinate with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board on remediation, cleanup, and risk evaluation prior to changes in site use in areas where hazardous materials and petroleum products have impacted soil or groundwater.
Potential future development under the proposed project would also be required to comply with existing regulations as part of the City’s project approval process, described in Section 4.9.1.1, Regulatory Framework. Additionally, compliance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and best management practices required for projects at or greater than one acre in size in the EIR Study Area (see Chapter 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR for additional details), as well as the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions identified above, would ensure potential future development under the proposed General Plan 2050 would not 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; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.
As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions, there are public schools and private schools dispersed throughout the EIR Study Area. Accordingly, it is possible that implementation of the proposed project could result in potential future development that would involve hazardous materials, either through construction or operation of new development, within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. As described in impact discussions HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, while some potential future development under the proposed project could be reasonably expected to handle hazardous materials or generate hazardous emissions, the storage, use, and handling of these materials would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations. Potential future development would be required to comply with existing regulations as described in Section 4.9.1.1, Regulatory Framework, as well as the proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions that have been prepared to minimize impacts as a result of hazardous materials, as SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-21
outlined in impact discussions HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Specifically, proposed Policy 5-4.1 requires the City to reduce the potential for hazardous materials exposure to community members, visitors, and employees.
These regulations would ensure requirements regarding use or transport of hazardous materials are met prior to construction, which includes buffer zones between schools and hazardous materials sites.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
For an additional discussion about toxic air contamination emissions during construction and operation, please see impact discussion AIR-3 in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR. Impacts were found to be less than significant with implementation of proposed General Plan 2050 *Action 6-1.5 and *Action 6-1.6, which require operational health risk assessments and construction health risk assessments, respectively.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-4 Implementation of the proposed project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions, a total of 596 hazardous materials sites are listed on databases complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Of the 596 sites, 103 are designated as active and the remaining 493 sites are designated as “closed” or “completed – case closed,” indicating that they have been investigated and/or remediated to the satisfaction of the lead responsible agency (i.e., RWQCB, DTSC, Sonoma County Department of Health Services) based on land use at the time of closure.
Potential new development and redevelopment would occur over the buildout horizon within the EIR Study Area. Some potential future development could occur on properties that are included in the databases listed in Table 4.9-1, Active Hazardous Material Sites. As discussed in impact discussions HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, construction on a site listed in the database could result in the release of potentially hazardous soil-based materials into the environment during site grading and excavation operations.
Further, demolition of existing structures could potentially result in the release of hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos, lead-based paint) into the environment. Use of hazardous materials on newly developed properties after construction could potentially include cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in the regular maintenance and operation of future development.
As described in impact discussions HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, potential future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with all federal, State, regional, and local regulations regarding the safe handling, transport, disposal, and use of hazardous materials. Further, Chapter 5, Safety, Climate Resilience, Noise, and Public Services and Facilities, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that would require land planning and development decisions to consider the impacts of hazards and hazardous materials. In addition to the goals, policies, and actions listed in impact discussion HAZ-2, the following goal, policy, and actions would serve to reduce the impacts that potential future development on sites with known hazardous materials could have on the environment and the public:
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-22 OCTOBER 2024
Goal 5-4: Protect all community members and businesses from hazardous materials exposures and releases.
Policy 5-4.2: Minimize risks to human health from hazardous materials. Action 5-4.5: Inventory brownfield sites and identify necessary measures to remediate hazards.
Action 5-4.6: Work with landowners and support funding identification and cleanup of identified brownfield sites, particularly in Equity Priority Areas. Action 5-4.7: Seek funding and technical assistance to facilitate brownfield redevelopment, including federal tax incentives for brownfield sites, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Revolving Loan Fund Program, Cleanup Loans and Environmental Assistance to Neighborhoods Loan Program, Brownfields Tax Incentives, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency brownfields grant and loan programs.
However, because hazardous materials sites exist in the EIR Study Area, as indicated in Table 4.9-1, it is possible that future development could occur on a designated hazardous materials site, which could result in the direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of hazardous materials that could potentially cause adverse health impacts to construction workers, future site inhabitants, and nearby sensitive receptors.
The preparation of project-specific management plans and studies would require mitigation that would protect construction workers, future site inhabitants, and nearby sensitive receptors.
The severity of health effects would depend on the contaminant(s), concentration, use of personal protective equipment during construction, and duration of exposure. Site-specific Environmental Site Management Plans (ESMP) for locations with known contamination would summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the project site during past investigations; identify management options for excavated soil and groundwater, if contaminated media are encountered during deep excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or other wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance with local, State, and federal laws, policies, and regulations. The ESMP would include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater suspected of or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP would:
Provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively; Describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials, in accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and Designate personnel responsible for implementation of the ESMP .
