First 2026 General Plan Amendment
CITY PROJECT FILE # PLN25-0650
Addendum to General Plan 2050
Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2023020166)
LEAD AGENCY:
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
100 SANTA ROSA AVENUE, ROOM 3
SANTA ROSA, CA 95404
DECEMBER 2025
EXHIBIT A
First 2026 General Plan Amendment
ADDENDUM TO GENERAL PLAN 2050 PROGRAM Environmental Impact Report Project Title: First 2026 General Plan Amendment
Lead agency name and address: City of Santa Rosa
Planning and Economic Development Department
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Contact person and phone
number:
Amy Nicholson, Supervising Planner
(707) 543-3258
Email: [email protected]
File Number: PLN25-0650
Previous CEQA Document State
Clearinghouse Number
SCH # 2023020166 – General Plan 2050 EIR – Certified June 2025
Project sponsor’s name and
address:
City of Santa Rosa
Planning and Economic Development Department
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Property Owners: Various
General Plan Designation: Various
Zoning: Various
Description of project: The General Plan 2050 General Plan Amendment would: 1) modify the established land use for 30 properties (including 7 properties within the boundaries of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan) to address existing or future
development; and 2) include additional figures in the
General Plan 2050 Circulation Element to reflect planned pedestrian and bicycle network improvements that were
adopted as part of the City’s Active Transportation Plan. The General Plan 2050 Zoning Map Amendments would align
the zoning on 10 properties with the proposed General Plan land use diagram changes.
Surrounding land uses and setting;
briefly describe the project’s
surroundings:
The project site consists of 30 parcels distributed across the City’s Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and Southwest
quadrants. Each parcel is either already developed or is immediately adjacent to and surrounded by existing
development. Santa Rosa is approximately 55 miles north of San Francisco, in the south-central part of Sonoma County.
As the county seat and the largest city in Sonoma County, Santa Rosa is bordered by unincorporated communities of Sonoma County, including Fulton and Larkfield-Wikiup.
Incorporated cities near Santa Rosa include Windsor,
Healdsburg, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Sebastopol, Petaluma, and Sonoma, in Sonoma County, and Calistoga, and St.
Helena in Napa County. Santa Rosa is generally bordered by regional and State parks, including Spring Lake Regional Park, Trione-Annadel State Park, Sugarloaf Ridge State Park, and North Sonoma Mountain Regional Park, to the east and Taylor Mountain Regional Park and Open Space Preserve to the south. US Highway 101 and California State Route (SR) 12 each bisect the city, running north-south and east-west, respectively. SR 116 to the west also provides regional access to the city. Public transit in Santa Rosa is served by several transit providers, including the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, Golden Gate Transit, Sonoma County Transit, and the Santa Rosa CityBus. Residents of and visitors to Santa Rosa also navigate the city by a variety of arterial, collector, and residential streets, as well as regional and local pedestrian and bicycle routes.
Other public agencies whose
approval is required (e.g., permits,
financial approval, or participation
agreements):
None.
Have California Native American
tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant
to Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1? If so, has consultation
begun?
Lytton Rancheria and Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria (FIGR) were notified on November 17, 2025, of the proposed General Plan amendment pursuant to
Government Code Section 65352.3. No requests for
consultation were received. No consultation is required under Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill 52).
1. INTRODUCTION
This document is an Addendum to the General Plan 2050 Environmental Impact Report (EIR), for which the City of Santa Rosa certified in a programmatic Final EIR in June 2025 (hereafter referred to as the 2025 EIR). This Addendum has been prepared in full accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The analysis herein evaluates environmental impacts relative to the 2025 EIR from the proposed Project, which consists of General Plan land use changes to 30 properties, and Zoning Map amendments to 10 of the 30 properties. The subject General Plan Amendment project sites are located within the 31,555 -acre area analyzed as part of the 2025 EIR.
1.1 Background
The City has prepared this Addendum to document whether the General Plan Amendment package would result in any new significant environmental impacts or any substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts as c ompared to the 2025 EIR.
1.2 Purpose and Intent
This Addendum is intended to inform City decision-makers, responsible agencies, interested parties and the general public of the Project and its potential environmental effects. This Addendum is also intended to provide the CEQA-required environmental documentation for all city, local and state approvals or permits that might be required to implement the Project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21166 and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR has been certified, no subsequent or supplement EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified or the negative declaration was adopted shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not disclosed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR.
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures o r alternatives.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e), the purpose of this Addendum is to describe and evaluate the Project and identify the reasons for the City's conclusion that the Project and associated environmental effects do not meet the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
If some changes or additions to the previously prepared EIR or negative declaration are necessary, but none of the conditions specified in State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are present, the lead agency shall prepare an addendum.
In reviewing this Addendum, the question before the City decisionmakers is whether one of the events triggering the need for subsequent environmental review has occurred.
This EIR Addendum contains an Introduction, a description of the Project (Section 2), and environmental impact analysis that compares the impacts of the Project to those identified in the 2025 EIR (Section 3). As summarized in Section 4, environmental determination, the Project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or any substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts as compared to the 2025 EIR. Accordingly, an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project under CEQA.
The City of Santa Rosa shall consider the Addendum to the 2025 EIR prior to making a decision on the First 2026 General Plan Amendment Package. The 2025 EIR for the approved General Plan 2050 is available for review online at srcity.org/generalplan.
1.3 Summary of 15162 and 15163 Review
This discussion summarizes the reasons that a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum to the 20 25 EIR is the appropriate CEQA document.
Substantial Changes: As detailed in the Section 3 - Analysis, the Project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the 2025 EIR, would not substantially increase the severity of impacts identified in the 2025 EIR, and would not require major revisions to the 2025 EIR.
The Project does not constitute substantial changes to the approved General Plan and environmental impacts of the Project are fully disclosed, analyzed, and evaluated in the 2025 EIR.
Therefore, an Addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review and neither a subsequent nor supplemental EIR is warranted.
Substantial Changes in Circumstances: As described in Section 3 - Analysis, environmental conditions in and around the project site have not changed such that implementation of the Project would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental effects identified in the 2025 EIR, and thus would not require major revisions to the 2025 EIR.
New Information: No new information of substantial importance, which was not known or could
not have been known when the 2025 EIR was certified, has been identified which shows that the Project would be expected to result in: (1) new significant environmental effects not identified in the 2025 EIR; (2) substantially more severe environmental effects relative to the 2025 EIR; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2025 EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Given that the mitigation measures from the 2025 EIR would be applicable to any future project allowed through the proposed land use and zoning amendments , under CEQA Guideline 15162(a)(3)(D), the use of an addendum is appropriate.
1.4 Public Review
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b), an addendum to a previously certified EIR is not required to be circulated for public review; but will be considered by the Lead Agency prior to making a decision about the project. This addendum will also be made available to members of t he public when the agenda is published for the Planning Commission and City Council meeting.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
The project is comprised of 30 properties located throughout the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California, indicated in the table below:
Site
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number (APN)
Address Site Conditions
City
Quadrant
1 009-146-003 1520 Parker Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
2 009-151-009 265 Doyle Park Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
3 009-153-002 309 Talbot Avenue Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
4 009-153-003 315 Talbot Avenue Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
5 009-146-004 1526 Parker Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
6 009-151-008 257 Doyle Park Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
7 009-146-021 1536 Parker Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
8 009-153-008 1420 Parker Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
9 009-153-012 1416 Parker Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
10 009-153-009 1428 Parker Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
11 009-147-002 301 Alderbrook Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
12 009-146-011 306 Talbot Avenue Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
13 009-146-001 300 Talbot Avenue Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
14 009-153-014 300 Doyle Park Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
15 009-153-001 303 Talbot Avenue Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
16 009-146-002 1516 Parker Drive Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
17 009-147-001 304 California Avenue Developed with Single Family Residence
Northeast
18 153-180-029 5761 Mountain Hawk
Drive
Developed with mixed-use
center
Northeast
19 153-180-028 5755 Mountain Hawk
Drive
Developed with mixed-use
center
Northeast
20 010-421-011 50 W College Avenue Developed with asphalt plant Northwest 21 010-421-004
50 W College Avenue Developed with asphalt plant Northwest 22 010-132-017 1040 Maxwell Drive Developed with asphalt plant Northwest 23 010-132-014 1060 Maxwell Drive Developed with asphalt plant Northwest 24 010-132-018 1038 Maxwell Drive Developed with asphalt plant Northwest 25 010-132-011 1056 Maxwell Drive Developed with asphalt plant Northwest 26 010-132-012 1044 Maxwell Drive Developed with asphalt plant Northwest 27 035-610-015 2616 Giffen Avenue Developed with Single Family Residence
Southwest
28 125-181-023 100 Sebastopol Road Developed with non-residential building and surface parking
lot
Southwest
29 125-181-008 80 Sebastopol Road Developed with non-residential building
Southwest
30 014-283-024 1266 Janet Way Undeveloped Southeast
Sites 1–17 together comprise approximately 3.09 acres within a developed single-family neighborhood, primarily built in the early 1940s, located east of Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital. Sites 18 and 19 total 1.69 acres and include a mixed-use development featuring a residential care facility, coffee shop, office, spa, gym, restaurant, and surface parking at the entrance to the Skyhawk Residential Subdivision. Sites 20–26 encompass about 6.46 acres of industrial land immediately west of the SMART rail, currently operating as the BoDean Asphalt Plant. Site 27 (2616 Giffen Avenue) covers approximately 1.08 acres and is developed with a detached single- family residence. Site 28 (100 Sebastopol Road) consists of roughly 1.78 acres with a large non-residential building and
surface parking lot, while Site 29 (80 Sebastopol Road) is about 0.6 acres and contains a small non- residential building. Site 30 totals 0.6 acres of undeveloped residential property.
2.2. Project Description
The First 2026 General Plan Amendment (Project) includes amendments to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Map consisting of:
• Amendments to the Land Use Diagram to address discrepancies between current land use designations and existing or surrounding land uses on 30 parcels throughout the City, including seven parcels within the Downtown Station Area Plan boundary, which would also require corresponding amendments to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Land Use.
• Amendments to the Zoning Map to ensure zoning consistency with the proposed land use designations for the 10 parcels described below.
Table 1. Proposed Land Use Diagram Amendments
Assessor’s Parcel
Number (APN) Address
Existing Land
Use
General Plan 2050 Land Use
009-146-003 1520 Parker Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-151-009 265 Doyle Park Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-153-002 309 Talbot Avenue Office Low Density Residential 009-146-004 1526 Parker Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-151-008 257 Doyle Park Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-146-021 1536 Parker Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-153-008 1420 Parker Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-153-012 1416 Parker Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-153-009 1428 Parker Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-147-002 301 Alderbrook Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-146-011 306 Talbot Avenue Office Low Density Residential 009-146-001 300 Talbot Avenue Office Low Density Residential 009-153-014 300 Doyle Park Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-153-001 303 Talbot Avenue Office Low Density Residential 009-153-003 315 Talbot Avenue Office Low Density Residential
009-146-002 1516 Parker Drive Office Low Density Residential 009-147-001 304 California Avenue Office Low Density Residential 153-180-029 5761 Mountain Hawk
Drive
Very Low Density
Residential
Medium Density Residential/Retail
Business Services
153-180-028 5755 Mountain Hawk
Drive
Very Low Density
Residential
Medium Density Residential/Retail
Business Services
010-421-011 50 W College Avenue Neighborhood
Mixed Use
Maker Mixed Use
010-132-014 1060 Maxwell Drive Neighborhood
Mixed Use
Maker Mixed Use
010-132-017 1040 Maxwell Drive Neighborhood
Mixed Use
Maker Mixed Use
010-421-004 50 W College Avenue Neighborhood
Mixed Use
Maker Mixed Use
010-132-018 1038 Maxwell Drive Neighborhood
Mixed Use
Maker Mixed Use
010-132-011 1056 Maxwell Drive Neighborhood
Mixed Use
Maker Mixed Use
010-132-012 1044 Maxwell Drive Neighborhood
Mixed Use
Maker Mixed Use
035-610-015 2616 Giffen Avenue Low Density
Residential
Very Low Density Residential
125-181-023 100 Sebastopol Road Medium Density
Residential and
Light Industry
Medium Density Residential/Retail
and Business Services and Light
Industry/Retail and Business
Services
125-181-008 80 Sebastopol Road Medium Density
Residential
Medium Density Residential/Retail
Business Services
014-283-024 1266 Janet Way None Medium Density Residential
Table 2. Proposed Zoning Map Amendments
Assessor’s
Parcel Number
(APN)
Address
Existing Zoning
General Plan 2050 Zoning
010-421-011 50 W College Avenue NMU (Neighborhood
Mixed Use)
MMU (Maker Mixed Use)
010-421-004 50 W College Avenue NMU (Neighborhood
Mixed Use)
MMU (Maker Mixed Use)
010-132-014 1060 Maxwell Drive NMU (Neighborhood
Mixed Use)
MMU (Maker Mixed Use)
010-132-017 1040 Maxwell Drive NMU (Neighborhood
Mixed Use)
MMU (Maker Mixed Use)
010-132-018 1038 Maxwell Drive NMU (Neighborhood
Mixed Use)
MMU (Maker Mixed Use)
010-132-011 1056 Maxwell Drive NMU (Neighborhood
Mixed Use)
MMU (Maker Mixed Use)
010-132-012 1044 Maxwell Drive NMU (Neighborhood
Mixed Use)
MMU (Maker Mixed Use)
125-181-023 100 Sebastopol Road R-3-18 – MMH S / IL
(Multi-Family
Residential – Missing
Middle Housing –
Small / Light Industrial)
CN-MMH-S / IL (Neighborhood
Commercial - Missing Middle
Housing – Small / Light
Industrial)
125-181-008 80 Sebastopol Road R-3-18 – MMH - S
(Multi-Family
Residential – Missing
Middle Housing -
Small)
CN – MMH - S (Neighborhood
Commercial – Missing Middle
Housing - Small)
014-283-024 1266 Janet Way R-1-6 (Single-Family
Residential)
R-3-15-MMH-S (Multi-Family
Residential – Missing Middle
Housing Small)
2.3 Required Discretionary Actions
No discretionary actions are required beyond the General Plan amendments and Zoning Map amendments.