For sites with potential residual contamination in soil or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a soil vapor intrusion assessment would indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include vapor barriers, passive venting, and/or active venting.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-23
Proposed General Plan 2050 Action 5-4.1 requires the City to continue to require remediation, cleanup, and risk evaluation prior to changes in site use in areas where hazardous materials and petroleum products have impacted soil or groundwater . The implementation of this action would result in site- specific mitigation as required, including preparing ESMPs and soil vapor intrusion assessments.
Compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding cleanup and reuse of a listed hazardous materials site, as well as proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed above, would ensure potential future development under the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-5 Implementation of the proposed project would not, 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, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions, the Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport AIA is located northwest of, but greater than two miles outside of, the EIR Study Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area and there would be no impact.
Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
HAZ-6 Implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions, the SRPD manages the evacuations in the City of Santa Rosa and has developed evacuation zones working with the SRFD, Emergency Management, and Traffic Engineering staff. Through the SRPD, approximately 30 evacuation zones have been created to be used in large-scale emergencies.
Compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding emergency response or emergency evacuation as described in Section 4.9.1.1, Regulatory Framework, would ensure potential future development under the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan, or emergency evacuation plan. In addition, Chapter 5, Safety, Climate Resilience, Noise, and Public Services and Facilities, of the proposed General Plan 2050 contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider the impacts of hazards and hazardous materials. The following goal, policies, and actions would serve to minimize conflict with emergency response and evacuation plans:
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-24 OCTOBER 2024
Goal 5-5: Ensure that Santa Rosa is prepared for future emergencies. Policy 5-5.1: Encourage City staff and community members to be prepared for and capable of responding to emergency events.
Action 5-5.1: Maintain and periodically update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. Action 5-5.2: Coordinate with staff of the Sonoma County Operational Area (which consists of the cities, special districts, and unincorporated areas of the county) to update joint emergency response and disaster response plans, as needed. Action 5-5.3: Promote public awareness of the natural hazards and potential effects of disasters in the Planning Area through community and volunteer organizations. Policy 5-5.2: Ensure all community members and businesses are informed and empowered to address hazard vulnerabilities, including Equity Priority Populations. Action 5-5.4: Provide multilingual and culturally appropriate educational materials to increase awareness of hazard risks/vulnerabilities and strategies that community members and businesses can employ to mitigate risks/vulnerabilities. Action 5-5.5: Incorporate strategies from the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and other resilience-building plans into outreach and educational information.
Policy 5-5.3: Promote emergency response and preparedness training for City staff, community members, and businesses to increase community resilience. Action 5-5.6: Participate in emergency response exercises in the Operational Area that involve key hazards of concern for the city.
Policy 5-5.4: Prioritize projects and strategies that mitigate hazards and increase community resilience.
Action 5-5.7: Update the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan per State and federal requirements and implement action items as feasible.
Policy 5-5.5: Ensure that coordination between the City and Operational Area continuously improves to meet the changing risks of the community.
Action 5-5.11: Continue to implement mutual aid, automatic aid, and California’s Mutual Master Aid System to provide effective emergency response. Action 5-5.12: Maintain effective mutual-aid agreements with neighboring cities and Sonoma County to support emergency management.
Action 5-5.13: Continue to execute mutual-aid agreements with public and private entities to support community emergency management.
Policy 5-5.6: Prioritize investments that expand and enhance evacuation capacity and capabilities. Action 5-5.14: Require all new development projects to provide adequate access for fire and emergency response personnel.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.9-25
Action 5-5.15: Prohibit the creation of new single ingress/egress roadway conditions in the city.
Action 5-5.16: Retrofit existing single-access residential neighborhoods to include additional access routes or other provisions to increase evacuation safety. Action 5-5.17: Analyze the capacity, viability, and safety of evacuation routes for hazard areas in the city (e.g., WUIFA) and incorporate the results into the City’s Emergency Operations Plan.
Compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding emergency response or emergency evacuation, as described in Section 4.9.1.1, Regulatory Framework, and proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions listed would ensure potential future development under the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-7 Implementation of the proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials.
As discussed in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, this cumulative analysis takes into account potential future development under the proposed project, in combination with impacts from projected growth in Sonoma County. As discussed previously, potential future development under the proposed project would not result in significant impacts from the increased use of hazardous household materials. The proposed project would not interfere with implementation of emergency response plans.
In addition, potential project-level impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be further reduced through compliance with proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, and other local, regional, State, and federal regulations. Since impacts associated with hazardous materials, are, by their nature, focused on specific sites or areas, the less-than-significant impacts in the EIR Study Area from the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the immediate vicinity of the EIR Study Area or throughout the region. Therefore, the potential for cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-26 OCTOBER 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.10-1
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential hydrology and water quality impacts, and identifies proposed General Plan 2050 goals, policies,
and actions that would minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management and the Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal statute governing water quality. It establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gives the USEPA authority to implement pollution control programs. In California, the authority is delegated to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).
The CWA regulates direct and indirect discharge of pollutants; sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters; and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges; requires states to establish site-specific water quality standards; and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA also provides loans for the construction of wastewater treatment plants as well as nonpoint source pollution control and estuary protection projects through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
Permits to dredge or fill waters of the United States are administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the CWA. “Waters of the United States” are defined as territorial seas and traditional navigable waters, perennial and intermittent tributaries to those waters, lakes and ponds and impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and wetlands that have a surface connection with and are adjacent to jurisdictional waters. The regulatory branch of the USACE is responsible for implementing and enforcing Section 404 of the CWA and issuing permits. Any activity that discharges fill material and/or requires excavation in waters of the United States must obtain a Section 404 permit. Before issuing the permit, the USACE requires that an analysis be conducted to demonstrate that the proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. Also, the USACE is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act before it may issue an individual Section 404 permit.
4.10.1.1 SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-2 OCTOBER 2024
Under Section 401 of the CWA, every applicant for a Section 404 permit that may result in a discharge to a water body must first obtain State Water Quality Certification that the proposed activity will comply with State water quality standards. Certifications are issued in conjunction with USACE Section 404 permits for dredge and fill discharges. In addition, an application for Individual Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements must be submitted for any activity that would result in the placement of dredged or fill material in waters of the State that are not jurisdictional to the USACE, such as isolated wetlands, to ensure that the proposed activity complies with State water quality standards. In California.
The authority to either grant water quality certification or waive the requirement is delegated to the North Coast RWQCB (Region 1).
Under federal law, the EPA has published water quality regulations under Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the CWA, water quality standards consist of two elements: (1) designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and (2) criteria that protect the designated uses. Section 304(a) requires the EPA to publish advisory water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in water . Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use.
When water quality does not meet CWA standards and compromises designated beneficial uses of a receiving water body, Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that water body be identified and listed as “impaired.” Once a water body has been designated as impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed for the impairing pollutant(s). A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants from point, nonpoint, and natural sources that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable water quality standards, with a factor of safety included. Once established, the TMDL allocates the loads among current and future pollutant sources to the water body.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established by the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States, including discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. Under the NPDES program, all facilities that discharge pollutants into waters of the U.S. are required to obtain an NPDES permit.
Requirements for stormwater discharges are also regulated under this program. In California, the NPDES permit program is administered by the SWRCB through the nine RWQCBs. The City of Santa Rosa lies within the jurisdiction of the North Coast RWQCB (Region 1) and is subject to the waste discharge requirements of the Phase I MS4 Permit (Order No. R1-2014-0030; NPDES No. CA0025054) that regulates stormwater discharges from the City of Santa Rosa; portions of unincorporated Sonoma County; Sonoma SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.10-3
County Water Agency; the cities of Cotati, Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, and Ukiah; and the town of Windsor .
Under Provision Section D of the MS4 permit (Planning and Land Development), the co-permittees use their planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects. This goal is to be accomplished primarily through the implementation of low- impact development (LID) techniques. In addition, each co-permittee must develop a Hydromodification Control Plan that requires all new development or redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surfaces to implement stormwater control measures such that post-development runoff volumes remain the same or lower than pre-development volumes.
National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains. FEMA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps that identify which land areas are subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the community. The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA. FEMA’s minimum level of flood protection for new development is the 100-year flood event, also described as a flood that has a 1- in-100 chance of occurring in any given year . According to FEMA maps, there are several portions of the EIR Study Area within a 100-year floodplain.
As required by the FEMA regulations, all development constructed within the 100-year floodplain (as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map) must be elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the base flood elevation level. Local cities and counties have the authority to require the lowest floor to be at a higher elevation than the FEMA requirements to account for climate change and sea level rise. The term “development” is defined by FEMA as any human-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings, other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, and storage of equipment or materials. Per these regulations, if development in these areas occurs, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis must be performed prior to the start of development and must demonstrate that the development does not cause any rise in base flood elevation levels. Following completion of any development that changes existing 100-year floodplain boundaries, the NFIP directs all participating communities to submit the appropriate hydrologic and hydraulic data to FEMA for a Flood Insurance Rate Map revision, as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after such data become available.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides the basic authority for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to evaluate impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed water resource development projects. This act requires that all federal agencies consult with the USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and state wildlife agencies (i.e., the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) for activities that affect, control, or modify waters of any stream or bodies of water . Under this act, the SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-4 OCTOBER 2024
USFWS has responsibility for reviewing and commenting on all water resources projects. For example, the USFWS would provide consultation to the USACE regarding issuance of a Section 404 permit.