2.4 Other Public Agency Review
None.
2.5 California Native American Tribal Consultation
Lytton Rancheria and Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) were notified on November 17,
2025, of the proposed General Plan amendment pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3 (Senate Bill 18), which requires that a lead agency provide an opportunity for consultation when amendments are proposed to a general plan. No requests for consultation were received. No consultation is required under Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill 52) for this addendum.
2.6 Previously Disclosed Impacts
The General Plan 2050 EIR identified potentially significant impacts to the following resources:
1. Agricultural Resources
2. Air Quality
3. Biological Resources
4. Cultural Resources
5. Geology and Soils
6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
9. Land Use and Planning
10. Noise
11. Population and Housing
12. Public Services, Parks, and Recreation
13. Transportation
14. Tribal Cultural Resources
15. Utilities and Service Systems
16. Wildfire
Potential impacts to Aesthetics and Energy were found to be less than significant without mitigating actions.
3.0 ANALYSIS
This Addendum analyzes the project relative to the previously certified General Plan 2050 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to determine if the current project includes substantial changes, if there has been a substantial change in circumstances, or if new information exists to such a degree that a new or subsequent EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration should be required (CEQA Guidelines sections 15164, subdivision (b) and 15162, subdivision (a)).
This Addendum relies on the General Plan 2050 EIR certified by the City Council on June 3, 2025, by Resolution No. RES-2025-090.
The General Plan 2050 EIR is available at:
City of Santa Rosa Department of Planning and Economic Development City Hall 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Santa Rosa, CA or on the City’s web page: www.srcity.org/generalplan.
3.1 ADDENDUM CRITERIA:
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, if none of the conditions described in CEQA Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, then an addendum to an adopted EIR or Negative Declaration can be prepared (CEQA Section 15164 (b)).
CEQA Section 15162 sets forth three conditions, any one of which would cause the preparation of a subsequent EIR or subsequent Negative Declaration. They are:
1. Substantial changes in the project would result in new significant effects or an increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effect.
2. Substantial changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would result in new significant effects or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known or could be known, shows:
a) The project will have one or more significant effect(s) not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration.
b) Significant effects, previously examined, will be more severe than shown. c) Mitigation measures previously considered not to be feasible are feasible and would reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. d) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different than those analyzed in the previous EIR (or Negative Declaration) that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
3.2 ASSESSMENT OF DEGREE OF CHANGE IN: The Project, The Circumstances, or New Information
The following list of impact categories from the CEQA Environmental Checklist: Appendix G will assess the degree of change in the project, change in circumstances, or new information, by impact category, that has occurred since the certification of the June 2025 General Plan 2050 EIR. Categories are listed in the order they appear in the standard CEQA Environmental Checklist: Appendix G.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Aesthetics No Discussion
Summary of Aesthetic Impacts under the 2025 EIR: Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not result in a substantial adverse impact on scenic vistas or corridors, substantially damage scenic resources, conflict with regulations governing scenic quality, create a new source of substantial light or glare or result in cumulative impacts to aesthetics.
Although future development could potentially alter or obstruct views from certain public locations, any changes would depend on project design and may be positive or negative in nature. Scenic vistas considered in this analysis are limited to designated and eligible corridors, including portions of State Route 12.
Future growth under the General Plan 2050 would be concentrated in existing developed areas through infill and intensification, where taller buildings and partial view obstructions already occur.
Because most land use designations, building heights, and densities would remain unc hanged, existing scenic views would largely be maintained.
All future discretionary development would be subject to established design guidelines, zoning standards, and scenic roadway protections, as well as General Plan policies that prioritize context-sensitive design and preservation of scenic resources. Together, these measures would limit potential visual impacts, resulting in less-than-significant impacts to scenic vistas without the need for mitigation.
Within the EIR Study Area, Caltrans has identified the State Route 12 corridor as both eligible for State Scenic Highway designation and, in part, officially designated, with approximately 2.5 miles of the designated scenic highway extending from Danielli Avenue to London Way. While implementation of the General Plan 2050 project could affect scenic resources along State Route 12 if development were to block views, such impacts are addressed through mitigating General Plan actions and are subject to local regulations and review processes. The City’s Scenic Road Combining District, design review requirements, and General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, including zoning updates to establish development standards for scenic roadways, require consideration of aesthetic impacts and protection of scenic quality. Compliance with these regulations and implementation of the General Plan 2050 would ensure that impacts to State Route 12 and other designated or eligible scenic roadways would be less than significant.
The General Plan 2050 serves as the City of Santa Rosa’s primary planning document and is intended to align the General Plan, Zoning Code, and State law, ensuring internal consistency and regulatory compliance. Because the project updates the General Plan and Zoning Code to reinforce this consistency, its adoption and implementation would not conflict with policies or regulations governing scenic quality. Future development subject to design review would be required to comply with the City’s Design Guidelines and applicable regulations, while General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions further direct updates to zoning and design standards to protect visual character and scenic resources. Although some development could alter visual quality or public views, adherence to existing and updated regulations would ensure impacts to scenic quality remain less than significant.
Future development under the General Plan 2050 could incrementally increase nighttime illumination and glare through additional exterior lighting, building surfaces, vehicles, and the installation of solar photovoltaic panels, potentially affecting nearby sensitive receptors if not properly designed. However, the EIR Study Area already contains numerous sources of nighttime lighting and glare associated with existing land uses, and new development would introduce lighting of a similar type and intensity. All future projects would be required to comply with established regulations and standards, including CALGreen requirements, the Scenic Road Combining District,
Street Light Design Standards, and other applicable plans, which mandate context- sensitive lighting, limit light spill, and minimize glare. Additionally, site planning and design review processes would address the placement and orientation of lighting and solar panels. As a result, implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not substantially increase nighttime light or glare, and impacts would be less than significant.
The cumulative aesthetic setting includes future development under the General Plan 2050 in combination with growth elsewhere in Sonoma County and the surrounding region. Visual impacts related to scenic resources, visual character, and lighting and glare would generally be site -specific and would not meaningfully contribute to cumulative effects when existing regulations and General Plan policies are applied. Compliance with the Scenic Road Combining District, Santa Rosa Design Guidelines, lighting standards, and design review requirements, particularly for development near designated scenic roadways, would ensure that impacts to scenic vistas, corridors, and nighttime conditions remain less than significant. Because the General Plan 2050 project strengthens consistency among the General Plan, Zoning Code, and State law and requires adherence to established aesthetic protections, implementation would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to aesthetic resources.
Aesthetic Impacts Associated with the Project: The Project would result in minimal aesthetic impacts because it involves General Plan land use designation and Zoning Map changes on 30 properties that are primarily developed and located within built-out urban areas of the city. The land use changes themselves would not directly alter the physical environment, introduce new visual elements, or modify existing scenic resources, as no immediate construction or physical development would occur as part of the project.
Any future redevelopment that could result from these designation changes would take place within an established urban context where buildings, infrastructure, and visual character are already defined. As a result, potential changes to visual character, such as building scale, massing, or appearance, would generally be consistent with surrounding development and would not substantially affect scenic vistas or visual quality. The two properties located on Mountain Hawk Drive and Highway 12 would be subject to additional zoning code standards required for City designated scenic roads, which includes more restrictive height, setback, and landscaping requirements to reduce the visual impacts of new development.
Moreover, all future development projects would be subject to the City’s design review process and required to comply with applicable zoning regulations, design guidelines, and development standards. These requirements ensure that new development is compatible with its surroundings, incorporates appropriate architectural design and landscaping, and minimizes potential impacts related to visual character, lighting, and glare. Consequently, any aesthetic effects associated with future development would be incremental, highly controlled, and less than significant. No further analysis of potential Aesthetic impacts is warranted.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Agricultural Resources No Discussion
Summary of Agricultural Resources Impacts under the 2025 EIR: At buildout of the General Plan 2050, the EIR Study Area contains approximately 757 acres of qualifying farmland , including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland, of which up to 94 acres could be converted to non-agricultural uses, while about 1,520 acres of agricultural land and 245 acres of open space would be retained. Because CEQA considers the loss of any qualifying farmland to be significant, the anticipated conversion of these 94 acres would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. Although the General Plan includes multiple goals, policies, and actions aimed at conserving agricultural lands and soils and supporting regional preservation efforts, these measures would not reduce the amount of farmland converted under buildout. Mitigation measures such as farmland replacement, transfer of development rights, or relocation of prime soil s were considered but found infeasible due to land availability, environmental tradeoffs, economic constraints, and uncertainty in achieving equivalent agricultural productivity; therefore, the impact to agricultural resources would remain significant.
Agricultural Resources Impacts Associated with the Project:
None of the 30 properties being considered for General Plan land use diagram or Zoning Map amendments are classified as qualifying farmland under the CEQA. Therefore, no impact to Agricultural Resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project, and no further analysis is warranted.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Air Quality No Discussion
Summary of Air Quality Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
The General Plan 2050 supports regional air quality and climate goals by aligning local planning and future development with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and providing early, plan -level evaluation under CEQA. The General Plan 2050 is consistent with regional population, housing, and transportation projections used by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), would accommodate planned growth without inducing substantial unplanned population increases, and is projected to reduce vehicle miles traveled per service population compared to existing conditions.
Future development would undergo project-level CEQA review and comply with BAAQMD thresholds, permitting requirements, and statewide air quality and greenhouse gas reduction measures, ensuring protection of public health and avoidance of air quality standard violations. With consistency demonstrated across air quality, toxic air contaminants, VMT efficiency, and greenhouse gas reduction efforts, the General Plan 2050 project would not hinder attainment of National or State air quality standards, would reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in line with legislative targets, and would result in less-than-significant air quality and climate impacts.
The General Plan 2050 would guide future growth citywide and, while it would not directly result in construction, development facilitated by the plan would generate short -term construction-related air pollutant emissions from activities such as demolition, grading, building co nstruction, paving, and
painting, particularly within designated infill and intensification areas. These activities could temporarily increase emissions of reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, and fugitive dust (PM ₁₀ and PM₂.₅), especially during ground-disturbing phases. Although construction at this program level could potentially contribute to air quality standard violations in the Bay Area Air Basin, all future projects would be required to comply with BAAQMD project-level thresholds and implement recommended Basic Construction Control Measures to minimize dust and emissions. Consistent with General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions that mandate project-specific emissions analysis and mitigation where necessary, adherence to BAAQMD requirements would ensure construction-related air quality impacts are reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation.
Buildout under the General Plan 2050 would generate long-term regional air pollutant emissions that exceed BAAQMD regional significance thresholds and would cumulatively contribute to the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin’s nonattainment status, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. While the General Plan includes numerous goals, policies, and actions that would reduce emissions to the extent feasible, these measures would not eliminate the exceedance at the programmatic level. Due to the large-scale and long-range nature of the plan, it is not feasible to further quantify or mitigate regional health impacts from criteria pollutants or toxic air contaminants beyond compliance with established thresholds, and no additional feasible mitigation is available. Nonetheless, individual future development projects may still achieve less-than-significant air quality impacts through project-level review and compliance with applicable standards.
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 includes measures that would protect sensitive receptors from construction-related air quality health risks by requiring construction health risk assessments and mitigation for projects near sensitive land uses, resulting in less-than-significant construction health impacts. However, over the buildout horizon, future development could introduce new operational sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and PM ₂.₅ near existing or planned sensitive receptors. While project-level operational health risk assessments, BAAQMD permitting, zoning updates, and required best available control technologies would reduce individual project impacts to less than significant levels, cumulative TAC and PM₂.₅ exposure across the Bay Area could continue to affect sensitive populations and Equity Priority Areas. Therefore, despite strong regulatory oversight and mitigation requirements, the General Plan 2050’s contribution to cumulative long-term health risk is considered significant and unavoidable, though individual projects may still demonstrate less-than-significant impacts at the project level.
Future construction under the General Plan 2050 could generate temporary odors, such as equipment exhaust, but the plan itself does not directly authorize construction, and any odor impacts would be evaluated at the project level. Odors from construction and operation are regulated by the BAAQMD, and compliance with BAAQMD public nuisance and odorous substance regulations would minimize potential impacts. Operationally, land uses typically associated with nuisance odors, such as certain industrial or agricultural uses, would be subject to additional environmental review and odor screening distances to protect sensitive receptors, while residential uses would not generate substantial nuisance odors. With adherence to BAAQMD regulations and implementation of General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions aimed at minimizing air quality and odor impacts, odor emissions would not adversely affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.
The General Plan 2050, when considered in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development, would contribute to cumulative regional air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin by generating criteria pollutant emissions that exceed BAAQMD regional significance thresholds. The project’s contribution to cumulative impacts is reflected in previously identified air quality impacts related to construction and operational emissions and exposure of sensitive receptors. While the General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions, such as requiring project-level emissions analysis, implementation of fugitive dust controls, and health risk assessments, that would reduce air quality impacts to the extent feasible, no additional mitigation measures are available at the program level. As a result, the General Plan would create a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts, and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, notwithstanding the potential for individual future projects to achieve less-than-significant impacts through project-level review.
Air Quality Impacts Associated with the Project:
The project would result in limited air quality impacts because it consists solely of General Plan land use designation and Zoning Map changes on properties that are primarily developed and located within built-out areas of the city and would not directly approve or construct new development. As such, the project would not generate immediate construction or operational air pollutant emissions.
Future development projects facilitated by the proposed land use changes could generate short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions; however, all such projects would be required to comply with state, regional, and local air quality regulations, including applicable BAAQMD standards, California Air Resources Board regulations, and City policies.
Project-specific review would evaluate construction- and operation-related emissions, and mitigation would be required as necessary to ensure compliance with adopted air quality thresholds.
Additionally, development projects would be required to implement best management practices to control fugitive dust, minimize equipment emissions, and reduce vehicle travel and associated pollutants. Through adherence to these regulatory requirements and environmental review processes and compliance with applicable General Plan 2050 policies and actions related to Air Quality, potential air quality impacts associated with future development on the subject properties would be incremental, well-controlled, and less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Biological Resources No Discussion
Summary of Biological Resources Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Chapter 3 of the General Plan 2050 requires that biological resource impacts, including effects on special-status species and active bird nests, be evaluated and addressed on a project -by-project basis. The plan mandates agency consultation, continued implementation of existing habitat protection regulations, preparation of biological resource assessments, and protection of bird habitat consistent with State and federal laws. Future development would remain subject to the
City’s entitlement and CEQA review processes to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations and General Plan policies. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts to special-status species from future development would be less than significant.
The General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that require biological resource impacts , particularly to riparian areas, drainages, and sensitive natural communities , to be evaluated and addressed on a project-by-project basis. The plan mandates ecological buffer zones and adequate development setbacks along channelized waterways to protect habitat, account for flood conditions, and support restoration and enhancement goals, while also requiring agency consultation, compliance with existing regulations, and preparation of technical studies where appropriate.
Future development would continue to undergo review through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with local, State, and federal environmental requirements. With implementation of these measures and ongoing regulatory oversight, potential impacts to sensitive natural communities over the buildout horizon would be less than significant.
Impacts to wetlands from implementation of the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant because the plan includes comprehensive goals, policies, and actions that require evaluation and protection of biological resources on a project-by-project basis. General Plan 2050 actions require the identification and avoidance of wetlands and other regulated waters, site- specific biological assessments for development near sensitive habitats, and compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations, including creek setback standards and the Citywide Creek Master Plan.
Where impacts to wetlands cannot be avoided, appropriate permitting and compensatory mitigation would be required. Continued review through the City’s entitlement and CEQA processe s would ensure consistency with these requirements, resulting in adequate protection of wetlands over the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2050 project.
The General Plan 2050 includes comprehensive goals, policies, and actions that would protect and preserve important wildlife habitats, including special-status species habitat, sensitive natural communities, regulated wetlands, and wildlife movement corridors. These measures require agency consultation, compliance with existing regulations, site-specific biological assessments, ecological buffer zones, and adequate development setbacks along waterways to identify, avoid, or mitigate project-level impacts. With continued review through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA, future development would be required to comply with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations, ensuring that impacts to wildlife habitat and movement corridors remain less tha n significant over the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2050.
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources because the General Plan is the City of Santa Rosa’s primary planning document intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
Future development facilitated by the General Plan would be required to comply with applicable City regulations, including creek setback standards, the Citywide Creek Master Plan, and the Tree Ordinance, all of which are designed to protect wetlands, riparian areas, and regulated trees. In combination with the General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions that reduce potential impacts on sensitive biological resources, continued review through the City’s entitlement and CEQA p rocesses would ensure regulatory consistency. As a result, no conflicts with local biological resource protection policies are anticipated, and impacts would be less than significant.
The EIR Study Area is not located within any local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan areas; therefore, implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not conflict with any adopted conservation strategies. In addition, the General Plan includes numerous goals, policies, and actions, together with existing Santa Rosa City Code regulations, that are intended to protect and enhance sensitive natural communities and special -status species.
Future development would be required to comply with these policies as well as applicable State and federal regulations, including the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy where applicable, and would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement and CEQA processes. As a result, potential impacts to sensitive biological resources would be adequately addressed, and impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative impacts to biological resources from potential future development would largely be site-specific and depend on the extent to which native vegetation, wetlands, special -status species habitat, and wildlife movement corridors are preserved or mitigated at individual sites. While regional growth could incrementally reduce natural habitat, fragment wildlife corridors, degrade aquatic resources, and affect sensitive natural communities through vegetation removal, erosion, and water quality impacts, much of the anticipated development under the General Plan 2050 is expected to occur within existing urbanized areas, where biological values are generally lower.
Future proposed projects near sensitive habitats would be required to complete biological resource assessments and implement avoidance and mitigation measures to protect important resources.
With continued regulatory oversight and focus on infill development, cumulative biological impacts would be limited, and widespread degradation of regional biological resources would be less than significant.
Biological Resources Impacts Associated with the Project:
The project would result in no significant impacts to biological resources because it involves General Plan land use designation and Zoning Map amendments on properties that are already developed or surrounded by existing urban development. The sites do not contain wetlands, sensitive natural communities, special-status plant or animal species, or wildlife movement corridors, and no physical development or ground disturbance is proposed. As a result, the amendments would not affect native vegetation, aquatic resources, or wildlife habitat.
Any future redevelopment that could occur as a result of the General Plan land use diagram and Zoning Map changes would take place within an established urban context and would be subject to the City’s standard entitlement and environmental review processes, including compliance with applicable local, State, and federal biological resource regulations. In addition, all future developments would be required to comply with applicable General Plan 2050 policies and actions related to Biological Resources. Because the project does not conflict with conservation plans or policies and does not modify biological resources, and because future projects would be required to avoid or mitigate any unforeseen impacts, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Cultural Resources No Discussion
Summary of Cultural Resources Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Impacts to cultural and historic resources under implementation of the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant because new development and exterior modifications would be required to comply with the Santa Rosa City Code, Design Guidelines, and General Plan goals, policies, and actions that prioritize preservation and compatibility. The General Plan requires adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, promotes collaboration with property owners to preserve and rehabilitate historic resources, and mandates ongoing cultural and historic inventories to identify and protect significant properties. Future development would be required to evaluate potential effects on historic resources through record searches, surveys, monitoring, and avoidanc e or mitigation measures, and projects with the potential to affect historic resources would undergo project-level CEQA review. Although demolition, inappropriate alterations, or incompatible new construction could adversely affect historic resources, compliance with applicable regulations and review procedures would ensure such impacts are avoided or minimized, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
Impacts to archaeological resources from implementation of the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant because the plan emphasizes infill development, adaptive reuse, and development on already disturbed or underutilized sites, reducing the likelihood of encountering intact archaeological deposits. The General Plan includes policies and actions that require protection of waterways, ecological buffers, and sensitivity to natural features, as well as mandatory record searches, preconstruction surveys, monitoring during ground disturbance, and avoidance or mitigation measures when resources are identified. Additional requirements include evaluation by qualified archaeologists, consultation with Native American representatives, and protection of tribal cultural resources in compliance with State and federal law. Together, these measures ensure early identification and appropriate preservation or mitigation of archaeological resources, minimizing the potential for significant impacts.
Potential future development within the EIR Study Area could encounter previously undiscovered human remains during ground-disturbing activities; however, impacts would be less than significant due to regulatory protections and General Plan requirements. The General Plan 2050 emphasizes infill development and includes policies and actions that minimize disturbance of archaeological resources and establish procedures for protecting tribal cultural resources. In the event that human remains are discovered, State and local regulations mandate immediate work stoppage, notification of the County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission, consultation with the Most Likely Descendant, and respectful treatment and reinterment of remains as appropriate. Complia nce with these legally required procedures and General Plan policies would ensure that any accidental discovery or disturbance of human remains is handled sensitively and lawfully, avoiding significant impacts.
Cumulative impacts to cultural resources from implementation of the General Plan 2050 would be
less than significant because, while impacts are inherently site-specific, the General Plan 2050 includes robust policies and regulatory requirements that would prevent incremental losses from rising to a cumulatively considerable level. Although repeated demolition, alteration, or incompatible development could, over time, affect the integrity of historic buildings or districts, future development is largely anticipated within already developed Areas of Change and would be subject to federal, State, and local protections. Continued compliance with adopted regulations and General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, addressing historical resources, archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and human remains, would substantially reduce potential cumulative effects and preserve the overall character and integrity of cultural resources within the EIR Study Area.
Cultural Resources Impacts Associated with the Project:
The project consists of General Plan land use designation and Zoning Map changes affecting properties that are primarily developed, located within an existing urban setting, and which do not contain known historic, archaeological, or tribal cultural resources. Because the project does not authorize construction, demolition, or ground-disturbing activities, the land use changes themselves would not directly alter or affect cultural resources. As a result, no direct impacts to historical buildings, archaeological sites, tribal cultural resources, or human remains would occur as part of the project.
All future development projects will continue to undergo the City’s review process, including demonstrating consistency with General Plan policies related to Cultural Resources and, when applicable, completing project-level CEQA review. With few exceptions, these processes require record searches, surveys, and implementation of avoidance or mitigation measures if previously unknown cultural resources are identified. Given the developed condition of the affected properties, the absence of known cultural resources, and the continued application of local, State, and federal protections, the project would result in less-than-significant impacts to cultural resources.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Energy No Discussion
Summary of Energy Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Implementation of federal, State, and local energy and vehicle efficiency regulations, together with the General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, would reduce building and transportation energy demand and increase reliance on renewable energy sources. The General Plan’s emphasis on efficient land use patterns, improved transportation options, building energy efficiency, and renewable energy generation would further decrease per-capita energy consumption and reliance on fossil fuels. As a result, energy use associated with development accommodated under the General Plan 2050 would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary, and energy impacts would be less than significant.
California’s electricity supply is increasingly transitioning to renewable energy under the State’s
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which establishes progressively higher renewable energy targets through 2045. Although RPS requirements apply to utilities rather than individual development projects, energy providers serving the EIR Study Area are already supplying substantial amounts of renewable and carbon-free electricity and are required to meet the State’s future mandates. Sonoma Clean Power customers automatically receive electricity with a high renewable content, and PG&E is similarly on track to comply with the State’s renewable energy requirements.
The modest increase in energy demand associated with buildout under the General Plan 2050 would remain within the service capacity of these providers and would not interfere with their ability to achieve RPS goals. Accordingly, the General Plan 2050 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s renewable energy objectives, and energy impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative energy impacts would occur only if coordinated development resulted in inefficient or wasteful energy use or interfered with State or local renewable energy goals; however, development within the EIR Study Area and surrounding region would be served by PG&E and Sonoma Clean Power and required to comply with strict State building, appliance, and energy efficiency standards.
Although cumulative development would increase long-term electricity and natural gas demand and require short-term construction energy use, these increases would be offset by energy-efficient building design, modern appliances, and improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency mandated by State and federal laws. In addition, future development is projected to reduce vehicle miles traveled and fuel consumption, and the General Plan 2050 includes policies supporting reduced energy use and alignment with carbon neutrality objectives. As a result, cumulative energy consumption would not be inefficient or inconsistent with renewable energy plans, and cumulative energy impacts would be less than significant.
Energy Impacts Associated with the Project:
The project would result in less-than-significant energy impacts because it consists solely of General Plan land use designation and Zoning Map changes affecting 30 properties that are developed or surrounded by existing urban development. The amendments themselves would not directly increase energy consumption, authorize construction, or introduce new energy -intensive uses. As such, there would be no immediate changes in building or transportation energy demand attributable to the project.
Any future redevelopment that could occur as a result of these land use changes would take place on sites where infrastructure and energy services are available. All future development would be required to comply with the General Plan 2050 policies and actions, applicable State and local energy efficiency standards, including Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the California Green Building Code (CALGreen), and appliance efficiency regulations. These regulations ensure that new or modified buildings minimize energy use and avoid wasteful or inefficient consumption.
In addition, future projects would benefit from utility-level compliance with California’s RPS and local energy programs, which increasingly supply electricity from renewable and carbon -free sources.
Given the developed nature of the affected properties, regulatory requirements governing energy efficiency, and the absence of direct construction or intensified energy demand, the project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use, and energy impacts would remain less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Geology and Soils No Discussion
Summary of Geology and Soils Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would result in less-than-significant seismic hazard impacts because all future development would be required to comply with State, regional, and local regulations addressing fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. The General Plan includes policies and actions that require avoidance or mitigation of seismic hazards, preparation of site-specific geologic studies by qualified professionals, and restriction or prohibition of development in areas where hazards cannot be reduced to acceptable levels. In combination with compliance with the California Building Code and Santa Rosa City Code regulations, these measures ensure that development occurs only where risks to public health and safety can be adequately mitigated. As a result, implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not increase seismic hazards or exacerbate earthquake-related risks, and impacts would be less than significant.
Potential future development under the General Plan 2050 could result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil during construction activities, particularly during grading and periods of heavy rainfall; however, these impacts would be less than significant. Future development would be required to comply with the California Building Code and Santa Rosa City Code grading, drainage, and erosion-control requirements, including submittal of site-specific grading plans that demonstrate erosion minimization. Projects would also be subject to the construction permits and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan incorporating best management practices to control erosion and sedimentation. In addition, General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions require consideration of soil and geologic hazards and promote enhanced erosion-control strategies. Compliance with these regulatory requirements and General Plan measures would effectively minimize soil erosion and loss of topsoil associated with future development.
Impacts related to unstable soils and geologic conditions would be less than significant because any future development implemented under the General Plan 2050 would be required to comply with the California Building Code, as adopted in the Santa Rosa City Code, which establishes standards to ensure geologic and soil stability. In addition, the General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that require evaluation of soil and geologic hazards through site-specific geotechnical studies and prohibit development in areas where risks cannot be adequately mitigated. Compliance with these State, regional, and local requirements would ensure that future development does not result in substantial adverse effects related to unstable soils or geologic hazards.
Impacts related to development on expansive soils would be less than significant because the General Plan 2050 requires site-specific evaluation and mitigation of geologic hazards through the City’s project review process. General Plan policies and actions mandate preparation of geotechnical reports to identify expansive soils and incorporate appropriate design and construction measures to avoid or mitigate potential risks. In addition, compliance with applicable State, regional, and local regulations, including building and safety standards, would ensure that future development does not pose substantial risks to life or property. Consequently, implementation of the General Plan
2050 would not result in significant adverse impacts related to expansive soils.
Geologic formations within the EIR Study Area are common to the City and region but may contain unique paleontological resources that could be uncovered during future ground- disturbing activities such as grading or excavation. Any such development would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations protecting paleontological resources, including the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act and Public Resources Code Section 5097. In the event that fossilized remains are discovered, construction would halt in the affected area and a qualified paleontologist would evaluate the find in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, notify appropriate agencies, and implement approved documentation or mitigation measures. Adhere nce to these regulatory requirements and established protection protocols would ensure that potential paleontological resources are appropriately identified and preserved, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
Cumulative geology and soils impacts under the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant because future development within the EIR Study Area, together with regional growth, would be subject to comprehensive federal, State, and local regulations governing seismic safety, soil stability, erosion control, and paleontological resource protection. Although the area is subject to geologic hazards such as strong ground shaking, subsidence, and erosion, compliance with the California Building Code, Santa Rosa City Code, and General Plan 2050 goals and policies would reduce risks to the maximum extent practicable on a site-specific basis. Potential paleontological resources would be addressed through required monitoring and evaluation if discovered during con struction.
Because geology and soil related impacts are inherently site-specific and all development would be evaluated individually under consistent regulatory standards, implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not contribute to a cumulative increase in geologic or soil hazards in the EIR Study Area or the surrounding region.
Geology and Soils Impacts Associated with the Project:
The project consists of General Plan land use designation and Zoning Map changes for 3 0 properties that are primarily developed and located within built-out urban areas, and it would not directly authorize construction, grading, or other ground-disturbing activities. As a result, the land use changes themselves would not alter existing geologic or soil conditions or increase exposure to geologic hazards such as fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or erosion.
Any future development that could occur as a result of the land use changes would be subject to site-specific review and required to comply with the General Plan 2050 policies and actions and established State and local regulations, including the California Building Code and Santa Rosa City Code provisions governing seismic safety, soil stability, grading, and erosion control. These requirements include preparation of geotechnical investigations where warranted and incorporation of design and construction measures to avoid or mitigate unstable soils, expansive soils, or seismic hazards. Because the affected sites are primarily developed and located in areas with common regional geologic conditions, and because future development would be evaluated and regulated on a project-by-project basis, implementation of the land use changes would not result in substantial adverse geology or soils impacts. Accordingly, impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions
No Discussion
Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Future development under the General Plan 2050 would contribute to GHG emissions from increased population, building energy use, transportation, and related activities; however, these emissions would be addressed through comprehensive State, regional, and local reduction measures. Although projected growth through 2050 would result in higher baseline emissions, implementation of State mandates, such as renewable electricity requirements, vehicle fuel efficiency standards, low-carbon fuels, and building energy efficiency standards, combined with the General Plan 2050 GHG Reduction Strategy, would substantially offset these increases. The General Plan 2050 builds on existing local actions, including expanded renewable energy use, electrification of new construction, active transportation programs, electric vehicle infrastructure, and water and waste reduction measures, and establishes additional policies to further reduce emissions. With implementation of the GHG Reduction Strategy and continued compliance with State regulations, development under the General Plan 2050 would meet State GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2045 and achieve long-term carbon neutrality goals. As a result, growth associated with the General Plan 2050 would not result in a cumulatively considerable GHG impact, and GHG impacts would be less than significant.
The General Plan 2050 is consistent with State and regional plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions, including the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments ( MTC/ABAG’s) Plan Bay Area.
Although the CARB Scoping Plan applies primarily to State agencies, its statewide regulations would apply to future development and reduce local GHG emissions. The General Plan 2050 directs implementation of a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that aligns local emissions with the reduction targets established under SB 32, AB 1279, and California’s carbon-neutrality goals, ensuring that future development supports rather than obstructs statewide climate objectives. In addition, the General Plan’s emphasis on infill growth in Areas of Change, Priority Development Areas, and Transit Priority Areas is consistent with Plan Bay Area’s strategy of concentrating development near existing infrastructure, jobs, and transit to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Because the General Plan supports compact, transit-oriented growth, does not induce unplanned population increases, and incorporates policies to reduce GHG emissions and VMT, it would not conflict with either the CARB Scoping Plan or Plan Bay Area, and impacts would be less than significant.
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Therefore, impacts are not project-specific impacts to global warming, but the General Plan 2050’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 GHG Reduction Strategy, implementation of the General Plan 2050 would meet the legislative reduction target that aligns with SB 32 and AB 1279. Consequently, GHG
emissions generated by the General Plan 2050 and their contribution to global climate change would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Associated with the Project:
The project consists of General Plan land use designation and Zoning Map changes affecting 3 0 properties that are primarily developed and located within established, built -out areas of the city.
The land use changes themselves would not directly generate GHG emissions because they do not authorize construction, demolition, or changes in intensity of use at the time of adoption. As such, the project would not result in immediate increases in GHG emissions.
Any future redevelopment that may occur as a result of the land use changes would take place within an existing urban infill environment where infrastructure and services are available, limiting the potential for new vehicle travel and associated emissions. Future development would be required to comply with all applicable GHG reduction measures, including building energy efficiency standards, active transportation, and renewable energy use.
In addition, development accommodated by the land use changes must be consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan policies and GHG Reduction Strategy, which align local growth with State climate goals under SB 32 and AB 1279 by reducing per-capita emissions and supporting long-term carbon neutrality. With implementation of these regulations and policies, and because growth would occur within already developed areas, the proposed land use changes would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
No Discussion
Summary of Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 could involve routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities within the EIR Study Area; however, these materials are not anticipated to be used in quant ities that would pose a significant risk to public health or the environment. Residential uses would involve common household products, while nonresidential and agricultural uses could involve regulated hazardous substances subject to extensive federal, State, regional, and local oversight. All future development would be required to comply with applicable regulations and permitting requirements administered by State and Federal agencies and the local Certified Unified Program Agency, ensuring proper handling, monitoring, and remediation where necessary. In addition, the General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that require safe siting, handling, and transportation of hazardous materials and limit exposure risks. With continued regulatory compliance and implementation of these General Plan provisions, potential hazardous materials impacts would be minimized and considered less than significant.
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 could facilitate future development on sites that may contain contaminated soils or buildings, where construction, grading, or demolition could potentially release hazardous materials such as soil contaminants, asbestos, or lead-based paint. Future land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities, could also involve the routine use of hazardous substances such as solvents, pesticides, or maintenance chemicals.
However, all such activities would be subject to comprehensive federal, State, regional, and local regulations, including site investigation, remediation, permitting, and stormwater management requirements, as well as coordination with oversight agencies such as the Regional W ater Quality Control Board. In addition, the General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that require evaluation and mitigation of hazardous materials risks prior to changes in site use. With compliance with these regulatory requirements and implementation of best management practices, potential releases of hazardous materials under upset or accident conditions would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.
The EIR Study Area contains numerous sites with a history of hazardous materials use, including both active and closed sites, some of which could be subject to future development under the General Plan 2050. Construction or redevelopment on these sites could potentially expose workers or the public to hazardous substances through soil disturbance, demolition of existing structures, or routine site operations. However, all future development would be required to comply with extensive federal, State, regional, and local regulations governing hazardous materials handling, site investigation, remediation, and reuse. The General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that require inventorying and remediating contaminated sites, coordinating with regulato ry agencies, preparing site-specific environmental management plans and vapor intrusion assessments where needed, and implementing appropriate safeguards. With adherence to these regulatory requirements and General Plan measures, potential hazards would be effectively mitigated, and impacts related to development on hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.
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 General Plan 2050 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.
The City of Santa Rosa manages emergency response and evacuations through an established system of approximately 30 evacuation zones coordinated by the Santa Rosa Police Department, Fire Department, Emergency Management, and Traffic Engineering staff. Impl ementation of the General Plan 2050 would not interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans because all future development would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing emergency access and preparedness. The General Plan 2050 includes extensive goals, policies, and actions that strengthen emergency readiness, coordination, public awareness, and evacuation capacity, including requirements for adequate emergency access, avoidance of single ingress/egress roadways, and ongoing updates to emergency and hazard mitigation plans. With adherence to these regulations and General Plan provisions, future development would maintain compatibility with emergency response and evacuation systems, and impacts would be less than significant.
The cumulative analysis considers potential future development under the General Plan 2050, in combination with impacts from projected growth in Sonoma County. As discussed previously,
potential future development under the General Plan 2050 project would not result in significant impacts from the increased use of hazardous household materials. The General Plan 2050 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 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and other local, regional, State, and federal regulations. Since impacts associated with hazardous materials are focused on specific sites or areas, the less-than-significant impacts in the EIR Study Area from the General Plan 2050 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.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Associated with the Project:
The project involves General Plan land use designation and Zoning Map amendments affecting properties that are largely developed and located within an established urban environment. The land use changes themselves would not directly introduce new sources of hazards or hazardous materials, nor would they authorize construction, demolition, or site disturbance. As a result, the project would not immediately increase the risk of hazardous materials exposure to the public or the environment.
Any future redevelopment that could occur as a result of the land use changes could involve routine use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential, commercial, industrial, or agricultural activities. However, these activities would be subject to comprehensive federal, State, regional, and local regulations governing hazardous materials management, including permitting, monitoring, site investigation, cleanup, and emergency response requirements. Future development on sites with known or suspected contamination would require environmental site assessments, remediation as necessary, and implementation of site-specific management plans to protect construction workers, residents, and nearby sensitive receptors.
In addition, the General Plan 2050 requires land use planning and development decisions to minimize exposure to hazardous materials, coordinate with regulatory agencies, ensure safe transport routes, restrict incompatible uses in hazardous areas, and maintain effective emergency response and evacuation systems. With continued compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of General Plan policies and actions, potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the proposed land use changes would be minimized and would be less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Hydrology and Water
Quality
No Discussion
Summary of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Impacts to water quality from implementation of the General Plan 2050 would be less than
significant because the plan includes multiple goals, policies, and actions that require evaluation, avoidance, and mitigation of impacts to wetlands, waterways, and other sensitive habitats. The General Plan mandates ecological buffer zones and adequate setbacks along channelized waterways, implementation of best management practices for new development, and improvements to the City’s storm drainage system to reduce nonpoint-source pollution. In addition, requirements for stormwater capture and reuse, consistency with the Citywide Creek Master Plan, and compliance with the MS4 permit, construction permit requirements, and Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual would ensure protection of water quality during both construction and operation. Collectively, these measures would prevent violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, resulting in less-than-significant water quality impacts.
Impacts to groundwater from implementation of the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant because the General Plan includes comprehensive goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to protect groundwater resources. These measures promote floodplain protection, open space retention, and stormwater infiltration to support groundwater recharge; require coordination with the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency to implement the Groundwater Sustainability Plan; and ensure adequate water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure capacity for existing and future needs. In addition, compliance with Santa Rosa City Code requirements for new construction and water -efficient landscaping would further reduce groundwater demand. Collectively, these provisions would prevent substantial interference with groundwater recharge or depletion of groundwater supplies.
Impacts related to drainage patterns, erosion, and flooding under the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant because the General Plan includes extensive goals, policies, and actions that require hydrology and water quality considerations in all planning and development decisions.
These measures promote erosion-control strategies, flood-conscious land use planning, stormwater management improvements, and compliance with FEMA floodplain standards. The plan also requires evaluation and mitigation of flood hazards by qualified professionals, coordination with regional flood agencies, and ongoing maintenance and upgrades to the City’s storm drainage system. In combination with compliance with the MS4 permit and City stormwater requirements, these provisions would ensure that future development does not substantially increase runoff, cause erosion or siltation, redirect flood flows, or exceed drainage system capacity.
Impacts related to flooding, dam inundation, and the potential release of pollutants under the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant because the General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions that require hydrology and water quality considerations in planning and development decisions. The plan emphasizes effective flood management and dam safety thro ugh coordination with dam owners, regular safety inspections in accordance with State requirements, and prioritization of flood-control investments that also reduce risks associated with dam failure. In combination with the City’s floodplain management requirements and established emergency response procedures, these measures would minimize the risk that flooding, dam inundation, or seiche events could lead to pollutant releases. As a result, implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not result in significant water quality impacts related to inundation hazards.
Future development under the General Plan 2050 would result in less -than-significant impacts to hydrology, water quality, and groundwater management. Compliance with the State Construction General Permit, Santa Rosa City Code, MS4 permit, and the City’s Low Impact Development Technical
Design Manual would ensure protection of surface and groundwater quality during construction and operation and would remain consistent with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan. The City’s potable water supply is primarily derived from surface water delivered by Sonoma Water, with groundwater comprising a small portion of total demand from the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin, which is not in critical overdraft and is governed by an approved Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Anticipated groundwater pumping under General Plan 2050 would remain below historical and projected sustainable levels, and ongoing recharge, stormwater capture, and aquifer storage projects would further support groundwater sustainability. With implementation of Gen eral Plan goals, policies, and actions and continued compliance with State and local regulations, the General Plan would not conflict with water quality control plans or groundwater management plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative hydrology, drainage, flooding, and water quality impacts associated with future development in the EIR Study Area would be less than significant because development within local subwatersheds would be required to comply with comprehensive stormwater and flood-management regulations. Although increased impervious surfaces could elevate runoff and storm flows, all projects would implement best management practices consistent with the MS4 Permit, Santa Rosa City Code, and regional water quality regulations, including directing runoff to landscaped areas and incorporating bioretention features to reduce and treat flows. New development would also comply with basin-wide water quality programs administered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, which protects receiving waters across jurisdictions.
Development within 100-year flood zones would be subject to FEMA standards and flood insurance requirements, while dam-related flooding risks remain very low and are addressed through coordinated County and City emergency response plans. With these regulatory safeguards and design measures in place, the General Plan 2050 would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to hydrology, drainage, flooding, or water quality.
Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Associated with the Project:
The project involves General Plan land use designation and Zoning Map changes on 3 0 parcels that are primarily developed and located within built-out areas, and it does not authorize construction or ground-disturbing activities. As such, the land use changes would not directly alter drainage patterns, increase impervious surfaces, or affect surface or groundwater quality.
Any future redevelopment would be subject to existing City, State, and regional requirements, including MS4 permit compliance, Low Impact Development standards, floodplain regulations, and construction stormwater controls, which would minimize runoff, prevent pollutant discharge, and protect downstream water resources. In addition, future development would need to meet applicable General Plan policies and Actions related to Hydrology and Water Quality. With these regulatory safeguards in place, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Land Use and Planning No Discussion
Summary of Land Use and Planning Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not physically divide an established community.
Future development is expected to occur primarily as infill or intensification on already developed or underutilized sites within designated Areas of Change, many of which are located in Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, where infrastructure and access already exist. The General Plan does not introduce new major roadways, barriers, or removals of existing access that would impair community connectivity and maintains existing roadway patterns. In addition, the General Plan emphasizes complete, connected neighborhoods that support community health and quality of life. As a result, the General Plan 2050 would not impair mobility within or between communities, and impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not conflict with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts. The plan is intended to maintain consistency among the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and applicable State and federal laws, and it explicitly acknowledges the oversight role of the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission for any future Sphere of Influence changes or annexations. The General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions that require coordination with LAFCO, fiscal and environmental evaluation of annexations, and cooperative planning with surrounding jurisdictions, ensuring that any boundary changes are thoughtfully planned and do not adversely affect environmental resources or public services. In addition, the General Plan 2050 aligns with the growth and sustainability objectives of Plan Bay Area by emphasizing compact, infill, and transit -oriented development in Areas of Change, Priority Development Areas, and Transit Priority Areas, and by supporting mixed-use, complete neighborhoods that reduce vehicle travel and greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, the General Plan 2050 would be consistent with applicable land use plans and regional planning frameworks, and potential impacts related to land use planning would be less than significant.
The geographic context for the cumulative land use and planning impacts would occur f rom potential future development under the General Plan 2050 combined with impacts of development on lands adjacent to the city. The General Plan would not divide an established community or conflict with established plans, policies, and regulations. The General Plan 2050 would not conflict with any State, regional, or local land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Potential future development over the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2050 project would not create substantial land use impacts.
Development would likely continue to occur in the surrounding cities and the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. However, such development would largely take place in already urbanized areas and would not require development or demolition that would create land use conflicts or divide established communities. Therefore, the General Plan 2050 project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to land use changes, and
cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Land Use and Planning Impacts Associated with the Project:
The proposed General Plan land use and zoning changes would not conflict with existing plans or result in significant land use and planning impacts because they align with and reinforce the City’s adopted planning framework rather than introducing fundamentally new development patterns.
The changes largely memorialize existing development by updating General Plan land use designations and zoning to reflect current conditions on properties that are already developed or function within established urban areas. As a result, the amendments would not alter neighborhood character, disrupt established land use patterns, or create inconsistencies with surrounding development.
Where the proposed amendments allow for new residential development, they do so only in locations that are appropriate and supported by the broader planning context, including proximity to services, infrastructure, and transit. These areas are already identified for urban use and are consistent with General Plan objectives related to compact growth, housing availability, and creation of complete neighborhoods. Allowing residential uses in these locations supports community goals without displacing existing uses or encroaching into undeveloped or environmentally sensitive areas.
In addition, the General Plan land use changes support regional commercial activation in strategic corridors, including Sebastopol Road and Mountain Hawk Drive, where land use policies encourage reinvestment, economic vitality, and improved services. These locations are identified as a ppropriate for commercial and mixed-use activity due to their access, infrastructure capacity, and role as community-serving corridors. The proposed land use designations would facilitate reinvestment and adaptive reuse consistent with adopted land use and economic development goals, rather than enabling incompatible or intensive uses.
Overall, the proposed land use changes maintain consistency with the General Plan, zoning regulations, and relevant regional planning policies by reinforcing existing development patterns, directing growth to suitable urban areas, and supporting housing and economic activity i n locations equipped to accommodate it. Because the proposed amendments do not introduce new growth areas, alter established community boundaries, or conflict with adopted land use policies, the changes would not result in significant land use or planning impacts.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Noise No Discussion
Summary of Noise Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Implementation of General Plan 2050 could result in temporary increases in construction noise associated with individual future development projects, potentially affecting nearby sensitive receptors. The General Plan 2050 includes policies and actions that would reduce construction noise
impacts, such as requiring project-specific acoustical studies, applying Federal Transit Administration (FTA) noise and vibration thresholds, and implementing construction best management practices.
However, due to the variability in construction activities, noise levels could still exceed acceptable thresholds, particularly during extended construction periods or nighttime hours. As a result, construction-related noise impacts at the program level are considered significant and unavoidable, although individual future projects may still demonstrate less-than-significant impacts through project-level analysis and mitigation.
The General Plan 2050 includes multiple actions intended to evaluate and reduce noise and vibration impacts from future development, including requirements for project -specific noise studies, application of FTA vibration thresholds, imposition of conditions of approval to mitigate excessive noise, coordination with Caltrans on roadway noise mitigation, and prioritization of site-planning solutions over physical noise barriers. However, because project -specific design details and future traffic conditions are not known at the program level, some mitigation measures may not be feasible or sufficient in all cases to reduce noise below established significance thresholds.
Accordingly, potential traffic and development related noise impacts under the General Plan 2050 are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable at the program level, though individual future projects may still demonstrate less-than-significant noise impacts through project-level review and compliance with applicable standards.
Less-than-significant noise and land use compatibility impacts are anticipated with implementation of the General Plan 2050 because the plan requires noise considerations to be integrated into all planning and development decisions. The General Plan mandates continued enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance, preparation of project-specific noise studies, and imposition of conditions of approval or mitigation measures when proposed development would exceed acceptable noise levels. The plan also prioritizes site-planning strategies including setbacks, orientation, and buffering, to reduce noise impacts and limits the use of engineered solutions like sound walls unless no other options are effective. Through these policies and actions, future development would be reviewed to ensure noise generated is compatible with surrounding land uses and does not exceed the City’s adopted thresholds, thereby maintaining land use compatibility and protecting community health and comfort.
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 includes multiple goals, policies, and actions that require future development to evaluate and minimize construction-related noise and vibration impacts. The plan mandates preparation of project-specific noise studies by qualified consultants, application of FTA vibration thresholds, and use of construction best management practices to reduce vibration from equipment such as pile drivers, vibratory rollers, and heavy earth -moving machinery. Where vibration thresholds could be exceeded, developers would be required to use alternative construction methods and equipment that generate less vibration. With these requirements in place, construction-related vibration effects on nearby land uses and structures would be minimized, and vibration impacts associated with future development would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The General Plan 2050 includes requirements to evaluate and mitigate potential operational vibration impacts through project-specific review. The General Plan mandates preparation of noise studies by qualified consultants and application of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) groundborne vibration thresholds to assess potential impacts from operational activities. Where vibration levels
approach or exceed acceptable limits, the City would impose conditions of approval, emphasizing site-planning measures, such as building orientation, setbacks, and buffering, to reduce vibration rather than relying on engineered solutions where feasible. Through compliance with these requirements and City review standards, future development would not significantly increase vibration levels affecting nearby land uses, and operational vibration impacts would be adequately controlled.
Construction and operational activities associated with future development under the General Plan 2050 could expose nearby sensitive receptors to increased noise levels from construction equipment and additional vehicle traffic. The General Plan 2050 includes multiple actions, such as requiring noise studies, applying Federal Transit Administration noise and vibration criteria, and implementing construction best management practices, that would help reduce both construction-related and transportation-related noise impacts. However, due to the programmatic nature of the project and the variability of future development scenarios, additional mitigation measures cannot be identified at this level of analysis. As a result, cumulative noise impacts are considered significant and unavoidable at the program level, although individual projects may still achieve less-than-significant impacts through project-specific review and mitigation.
Noise Impacts Associated with the Project:
The proposed General Plan land use and Zoning Map amendments would result in limited noise impacts because they largely reflect existing development patterns and would not introduce new major noise-generating uses. Most of the amended land use designations would formalize current uses on developed properties, meaning ambient noise conditions would remain largely unchanged.
As a result, no substantial increase in long-term operational noise would be expected across most of the affected parcels.
Several of the proposed land use changes would allow for slightly more intensive uses, including commercial uses on Mountain Hawk Drive (where they already exist) and Sebastopol Road, as well as very light industrial activities on Maxwell Drive. The seven properties on Maxwell Drive are surrounded by parcels designated for very light industrial uses, ensuring compatibility with future development resulting from the proposed land use changes. These uses would be regulated under the City’s existing performance standards, including the Noise Ordinance, which sets enforceable limits on noise levels, hours of operation, and noise control methods. Any future development or change in use would require planning review, compliance with zoning standards, and, where necessary, project-specific noise studies to ensure noise remains within acceptable thresholds for nearby sensitive receptors.
Additionally, construction-related noise from any future redevelopment would be temporary and regulated through the City Code and General Plan requirements, including construction best management practices and limitations on construction hours. With these regulatory controls in place and given the modest increase in allowable intensity along Mountain Hawk Drive, Maxwell Drive and Sebastopol Road, the land use changes would not substantially increase noise levels or create incompatibilities with surrounding land uses which currently are designated for mixed-use residential and light industrial uses (Maxwell Drive) and commercial uses (Sebastopol Road).
Accordingly, noise impacts associated with the land use changes would be less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Population and Housing No Discussion
Summary of Population and Housing Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
The General Plan 2050 is a long-range policy document that establishes the City of Santa Rosa’s vision and land use framework for growth over an approximately 25-year horizon, replacing General Plan 2035. It does not approve specific development projects or directly induce gro wth; rather, it responds to growth that is reasonably foreseeable based on historic trends, State housing requirements, and the capacity of existing infrastructure and public services. While the General Plan includes infrastructure and roadway planning as required by State law, which could indirectly influence development, it represents the City’s effort to proactively and responsibly plan for growth that would occur regardless of plan adoption.
The General Plan 2050 projects an increase of approximately 24,090 housing units and 65,760 residents by 2050, reflecting about a 33 percent population increase and 32 percent housing increase over current conditions. A portion of this growth is mandated by State law through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), with the plan designating sufficient land not only to accommodate the current 2023–2031 RHNA cycle but also to plan ahead for future RHNA cycles through 2055. The plan includes policies to ensure growth is fiscally sustainable, environmentally responsible, and supported by adequate services and infrastructure, with future development subject to site-specific improvements and impact fees. Because the General Plan 2050 anticipates and accommodates expected population and housing growth through coordinated land use, housing, and infrastructure planning, it would not result in unplanned or inadequately supported growth, and population growth impacts would be less than significant.
Buildout under the General Plan 2050 is anticipated to accommodate approximately 24,090 new housing units over a 25-year planning horizon, reflecting the City’s proactive effort to plan for and manage expected population growth. The land use changes under the General Plan 2050 land use map expand opportunities for a variety of housing types across Santa Rosa, increasing residential capacity while guiding growth through coordinated land use designations, policies, and actions.
Chapter 2 of the General Plan includes measures that require consideration of growth -related impacts and specifically address the minimization of housing displacement. Because the plan focuses on accommodating future housing demand without removing existing residences or forcing relocation, implementation of the General Plan 2050 project would not displace existing people or housing nor require construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and population and housing impacts would be less than significant.
The context for the cumulative population and housing impacts would be potential future development under the General Plan 2050 combined with development on lands adjacent to the EIR Study Area. Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not induce a substantial amount of unplanned population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions would provide adequate
planning to accommodate the proposed new increase in growth in the EIR Study Area. Therefore, the General Plan 2050 would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to population and housing, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Summary of Population and Housing Impacts under the Project:
The proposed General Plan land use and Zoning Map amendments would result in less-than-significant impacts to population and housing, as the amendments primarily apply to properties that are already developed and functioning within the existing urban environment . All but one of the subject sites currently contain development, and the proposed changes largely formalize existing land use patterns or introduce modest, context-appropriate adjustments that do not substantially increase residential capacity beyond what is already anticipated under the existing General Plan land use diagram.
The Mountain Hawk Drive sites, currently developed with mixed-use buildings, would change from Very Low Density Residential to a Medium Density Residential/Retail and Business Services designation. This would allow additional housing and limited commercial activity in an area already served by infrastructure along a regional serving highway, consistent with General Plan goals for infill development and mixed-use growth. The two sites on Sebastopol Road would retain their Medium Density Residential and Light Industry designations while adding Retail and Business Services as a complementary use. This land use addition would increase the number of residential units allowed, but would not significantly affect population levels.
A 0.07-acre undeveloped property on Janet Way that currently lacks a land use designation would be assigned Medium Density Residential land use, enabling limited residential development consistent with adjacent parcels and resulting in a minor population increase. Seven additional properties on Maxwell Drive would receive an alternative mixed-use designation that does not change allowed density, primarily expanding flexibility of uses rather than intensifying residential development.
The remaining 17 sites surrounding Parker Drive would change from Office to Low-Density Residential, reflecting the existing single-family homes at a density consistent with the proposed Low-Density Residential designation. Therefore, no population level increase due to this change is anticipated.
None of the land use changes would remove existing housing, displace residents, or reduce the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Because the amendments largely apply to developed sites and introduce only modest increases in housing opportunities where appropriate, the project would not induce substantial population growth or require construction of replacement housing. Accordingly, impacts to population and housing would be less than significant .
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Public Services, Parks,
and Recreation
No Discussion
Summary of Public Services, Parks, and Recreation Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would incrementally increase demand on Santa Rosa Fire Department (SRFD) services as new housing and nonresidential uses are developed over the 25 -year horizon; however, impacts would be less than significant. SRFD’s adopted Standards of Coverage guide station siting and apparatus needs, and the City is relocating Station 8 and planning additional stations in East and South Santa Rosa to improve coverage and response times. All new development must comply with Title 24 building and fire codes, which enhance building safety and reduce fire risk, and pay citywide capital facilities fees that fund fire infrastructure. General Plan goals, policies, and actions further commit to maintaining adequate staffing, facilities, eq uipment, response times, ongoing strategic planning, and interagency coordination. Project -level SRFD review, continued CIP funding, and separate CEQA review for any new fire facilities ensure service expansion keeps pace with growth while avoiding significant environmental effects.
Cumulative fire protection impacts associated with the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant because future development within the EIR Study Area and surrounding service areas would be planned and served through coordinated regional fire protection systems. The SRFD provides service within the city and maintains mutual-aid agreements with neighboring fire protection districts, allowing for joint emergency response when additional resources are needed.
The SRFD plans for station relocations, additions, staffing, and equipment needs through its strategic planning and budgeting processes, supported by City funding mechanisms and potential State and federal grants. Because growth under the General Plan 2050 would occur incrementally over the 25-year buildout horizon and all future projects would undergo project-level review to assess service impacts, fire protection services would remain adequate. With continued compliance with State and local regulations, General Plan goals, and regional coordination, the General Plan 2050 would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to fire protection services.
Impacts to police protection services from implementation of the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant. Future development within the city would be served by the Santa Rosa Police Department (SRPD), and while buildout under the project would incrementally increase demand for police services over an approximately 25-year horizon, that growth would occur gradually and generally in line with broader population trends. New development would be required to pay capital facilities fees to support police infrastructure, and the General Plan 2050 includes goals, policies, and actions that strengthen community-based policing, promote equitable and effective resource allocation, and support partnerships that enhance public safety outcomes. Any expansion of p olice facilities needed to accommodate future staffing would be planned through the City’s capital and budgeting processes and would undergo separate project-level CEQA review. With incremental growth, continued funding mechanisms, and implementation of General Plan policies, police services would remain adequate, and impacts to police facilities and services would be less than significant.
Cumulative impacts to police services associated with the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant because future growth within the EIR Study Area and surrounding service areas would be accommodated through coordinated planning and incremental deve lopment over the plan’s approximately 25-year horizon. The project includes goals, policies, and actions that emphasize efficient, community-based policing and ongoing assessment of staffing levels, facilities, and equipment needs as population increases. Continued compliance with State and local regulations and project-level review for future development would ensure police service demands are addressed as they arise. With adequate planning in place for both the City of Santa Rosa and adjacent unincorporated areas, implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on police services.
Impacts to public school facilities from implementation of the General Plan 2050 would be less than significant. Although buildout under the plan would incrementally increase the student population over an approximately 25-year horizon, this growth is expected to occur gradually and would be addressed through established school financing and planning mechanisms. School districts serving the EIR Study Area would continue to collect mandatory development impact fees, which under State law are considered full mitigation for school facility impacts, and subdivisions generating school-aged children would be subject to additional requirements for school sites or fees. The General Plan also includes goals, policies, and actions that promote coordination with school districts to plan facilities, address enrollment changes, and integrate schools with neighborhood design and transportation systems. Any future construction or expansion of school facilities would undergo separate project-level environmental review under CEQA. With these measures in place, implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not result in inadequate school facilities, and impacts to public school districts would be less than significant.
The General Plan EIR cumulative analysis takes into account growth from development in the service area of the school districts in the EIR Study Area. The General Plan 2050 would contribute to an increased population that is served by various school districts. Through the payment of school impact fees, and standard environmental review procedures for future school improvement projects, the General Plan 2050 would not result in a significant impact to schools. Payment of school fees and State project-level review of school projects to identify potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures as needed would similarly reduce potential impacts from cumulative development. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant.
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would incrementally increase demand for library services as population and housing growth occurs over the approximately 25-year buildout horizon; however, impacts to library facilities would be less than significant. Although new residents may increase use of Sonoma County Library branches serving the EIR Study Area, growth is expected to occur gradually, allowing demand to be addressed through long-range planning and coordination with County library officials. The General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions that support expansion and enhancement of library services, prioritize improvements in high -need locations such as the Northwest Santa Rosa and Roseland libraries, and encourage pursuit of State and federal funding. Any future library expansion or construction would be subject to separate project -level CEQA review to evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts. With incremental growth, continued planning, and implementation of General Plan policies, library facilities would continue to
adequately serve the community, and impacts would be less than significant.
Growth anticipated under the General Plan 2050 project would be served by the Sonoma County Library system, which operates multiple branches throughout the county, including four within the EIR Study Area, as well as a robust countywide online library network. Future development in Santa Rosa would rely on these existing services, and similar growth across incorporated and unincorporated areas of Sonoma County would be managed through local and county planning policies designed to limit impacts on library facilities. Within Santa Rosa, implementation of the General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions would ensure that library service needs are evaluated and addressed as growth occurs. With coordinated planning at both the City and County levels, continued use of existing library infrastructure, and policy frameworks that g uide facility expansion where necessary, the General Plan 2050 would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to library services, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would increase demand for parks and recreational facilities as population grows by an estimated 65,760 residents by 2050; however, impacts to parks and open space would be less than significant with implementation of the plan’s comprehensive mitigation framework. Although the City currently provides 4.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, below the adopted standard of 6.0 acres, existing undeveloped but planned or approved parks would raise that ratio to approximately 5.2 acres. Full buildout would require additional parkland, and the General Plan directly anticipates this need by establishing extensive goals, policies, and actions to acquire, expand, fund, and equitably distribute parkland. These include prioritizing multi-benefit open space projects, expanding connectivity, securing diverse funding sources beyond impact fees, updating park master plans, and focusing investments in areas with the greatest need. With coordinated long-range planning, impact fees, capital improvement programming, and implementation of the General Plan’s parks and recreation policies, the City would be able to accommodate increased demand while progressing toward its long -term parkland standard, resulting in less-than-significant impacts to parks, recreation, and open space.
Residential subdivisions in Santa Rosa would continue to be required under City Code to either dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu fees for park acquisition, resulting in the incremental expansion of parkland as new housing is developed. In addition, several regional open spaces near the EIR Study Area contribute to overall recreational opportunities and resource preservation. While future population growth would increase demand for parks and recreation facilities, the timing, size, and location of new facilities are not currently known. Any new or expanded park facilities would be subject to City permitting, project-level environmental review, and applicable mitigation measures to address construction and operational impacts. With these requirements in place, environmental effects associated with future park development would be appropriately addressed, and impacts would be less than significant.
Future development under the General Plan 2050 would incrementally increase population in Santa Rosa, thereby increasing demand for parks and recreational facilities within the EIR Study Area and the broader Sonoma County region, which could otherwise contribute to overuse or deterioration of park facilities. However, the General Plan includes comprehensive goals, policies, and actions that support parkland expansion, maintenance, and equitable access, and City Code requirements would continue to mandate that residential subdivisions either dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu fees to fund park acquisition and improvements. Because growth is expected to occur gradually over an
approximately 25-year horizon and future development would be subject to these funding, planning, and regulatory mechanisms, park and recreation facilities would not be overburdened. Accordingly, impacts to parks and recreational resources would be less than significant.
Future growth under the General Plan 2050 would increase demand for parks and recreational facilities within the EIR Study Area and throughout the broader region; however, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Parks and recreation services are provided by the City of Santa Rosa, while regional recreational resources are maintained by Sonoma County Regional Parks, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and other regional agencies through coordinated agreements. As population increases, the City would plan for park expansion and improvements funded through State-authorized development impact fees and supported by the General Plan’s goals, policies, and actions that prioritize parkland acquisition, equitable access, and facility maintenance. The location and scale of future park facilities would be determined as development occurs, and any specific park projects would undergo project-level environmental review. With these planning, funding, and review mechanisms in place, the General Plan 2050 project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to parks and recreational facilities.
Summary of Public Services, Parks, and Recreation Impacts under the Project:
The proposed General Plan land use and Zoning Map amendments would result in less- than- significant impacts to public services, including fire protection, police, schools, libraries, and parks.
Nearly all properties are developed and located within built-out areas served by existing infrastructure and public facilities, and the changes primarily formalize current land use patterns or introduce minor adjustments that do not substantially increase residential capacity. While Mountain Hawk Drive would allow for additional housing and limited commercial activity, and one small undeveloped parcel could permit a few new residential units, these changes represent modest infill development consistent with General Plan goals, and the analysis conducted for the General Plan 2050 EIR.
Incremental population growth would occur gradually and would not create unanticipated demand for public services. New development would be required to comply with General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions aimed at reducing impacts on public services, as well as pay development impact fees to fund improvements. Libraries and parks would continue to be supported through existing funding mechanisms and planning efforts to maintain service levels. With these measures in place, impacts to public services would remain less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Transportation No Discussion
Summary of Transportation Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Future development under the General Plan 2050 is expected to increase walking, bicycling, and transit use citywide; however, impacts related to non-auto transportation would be less than significant because the plan comprehensively supports and expands ac tive and public
transportation networks. The General Plan integrates and implements adopted and evolving transportation planning documents, including the Active Transportation Plan and Reimagining CityBus, and includes extensive goals, policies, and actions to prioritize active transportation, transit, and multimodal connectivity. These measures emphasize reducing vehicle miles traveled, improving safety and access for all users, completing gaps in pedestrian and bicycle networks, enhancing transit-supportive land use, and coordinating investments with regional partners. Because the General Plan 2050 is consistent with and strengthens existing transportation programs and policies, it would not conflict with adopted roadway, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian plans, and transportation impacts related to non-auto travel would be less than significant.
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 includes numerous goals, policies, and actions intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), such as requiring project-level VMT analysis and mitigation, prioritizing investments that reduce VMT and GHGs, and exploring development of a regional VMT mitigation bank. While these measures could reduce VMT if fully implemented across all future projects, the programmatic nature of the General Plan introduces uncertainty because specific development characteristics and mitigation feasibility are not yet known, particularly in suburban areas where effective VMT reduction strategies may be limited and transit service expansion may be infeasible.
In addition, the General Plan 2050 includes roadway improvements that would result in a net increase of approximately 17.3 arterial lane miles, which is projected to induce roughly 158,630 additional daily VMT due to induced demand, even after accounting for planned lane reductions and enhanced non-auto facilities. Although the General Plan emphasizes compact land use patterns, transportation demand management strategies, and integration of active and transit modes, the projected induced VMT associated with capacity-increasing roadway projects cannot be fully mitigated at this programmatic stage. As a result, despite extensive policies to reduce VMT and the potential for project-level mitigation to achieve less-than-significant impacts in some cases, the overall VMT impact of the General Plan 2050 is considered significant and unavoidable at the program level.
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 includes extensive goals, policies, and actions intended to reduce VMT, such as improving the active transportation network, encouraging development in Transit Priority Areas and Priority Development Areas, coordinating with regional partners, and requiring project-level VMT analysis and mitigation as part of development review. Despite these measures, uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of VMT reduction strategies at the program level, particularly the feasibility and availability of alternative mitigation tools such as VMT exchanges or mitigation banks. Because it cannot be assured that all future development will consistently achieve required VMT reductions, the project’s impact on roadway network VMT is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable, notwithstanding the possibility that individual projects may later demonstrate less-than-significant impacts through project-specific mitigation.
Development projects in the City would be reviewed during standard entitlement processes for conformance with applicable standards and regulations, ensuring that developments will not substantially increase transportation hazards. Similarly, new transportation facilities constructed by new development or by jurisdictions including the City of Santa Rosa would be designed to be compliant with applicable standards. Accordingly, implementation of the General Plan 2050 would
not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses that may have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.
The General Plan 2050 is a program-level planning document that does not prescribe site-specific development details, including roadway layouts or access configurations, but it establishes a regulatory framework to ensure that emergency access is adequately maintained as development occurs. Future projects would be required to comply with the City’s Design and Construction Standards, Santa Rosa City Code requirements for emergency vehicle access, and additional regulations applicable in Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas, all of which are reviewed by public safety officials during the entitlement process. The General Plan includes numerous circulation-related goals, policies, and actions that promote safe and efficient movement while maintaining emergency access, such as improving arterial and collector street capacity, limiting unnecessary access points, implementing traffic-calming measures that accommodate first responders, and incorporating low-stress street designs consistent with national standards.
Strategic roadway improvements, including targeted widenings on key corridors and the Farmers Lane extension, would further enhance emergency response mobility. With these requirements, interdepartmental review procedures, and project-level compliance checks in place, implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not adversely affect emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant.
Even with the General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, the effectiveness of VMT -reduction strategies is not certain. As such, the cumulative impact on VMT is considered significant and unavoidable.
Summary of Transportation Impacts under the Project:
The General Plan land use and Zoning Map changes would result in less-than-significant transportation impacts because they apply to parcels that are already developed (with one small exception) and are surrounded by existing urban development with established access to streets, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure. The land use amendments do not introduce new growth areas, extend the roadway network, or alter the City’s circulation framework; rather, they largely formalize existing uses or allow modest, context-appropriate adjustments within an already built environment.
Because the affected sites are located along existing roadways that currently serve similar land uses, the General Plan 2050 changes would not substantially increase trip generation or create new traffic patterns. Any incremental increase in vehicle trips associated with modest changes in allowed uses, such as adding limited neighborhood-serving commercial activity or slightly increased residential density, would be accommodated by the existing transportation network.
All future redevelopment proposals would be subject to project-level transportation review, including VMT analysis, access and circulation review, and compliance with City design standards.
Where applicable, development would be required to implement mitig ation measures to address localized traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or safety concerns and to ensure consistency with adopted VMT reduction policies. Given the infill nature of the sites and their proximity to services and transit, redevelopment would generally support shorter trip lengths and multimodal travel options.
Because the land use changes occur within an established transportation system, are consistent with surrounding development, and would be evaluated through existing regulatory and review processes, they would not cause substantial congestion, safety hazards, or circula tion deficiencies.
Accordingly, transportation impacts associated with the proposed land use changes would be less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Tribal Cultural
Resources
No Discussion
Summary of Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
The General Plan 2050 establishes goals, policies, and actions that reduce impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) by emphasizing infill development, protecting open space and waterways, and requiring early identification and evaluation of cultural resources through consul tation with Native American tribes. Policies encourage development in Areas of Change to limit disturbance of undeveloped land and call for collaboration with regional agencies to preserve open spaces that protect historic and cultural resources. The Plan requires the City to review development proposals for potential TCRs, consult with tribes, and halt construction if resources are discovered until they are evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures are determined. Additional policies protect waterways and adjacent environments, which are often associated with archaeological resources, through preservation, setbacks, and ecological buffer zones. Compliance with these policies, actions, and applicable federal and State laws would ensure early detection of conflicts and minimize impacts to unrecorded TCRs, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
Cumulative impacts to TCRs could occur if multiple development actions adversely affect Native American tribes or tribal lands; however, no TCRs have been identified within the EIR Study Area.
Future projects would be subject to CEQA review, including AB 5 2 consultation with Native American tribes to identify and evaluate potential TCRs. While future development under the General Plan 2050 project would largely occur within already developed Areas of Change and, combined with regional growth, could contribute to cumulative impacts, implementation of the General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions, along with existing federal, state, and local regulations, would ensure that any project-level impacts to TCRs or archaeological resources are minimized. Through continued compliance, early identification, consultation, and appropriate mitigation, cumulative impacts to TCRs would be less than significant.
Summary of Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts under the Project:
The proposed project consists of land use changes on infill sites with no known TCRs, and any future project would be subject to General Plan TCR-mitigating actions including records checks, on-site surveys, and inadvertent discovery protocols. Potential impact activities could include ground disturbance from site preparation and construction, increased infrastructure needs associated with higher land use intensity, indirect effects on cultural landscapes (especially near waterways), and
off-site utility improvements.
Accordingly, no direct impacts to known TCRs are anticipated with the proposed land use changes, and potential impacts to unrecorded TCRs would be less than significant with mitigating General Plan policies and actions. Cumulative impacts would also be less than significant under the established General Plan policies, actions, and State regulatory compliance.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Utilities and Service
Systems
No Discussion
Summary of Utilities and Service Systems Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would increase water demand citywide as population and employment grow, but it would not require new or expanded water treatment facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the City’s Water Supply Assessment (WSA), projected 2050 total demand remains below the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) 2045 projection under normal conditions, with sufficient supplies under normal and multiple-dry-year scenarios; single-dry-year shortfalls beginning in 2031 would be addressed through the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, demand management, Water Demand Offset policy, and excess -use penalties.
Sonoma Water’s high-quality Russian River supply requires only disinfection and pH adjustment, and there are no treatment plants serving Sonoma Water or Santa Rosa Water. Added demand would be met through existing treatment processes and ongoing distribution system upgrades . With compliance with City code (including water-efficient construction and landscaping) and General Plan goals, policies, and actions on water resource planning, implementation of the General Plan would not necessitate construction or expansion of water treatment or distribution facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.
Cumulative water supply impacts would be less than significant because future development within the service areas of Sonoma Water and Santa Rosa Water would not require construction of new water treatment facilities. Sonoma Water’s surface water supply requires only minimal treatment, and both providers have established planning processes, including regular updates to Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) and preparation of Water Supply Assessments (WSAs) for large projects, to ensure adequate supply. All new development would comply with water efficiency and conservation requirements under CALGreen and the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, and shortages during dry years would be managed through Water Shortage Contingency Plans and conservation measures. These regulatory frameworks and conservation practices will reduce per capita water use over time, ensuring that cumulative water supply impacts remain less than significant.
Buildout of the General Plan 2050 would increase wastewater generation due to the addition of approximately 24,090 housing units and new nonresidential development; however, impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater from the EIR Study Area would continue to be treated at the Laguna Treatment Plant, which currently operates well below its permitted capacity of 21.34 MGD
and can expand to 25.9 MGD if needed. The projected increase in wastewater flow combined with existing flows would total approximately 18 MGD by 2050, which remains within the plant’s permitted capacity. The facility also has surge capacity, recycles billions of gallons annually, and is undergoing upgrades through the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Additionally, the City is implementing sewer collection improvements to increase capacity and reduce inflow/infiltration, and new development is required to pay connection fees and monthly service charges to fund system improvements. With these measures, along with compliance with City codes and General Plan policies, no new treatment facilities or major expansions beyond planned upgrades would be required, and wastewater impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative wastewater impacts would be less than significant because the Laguna Treatment Plant, which serves Santa Rosa and other jurisdictions, has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected flows from regional growth. Planned upgrades to the treatment plant and sewer collection systems, funded through connection fees and monthly service charges, will further ensure adequate capacity.
Additionally, future development will comply with water conservation measures, reducing wastewater generation over time. With these improvements and regulatory requirements in place, cumulative development would not exceed treatment or collection capacity, and impacts would remain less than significant.
Future development in the EIR Study Area could increase impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff; however, most sites are already built out, so changes would likely be minimal. Projects creating or replacing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface must comply with the MS4 Permit and the City’s Stormwater Low Impact Development (LID) Technical Design Manual, requiring on-site stormwater treatment, trash capture, and hydromodification controls for larger projects.
These measures, along with required drainage permits, stormwater assessments, and compliance with NPDES and industrial stormwater permits, will minimize runoff and protect water quality.
Additionally, the City’s Capital Improvement Program includes upgrades to storm drain infrastructure and bio-retention facilities. Combined with General Plan 2050 goals, policies, and actions promoting sustainable stormwater management, these requirements ensure that stormwater impacts and the need for new or expanded drainage facilities would be less than significant.
Cumulative storm drainage impacts would be less than significant because future development within the nine subwatersheds of the EIR Study Area would be subject to strict stormwater management requirements. All projects must comply with the MS4 Permit, the City’s Stormwater LID Technical Design Manual, and other applicable regulations, which require on -site retention, infiltration, and treatment of stormwater runoff. These measures, combined with drainage reports, trash capture devices, and hydromodification controls, will minimize increases in runoff and flooding risks. Additionally, the City has adopted design standards and guidebooks to integrate LID features and improve stormwater infrastructure. With these requirements and planned upgrades through the City’s Capital Improvement Program, cumulative development would not result in a considerable impact on stormwater drainage systems, and impacts would remain less than significant.
Buildout of the General Plan 2050 would increase population and development, resulting in an estimated additional 232 tons of solid waste per day (about 84,777 tons annually). However, this estimate is conservative because ongoing recycling and waste reduc tion programs by the City and Zero Waste Sonoma aim to achieve a 75% diversion rate and reduce landfill disposal to less than
one pound per person per day by 2030. Even under worst-case assumptions, the projected increase represents only about 15% of the remaining capacity at Central Landfill, and some waste is also sent to other Bay Area landfills. All new development would comply with CALGreen requirements mandating recycling of at least 65% of construction and demolition waste, as well as AB 341 and SB 1383 requirements for recycling and organics collection. With these measures, plus continued compliance with City and State regulations and implementation of General Plan goals and policies, landfill capacity would remain adequate, and solid waste impacts would be less than significant.
Recology, which serves the EIR Study Area, and the City of Santa Rosa comply with all State and local requirements for solid waste reduction, recycling, and organic waste diversion. Current per capita disposal rates in Sonoma County are well below CalRecycle targets, and future development would be required to meet CALGreen standards mandating recycling of at least 65% of construction and demolition waste, as well as AB 341 and SB 1383 requirements for recycling and organics collection.
With these programs in place, along with existing services for recycling and green waste collection, the General Plan 2050 would fully comply with applicable regulations and would not generate solid waste in excess of landfill capacity or impair waste reduction goals. Therefore, solid waste impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative stormwater impacts would be less than significant because future development within the nine subwatersheds of the EIR Study Area would be subject to strict stormwater management requirements. All projects must comply with the MS4 Permit, the City’s Stormwater Low Impact Development (LID) Technical Design Manual, and other applicable regulations, which require on -site retention, infiltration, and treatment of stormwater runoff. These measures, combined with drainage reports, trash capture devices, and hydromodification controls, will minimize increases in runoff and flooding risks. Additionally, both the City and Sonoma County have adopted design standards and guidebooks to integrate LID features and improve stormwater infrastructure. With these requirements and planned upgrades through the City’s Capital Improvement Program, cumulative development would not result in a considerable impact on stormwater drainage systems, and impacts would remain less than significant.
By 2050, electricity use in the EIR Study Area is projected to increase by about 63.7 million kWh annually, and natural gas use by roughly 4.5 million therms, a modest 10% increase, though per capita consumption for both is expected to decline due to efficiency measures. These estimates are conservative, as many new residential projects will comply with the City’s all-electric reach code. The projected increases represent only 0.1% of PG&E’s forecasted electricity supply and less than 0.03% of its natural gas supply, and PG&E has confirmed adequate capacity to meet future demand. All new development will comply with CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and Appliance Efficiency Regulations, ensuring energy-efficient construction and reducing overall demand. Utilities will also be undergrounded per City code, improving efficiency and safety. With these measures and the General Plan’s energy-related goals and policies, the General Plan would not require new or expanded electric, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, and energy impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative energy impacts would be less than significant because future development within the SCP and PG&E service areas would only modestly increase electricity and natural gas demand, and both providers have confirmed adequate capacity to meet projected growth without major infrastructure expansion. Statewide energy planning through the California Public Utilities
Commission’s (CPUC’s) Integrated Energy Policy Report anticipates increased electricity use due to transportation electrification but also declining natural gas consumption as building codes and local ordinances promote all-electric construction. All new development will comply with CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and Appliance Efficiency Regulations, ensuring energy -efficient design and reducing overall consumption. Additionally, the General Plan 2050 includes goals and policies to minimize inefficient energy use and support renewable energy, further reducing demand. With these measures and existing utility capacity, the project would not require new or expanded electric or natural gas facilities, and cumulative impacts would remain less than significant.
Summary of Utilities and Service Systems Impacts under the Project:
The proposed General Plan land use diagram and Zoning Map amendments on 30 properties, all of but one which are developed, and all that of which are surrounded by existing infrastructure, would result in less-than-significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Because these sites are located within built-out areas with established water, wastewater, storm drainage, energy, and solid waste services, the proposed amendments would not require new or expanded utility facilities beyond what is already existing or planned.
Any future redevelopment would be subject to City standards, including water -efficient construction, CALGreen requirements, stormwater management under the MS4 permit, and payment of applicable connection and impact fees. Existing systems, such as the Lagu na Treatment Plant for wastewater and PG&E and SCP for energy, have sufficient capacity to accommodate incremental demand, and solid waste services would continue to comply with State diversion and recycling mandates. With these measures, compliance with applicable mitigating General Plan policies and actions, and the infill nature of the sites, utility and service system impacts would remain less than significant.
Project v. Project Analyzed in 2025 EIR
Impact Category Additional Analysis Basis
Wildfire No Discussion
Summary of Wildfire Impacts under the 2025 EIR:
Implementation of the General Plan 2050 would not impair emergency response or evacuation plans and impacts would be less than significant. The plan includes goals, policies, and actions to improve evacuation safety, such as retrofitting single-access roads to add secondary routes, analyzing evacuation route capacity and incorporating findings into the Emergency Operations Plan, and prohibiting new single-access roads while requiring adequate emergency access. Strategic roadway improvements, including upgrades to key arterials and evacuation routes in Wildland- Urban Interface areas, would further enhance emergency access. All future development would comply with local, regional, and State emergency access regulations, ensuring that the General Plan 2050 strengthens rather than conflicts with adopted emergency response and evacuation plans.
The General Plan 2050 includes comprehensive wildfire hazard reduction measures, such as requiring fire protection plans for new development and major remodels in Wildland- Urban
Interface Fire Areas (WUIFAs). These plans must comply with the California Fire Code and address risk analysis, defensible space, ignition-resistant construction, fuel modification, evacuation planning, and ongoing maintenance. However, the only way to fully eliminate wildfire risk wo uld be to prohibit development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and WUIFAs, which is not feasible due to the City’s obligation to provide housing and allow reconstruction of homes lost to wildfires.
As a result, while the General Plan’s policies and actions significantly reduce wildfire risk, no additional feasible mitigation measures exist at the program level, and wildfire impacts remain significant and unavoidable, though individual projects may achieve less -than-significant impacts through site-specific compliance and mitigation.
Potential future development under the General Plan 2050 could require installation of wildfire risk management infrastructure such as new or expanded roadways, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, and utility upgrades to serve growth in Santa Rosa, including areas within the WUIFA. The plan includes actions requiring fire protection plans for new development, defensible space, and fuel modification, as well as measures to ensure adequate water supply and undergrounding of electrical lines to reduce fire risk. All infrastructure improvements would comply with State and local fire-safe regulations, building codes, and vegetation management requirements, and temporary construction impacts would be minimized through adherence to safety standards. These measure s, combined with defensible space requirements under Public Resources Code Section 4291 and General Plan goals and policies, would reduce wildfire risks associated with infrastructure installation and maintenance. Therefore, impacts related to wildfire man agement infrastructure would be less than significant.
Wildfires can increase risks of flooding and landslides by destroying vegetation that stabilizes slopes and creating hydrophobic soil conditions, which lead to runoff and downstream hazards. While the EIR Study Area includes floodplains and steep slopes in fire-prone areas, most future development will occur in infill locations outside these high-risk zones. New projects in hillside or flood-prone areas must comply with State and local regulations, including geotechnical investigations, and General Plan 2050 policies requiring mitigation of landslide and flooding risks. Additionally, wildfire prevention and recovery measures outlined in the Santa Rosa Emergency Operations Plan and other regional plans will further reduce postfire hazards. With these requirements and best management practices in place, impacts related to postfire flooding, landslides, or debris flows would be less than significant.
Cumulative wildfire impacts under the General Plan 2050 would remain significant and unavoidable because, even with implementation of comprehensive wildfire risk reduction measures and compliance with State and local fire-safe regulations, the only way to fully eliminate wildfire risk would be to prohibit development in State Responsibility Areas, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and WUIFAs. This is not feasible due to the City’s obligation to provide housing and allow reconstruction of homes lost to wildfires. While the General Plan’s policies and actions will substantially reduce risk through defensible space, ignition-resistant construction, and emergency planning, cumulative wildfire hazards cannot be completely mitigated at the program level.
Therefore, wildfire impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, although individual projects may achieve less-than-significant impacts through site-specific compliance and mitigation measures.
Summary of Wildfire Impacts under the Project:
The General Plan land use diagram and Zoning Map amendments would have less-than-significant
wildfire impacts because all properties are located outside State Responsibility Areas (SRA), Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), and Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas (WUIFA), with the exception of the two parcels on Mountain Hawk Drive. These two parcels are developed and the proposed land use designation is consistent with the existing mixed-use development on-site, meaning no substantial increase in wildfire risk would occur.
Additionally, any future redevelopment of the 30 properties would be subject to compliance with State and local fire-safe regulations, including defensible space requirements, building codes, and emergency access standards. Given the infill nature of the changes and the location in areas with existing infrastructure and low fire hazard risk, the proposed amendments would not significantly increase wildfire exposure or evacuation challenges. Redevelopment on the Mountain Hawk Drive properties would be subject to local and State regulations for areas of increased fire risk. In addition, redevelopment of any of the proposed properties would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan 2050 policies and actions related to wildfire. Therefore, wildfire impacts associated with these land use changes would be less than significant.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Project has been evaluated for any related environmental consequences in this Addendum.
All such reports are available for public inspection at the City of Santa Rosa Department of Planning and Economic Development or at the City’s Web page srcity.org /generalplan.
The 21 impact categories identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Environmental Checklist (2023/2024 CEQA Statutes and Guidelines) were assessed using the criterium found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, if none of the conditions described in CEQA Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, then an addendum to an adopted EIR or Negative Declaration can be prepared (CEQA Section 15164(b)). None of the impact categories were found to have a more significant impact than what was determined in the analysis contained within General Plan 2050 EIR.
Hence, approval of the Project would not meet any of the requirements in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or a supplement to the Environmental Impact Report.