If a project may result in the “incidental take” of a listed species, an incidental take permit is required. An incidental take permit allows a developer to proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects but that results in the “incidental taking” of a listed species. A Habitat Conservation Plan must also accompany an application for an incidental take permit. The purpose of a Habitat Conservation Plan is to ensure that the effects of the permitted action or listed species are adequately minimized and mitigated.
State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality control law for California. This act established the SWRCB and divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary state agency responsible for the protection of California’s water quality and groundwater supplies. The RWQCBs carry out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region. Each regional board is required to adopt a water quality control plan or basin plan that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s ground and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. As described previously, Santa Rosa is within the jurisdiction of the North Coast RWQCB (Region 1).
The Porter-Cologne Act also authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce Waste Discharge Requirements, NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals. Other State agencies with jurisdiction over water quality regulation in California include the California Department of Health Services for drinking water regulations, the CDFW , and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment.
State Water Resources Control Board
In California, the SWRCB has broad authority over water quality control issues. The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the State by the federal government under the CWA. It also regulates public drinking water systems, NPDES wastewater discharges, water quality monitoring, water recycling programs, landfill disposal, water rights, and implements drought restrictions.
Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. Regional boundaries are based on watersheds, and water quality requirements are based on the unique differences in climate, topography, geology, and hydrology for each watershed. Each RWQCB makes water quality decisions for its region, including setting standards, issuing waste discharge requirements, determining compliance with these requirements, and taking appropriate enforcement actions. The regional boards are required to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas in the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. The City of Santa Rosa is within the jurisdiction of the North Coast RWQCB (Region 1), which regulates surface water and groundwater quality in the watershed that SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.10-5
encompasses the counties of Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sonoma, and Trinity.
SWRCB C onstruction General Permit
Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must comply with the requirements of the newly reissued SWRCB Construction General Permit (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002), which was adopted on September 8, 2022, and becomes effective on September 1, 2023. Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration Documents (PRD) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. The PRDs are submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website.
Applicants must also demonstrate conformance with applicable best management practices (BMP) and prepare a SWPPP containing a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a weekly visual monitoring program, a sampling program to ensure compliance with water quality standards, and on-site collection of samples and inspection of BMPs prior to, during, and after qualifying precipitation events. Water quality monitoring has a schedule based on the risk level of the site.
SWRCB Industrial General Permit
The Statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ and amended by 2015-0122-DWQ (2018), implements the federally required stormwater regulations in California for stormwater associated with industrial activities that discharge to waters of the United States. This regulation covers facilities that are required by federal regulations or by the RWQCBs to obtain an NPDES permit. Dischargers are required to eliminate non-stormwater discharges, develop SWPPPs that include BMPs, conduct monitoring of stormwater runoff, and submit all compliance documents via the SWRCB’s SMARTS program.
SWRCB Tras
h Amendments
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an amendment to The Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to control trash. In addition, the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California added Part 1, Trash Provisions. Together, they are collectively referred to as “the Trash Amendments.” The Trash Amendments apply to all surface waters of California and include a land-use-based compliance approach to focus trash controls on areas with high trash- generation rates. Areas such as high density residential, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public transportation stations are considered priority land uses. There are two compliance tracks for Phase I and Phase II MS4 permittees:
SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2050 DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-6 OCTOBER 2024
Track 1: Permittees must install, operate, and maintain a network of certified full capture systems in storm drains that capture runoff from priority land uses. Track 2: Permittees must implement a plan with a combination of full capture systems, multi-benefit projects, institutional controls, and/or other treatment methods that have the same effectiveness as Track 1 methods.
The Trash Amendments provide a framework for permittees to implement their provisions. Full compliance must occur within 10 years of the permit, and permittees must also meet interim milestones such as average load reductions of 10 percent per year. The Trash Amendments require municipalities to install certified trash control systems, such as filters, on all catch basins no later than December 2, 2030. 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW protects streams, water bodies, and riparian corridors through the streambed alteration agreement process under Sections 1600 to 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Fish and Game Code stipulates that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake” without notifying the CDFW , incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a streambed alteration agreement. CDFW’s jurisdiction extends to the top of banks and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation.