Attachment 10 - Final EIR — Santa Rosa City Council, May 12, 2026

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR
Spring Lake Village East Grove
Final Environmental
Impact Report
File No. MJP14-012
SCH No. 2016052024
March 2026
Attachment 10
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR
City of Santa Rosa
Spring Lake Village East Grove
Final Environmental Impact Report

Prepared for:

City of Santa Rosa Planning & Economic Development Department 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Prepared by:

2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
(707) 523-1010

March 2026

Table of Contents
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page i Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Summary of Draft EIR Process and Public Comments Received ................................................... 1-1 Summary and Organization of Final EIR ......................................................................................... 1-3 EIR Certification and Project Approval Process .............................................................................. 1-4

2. Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments ..................................................................................... 2-1 Master Response A – Statements of Opinion for or Against the Project ...................................... 2-1 Master Response B – Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................ 2-1 Master Response C – Tribal Cultural Resources and Archaeological Resource Protection ........ 2-2 Master Response E – Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plan .................... 2-4 Master Response F – Additional Wildfire Information ................................................................... 2-6 Master Response G – Project-Related Transportation and Traffic ............................................... 2-9 Master Response H – Collision History for State Route 12 / Los Alamos Road ........................ 2-10 Master Response I – Water Supply ............................................................................................ 2-10

3. Public Hearing Comments and Responses ..................................................................................... 3-1 Pedro Avilla ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Edward Sherman .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 Mindy Kimball ................................................................................................................................ 3-2 Planning Commissioner Vicki Duggan .......................................................................................... 3-3 Planning Commissioner Charles Carter ........................................................................................ 3-9 Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Holton ......................................................................................... 3-9 Planning Commissioner Akash Kalia ............................................................................................ 3-9 Planning Commissioner Julian Peterson .................................................................................... 3-10 Planning Commissioner Karen Weeks ....................................................................................... 3-11

4. Written Comments Letters and Responses ..................................................................................... 4-1 Eric Anderson, Comment 1-1 to 1-3 ............................................................................................. 4-2 E. Weeks, Comment 2-1 ............................................................................................................... 4-3 Stephanie Edgar, Comment 3-1 to 3-2 ......................................................................................... 4-4 Tony Martin, Comment 4-1 ........................................................................................................... 4-5 Lynne and Robert Hughes, Comment 5-1 .................................................................................... 4-6 Deidre Harrison, Comment 6-1 ..................................................................................................... 4-7 Vicki Wailing, Comment 7-1 .......................................................................................................... 4-8 Tim Smith, Comments 8-1 to 8-3 .................................................................................................. 4-9 Suzanne Lanahan, Comment 9-1 ............................................................................................... 4-10 Pastor Fred Karlen, Comment 10-1 to 10-2 ................................................................................ 4-11 Rick and Marna Hill, Comment 11-1 ........................................................................................... 4-12 Maria Cobo, Comment 12-1 ........................................................................................................ 4-13 Diane Baines, Comment 13-1 ..................................................................................................... 4-14 Marisa Castellano, Comment 14-1 ............................................................................................. 4-15 Rod Walling, Comment 15-1 ....................................................................................................... 4-16 Susan Weinstein, Comments 16-1 to 16-5 ................................................................................. 4-17 Charles Robin Marrs, Comment 17-1 ......................................................................................... 4-18 Frances Danoff, Comment 18-1 .................................................................................................. 4-19 Mike Raymond, Comments 19-1 to 19-2 .................................................................................... 4-20 Teresa Denniston, Comment 20-1 .............................................................................................. 4-21 Danette Wollschlager, Comment 21-1 ........................................................................................ 4-22 Regina Reilly, Comments 22-1 to 22-2 ....................................................................................... 4-23 Table of Contents
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page ii Sandy and Ken Litzie, Comments 23-1 to 23-2 .......................................................................... 4-24 Kim Cohee, Comment 24-1 ........................................................................................................ 4-25 Leslie Fisher, Comments 25-1 to 25-3 ........................................................................................ 4-26 Mark Leong - Caltrans, Comment 26-1 ....................................................................................... 4-27 Mark Leong - Caltrans Comments 27-1 to 27-8 ......................................................................... 4-28 Kenneth Tam – Sonoma County Regional Parks Comment 28-1 .............................................. 4-31 Responses to Comments and Emails Received ........................................................................... 4-34 Eric Anderson, Responses 1-1 to 1-3 ......................................................................................... 4-34 E. Weeks, Response 2-1 ............................................................................................................ 4-34 Stephanie Edgar, Responses 3-1 to 3-2 ..................................................................................... 4-34 Tony Martin, Response 4-1 ......................................................................................................... 4-35 Lynne and Robert Hughes, Response 5-1.................................................................................. 4-35 Deidre Harrison, Response 6-1 .................................................................................................. 4-35 Vicki Wailing, Response 7-1 ....................................................................................................... 4-36 Tim Smith, Responses 8-1 to 8-3 ............................................................................................... 4-36 Suzanne Lanahan, Response 9-1 .............................................................................................. 4-36 Pastor Fred Karlen, Responses 10-1 to 10-2 ............................................................................. 4-37 Rick and Marna Hill, Response 11-1 .......................................................................................... 4-37 Maria Cobo, Response 12-1 ....................................................................................................... 4-38 Diane Baines, Response 13-1 .................................................................................................... 4-38 Marisa Castellano, Response 14-1 ............................................................................................. 4-38 Rod Walling, Response 15-1 ...................................................................................................... 4-39 Susan Weinstein, Responses 16-1 to 16-5................................................................................. 4-39 Charles Robin Marrs, Response 17-1 ......................................................................................... 4-41 Frances Danoff, Response 18-1 ................................................................................................. 4-41 Mike Raymond, Responses 19-1 to 19-2 .................................................................................... 4-42 Teresa Denniston, Response 20-1 ............................................................................................. 4-42 Danette Wollschlager, Response 21-1 ....................................................................................... 4-43 Regina Reilly, Responses 22-1 to 22-2 ...................................................................................... 4-43 Sandy and Ken Litzie, Responses 23-1 to 23-2 ......................................................................... 4-44 Kim Cohee, Response 24-1 ........................................................................................................ 4-44 Leslie Fisher, Responses 25-1 to 25-3 ....................................................................................... 4-44 Mark Leong - Caltrans, Response 26-1 ...................................................................................... 4-45 Mark Leong - Caltrans, Responses 27-1 to 27-8 ........................................................................ 4-46 Kenneth Tam – Sonoma County Regional Parks, Response 28-1 ............................................ 4-48

5. Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency ........................................................................................... 5-1 Changes to Chapter 2, Project Description ..................................................................................... 5-1 Changes to Chapter 3, Introductions to Analysis ............................................................................ 5-1 Changes to Chapter 3.4, Cultural Resources and Chapter 3.12, Tribal Cultural Resources .......... 5-2 Changes to Chapter 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................... 5-5 Changes to Chapter 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. 5-8 Changes to Chapter 3.12, Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................... 5-9 Changes to Chapter 4, Alternatives Description and Analysis ...................................................... 5-12 Alternative 2: Maximum Avoidance Alternative .......................................................................... 5-12 Supplemental Biological Resource Evaluation .............................................................................. 5-17 Changes to City Right of Way Along Los Alamos Road ................................................................ 5-17 Proposed Minor Off-site Transit Improvements Along Highway 12 ............................................... 5-17 Table of Contents
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page iii

6. References ....................................................................................................................................... 6-1

7. List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................... 7-1 City of Santa Rosa (Lead Agency) .................................................................................................. 7-1 GHD ................................................................................................................................................. 7-1 Technical Consultants ..................................................................................................................... 7-1

Tables
Table 1-1 Comments Received During 45-Day Review Period ...................................................... 1-2 Table 2-1 Summary of Collision Rates at SR 12/Los Alamos Road ............................................. 2-10 Table 3-1 Public Hearing Comments Received ............................................................................... 3-1 Table 4-1 Written Comments Received ........................................................................................... 4-1

Figures
Figure 4-1 Modified Alternative 2 Site Plan ................................................................................... 5-16 Figure 5-1 Additional Off-Site Transit Improvements .................................................................... 5-18

Introduction
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 1-1

1. Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Report ( Final EIR) for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project (“Project”) consists of the Draft EIR and the comments, responses to comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR found in this volume.

As summarized in the Draft EIR, the Project is proposed as an off -site expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) located in the City of Santa Rosa, California.

The Project would include 32 independent senior living units supporting up to 64 residents at full occupancy, as well as a community building, outdoor common areas, and parking. Other ancillary improvements would include paved walking paths, landscaping, drainage features, lighting, fencing, retaining walls, and off-site pedestrian, bicycle, storm water and utility improvements. The Project site is comprised of three parcels located at 225 Los Alamos Road and 5803 and 5815 Melita Road in the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, as well as off-site improvement areas adjacent to the Project site.

After the Draft EIR was circulated, the Project Applicant elected to pursue Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative), identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. This alternative would result in less direct disturbance at the Project site and reduce impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources . Several Planning Commissioners also showed interest in this alternative as being the preferred option for approval. As a result, the Applicant resubmitt ed a planning application to reflect a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) as the version of the Project now under consideration for approval.

Under the modified version of Alternative 2, the two parcels containing single- family residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would remain outside the Planned Development (PD 0308) zone, limiting future use absent a discretionary zone change. Easements wou ld be recorded on portions of these parcels to allow stormwater detention, parking, and private access.

Summary of Draft EIR Process and Public Comments Received Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), t he City of Santa Rosa issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) for the Project to Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, the Office of Planning and Research, Native American tribes, and neighboring property owners on May 11, 2016. A public scoping meeting was held for the Project on May 23, 2016, at Whited Elementary School, 4995 Sonoma Highway, Santa Rosa, California. A total of 15 people signed into the meeting, 10 of whom spoke on the Project. Nine (9) written comments were also received during the 30 - day scoping period, which extended through May 9, 2016.

Subsequent to the initial NOP issued on May 11, 2016, the Project Applicant modified the proposed Project to include additional parcels, which required additional noticing pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines . In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Rosa prepared a second NOP to inform agencies and interested parties of the modified Project and the City’s intent to prepare an EIR on August 30, 2017. One written comment letter was received during the 30-day scoping period for the second NOP, which extended through September 28, 2017. The comments submitted during the scoping process can be viewed in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

Through the scoping process, the City gathered input on the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in a Draft EIR for the Project. This included identifying the key issues and concerns to be addressed in the Draft EIR, feasible alternatives, and mitigation measures to be analyzed in detail. A Draft EIR was then prepared, for which a 45-day public comment period began on June 1, 2021.

Introduction
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 1-2 A Notice of Availability (NOA) and notice of public hearing for the Draft EIR was provided to the Office of Planning and Research, the Sonoma County Clerk, to Responsible and Trustee Agencies, to Native American tribes, to organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing, and through direct mailing to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the Project site. The notice was also posted at the Project site and was published in the Press Democrat on June 6, 2021. The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies, and the City posted the Draft EIR and NOA on its website. Hardcopies of the Draft EIR were made available at the Planning and Economic Development Department office at Santa Rosa City Hall and at the Rincon Valley Regional Library.

On June 24, 2021, a public hearing on the Draft EIR was held before the Santa Rosa Planning Commission.

At the public hearing, three (3) members of the public and five (5) Planning Commissioners provided comments. During the 45-day public comment period, the City also received two agency comment letters and 26 emails (see Table 1-1 below).

Comments, responses, and revisions to the Draft EIR are found in this Final EIR volume. The Draft EIR and Final EIR are available for review on the City’s website ( https://srcity.org/425/Plans-Studies-EIRs).

Reference material used in the preparation of the Final EIR may be reviewed upon request to the Planning and Economic Development Department, Santa Rosa City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3. The Final EIR will be sent to the public agencies who commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certification of the EIR per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.

Table 1-1 Comments Received During 45-Day Review Period Comments Agency / Organization Last Name First Name Date Public Hearing Comments
PH-1 Public Avilla Pedro June 24, 2021
PH-2 to PH-4 Public Sherman Edward June 24, 2021
PH-5 to PH-7 Public Kimball Mindy June 24, 2021
PH-8 to PH-32 Planning Commissioner Duggan Vicki June 24, 2021 PH-33 Planning Commissioner Carter Charles June 24, 2021 PH-34 Planning Commissioner Holton Jeffrey June 24, 2021 PH-35 to PH-36 Planning Commissioner Kalia Akash June 24, 2021 PH-37 to PH-39 Planning Commissioner Peterson Julian June 24, 2021 PH-40 to PH-44 Planning Commissioner Weeks Karen June 24, 2021 Written Comments Received
1 Public Anderson Eric June 1, 2021
2 Public Weeks E. June 3, 2021
3 Public Edgar Stephanie June 4, 2021
4 Public Martin Tony June 4, 2021
5 Public Hughes Lynn & Robert June 4, 2021
6 Public Harrison Deidre June 4, 2021
7 Public Walling Vicki June 4, 2021
8 Public Smith Tim June 5, 2021
9 Public Lanahan Suzanne June 5, 2021
10 Public Karlen Fred June 5, 2021
11 Public Hill Rick & Marna June 7, 2021
Introduction
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 1-3 Comments Agency / Organization Last Name First Name Date 12 Public Cobo Maria June 8, 2021
13 Public Baines Diane June 9, 2021
14 Public Castellano Marisa June 10, 2021
15 Public Walling Rod June 15, 2021
16 Public Weinstein Susan June 17, 2021
17 Public Marrs Charles & Robin June 22, 2021
18 Public Danoff Frances June 23, 2021
19 Public Raymond Mike June 23, 2021
20 Public Denniston Teresa June 23, 2021
21 Public Wollschlager Danette June 23, 2021
22 Public Reilly Regina June 24, 2021
23 Public Litzie Sandy & Ken June 25, 2021
24 Public Cohee Kim July 1, 2021
25 Public Fisher Leslie July 14, 2021
26 Caltrans, District 4 Leong Mark June 14, 2021
27 Caltrans, District 4 Leong Mark July 14, 2021
28 Sonoma County Regional Parks Tam Kenneth July 15, 2021 Summary and Organization of Final EIR
This Final EIR consists of the following chapters:

Chapter 1 Introduction. This chapter summarizes the public involvement process for the EIR, the comments received, the organization of the Final EIR, and the EIR certification process.

Chapter 2 Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments. This chapter includes a selection of Master Responses that have been prepared to address the facets of particular issue s raised in multiple public comments.

Chapter 3 Public Hearing Comments and Responses. This chapter summarizes the comments made by members of the public and by Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners during a Draft EIR public hearing held for the Project on June 24, 2021. Responses to each public hearing comment are provided.

Chapter 4 Written Comment Letters and Responses. This chapter includes copies of the written comment letters and e-mails received during the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR. Responses to each comment are also provided.

Chapter 5 Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency. This chapter outlines updates to the Draft EIR, including changes to the Applicant's preferred alternative and minor infrastructure changes within the City right-of-way along Los Alamos Road since the Draft EIR was circulated. It also evaluates minor off-site enhancements proposed by the City as conditions for Project approval.

Chapter 6 References. This chapter summarizes the citations of the sources of information and supporting documentation used in the analysis.

Introduction
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 1-4 Chapter 7 List of Preparers. This chapter includes a list of individuals and organizations involved in the preparation of the EIR.

EIR Certification and Project Approval Process
On March 26, 2026, the City of Santa Rosa Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to consider the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project EIR, including consideration of providing a recommendation to the Santa Rosa City Council on whether to certify the EIR. In the event that the City of Santa Rosa Planning Commission recommends certification of the EIR, t hen the Santa Rosa City Council is anticipated to be tentatively scheduled to consider certification of the EIR at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 12, 2026.

Information about attending the Planning Commission meeting and City Council meeting can be found on the City’s website at the following links:
• https://www.srcity.org/1339/Planning-Commission
• https://www.srcity.org/1322/City-Council
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, to certify the EIR, the Santa Rosa City Council must make the following findings:

1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

2. The Final EIR was presented to the City of Santa Rosa’s decision-making body as the lead agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and

3. The Final EIR reflects the City of Santa Rosa’s independent judgment and analysis.

When considering approval of the Project, the Santa Rosa City Council, as the decision-making body, must consider the information presented in the EIR. A public agency may not decide to approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 21002). The decisionmakers must balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks. If they determine that benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” If the Santa Rosa City Council makes such a determination, it must support the action by adopting a written Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC") citing the basis for its decision and include the SOC in the record of p roject approval (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).

Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-1

2. Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Review of the written and oral comments made on the Draft EIR for the Project indicated that certain comments were made frequently, demonstrating a common concern. To allow presentation of a response that addresses the aspects of the related comments, select Master Responses have been prepared. Master Responses are intended to allow a well -integrated response addressing the overall facets of a particular issue. The use of a Master Response is in no way intended to minimize the importance of the individual comments.

Master Response A – Statements of Opinion for or Against the Project Comment Summary: Several commenters include d statements of opinion for or against the Project and opinions on which Project alternative should be selected for implementation or eliminated from consideration.

Comments regarding opinions for or against the Project or related to selection of a Project alternative are not comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but comments on the approval of the Project, a process that will occur after the EIR is certified. Nevertheless, such comments are valuable input to the process of approving a project, and the comment letters are included in the Final EIR for review by the Santa Rosa Planning Commission and the Santa Rosa City Council.

As noted in Chapter 1, Introduction, after the Draft EIR was circulated, the Project Applicant elected to pursue a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative), identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR.

If the EIR is certified, the Santa Rosa City Council will consider the recommendations in these comment letters as well as the information presented in the EIR or elsewhere in the record, and make its decision regarding approval of the Project or Alternative 2.

Master Response B – Environmentally Superior Alternative Comment Summary: Several commenters inquired into whether the Environmentally Superior Alternative that is identified in the Draft EIR becomes the build alternative that is considered for Project approval.

Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative. The environmentally superior alternative, however, does not by default become the project that is considered for approval. The decision -making body may, however, at its discretion, provide a recommendation for approval, or approve, the environmentally superior alternative or any other alternative evaluated in the EIR.

Section 15021(a) of the CEQA Guidelines summarizes a public agency’s duty to minimize environmental damage and to balance competing public objectives as follows:
(1) In regulating public or private activities, agencies are required to give consideration to preventing environmental damage.
(2) A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment.

As outlined in Draft EIR Chapter 4, Alternatives Description and Analysis, to be considered, an alternative must be potentially feasible. While several alternatives were rejected from further analysis as being Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-2 infeasible, Alternative 2 Maximum Avoidance Alternative was carried forward in the alternatives analysis as a potentially feasible alternative.

As noted above in Master Response A, after the Draft EIR was circulated, the Project Applicant elected to pursue a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative), identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. As a result, the Applicant resubmitted a planning application to reflect a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) as the proposed Project now under consideration for approval.

The modifications to Alternative 2, compared to the version presented in the Draft EIR, are designed to further reduce impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. The City of Santa Rosa Fire Department and Planning and Economic Development Department ha ve determined that a secondary emergency access is not required for the Project or Alternative 2. Per the 2022 California Fire Code adopted by Santa Rosa, two fire apparatus access roads are required only for developments exceeding 50 multi - family units or 30 single-family units. Alternative 2 proposes 14 single-family and 18 multi-family units, which is below these limits. In addition, the tallest building in Alternative 2 has a roof -to-wall height of 29 feet 9 inches. Therefore, aerial access requirements do not apply to Alternative 2. Accordingly, under Alternative 2, the secondary access route passing through the southern portion of the site to Melita Road has been reduced in width and would take the form of a pedestrian pathway . Further , under Alternative 2, t he pedestrian pathway and associated utility corridor has been relocated slightly to the east. The footprint of Cottage 7 also has been adjusted to further avoid potential sensitive resources. Finally, the onsite rain garden/ retention basin has been relocated to the north of the prior location. These modifications are illustrated on an updated Alternative 2 site plan (see revised Figure 4-1 in Chapter 5) and are further described in the revisions to the Draft EIR presented in Chapter 5 of this Final EIR.

Master Response C – Tribal Cultural Resources and Archaeological Resource Protection
Comment Summary : This master response discusses impacts to tribal cultural resources and archaeological resources and how the proposed Project has been refined to reduce potential impacts.

The Draft EIR determined that the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, even with mitigation, because construction activities could materially impair the integrity of a significant archaeological resource and associated tribal cultural values.

In response, Alternative 2 was developed through collaboration between the City, the Project applicant, and affiliated Tribes to substantially reduce these impacts while meeting basic Project objectives. As noted above in Master Response A, after the Draft EIR was circulated, the Project Applicant elected to pursue a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative), identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. As a result, the Applicant resubmitted a planning application to reflect a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) , now under consideration for approval.

Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-3 The footprint of Cottage 7 also has been adjusted to further avoid potential sensitive resources. Under a modified version of Alternative 2, the two parcels containing single- family residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would remain outside the Planned Development (PD 0308) zone, limiting future use absent a discretionary zone change. Easements would be recorded on portions of these parcels to allow stormwater detention, parking, and private access. Finally, the onsite rain garden/ retention basin has been relocated to the north of the prior location. Revisions to the Draft EIR are presented in Chapter 5 of this Final EIR.

The same mitigation measures identified for the proposed Project (Mitigation Measures CR-2a through CR- 3), apply to Alternative 2. These measures include preparation and implementation of an Archaeological Resource and Tribal Cultural Resource Treatment Pl an, archaeological monitoring during ground disturbance, and consultation with representatives of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and the Lytton Rancheria.

With the reduced footprint, avoidance of the most sensitive areas, and implementation of mitigation measures, Alternative 2 would reduce potential for direct disturbance and the potential for impacts to unknown archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources. Based on these protective actions, impacts under Alternative 2 (Impact CR -2, CR -3, and TCR -1) would be less than significant with mitigation under CEQA. This conclusion is supported by detailed field studies, expert evaluations, and ongoing tribal consultation, ensuring culturally informed decision- making throughout the environmental review process.

Master Response D – Draft EIR Circulation and Updated Analysis Comment Summary: This master response provides clarification regarding the circulation period of the Draft EIR and explains the steps taken to confirm that the analysis and conclusions remain accurate. It also summarizes supplemental evaluations and minor project-related updates that occurred after the Draft EIR was circulated.

The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from June 1, 2021, through July 15, 2021, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. During this period, agencies, organizations, and members of the public were provided the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR. As part of preparing this Final EIR, the City conducted a comprehensive review of the Draft EIR’s analysis and conclusions for each resource area to ensure they remain accurate and valid.

In 2024, a supplemental biological resources assessment was conducted for the Project site to evaluate any changes in biological conditions at the site and off-site improvement areas since the prior circulation of the Draft EIR. The supplemental report confirmed that there are no new significant biological resource- related impacts, special -status species, or associated habitats on the site or in the off -site improvement areas. This assessment included an updated review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society inventories, official special -status species lists, and an additional field reconnaissance at the site and off -site improvement areas for biological resources and jurisdictional wetlands/waters. The report verified that there were no changes observed in the size and condition of the on-site wetland and roadside drainages, no new listed species or habitats for special -status species were identified, and no new biological impacts or mitigation measures were deemed necessary.

The analysis also considered changes to the right -of-way along Los Alamos Road adjacent to the Project site. For example, following Draft EIR circulation, PG&E implemented utility improvements within the City right-of-way adjacent to the Project site. Thes e improvements included abandoning a utility vault and underground gas lines on the east side of Los Alamos Road and installing a new utility vault and Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) on the west side. Additional work included a new driveway with culvert, graveled area, concrete pad, underground gas mains crossing beneath Los Alamos Road, extension of an overhead Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-4 electric line, new utility vaults, and removal of a tree. These improvements fronted the Project site, but were unrelated to the Project and do not affect the Draft EIR’s analysis or conclusions.

Additionally, as part of City conditions of approval, minor transit improvements along Highway 12 will be implemented by the Applicant. These off-site improvements were evaluated using the same criteria as the Draft EIR. These include relocating a westbound transit stop for ADA compliance and extending a sidewalk to an eastbound stop. Both involve minimal ground disturbance and do not result in new or more severe impacts. Further evaluation of these improvements are proved in Section 5 of this Final EIR.

The Project is being processed under the 2035 General Plan, as the application was submitted and the Draft EIR was prepared and circulated prior to adoption of the new 2050 General Plan. The land use designation and zoning designation for the Project parcels did not change under the 2050 General Plan.

The Project remains consistent with applicable goals and policies and no substantial changes to the Project or new information of substantial importance have been identified that would alter the Draft EIR’s conclusions.

Master Response E – Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plan
Comment Summary: Planning Commissioners inquired into the status of any updates to the Santa Rosa Wildland-Urban Interface Map and the Santa Rosa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Santa Rosa Wildland-Urban Interface Area Mapping
City of Santa Rosa Ordinance 3907, adopted March 3, 2009, established the boundaries of the Wildland – Urban Interface (WUI) Areas within the Santa Rosa City limits. The ordinance created a local WUI zone to identify and consolidate four types of fire hazard zones in the community: 1) moderate, 2) high, 3) very high, and 4) mutual threat. Building standards within the WUI area are regulated by California Building Code Chapter 7A. The Santa Rosa Fire Department has indicated that no changes to Santa Rosa’s W ildland Urban Interface Map have occurred since completion of the Draft EIR, and that no changes to the boundaries of the WUI Areas are proposed at this time.

The Project site and off -site improvement areas are not located within the established boundaries of the Santa Rosa WUI Areas. The nearest WUI Area is contiguous to the north side of Highway 12. As a condition of Project approval, the City of Santa Rosa wo uld require the Applicant to relocate an existing westbound Sonoma County Transit stop, currently situated on the far side of the Highway 12 / Los Alamos Road intersection, to a new location next at the intersection. This relocation aims to provide ADA acc essibility, which the current stop lacks. Sonoma County Transit has agreed to this proposed relocation. The improvement would be located immediately adjacent to the nearest WUI Area but would not result in new ground disturbance or a physical alteration to the roadway network. Additional information about this proposed condition of approval is provided in Chapter 5 of this Final EIR.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City is required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to update its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan every five years to remain eligible to receive Federal grants for pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation projects.

In 2021, the City participated in a multijurisdictional planning process to increase collaboration with local agencies and special districts around hazard mitigation and to update the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Through this effort the Sonoma County Multij urisdictional Hazard Mitiga tion Plan (MJHMP) was prepared, which is comprised of two volumes. Volume 1 includes all federally required elements of a disaster mitigation plan as they apply to the entirety of Sonoma County. Volume 2 is comprised of Annexes Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-5 (chapters) for each local agency and special district participating in the MJHMP. The City of Santa Rosa Annex, which serves as the currently adopted five-year update to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, is found in Volume 2. On December 7, 2021, the City Council adopted the MJHMP, which included the City's updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The MJHMP is currently undergoing a 2026 update cycle. This regional planning effort spans 22 jurisdictions, including the City of Santa Rosa. The draft 2026 MJHMP was circulated for public comment from October 20 to November 21, 2025, with community review meetings, including an in-person session in Santa Rosa, held to gather feedback. The draft 2026 MJHMP was revised, as appropriate, to address public input. The updated plan was submitted to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) for a 45- day review period in January 2026 and will be forwarded to FEMA for preliminary approval following completion of the CalOES review. The draft 2026 MJHMP is scheduled to be presented to the City Council for adoption in late 2026.

The current MJHMP and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan illustrates a Wildfire Hazard Index, which is a model to predict relative wildfire hazard on the landscape. The hazard index is based on inputs that inform potential fire behavior, inputs that represent fire probability occurrence at any location, and a m odel of wildfire suppression difficulty. The hazard index reflects landscape conditions through the 2018 fire season. The map shows an index category of “Low Relative Hazard to Moderate Relative Hazard” for the Project site.

Santa Rosa Community Wildfire Protection Plan
On September 18, 2020, t he Santa Rosa City Council approved Santa Rosa's Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) . The CWPP is a 5 -year community -based plan focused on identifying and addressing local hazards and risks from wildfire in the City's Wildland Urban Interface areas. The CWPP determines what is at risk and provides a road map of actions for the community to address the wildfire threat.

The CWPP includes action plans for community preparedness programs, area notification systems, social network and media programs, and fuels mitigation and treatment strategies. The CWPP includes improvements to evacuation routes by utilizing evacuation route fuel treatment, including treatment of Los Alamos Road and Montgomery Drive in the Project area. The City has launched a “know your ways out ” campaign to assist with evacuation planning and preparedness , as well as development of temporary evacuation point (TEP) plans to aid in evacuation plans. Santa Rosa also has applied for a federal grant for evacuation route fuel treatment and will be using additional funds for evacuation route fuel treatment.

The City is currently updating the CWPP to ensure continued alignment with wildfire risk reduction strategies and community needs. This update is expected to be completed in 2026 and will build upon the existing plan’s goals while incorporating new data, lessons learned, and stakeholder input.

CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping
The Project site and off-site improvement areas are located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), which is an area where a local agency, in this case the City of Santa Rosa, has primary responsibility for fire and emergency response. On February 24, 2025, t he California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) finalized updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for LRAs to incorporate improved fire science, data, and mapping techniques (CAL FIRE 2025). Based on the updated mapping, the Project site is located within a designated Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone. T he site is approximately 0.17 mile from the nearest LRA High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which is located north of Highway 12, and approximately 1.1 miles from the nearest LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-6 located approximately 0.2 miles from the nearest designated State Responsibility Area (SRA) in Annadel State Park, and approximately 0.5 miles from the nearest lands classified as a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2024).

Master Response F – Additional Wildfire Information
Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concern about the location of the Project site in east Santa Rosa in an area that was forced to evacuate during wildfires in 2017 and 2020. Commenters noted congested traffic along Highway 12 and Montgomery Drive during the evacuation process and expressed concern that the contribution of Project-related traffic to the roadway system during a potential future wildfire evacuation would exacerbate the problem. In addition, Planning Commissioner Duggan requested that the EIR include additional information related to potential impacts related to wildfire.

The wildfire-related evacuations performed during the wildfires of 2017 and 2020 were overseen by fire, police, and emergency management teams. During the 2020 Glass Fire, emergency management teams were aware of an estimated three to four hours timeframe until the fire would potentially enter the City of Santa Rosa, and a decision was made to evacuate most of the eastern City zones knowing that emergency responders would have several hours to clear the area and allow traffic to disperse. Since then, the City of Santa Rosa has utilized a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) grant to fund traffic signal timing, improving coordinated signal timing on critical corridors and developing an evacuation-specific “flush plan.” This plan prioritizes rapid traf fic movement during emergencies and includes enhancements such as utilizing Farmers Lane as a key route to improve evacuation efficiency in East Santa Rosa.

Impact HAZ -6 of Draft EIR Section 3.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), pages 3.7- 13 and 3.7- 14, evaluates whether the Project would expose people or structures to risks involving wildland fires. Mitigation Measure HAZ-6 in the Draft EIR requires managing dry, combustible vegetation during the construction process and other techniques to minimize the potential for accidental fire ignition. Further r evisions to Impact HAZ-5 of the Draft EIR are presented in Chapter 5 of this Final EIR.

Draft EIR Section 5.1.3 (Wildfire), page 5-1, evaluates the Project’s location within or near a SRA or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone, which is the criteria used in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist for determining impacts from wildfire. As noted in Section 5.1.3, the Project site is not located in, nor contiguous to, SRA or lands classified as very high fire severity zones. However, given historic fires that have occurred in the area, additional information is provided for each of the four checklist questions in Section 20 (Wildfire) of the Appendix G Checklist. For ease of reference, each discussion is organized by the checklist questions.

Would the Project s ubstantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact HAZ -5 of Draft EIR Section 3.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), pages 3.7- 12 and 3.7- 13, evaluates the potential for the P roject to impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Additional information on emergency evacuation planning, as also shared in the Planning Commission meeting on June 24, 2021, is provided below.

As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made under Impact HAZ-5, starting on page 3.7-12 of the Draft EIR:

Impact HAZ-5: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Analysis: No Impact
Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-7 The Santa Rosa EOP identifies the City’s emergency planning, organization, and response policies and procedures. The EOP also addresses the integration and coordination with other governmental levels and special districts as required. The EOP outlines how the City responds to extraordinary events or disasters, from preparation through recovery. The EOP designates specific evacuation planning areas and routes. Both the existing Spring Lake Village community and the proposed East Grove expansion are The Project site is located within the Melita Evacuation Planning Area.

Designated evacuation travel routes identified in the Project area include Calistoga Road, Highway 12 and Montgomery Drive.

Construction
Los Alamos Road and Melita Road, in which utility connections would be constructed, are not designated as evacuation travel routes. The Project would include installation of new sidewalk along Highway 12, but would not otherwise alter the functionality of the roadway or effect the use of Highway 12 as an evacuation route. The Project would not change circulation patterns or affect emergency response routes. Additionally, no roadway closures would occur during the construction of the Project, and no on-street worker parking or equipment staging would be allowed.

In accordance with City of Santa Rosa and Caltrans requirements, the construction contractor would be required to obtain an applicable encroachment permit from the City for work within Melita Road and Los Alamos Road, and from Caltrans prior to work within the Highway 12 right-of-way.

The encroachment permit application would, in both cases, require the development and implementation of traffic and pedestrian control plans to preserve access and ensure public safety, which would typically include:
• Traffic controls, signs, and flaggers conforming with current California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
• Pedestrian and bicycle control devices;
• Notifications/arrangements for any driveway access restrictions; • Notifications to public transit agencies, emergency vehicles, and school systems; • Scheduling of major lane/road closures during off-peak hours The traffic controls would ensure that construction equipment and activities would not obstruct roadways during the construction period, and ensure provision of access to emergency response services.

Operation
The Project development includes access in compliance with the California Fire Code. The primary driveway is designed with sufficient width to enable emergency vehicles to turn around. A secondary emergency access is not required for the Project. Per the 2022 California Fire Code adopted by Santa Rosa, two fire apparatus access roads are required only for developments exceeding 50 multi -family units or 30 single- family units. The Project proposes 20 single-family units and 12 multi-family units, which is below these limits. In addition, the tallest building has a roof-to-exterior wall height of less than 30-feet. Therefore, aerial access requirements do not apply.

Spring Lake Village utilizes chartered buses to facilitate the evacuation of residents and reduce the number of vehicles on the road. The Project Applicant’s Emergency Response Evacuation Plans include protocols for wildfire evacuations, including announcements of Red Flag Warning alerts issued by the National Weather Service, a dedicated Command Center that notifies bus companies Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-8 during an evacuation order, bus staging areas, buddy systems, and a dedicated evacuation destination. The Project Applicant has coordinated with the Santa Rosa Fire Department to procure a facility specific temporary evacuation site for the existing Spring Lake Village, which would also apply to the proposed East Grove expansion site. The designated evacuation site is located at A Place to Play Park, located along W 3rd Street, in Santa Rosa.

Los Alamos Road connects to Montgomery Drive, which is anticipated to be the primary evacuation route for the East Grove expansion site. Given the modest number of 32 senior living units proposed and the implementation of the existing Spring Lake Village evacuation plan that employs chartered busses to facilitate evacuations and reduced vehicles on the roadway, the Project’s contribution of traffic to the roadway system during an emergency evacuation would not overwhelm evacuation routes.

Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s EOP or evacuation travel routes. No impact would result.

Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
As noted in Draft EIR Section 5.1.3 (Wildfire), the City of Santa Rosa and CALFIRE have identified and designated areas within their jurisdiction that are at risk of wildland fires. The Project site and off -site improvement areas are not located within the established boundaries of the Santa Rosa Wildland– Urban Interface Fire Area. The Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or within an established very high fire hazard severity zone. The nearest State Responsibility Area is located approximately 0.2-mile to the south of the Project site within Annadel State Park, and the nearest State- designated very high fire hazard severity zone is located approximately 0.5-mile from the Project site.

The Project site and off -site improvement areas are located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Based on current mapping, the Project site is located within a designated Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2025). The nearest LRA designated very high fire hazard zone is located approximately 1.1- miles from the Project site.

The Project site is predominately vegetated with a mix of grasslands and trees. The climate in the study area is classified as Mediterranean, which is characterized as having dry summers and mild, wet winters.

Average wind speeds in Santa Rosa range from approximately 6 mph to 10 mph in the vicinity of the Project site. The City of Santa Rosa Weed Abatement Ordinance (Ordinance No. 3681) requires property owners to cut weeds and grasses that are over 4 inches in height once fire season is declared and to maintain that level of compliance throughout the duration of the season. The Project site does not include steep slopes or terrain that would be difficult for emergency vehicles to access in the event of a wildfire.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-6, Reduce Wildland Fire Hazards during Construction, in the Draft EIR requires managing dry, combustible vegetation during the construction process and other techniques to minimize the potential for accidental fire ignition.

Conditions at the Project site, including slope, prevailing winds, and other factors would not be expected to exacerbate fire hazards in the area.

Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-9 Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The Project proposes off -site improvements for bicycle, pedestrian, and storm water conveyance. Along Melita Road, new sidewalk would be installed, as well as new and replacement storm drain piping. At the intersection of Melita Road and Montgomery Drive, new sidewalk, ADA curb ramps and crosswalks would be installed to improve crossing facilities and safety. Along Los Alamos Road, an off-street pedestrian path would be installed from an existing crosswalk at Highway 12 to the limits of the Project site. Also, the section of Los Alamos Road adjacent to the Project site would be widened to provide a Class II bicycle lane consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Along Highway 12, a sidewalk extension is proposed along the P roject frontage connecting to an existing sidewalk near Hope Chapel Church. The proposed off-site improvements are typical of frontage improvements for development projects and would not exacerbate fire risk through placement of additional urban fuels that would provide a linkage of wildland fuels.

The Project would tie into existing Santa Rosa and PG&E utilities within Los Alamos Road and Melita Road.

Electrical power and natural gas would be provided by PG&E from existing underground utility lines adjacent to the Project site. On-site electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure would be located underground and would tie- in to existing infrastructure. The proposed infrastructure and utility improvements consist of typical on-site infrastructure, the installation and maintenance of which would not exacerbate fire risk.

Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? As discussed in Section 3.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the Draft EIR, the Project site is not situated in a high-risk flood zone, such as a 100-year flood hazard area. Additionally, drainage patterns at the Project site would remain essentially the same as under existing conditions. Storm water from new impervious surfaces would be conveyed to proposed on -site rain gardens and storm water low impact development features sized to detain and treat storm water runoff in accordance with City requirements. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter drainage patterns or increase runoff which would expose people or structures to significant downslope flooding.

As discussed in Section 3.5 (Geology and Soils) of the Draft EIR, published landslide maps do not indicate large-scale slope instability at the P roject site. Additionally, no active landslides were observed at the Project site during completion of site- specific geotechnical study field activities. Retaining walls would be constructed as part of the Project to provide stability to hillside slopes along the north side of the Project site adjacent to Highway 12. It is unlikely that a landslide would occur on-site as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would expose people or structures to significant risks including flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post -fire instability, or drainage changes.

Master Response G – Project-Related Transportation and Traffic Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concern that the addition of Project-related traffic to the roadway system would exacerbate traffic congestion.

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, traffic impacts are now assessed using vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and a project’s impact on automobile delay is no longer considered a significant environmental effect. Santa Rosa’s VMT guidelines and thresholds deem that projects generating fewer than 110 trips per Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-10 day have a less -than-significant transportation impact. The traffic study for the Project estimates that the Project would result in 80 trips per day, which is below the significance threshold.

Although roadway level of service is no longer considered a transportation impact under CEQA, the Santa Rosa General Plan does establish a goal of maintaining a level of service D or better along roadways. In comparison, the traffic study for the Project determined that the intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road currently operates at a level of service B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which is better than level of service D. The Project is expected to result in 80 new daily trips, 5 of which would occur during the a.m. peak hour, and 6 during the p.m. peak hour. The addition of the Project traffic to existing traffic volumes results in a 0.1- second increase in average delay, with the intersection of Highway 12/Los Alamos Road shown to continue operating at level of service B during both peak hours. Therefore, the Project’s trips would not affect the ability of Santa Rosa to maintain its established level of service goals.

Master Response H – Collision History for State Route 12 / Los Alamos Road Comment Summary : Several commenters expressed concern that additional Project traffic at the intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos may result in additional traffic collisions, with some asking for updated collision rates from those presented in the Draft EIR.

As discussed in Section 3.12 (Transportation and Traffic) of the Draft EIR, the collision history for the study area was reviewed to evaluate trends or patterns that may indicate a safety issue. As discussed on page

3.12-14 of the Draft EIR, the collision rates for the intersection of Highway 12/Los Alamos Road were determined to be lower than the statewide average for signalized four -way intersections. Below is a summary of the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records Systems (SWITRS) reports for the three most recent 5-year periods for which data is available.

Table 2-1 Summary of Collision Rates at SR 12/Los Alamos Road Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records Systems (SWITRS)
Reports (5-year periods)
Number of
Collisions
Calculated
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
Statewide Average
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
May 1, 2011 - Apr 30, 2016 12 0.29 0.43
Oct 1, 2015 – Sep 30, 2020 10 <0.29 0.42
Oct 1, 2020 – Dec 31, 2024 7 <0.29 0.55
Calculated collision rates for the study intersection were compared to average collision rates for similar facilities statewide. The average collision rates for intersections differ based on whether the intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, all -way stop signs, or is uncontrolled, as well as the number of approaches (three or four). Average collision rates for roadway segments are provided based on the number of lanes, design speed, and presence of a median. As summarized in the table above, the intersection of Highway 12/Los Alamos Road had a collision rate of <0.29, which is below the statewide average for signalized four- way intersections, which is the significance threshold for determining if an intersection is performing acceptably with regards to safety.

Master Response I – Water Supply
Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concern that Santa Rosa may not be able to provide adequate water supplies to meet the demands of the Project.

Santa Rosa receives the majority of its drinking water supply from the Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water), which provides water principally from the Russian River to retail water suppliers in Master Responses to Draft EIR Comments
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 2-11 Sonoma County and portions of Marin County. The City supplements this drinking water supply by operating groundwater wells and emergency groundwater wells. Also, to decrease the demand for potable drinking water and stretch its water supply, the City provides recycled water from its Regional Water Reuse System to select irrigators. Additionally, the City has developed Water Use Efficiency programs, which play an essential role in water supply planning efforts by helping reduce current and future demand for water sustainably.

Due to water supply planning and implementation of aggressive water use efficiency strategies, Santa Rosa has seen its population double since 1990 while total water use has decreased. New development is required to be water efficient, complying with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and the CALGreen building code which requires new development to be 20% more water efficient than existing development, with new development often exceeding this target.

Prudent and cost -effective long -term planning for water supply means that occurrences of single and multiple dry years do not automatically mean water supply capacity is limited for planned development.

Santa Rosa has a robust plan in place to address short-term effects of drought, which are incorporated into its long-term water supply planning efforts. The City’s Water Shortage Plan details how the City will respond to a reduction in regional water supply deliveries. During water shortage stages 5 through 8, consistent with a 30% or greater reduction in water use, future water demands from new developments must be offset by sustained water reductions elsewhere in the City’s water service area.

Santa Rosa is committed to long- term water supply planning to ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet current and future water demands under varying water supply conditions. In compliance with the California Water Code, the City updates and adopts its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and submits it to the Department of Water Resources every five years. The UWMP provides information about the City's water transmission system and includes a description of the water supply sources, historical and projected water use, and a comparison of water supply to water demands during normal, single- dry, and multiple-dry years. It also reports on the City's compliance with State mandated water conservation targets and provides detailed information about demand management measures.

The Santa Rosa 2020 UWMP summarizes the City’s water needs and demands over a 25- year planning horizon through year 2045. The fundamental determination of the UWMP is that the City has or will have sufficient water resources to meet the City’s projected gr owth over the next 25 years under all anticipated hydrologic conditions, although customers should expect some demand reductions during dry years to ensure demands align with the City’s water supply.

The California Water Code also requires the City to prepare an updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Shortage Plan) every five years. The Shortage Plan defines water shortage levels and identifies corresponding response actions and procedures for reducing demand for water during mild to severe droughts or other water shortage conditions. The 2020 UWMP and the 2020 Shortage Plan were adopted by the City Council on June 8, 2021.

Additionally, Santa Rosa’s Water Demand Offset (WDO) Policy, adopted on March 29, 2022, ensures that new developments do not increase overall water demand during severe water shortages. New developments must offset their water demand to achieve a net-zero impact on the city’s water supply during declared water shortages that require existing customers to adhere to water allocations (rationing).

The City has instituted Stage 3 of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, where landscape irrigation is limited to certain hours, water waste is prohibited, potable water use for washing hard surfaces and pressure washing is restricted, hose-end shut-off nozzles are required, restaurants serve water only upon request, and hotels inform guests about drought measures.

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-1

3. Public Hearing Comments and Responses
This Chapter summarizes the comments made by members of the public and Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners during the Draft EIR public hearing held on June 24, 2021. Responses to each comment are provided. In some cases, the public hearing comment is similar to a comment addressed in a Master Response in Chapter 2. In such cases, the reader is directed to the relevant Master Response.

Table 3- 1 below lists the commenters from the public hearing. A summary of their comments and the corresponding responses follows the table.

Table 3-1 Public Hearing Comments Received
Comments Agency/ Organization Last Name First Name Date PH-1 Public Avilla Pedro June 24, 2021
PH-2 to PH-4 Public Sherman Edward June 24, 2021
PH-5 to PH-7 Public Kimball Mindy June 24, 2021
PH-8 to PH-32 Planning Commissioner Duggan Vicki June 24, 2021 PH-33 Planning Commissioner Carter Charles June 24, 2021 PH-34 Planning Commissioner Holton Jeffrey June 24, 2021 PH-35 to PH-36 Planning Commissioner Kalia Akash June 24, 2021 PH-37 to PH-39 Planning Commissioner Peterson Julian June 24, 2021 PH-40 to PH-44 Planning Commissioner Weeks Karen June 24, 2021

Pedro Avilla
Public Hearing Comments PH-1
Comment PH-1
Comment Summary: The commenter’s residence is near the corner of Los Alamos and Highway 12. The commenter expressed concern that the intersection has a high collision rate and that additional project traffic may result in additional collisions.

Please see Master Response H (Collision History for State Route 12 / Los Alamos Road) in Chapter 2.

Edward Sherman
Public Hearing Comments PH-2 to PH-4
Comment PH-2
Comment Summary: The commenter lives in Eagle Rock Court and states that the wildfire danger has been understated. The commenter noted CALFIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping and the City’s Wildland Urban-Interface Map. The commenter expressed concern about increasing population density in an area.

The commenter stated that Montgomery Drive is a dangerous evacuation route due to winds that can drive wildfire through the valley from multiple directions and the risk of tree failures on both sides. The commenter Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-2 stated a preference for not adding additional senior residents to the area, as they may need assistance during evacuations.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans), and Master Response D (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-3
Comment Summary: The c ommenter speculated that the Project Applicant owns additional surrounding land and will intend to continue developing to connect the properties.

The Draft EIR evaluates the application submitted by Front Porch Communities and Services (formerly Covia Communities and before that, Episcopal Senior Communities) for an off-site expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Community at 225 Los Alamos Road and 5803 and 5815 Melita Road. Under a modified version of Alternative 2, the two parcels containing single-family residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would remain outside the Planned Development (PD 0308) zone, limiting future use absent a discretionary zone change. Easements would be recorded on portions of these parcels to allow stormwater detention, parking, and private access. The application does not propose development on any additional parcels.

Comment PH-4
Comment Summary: The c ommenter echoed a prior commenter ’s concerns about collisions at the intersection of State Route 12 and Los Alamos Road, mentioning that family members had been injured in a collision.

Please see Master Response H (Collision History for State Route 12 / Los Alamos Road) in Chapter 2.

Mindy Kimball
Public Hearing Comments PH-5 to PH-7
Comment PH-5
Comment Summary: The commenter lives on Melita Road and echoed the concerns of previous commenters regarding the dangers associated the wildland-urban interface.

Please see Master Response F (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) and Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-6
Comment Summary: The c ommenter is concerned about water issue s and adding more housing to the area.

Please see Master Response I (Water Supply) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-7
Comment Summary: The commenter attended the meeting for a separate project (Elnoka Village Project) and stated an opinion that the projects should not be considered separately. The commenter is not opposed to the project or the concept of senior housing, but believes that now is not the appropriate time for this project.

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-3 The City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department received separate applications from different applicants for the referenced projects. Each project is independent and unrelated to the other.

The Draft EIR addresses the application received from Front Porch Communities and Services (formerly Covia Communities and before that Episcopal Senior Communities) for the proposed off-site expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). The Draft EIR for the Spring Lake Village East Grove project acknowledges the previously proposed Elnoka Village project as a cumulative project in Figure 3- 1 and throughout the cumulative analysis. Since then, the proposed development at the Elnoka site has shifted from the previously proposed 664- unit Continuing Care Retirement Community to a smaller senior housing development led by Burbank Housing, now called the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project. The Spring Lake Village East Grove Project and the previously proposed Elnoka Village Project (currently the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project) are separate and distinct projects by different applicants, each with unique entitlements. The City of Santa Rosa is evaluating each project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Planning Commissioner Vicki Duggan
Public Hearing Comments PH-8 to PH-33
Comment PH-8
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan inquired whether the environmentally superior alternative would be chosen as the project.

Please see Master Response B (Environmentally Superior Alternative) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-9
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan requested that the City investigate the concerns raised by a previous commenter regarding the collision rate at the intersection of State Route 12 and Los Alamos Road.

Please see Master Response H (Collision History for State Route 12 / Los Alamos Road) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-10
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan requested that the EIR provide more information on potential impacts related to wildfire.

Please see Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-11
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan inquired whether the daily peak hours mentioned on page 2- 10 of the Draft EIR include the shuttle bus and staff arrivals and departures.

The estimate of daily vehicle trips, including those during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, was developed using standard trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The Draft EIR used the ‘Continuing Car e Retirement Community’ land use (LU #255) to best represent the future land use for Spring Lake Village East Grove. This category encompasses various aspects of senior living, allowing residents to age in place as their medical needs evolve, and includes medical, dining, and recreational facilities on the existing Spring Lake Village campus. The proposed Project includes a shuttle service between the new site and the existing facility on Montgomery Drive, as well as other destinations in Santa Rosa. This shuttle service would replace several passenger vehicle trips with a Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-4 single shuttle trip, resulting in fewer overall trips compared to the standard ITE rates. However, the full ITE trip generation rate was used in the analysis to be conservative and evaluate the maximum number of trips.

Comment PH-12
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan expressed the opinion that the estimated water demand per dwelling unit appears to be high.

The Draft EIR estimates water demand at 288 gallons per day per dwelling unit, based on Low Density Residential demand factors from the Santa Rosa Water Master Plan Update. Commissioner Duggan correctly notes that new developments in Santa Rosa must be highly water -efficient, with the CALGreen building code requiring new developments to be 20% more water-efficient than existing ones, a target often exceeded. Consequently, actual water use will likely be lower than the estimated 288 gallons per day per dwelling unit. However, the higher estimate is used in the analysis to maintain a conservative approach.

Comment PH-13
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked for specifics on the proposed fuel supply capacity for the emergency backup generator.

The emergency backup generator will store less than 1,000 gallons of fuel in an integrated base tank beneath the generator. No separate aboveground or underground fuel storage tanks are planned.

Comment PH-14
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan inquired about how the All-Electric Reach Code applies to the project.

The City previously required compliance with its All -Electric Reach Code for certain new developments , however, enforcement of this code has been suspended as of May 2024 following the Ninth Circuit Court decision regarding Berkeley’s ordinance. As a result, the Project is not currently required to comply with the All-Electric Reach Code.

Comment PH-15
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan inquired whether permissions from Native American tribes should be included in Draft EIR Section 2.6.2 (Other Permits and Approvals).

The City of Santa Rosa has collaborated with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and the Lytton Rancheria to consult on the project in accordance with Assembly Bill 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. As specified in the mitigation measures in Sections 3.4 and 3.13 of the Draft EIR, if the Project moves forward, the City will ensure the development and implementation of an Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment Plan. This plan will be reviewed and approved by the Cit y, after consultation with FIGR and Lytton Rancheria, before construction begins. Should cultural resources be discovered during construction, Tribal representatives will be consulted to assess and recommend appropriate treatment and handling. Because these procedures will be documented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, it is not necessary to include a separate list of these future mitigation steps in Section 2.6.2 (Other Permits and Approvals) of the EIR. Details of the consultation proce ss with Native American Tribes are provided in Section 3.13, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. In addition, see Master Response C for additional discussion of tribal consultation procedures.

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-5 Comment PH-16
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked about the degree of tree removals characterized in the visual simulations completed for the Draft EIR.

The visual simulations that are included in the Draft EIR as Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-4 were produced from accurately scaled, three -dimensional computer models of the proposed improvements with the tree removals that were slated for removal eliminated for the project and with planned landscape growth and year 1 and year 5 intervals.

Comment PH-17
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan stated that the discussion of tree removal on p age 3.1-13 of the Draft EIR seems subjective.

The Draft EIR evaluates the proposed tree removal in accordance with the thresholds of significance identified in the City of Santa Rosa Municipal Code, including Santa Rosa’s Scenic Road Combining District. This includes an ev aluation of each tree that would be removed within the 100 -foot corridor in relation to potential impact on the scenic quality of the corridor. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project applicant also would be required to comply with Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 17- 24 for planting an d regenerating trees, which would include plantings along Los Alamos Road and Melita Road.

Comment PH-18
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked if emissions from the proposed emergency generator should be included in Table 3.2-8 of the Draft EIR. Comment also asks about the expected run time of the generator per year.

Emissions from the proposed generator engine were calculated for a 200-kilowatt or 268-horsepower diesel engine assuming 50 hours of operation per year. The emissions are included in Table 3.2- 8 of the Draft EIR. This diesel engine would be subject to CARB’s Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) and required permits from the BAAQMD, since it will be equipped with an engine larger than 50 horsepower.

Comment PH-19
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan inquired into the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO- 8 (Protect Paleontological Resources if Encountered during Construction).

Mitigation Measure GEO-8 provides the construction contractor with the resources to identify and evaluate potential paleontological resources that may be encountered during construction to prevent their direct or indirect destruction. To implement the mitigation measure, a paleontologist would be on -site to monitor initial ground disturbance activities as well as excavations that extend to depths where paleontological resources may potentially be encountered. The mitigation ensures that that the project would be required to follow procedures outlined in Public Resources Code § 5097.5 in the event of inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources.

Comment PH-20
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked for clarification on the designated fire hazard severity zone that applies to the project site and applicable requirements.

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-6 Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) and Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-21
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked about the status of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-22
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked about the sizing, estimated usage, and location of the backup emergency generator from the nearest dwelling unit.

For the purposes of analysis, the Draft EIR evaluates a 200- kilowatt or 268- horsepower diesel engine generator assuming 50 hours of operation per year. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District allows a maximum limit of 50 hours per year of non-emergency operation under normal conditions. The generator would be fitted with an acoustical enclosure near the northwest corner of the property. The generator would be located approximately 225 feet from the nearest residential property line, and approximately 80 feet from the exterior of the Villa building. The engine would be required to meet CARB and U.S. EPA emission standards which consume commercially available California low-sulfur diesel fuel.

Comment PH-23
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked about the status of the Santa Rosa Wildland -Urban Interface Area Mapping.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-24
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked that information about the Spring Lake Village CCRC evacuation plan be added to the EIR.

Please see Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-25
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked about the proposed location of a noise barrier fence/wall that is required in Mitigation NOI-1b of the Draft EIR.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1b is intended to reduce noise levels associated with proposed mechanical systems of the Cottages . The fence/wall is specified to be located along the property lines where proposed cottages are located adjacent to off-site single-family residential properties in order to meet the City’s nighttime Noise Ordinance limit. This includes the property line adjacent to Cottages 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 on Figure 2- 3 (Proposed Project Site Plan) and Cottages 4, 5, and 7 on Figu re 4-1 (Alternative 2 Site Plan).

Comment PH-26
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked for additional wildfire information, including information for facility evacuations.

Please see Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2.

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-7 Comment PH-27
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked about the project coordination to date with the Sonoma County Regional Parks related to the Sonoma Valley Trail Feasibility Study.

A Notice of Preparation describing the project and the potential environmental effects was provided to the Sonoma County Regional Parks during the initial scoping period for the Draft EIR. During the initial scoping period, an e-mail was received from Sonoma County Regional Parks requesting that the public be allowed to use portions of the planned interior walking paths on the project site to facilitate pedestrian access Montgomery Drive until public improvements along the entire length of Los Alamos Road are completed. A Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearing for the Draft EIR were also provided to Sonoma County Regional Parks, and a letter was received from Sonoma County Regional Parks during the 45- day public review period (see Comment Letter 28 and Response to Comment 28-1 in Chapter 4 of this Final EIR).

Comment PH-28
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked about the timing of the Draft EIR and the Traffic Impact Study in relation to the amended CEQA Guidelines which specified vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for determining the significance of transportation impacts.

Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was adopted in 2013 and created a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. Specifically, SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to pro vide an alternative method for evaluating transportation impacts to replace level of service (LOS) metrics that were based on automobile delay. As amended in December 2018 and effective statewide beginning on July 1, 2020, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts) now specifies that VMT is the primary metric or measure of effectiveness for determining the significance of transportation impacts across California.

The Draft EIR and Traffic Impact Study were commenced prior to the effective date of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. Impact TR -1 of Draft EIR Section 3.12 (Transportation and Traffic), pages 3.12 -11 and

3.12-12, summarizes the intersection level of service information for informational purposes. Impact TR-2 of Draft EIR Section 3.12 (Transportation and Traffic), pages 3.12-13 and 3.12-14, evaluates the project for VMT in relation to OPR’s 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

Comment PH-29
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked for details on the shuttle service in relation to the VMT analysis in the Draft EIR.

An existing shuttle loop operated as part of the Spring Lake Village CCRC would be extended to the Project site. Residents would have access to the existing Spring Lake Village complex via shuttle which would run daily every 30 minutes between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. The shuttle service also allows residents to make off-site trips, such as for medical appointments and shopping, in multi passenger vehicles that might otherwise be made by single-occupancy vehicle. The shuttle is a Transportation Demand Management Program practice for the proposed senior community facility that further reduces vehicle trips and overall VMT. The VMT of the shuttle service would be less than the VMT associated with short trips that would otherwise be made by private vehicle.

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-8 Comment PH-30
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked if construction-related traffic is included in the VMT analysis in Impact TR-2 of the Draft EIR.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA which contains guidance on methodology and recommendations for establishing screening criteria and thresholds for VMT evaluation, which is used to evaluate impacts in the Draft EIR. OPR’s Technical Advisory specifies that transportation impact analysis be based on either the project's VMT per capita (or other efficiency metric like VMT per household, per employee) or total VMT change (before and after project). Under the OPR guidance, construction traffic is not considered a feature of the project and is temporary, therefore the Technical Guidance does not consider construction traffic in the analysis.

Impact TR-1 of the Draft EIR includes an evaluation of the short-term traffic generation that would occur during Project construction in relation to the existing traffic loads and capacity of Los Alamos Road, which accommodates a combined north and southbound volume of 4,716 vehicles daily between Melita Road and Highway 12. The Santa Rosa General Plan and the OPR guidance does not establish standards related to construction-related traffic, however, it is noted that the Project’s estimated maximum construction trips per day would be below the 110 trip per day operational screening threshold suggested by OPR guidance (OPR 2018).

Comment PH-31
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan asked about potential project implications if cultural or tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction.

Mitigation Measure CR-2a (Protection and Treatment of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources) in the Draft EIR requires the development and implementation of an Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment Plan that details recommended steps for protecting, preserving, and/or data recovery. In the event that archaeological deposits are encountered, the piece of equipment that encounters the suspected materials would be stopped, and the find inspected by a monitoring archaeologist and tribal monitor. If a deposit were to contain Historic Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources, or Tribal Cultural Resources as defined by CEQA, all work would be stopped in the immediate vicinity and the archaeologist would undertake data recovery of the deposit. Data recovery efforts would follow standard archaeological methods. Work would be able proceed after a find was appropriately addressed based on consultation between a qualified archaeologist and tribal representative.

The Draft EIR discusses several project alternatives, with Alternative 2 including a reduced project footprint and decreased ground disturbance that was found to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level with mitigation. The Applicant is now pursuing Alternative 2. See Master Response C for additional discussion of how Alternative 2 minimizes potential impacts on cultural and tribal cultural resources.

Comment PH-32
Comment Summary: Commissioner Duggan inquired into the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2d (Protect Unanticipated Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources).

Mitigation Measure CR-2d outlines procedures to be taken in the event of inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources during Project construction. The mitigation language includes the following excerpt:

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-9 “In considering any recommended measures proposed by the archaeologist, FIGR, or Lytton, the City shall determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, Project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidanc e is infeasible, other appropriate measures as recommended by the archaeologist, FIGR, or Lytton (e.g., data recovery or protection in place) shall be instituted. A buffer area around the resource would be established by a qualified archaeologist and tribal representative to ensure that no further damage to a resource would result.

Work may then proceed on other parts of the Project while mitigation for these resources is being carried out.”
The City’s decision would be made in consultation between the Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and the Lytton Rancheria as stipulated within an Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment Plan.

Planning Commissioner Charles Carter
Public Hearing Comments PH-33
Comment PH-33
Comment Summary: Commissioner Carter inquire d into the status of wildfire mapping and emergency response plans and whether significance thresholds in the Draft EIR need to be revised.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) and Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2. The significance thresholds in the Draft EIR related to interference with emergency response plans, evacuation plans and wildfire risks do not require revisions.

Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Holton
Public Hearing Comments PH-34
Comment PH-34
Comment Summary: Commissioner Holton reiterated Commissioner Duggan’s comment (PH-31 and PH- 32) regarding tribal cultural resources and implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -2d (Protect Unanticipated Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources). Commenter also asked about the status of wildfire mapping and emergency response plans.

Please see Response to Comments PH -31 and PH -32. Please also see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) and Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2.

Planning Commissioner Akash Kalia
Public Hearing Comments PH-35 to PH-36
Comment PH-35
Comment Summary: Commissioner Kalia requested review of updated collision rates at the intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road.

Please see Master Response H (Collision History for State Route 12 / Los Alamos Road) in Chapter 2.

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-10 Comment PH-36
Comment Summary: Commissioner Kalia noted that the EIR process began in 2017 and ask ed if the information in the Draft EIR is current.

The scoping process for the Draft EIR was initiated in 2017, followed by the initiation of several supporting technical studies. Subsequent to the first scoping period, the Applicant proposed modifications to the project that were deemed substantial enough to warrant a second notice of preparation. The modifications included the inclusion of two additional parcels that comprise the Project site and accompanying changes to the site plan. The EIR process also accompanied extended consultation efforts between the City of Santa Rosa, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and the Lytton Rancheria pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. The technical studies were updated to reflect project modifications prior to circulation of the Draft EIR for public review. In addition, see Master Response D for further explanation of the adequacy of the analysis.

Planning Commissioner Julian Peterson
Public Hearing Comments PH-37 through PH-39
Comment PH-37
Comment Summary: Commissioner Peterson asked about the status of the Santa Rosa Wildland -Urban Interface Area Mapping.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) in Chapter

2. In the event that the Wildland -Urban Interface Map were to change following certification of the Final EIR, and if the Project site were to be located within the WUI zone, then the development conditions that are triggered for projects within the WUI zone would become requirements for the Project.

Comment PH-38
Comment Summary: Commissioner Peterson asked for additional wildfire information.

Please see Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-39
Comment Summary: Commissioner Peterson inquired into details related to implementation of mitigation measures for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources in the Draft EIR.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -2a requires the development and implementation of an Archaeological Resource and Tribal Cultural Resource Treatment Plan, archaeological monitoring, and consultation with representatives of the FIGR and Lytton Rancheria Native American Tribes. The City would ensure that an Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment Plan is developed and implemented for the Project, which would be reviewed and approved by the City, after consultation with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and Lytton Rancheria, prior to the start of Project construction. The measure includes a program for archaeological monitoring during construction by both a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor. If cultural resources were discovered, Tribal representatives would be consulted with to evaluate and make recommendations as to treatment and handling of those resources.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c require further avoidance measures, details for which are included in a confidential Appendix H, in accordance with Federal and State law and pursuant to requests from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and the Lytton Rancheria. Mitigation Measure Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 3-11 CR-2d outlines procedures to be taken in the event of inadvertent discovery of archaeological or tribal cultural resources during Project construction. Mitigation Measure CR-3 outlines the procedures to be taken in the event of encountering human remains, outlined in Public Resources Code § 5097.9 and Health and Safety Code § 7050.5.

Planning Commissioner Karen Weeks
Public Hearing Comments PH-40 to PH-44
Comment PH-40
Comment Summary: Commissioner Weeks requested review of updated collision rates at the intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road.

Please see Master Response H (Collision History for State Route 12 / Los Alamos Road) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-41
Comment Summary: Commissioner Weeks asked for additional wildfire information.

Please see Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-42
Comment Summary: Commissioner Weeks asked about the status of emergency response plans.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) in Chapter 2.

Comment PH-43
Comment Summary: Commissioner Weeks inquired into details related to implementation of mitigation measures for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources in the Draft EIR.

Please see Response to Comment PH-40.

Comment PH-44
Comment Summary: Commissioner Weeks suggested that information included in the Traffic Impact Study be included in the Draft EIR.

Section 3.12 (Transportation and Traffic) of the Draft EIR summarizes the impacts that are largely based on the findings of the traffic study performed by Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc. ( Draft EIR Appendix G). Impact TR-3 included a verbal summary of the collision history for the study area. Please see Master Response H (Collision History for State Route 12 / Los Alamos Road) in Chapter 2 for additional details.

Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-1

4. Written Comments Letters and Responses
This Chapter includes copies of the written comment letters and e-mails received during the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR.

A list of the written comment letters and emails received on the Draft EIR is provided in Table 4-1. Written comment letters received are ordered based on date received and numbered starting with 1 and ending with 28. Copies of the written comment letters and e-mails received during the 45-day public review period are provided beginning on page 4- 2. Responses to each comment letter are provided at the end of this chapter, beginning on page 4-35.

Table 4-1 Written Comments Received
Letter /
Email Agency / Organization Last Name First Name Letter Date 1 Public Anderson Eric June 1, 2021
2 Public Weeks E. June 3, 2021
3 Public Edgar Stephanie June 4, 2021
4 Public Martin Tony June 4, 2021
5 Public Hughes Lynn & Robert June 4, 2021
6 Public Harrison Deidre June 4, 2021
7 Public Walling Vicki June 4, 2021
8 Public Smith Tim June 5, 2021
9 Public Lanahan Suzanne June 5, 2021
10 Public Karlen Fred June 5, 2021
11 Public Hill Rick & Marna June 7, 2021
12 Public Cobo Maria June 8, 2021
13 Public Baines Diane June 9, 2021
14 Public Castellano Marisa June 10, 2021
15 Public Walling Rod June 15, 2021
16 Public Weinstein Susan June 17, 2021
17 Public Marrs Charles & Robin June 22, 2021
18 Public Danoff Frances June 23, 2021
19 Public Raymond Mike June 23, 2021
20 Public Denniston Teresa June 23, 2021
21 Public Wollschlager Danette June 23, 2021
22 Public Reilly Regina June 24, 2021
23 Public Litzie Sandy & Ken June 25, 2021
24 Public Cohee Kim July 1, 2021
25 Public Fisher Leslie July 14, 2021
26 Caltrans, District 4 Leong Mark June 14, 2021
27 Caltrans, District 4 Leong Mark July 14, 2021
28 Sonoma County Regional Parks Tam Kenneth July 15, 2021

----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 1:48 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] east SR projects
Please forward to the City Council members. i do not know how to do that, I am not as swift or as smart as you all are.

Do not move ahead; without planning ahead. I do not have the project numbers that are a concern to me as a citizen of SR for over 27 years. The first project I am concerned with is the 68.73 acres near Oakmont that will house 975 residents. The second proposed project is the seven acres of the Spring Lake Village expansion from the Melita Bed and Breakfast along Montgomery to Los Alamos Road and lastly the Highway 12 and Calistoga Road complex I believe Mid Pen is still behind this.

All three of these projects have nowhere near the amount of parking needed to accommodate their residents. The Mid Pen project with numerous DQGEHGURRPDSDUWPHQWVZLOOKDYHPXOWLSOHFDUVSHUDSDUWPHQWXQLWDQGOHVVWKDQKDOI WKHQURISDUNLQJVSDFHVFRPSDUHGWRQURIDSDUWPHQWV)URPZKDW,KDYHUHDGWKH6SULQJ/DNH9LOODJHH[SDQVLRQLV JRLQJWREHLQIOLFWHGZLWKWKLVVDPHLVVXH$QGZHFDQVXUPLVHWKH2DNPRQWSURMHFWZLOODVZHOO Lets talk about services; Right now we have no adequate water supply and these developments want to add thousands more people to draw on the water system. We also do not have adequate electric services with rolling black outs and of course the PGE forced grid shut down for fire prevention. The Highway 12 and the Melita Road shortcut to Montgomery right now are some of the busiest throughways into town.

It would be prudent for adequate City, county services and utilities to be in place long before any further expansion of SR.

The infrastructure needs to be in place before starting these projects. Plan ahead so we are not seeing roadways tore up and the increased traffic load slowed for years before additional upgraded traffic systems are in place. We need a stable electric grid, we need adequate water sources. And the roadways all need to be addressed BEFORE any additional development.

Why not ask the various agencies for their input as to traffic concerns i.e. SRPD, SRFD, Sonoma County Sheriff.

Also having lived through several mandatory evacuations in Rincon Valley how are these thousands of people and their multitude of cars going to be evacuated when the next fire hits? Not to mention that the proposed Oakmont expansion is right in the recent fire zone.

Now that SkyHawk is almost back to capacity, and with further building still going on there, we already have so much traffic it is impossible to enter highway 12 without using a traffic signal at a controlled intersection.

My viewpoints for ‘low income’ housing such as the proposed Calistoga Rd and highway 12 project are that they should not be placed into a heavily trafficked area and not in an area of already high density. Where they should be constructed is a huge concern to all of us in SR. Some people will not and cannot and should not live here. We would love to live in Rancho Santa Fe or Malibu but we know we cannot afford those places.

All three of these projects should be scrapped entirely or at the very least have the complete infrastructure in place before moving forward.

If you need examples. Think what SkyHawk development did to the traffic scene. Look at those Fountaingrove and Bicentennial roadways to see traffic, speeders, pedestrians, bikers all fighting for the same roadway.

Do not move ahead; without planning ahead.

Eric Anderson

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-2 Comment Letter 1
From:Elizabeth<[email protected]>
Sent:Thursday,June3,202110:04PM
To:Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]SpringLakeVillageEast
Istronglyfeelthatthereisn’tthenecessaryinfrastructuretosupportthedevelopmentinafireevacuation. E. Weeks

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-3 Comment Letter 2
From:RobͲStephanieEdgar<[email protected]>
Sent:Friday,June4,202111:36AM
To:Toomians,Kristinae<[email protected]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]ProposedhousingprojectsinRinconValley Hello,
IliveonMelitaRoadandhighway12inRinconValley.Iwouldliketovoicemyconcernsaboutthetwoproposed housingƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ;
ůŶŽŬĂĂŶĚĂůƐŽƚŚĞŽŶĞŽŶDĞůŝƚĂĂŶĚDŽŶƚŐŽŵĞƌǇͿ͘dŚĞƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŶĞĞĚƐƚŽůŽŽŬĐůŽƐĞůǇ ĂƚĂƉƉƌŽǀŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĞƚǁŽƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘dŚĞŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽŶDĞůŝƚĂ͕DŽŶƚŐŽŵĞƌǇ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƉĂƌƚŽĨŚŝŐŚǁĂǇϭϮŝƐŝŶĂĚĂƋƵŝƚĞƚŽ ŚĂŶĚůĞƚŚĂƚŬŝŶĚŽĨĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞƚŚĞƐĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐƵŶƚŝůƚŚĞ ĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŚĂƐĂĚĞĨŝŶŝƚĞƉůĂŶŝŶƉůĂĐĞ͘
/ŚĂǀĞůŝǀĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĨŽƌϮϲǇĞĂƌƐĂŶĚŚĂǀĞǁŝƚŶĞƐƐĞĚƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͘ dŚĞ'ůĂƐƐĨŝƌĞƐǁĞƉƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƌŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂŶĚũƵŵƉĞĚƚŚĞŚŝŐŚǁĂǇƌŝŐŚƚĂƚŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͖ďƵƌŶĞĚŝŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĨĂŶĚ ďĞŚŝŶĚŽƵƌŚŽŵĞ͘,ŝŐŚǁĂǇϭϮǁĂƐŐƌŝĚůŽĐŬĞĚƚŚĂƚŶŝŐŚƚǁŝƚŚĞǀĞƌǇŽŶĞƚƌǇŝŶŐƚŽĞǀĂĐƵĂƚĞŽŶďŽƚŚŚŝŐŚǁĂǇϭϮĂŶĚ DĞůŝƚĂĂŶĚDŽŶƚŐŽŵĞƌǇZŽĂĚ͘zŽƵĐŽƵůĚŶ͛ƚŐŽ
ĂƐƚŽŶϭϮďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨĂůůŽĨKĂŬŵŽŶƚĞǀĂĐƵĂƚŝŶŐ͘dŚĞŽŶůǇŽƚŚĞƌǁĂǇ ǁĂƐtĞƐƚŽŶ,ǁǇϭϮĂŶĚƚŚĂƚǁĂƐŐƌŝĚůŽĐŬĞĚ͘&ŝƌĞƐĂƌĞĂĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĚƚŚƌĞĂƚŚĞƌĞĂŶĚǁĞŶĞĞĚƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĞǀĂĐƵĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐǁŚĞŶĂƉƉƌŽǀŝŶŐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘EŽƚƚŽŵĞŶƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŚĞŶǇŽƵƉƵƚĂůĂƌŐĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐĞŶŝŽƌƐŽŶĂƚǁŽ ůĂŶĞƌŽĂĚĂƚŶŝŐŚƚĞǀĂĐƵĂƚŝŶŐĂĨŝƌĞ͖ƚŚŝƐŵĂŬĞƐĨŽƌĚŝƐĂƐƚĞƌďĞĐĂƵƐĞĂůŽƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞŶŝŽƌƐĚŽŶŽƚĞǀĞŶĚƌŝǀĞĂƚŶŝŐŚƚ͊ /ĂŵĂŐĂŝŶƐƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂŶĚƚǇƉĞŽĨƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͘ dŚĂŶŬǇŽƵ
^ƚĞƉŚĂŶŝĞ
ĚŐĂƌ
ϲϯϵϱDĞůŝƚĂZŽĂĚ
^ĂŶƚĂZŽƐĂ

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-4 Comment Letter 3
From:TonyMartinyahoo_pi<[email protected]>
Sent:Friday,June4,202112:03PM
To:Toomians,Kristinae<[email protected]>;Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]> Subject:[EXTERNAL]NOonburningupseniors!
DearSantaRosacitycouncil
NOonSPRING LAKE VILLAGE EAST
NO on ELNOKA
IamexpressingmyconcernandIdonotsupportbuildinganyseniorlivingcentersanywhereinwildfireadjacentareas. TheonlysafeplaceiswellwithinCityboundariesinthecoreoftown,asaninfillprojectorsimilar.Currentseniorliving centerscouldeasilybechangedtomultiͲstory&addcapacityonexistingsitesinaverysafemanner. Inadditiontheprincipalsonprojectshouldhavebeenbannedforalifetimefrombuilding,owningandoperatingsuch facilitiesafterabandoningtheirpatientsthereinthepast! Thisisasickstorythatyou'reevenconsideringputtingseniorcitizensintobarbecueCentral͘dŚĞŝƌďŽĚŝĞƐĂŶĚďůŽŽĚ ĂƌĞŽŶǇŽƵƌŚĂŶĚƐŝĨǇŽƵůĞƚƚŚŝƐŐŽĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ/ĐĂŶΖƚƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŚŽǁǇŽƵĐĂŶƐůĞĞƉĂƚŶŝŐŚƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐ͘ dŽŶǇDĂƌƚŝŶ
ϮϭϭϴĐƌĞĞŬƐŝĚĞƌĚ^Z

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-5 Comment Letter 4
----Original Message-----
From: Robert Hughes <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 3:57 PM
To: Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]>
Cc: Toomians, Kristinae <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] My neighborhood
Hello
We are very disturbed hearing their are pending plans for a couple very dense planned developments in our fragile community
Hwy12 had a long standing plan for an extension that would have enabled our exit during a disaster Under pressure I am sure that was stopped, for the pleasure of part time park visitors This was done at the expense of Santa Rosa citizens lives We must all deal with the current conditions, even you When you even thought about placing people that might not even own a car to be able to evacuate @Hwy 12 and Calistoga Rd as well as at a very bad intersection with no appropriate egress or ingress, I began to wonder about your intentions No one is against proper planning, lovely spaced homes would be a natural in our area BUT NOT jam packed facilities with no exit or stores I can recall a few years ago when only 1,000 units could be built on this east side of town Yes the developers can make a lot more money with higher density, then they leave us with the present and future catastrophes You don’t have roads to accommodate these people do you have the water, what about a grocery store that keeps getting turned down This area of town needs protection , we are close to a fault as well as I had three fires raging towards me last fall with one exit We thought you ran for office to improve our community not deface it
Sent from Lynn Hughes

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-6 Comment Letter 5
From:DeidreHarrison<[email protected]>
Sent:Friday,June4,20217:44AM
To:Toomians,Kristinae<[email protected]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]GallagherDevelopments
ToWhomitMayConcern
IamwritingtoobjectinthestrongestpossibletermsbothproposeddevelopmentsatSpringLakeVillageEastandMelita andHighway12.
Havewelearnednothingfromthepast4years?Thesedevelopmentsareinfireevacuationzonesandposearealthreat tothehealthandsafetyofanyfutureresidents.ThatcorridorisavitalescaperoutewhichisalreadydangerouslyoverͲ stretched,witnesstheterribleandfrighteningtrafficbackuplastyearasOakmontresidentsfledthe2020fires.We ĐĂŶŶŽƚƉƵƚŵŽƌĞǀƵůŶĞƌĂďůĞƉĞŽƉůĞŝŶŚĂƌŵ͛ƐǁĂǇ͘
Gallagherhasaproventrackrecordofpoorlyrunandpoorlystaffedinstitutions.Hisjudgmentcannotbetrusted.Apply yourown,please.
Sincerely,
DeidreHarrison
3611HollyRidgeDrive
SantaRosa,CA95409
SentfrommyiPhone

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-7 Comment Letter 6
From: Vicki Walling
To: Nicholson, Amy
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Developments on Hwy 12 and Melita and Melita and Montgomery Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 3:20:19 PM
I also left you a voice mail. Please do not allow either of these developments. They would both be disasters in case of another fire, especially the Elnoka site. I have lived in Rincon Valley for over 30 years so I was here during the Tubbs and Glass fires. We could not have gotten out during the Tubbs fire due to traffic. People are already leaving this area due to fire fears, especially due to traffic.

In addition, I would not trust Gallagher on any project. He does shoddy work, not always to code, beside what happened to the Varenna residents.

Sincerely,
Vicki Walling

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-8 Comment Letter 7
From:[email protected]<[email protected]> Sent:Saturday,June5,20219:26AM
To:Toomians,Kristinae<[email protected]>;Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]> Subject:[EXTERNAL]IopposetheElnokaANDSpringLakeVillageEastdevelopments AsaSantaRosacommunitymember(notjustasanOakmontresident),IstandopposedtoANYsignificantdevelopment atthistimethatwould:
x Increasewaterusageatatimewhenwearefacedwiththethreatofcontinued,worseningdroughts.Thisisnot justalocalissue,butitcertainlyhastobeconsideredgiventhatweareincreasinglychallengedtoprovide sufficientwaterforEXISTINGhomesandbusinesses.
x IncreasetrafficonHighway12.Thiscorridorisalreadycongested,andthousandsofadditionalvehiclesaddedto thenormaldailysluggishtraffic,particularlyatpeaktraveltimes. x Poseadditionalwildfiresafetyissues.Furtherdevelopmentwouldputmorepeopleinharm’swayshould wildfiresdevelop,whichisbecomingincreasinglylikely.Thisputsadditionalstressonpoliceandfireresources duringcriticaltimes,andfurthercomplicatesevacuationeffortsbyaddingthousandsofadditionalresidents tryingtoleaveonalreadycrowdedroads.

Regards,
TimSmith
707.236.8048main(trythisfirstbutnottextable)
707.888.9700(textable,maynotbetimely)

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-9 Comment Letter 8
From:[email protected]<[email protected]> Sent:Saturday,June5,202110:08AM
To:Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]>;Toomians,Kristinae<[email protected]> Subject:[EXTERNAL]Development
I am sure I am not the first person to suggest that if the developers want to build these projects that they pay for widening Hwy 12 from Pythian to Melita to two lanes.

Suzanne Lanahan
Oakmont

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-10 Comment Letter 9
From:PastorFred<[email protected]>
Sent:Saturday,June5,20213:48PM
To:Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]SpringLakeExpansionProject
AsaresidentoftheLosAlamosRoadneighborhood,Iamdeeplyconcernedwiththetwohighdensityseniorliving complexesproposedforourarea;wearecourtingdisaster.WeliveinahighͲriskfireareawitharoadsystemalready inadequateforexistingpopulation;themanyevacuationswhichwehavehadsincetheNunsandTubsfiresof2017have welltestifiedtothis.September’sGlassfirefoundustrappedforaroundanhourandahalfinchingourwayoutof RinconValleyastheflamesrusheddownthehillside,wavesofheatandashwashedoverthevehicleandpropanetanks exploded,itwasmostfortunatethatnoonewaskilledinthatincident. WealsoneedtobemindfulthatanadditionalhighdensityprojectisslatedforthecornerofHwy12andCalistoga,until weareseriouslyaddressinginfrastructureͲnewroads,wideningexistingones,alternativeescaperoutes,weneedto putthesehighdensityprojectsonhold.Ifwedonot,wewillfollowinthefootstepsofParadise,moreandmore developmentalonginadequateroadswhichwillultimatelyresultinlivecremations. Theotherconcernisthedestructionofthewildernessfeelofourarea,peoplecomeoutheretorecreateandenjoythe wildernessviews,thisissimplyanadditionalstepinturningour“sceniccorridor”intoSanJoseNORTH.Theprojectis notrightforthislocationorthistime.
SincerelyFredKarlen

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-11 Comment Letter 10
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 3:58 PM
To: Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Elnoka and Spring Lake Expansion
Dear Amy Nicholson,
We urge you reject the EIR that was drafted for the Elnoka Continuing Care Retirement Community as well as the Spring Lake expansion project. These ill-advised proposals are based on outdated planning and bogus projections.

High density residential land use on this parcel should be off the table. Untenable traffic and greenhouse gas impacts, inability to safely house and/or evacuate residents in a timely fashion, and impacts to the Santa Rosa Creek watershed, all should have doomed this proposal for the last time a generation ago, back when it was known as Three Bridges.

The property fronts Annadel State Park and a state scenic route. It would negatively impact cherished views and topography. While seniors who could afford living there are likely to enjoy vistas from Rincon Valley to Sugarloaf Ridge, they will also be wholly dependent on individual motor vehicle trips; both for themselves as well as for hundreds of employees commuting from miles away. Due to unacceptable traffic impacts and vulnerability to wildfires, the Elnoka property has no legitimate plan to mitigate the damage it will inflict, to say nothing of the damage it will absorb, during the next wildfire.

Given all that we’ve learned about traffic, fires, watersheds and climate change, why are we considering something on this scale in this location? Any proposal that requires adding another stoplight on often failing (LOS F) Highway 12 should have never gotten this far.

Our property is in an unincorporated area across from Oakmont and Elnoka, which places us in view of a particular risk to proposal that is not mentioned in this EIR. Several large parcels that burned in the Glass Fire remain loaded with standing dead trees. Hundreds of these private acres are covered by Conservation Easements obtained by Sonoma County Open Space District, which taxpayers paid handsomely to secure. During the Glass Fire, chaparral and fir trees burned throughout this area, leaving thousands of standing dead trees--a powder keg waiting for a spark and a good wind. There DUHQRILUHEUHDNV7KHUHKDVEHHQQRHIIRUWWRPLWLJDWHWKLVKXJHIXHOORDG7KHVFDOHRIFRPEXVWLEOHPDWHULDORQSURWHFWHG SDUFHOVFORVHWR(OQRNDLVVWDJJHULQJ,WFRPSULVHVDQH[LVWHQWLDOWKUHDWWRDOORIHDVW6DQWD5RVDEXWHVSHFLDOO\(OQRND :HVW2DNPRQW6RPHUYLOOH0HOLWDDQG6SULQJ/DNH9LOODJHV )XUWKHUPRUHRXU&RXQW\*HQHUDO3ODQGLVFRXUDJHVRYHUFRQFHQWUDWLRQRIODQGXVHV<HWIURP6SULQJ/DNH9LOODJHVWR 2DNPRQW¶V3\WKLDQ5RDGHQWUDQFHWKH&LW\RI6DQWD5RVDKDVDQQH[HGDQGJUHHQOLJKWHGDVRUWRI &RGJHU+ROORZ¶RQH
VHQLRUOLYLQJIDFLOLW\DIWHUDQRWKHU7KLVSRRUO\FRQVLGHUHGXVHRISUHFLRXVODQG DQGZHWODQGV
LJQRUHGRXU&RXQW\*HQHUDO
3ODQDQGGLGVRDWWKHSHULORIVHQLRUUHWLUHHVDVZHOODVWKRVHZKRUHO\RQ+LJKZD\(QRXJKDOUHDG\ :KLOHVLWXDWLQJFRQJUHJDQWVHQLRUKRXVLQJDKDOIGR]HQPLOHVIURPWKHVHUYLFHVWKH\UHO\RQZDVDOOXULQJLQ
LH
2DNPRQW
LWLVDZRHIXOO\RXWGDWHGFRQFHSWWRGD\*UHHQKRXVHJDVLPSDFWVRIVHQLRUKRXVLQJIDUEH\RQGWKHHGJHRI WRZQZHUHUDUHO\PHQWLRQHGVL[W\\HDUVDJR%XWZDNHXS&LW\3ODQQHUV7KLVLV:K\DUHZH\HWDJDLQGLVFXVVLQJ WKHZLVGRPRIKRXVLQJVHQLRUFLWL]HQVLQKDUP¶VZD\
VWXFNLQWUDIILFZDLWLQJIRUWKHLUDPEXODQFHVDQGDWWHQGDQWVWRDUULYH WRWDOO\GHSHQGHQWRQSHUVRQDOPRWRUYHKLFOHV"
3ODQQHUVDQG(,5&RQVXOWDQWVDUHZHOOSDLGWRFRQFRFWDQGSXEOLVKSURSRVDOVDQGGRFXPHQWVOLNHWKLVRQH<HWJLYHQ FXUUHQWNQRZOHGJHZK\GRHV&LW\6WDIIIRUFHUHDVRQDEOHQHLJKERUVDQGFRQFHUQHGFLWL]HQVWRLQYHVWVLJQLILFDQWDPRXQWV RIRXUSHUVRQDO

XQFRPSHQVDWHG
WLPHWRSURWHFWRXUFRPPXQLW\IURPWKHSULGHIXOSURILWHHULQJRIRWKHUV" 3OHDVHKHOSXVSUHYHQWREVROHWHVHQLRUKRXVLQJLQORFDWLRQVSURQHWRZLOGILUHDQGWUDIILFMDPV 7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUFRQVLGHUDWLRQ
5LFNDQG0DUQD+LOO

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-12 Comment Letter 11
From: mariaypeter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 5:15 PM
To: Toomians, Kristinae <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] SPRING LAKE VILLAGE EAST DEVELOPMENT I am writing this email to express my concerns and opposition to this project in a fire prone area.

Please stop this development from happening.

Maria Cobo
6280 Jamison Road,
Santa Rosa, 95404

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-13 Comment Letter 12
To Whom It May Concern:

I live in Santa Rosa and was evacuated twice during our recent wildfires. Please fight against allowing the proposed huge senior facility and smaller senior housing to be built on the corner of Melita and Montgomery. These senior housing developments are within 1 to 2 square miles of each other IN FIRE PRONE RINCON VALLEY, and are very close to the areas affected by our recent wildfires. The support roads are too narrow and too few to provide a safe exit in the case of fire danger. This is an inappropriate and dangerous location for these project proposals.

Thank you.

Diane Baines
Santa Rosa
“The measure of a man’s estimate of your strength is the kind of weapons he feels that he must use in order to hold you fast in a prescribed place.”—
Howard Thurman, American theologian and civil rights leader
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-14 Comment Letter 13
From:[email protected]<[email protected]> Sent:Thursday,June10,20211:33PM
To:Toomians,Kristinae<[email protected]>;Lowenthal,Paul<[email protected]>;JackTibbetts <[email protected]>;Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]> Subject:[EXTERNAL]HaltplanneddevelopmentsalongHwy12corridorineasternSantaRosa Dear Ms Toomians, June 10, 2021
I write in opposition to both of the two planned developments along Hwy 12 near Melita and Oakmont. One is called Elnoka and I do not know the name of the other (Spring Lake?), but I know that they are multi-unit developments between Skyhawk and Oakmont.

My main overriding reason for opposition is because this corridor does not need hundreds more people who will have to evacuate during the next wildfire. And there will be a next one, of that you can be sure.

I live in the St. Francis Acres area, which is called the Skyhawk area for city evacuation purposes. Like hundreds of others, last September we were told to evacuate kind of late. My household had begun to pack for evacuation hours prior to any Nixle alert from authorities, because we have been through this before and knew with the wind direction and a fire in Napa, it was only a matter of time... I was surprised at how close authorities allowed the fire to come before sending that Nixle alert.

But even with prior preparation, we were caught in the nightmare traffic jam that ensued that night on Hwy 12.

We were all at a standstill watching the fire come down the hill toward our neighborhood. We firmly believe that one reason the fire consumed houses just blocks from ours—houses in the Skyhawk neighborhood that should never have burned down—is because people were stuck trying to evacuate on Hwy 12 (and back up through the neighborhood), and for some reason firefighters do not seem to enter a neighborhood until it’s completely empty of people. That may be for safety, but it means that people’s homes will burn kind of needlessly while firefighters watch from their staging ground at the Safeway parking lot on Hwy 12 and Calistoga Road.

I hope that local and state fire departments have some input on this development—they can’t possibly want more people in the area for whom they must wait in order to move in and fight the fire! So the idea of building any more housing along this corridor, much less multi-unit development, is reckless and dangerous. Please try to put yourself in our place. Someone may well die next time because of the inability to evacuate quickly. The Glass Fire proved that Hwy 12 cannot support any more evacuation traffic.

I believe that both of these planned developments are for senior living. Let me point out that residents will have no services or commerce or even much public transportation within walking distance. And some might be unable to evacuate quickly and safely. Please listen to the interests of local residents over those of moneyed developers.

We in this area have been through a lot. Please do not add to our concerns for a safe evacuation next time, or the next. SAFETY FIRST!
Marisa Castellano
St. Francis Acres, Santa Rosa, CA

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-15 Comment Letter 14
From:VickiWalling<[email protected]>
Sent:Tuesday,June15,20212:20PM
To:Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Elnoka,etc.
Please do not allow either of these developments. They would both be disasters in case of another fire, especially the Elnoka site. I have lived in Rincon Valley for over 30 years so I was here during the Tubbs and Glass fires. We could not have gotten out during the Tubbs fire due to traffic. People are leaving this area due to fire fears, especially due to traffic. Even without evacuation traffic there are frequent long backups on Hwy 12 south of Oakmont coming into Santa Rosa.

In addition, I would not trust Gallagher on any project. He does shoddy work, not always to code, beside what happened to the Varenna residents. A friend who bought a house built by Gallagher found many serious construction flaws. (Wonder how the house passed inspection). I also met a contractor who bought a house built by Gallagher. When the contractor complained about the bad construction, Gallagher threatened him with a lawsuit for damaging his reputation.

Sincerely,
Rod Walling

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-16 Comment Letter 15
Susan Weinstein
334 Los Alamos Road
Santa Rosa,CA
95409
707-696-7964 cell phone
susanharpist @gmail.com
Amy Nicholson, Project Planner
City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development
To Whom it May Concern:

Thank you for considering public comments prior to the June 24, 2021 meeting.

I’d like to submit the following comments, questions, and concerns for your review and consideration.

1. If entry to th e new off-site expansion of Spring Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Community is “driveway to driveway” with the Villa Los Alamos Condo Complex, will the portion of Los Alamos Road be widened? Will there be traffic lights at highway 12 and the sharp right turn on to Los Alamos Road and changes made to that sharp turn as this is already a dangerous roadway and the bottom, where Los Alamos Road meets Melita Road? Will there be a dedicated turn lane to entry/exit of these two “driveway to driveway” entrances?

2. The resident and visitor parking areas, while outdoor spaces are not assigned to individual vehicles, parking is often not sufficient for the number of vehicles. The concern is that increased construction and other vehicles at the site across the street will usurp this parking area, impeding not only traffic but access and use of the Villa Los Alamos parking areas.

The trucks and associated heavy equipment will also damage pavement and landscaping.

This will not only be inconvenient but unsafe and expensive.

3. Villa Los Alamos condos range in size, floor plans, and location. These condos were built in the early to mid 1970s. Challenges have been faced here due to age, tree locations and conditions, creek vegetation, and wildlife. Increased construction. And disruption of the ground and the entire area puts the Villa Los Alamos Condo Complex at risk for an increase of rodent activity, harborage, and intrusion to condos and property. Increased need for an integrated pest management will be needed for both the new and existing structures both in the Spring Lake Village Expansion site and Villa Los Alamos Condo Complex . Is the development company prepared to provide, oversee, and pay for this?

4. The hours in which the increase in noise and traffic cause a disruption to daily and nightly life is a concern.

5. Personal safety for the community with heavy equipment and associated vehicles is a concern for residents and visitors, as well.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please feel free to contact me as these are individual comments. I appreciate that you are open to public comment.

Sincerely,
Susan Weinstein
334 Los Alamos Road
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
707-696-7964
[email protected]

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-17 Comment Letter 16
From:CharlesMarrs<[email protected]>
Sent:Tuesday,June22,20213:41PM
To:Nicholson,Amy
Subject:[EXTERNAL]SpringLakeVillageEastGrove
Dear Ms Nicholson:

I am a lead fire warden in one of the apartment buildings at Spring Lake Village. I am responsible for helping to evacuate a number of residents if an evacuation becomes necessary. I was on duty during the evacuation of September 2020 and was the last of the building's residents to leave.

When I left I could see the Glass Fire coming toward Spring Lake Village. I had to take Montgomery Drive west toward downtown Santa Rosa. Traffic moved so extremely slowly that I wondered if the line of vehicles could possibly get away from the fire before it overran us. Fortunately firefighters held the fire at Highway 12 for the most part but not entirely.

Now Covia Communities proposes to construct more housing in the area affected by the Glass Fire. There seems to be no provision for evacuating more people yet from an area that already lacks adequate escape routes in the event of another fire. Hence the Covia proposal appears unrealistic and short-sighted given the current state of overloaded evacuation routes.

Before approving the Covia application, it seems wise to do something about the inadequate evacuation routes. Such an approach would require the coordination of Caltrans, the County of Sonoma and the City of Santa Rosa to improve evacuation routes before approving the construction of additional housing units in a fire zone.

I note that the proposed Elnoka development would add about ten times the number of residents to the same area as the Covia project. I do not believe that either project should be approved absent improvements in evacuation routes.

I encourage the Planning Commission to reject both projects at this time.

Thank you for your consideration.

Charles Robin Marrs
5555 Montgomery Drive, Apt. G-107
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
(707)707) 579-673 e
(707)707) 228-5972

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-18 Comment Letter 17
From:FranDanoff<[email protected]>
Sent:Wednesday,June23,20216:49AM
To:Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]SpringLakeVillageexpansion
I have been a resident home owner at 338 Los Alamos Road since May 1996. In that time there has been a huge increase in traffic on the small section of Los Alamos Rd. between Highway 12 and Melita as drivers now use Melita to avoid lights on westbound Hwy 12.

We have had frequent evacuation orders during fire danger since 2017. I am very worried that if there is an entrance on Los Alamos to the new units proposed it will be impossible to evacuate Villa Los Alamos quickly.

Perhaps if the new SLV entrance were only on Melita Rd? Los Alamos Rd. is much too narrow, and the turn onto it from eastbound Hwy 12 is not well banked.

Thank you for bringing up this concern to the Santa Rosa Planning Commission at tomorrow's meeting..

Frances Danoff
707-539-7394

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-19 Comment Letter 18
From:MikeRaymond<[email protected]>
Sent:Wednesday,June23,202110:08PM
To:Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]FileNumberMJP14Ͳ012
Amy
I oppose and increase in density along the Hi-Way 12 corridor until improvements are made to the east bound Hi-way 12 traffic at the Farmers lane intersection and general road improvements to handle the increase in traffic.. Alternate routes have had an increase in traffic also. The LOS at intersections continue on unacceptable levels There is also increasing the risk of people trying to evacuate the case of emergences.

There have been numerous plans that have been presented along the Hi 12 corridor, 225 Los Alamos road 5803 & 5815 Melita road, Elnoka CRC project and others. With no road infrastructure improvements.

Based on the recent Greenway EIR resolution section 2 page 4 of 146 there are significant issues: 3 Air Quality Impacts and 6 Transportation and Circulation Impacts.

Impact AQ - 2: operation of the proposed project could contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Two stand out
,PSDFW$4±)XWXUHSRWHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWFRXOGFXPXODWLYHO\FRQWULEXWH WRWKHQRQDWWDLQPHQWGHVLJQDWLRQVRIWKH6DQ)UDQFLVFR%D\$UHD$LUEDVLQ ,PSDFW4$±GHVSLWHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWSROLFLHVFULWHULDDLUSROOXWLRQHPLVVLRQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH SURSRVHGSURMHFWFRXOGJHQHUDWHDVXEVWDQWLDOQHWLQFUHDVHLQWKHHPLVVLRQVWKDWH[FHHGVWKH%D\$UHD$LUTXDOLW\ PDQDJHPHQW'LVWULFWUHJLRQDOVLJQLILFDQWWKUHVKROGV
7KDQNV
0LNH5D\PRQG
.QROOV'ULYH
6DQWD5RVD&$

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-20 Comment Letter 19
From:teresadenniston<[email protected]>
Sent:Wednesday,June23,20211:05PM
To:PlanningShared<[email protected]>
Cc:_CityCouncilListPublic<[email protected]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]SpringLakeVillageEastGroveDevelopment GoodAfternoon
InregardstothepotentialEastGroveDevelopmentproject....Pleaselistentothepubliccommentsinregardstothe potentialElnokaproject....Thesedevelopmentsshouldnotbebuilt.... negativeimpactoni.e.traffic,Sewer,water,opengreenspace,evacuationmitigationplansforthenextfire/natural disaster.
IrealizethattheElnokaProjectisquiteabitlargerinscopeascomparedtotheEastGroveproject;howeverthe concernsremainthesame...theseprojectswillnegativelyaffecttheEastsideoftown. AdultlivingcommunitiesmaybeneededforSantaRosa;howeverpleaseconsideralocationontheWestside. Icannotbegintoexpressmyfrustrationofhowtheseprojectscouldpossiblybeapprovedgivenallthatweknowfrom thepast4yearsofdealingwiththefires,etc....andIliveontheWestsideoftown. ͲͲ
BestRegards
Teresa
[email protected]
Home:707Ͳ575Ͳ8422
Cell:707Ͳ755Ͳ1565
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the co rrect file and location.
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-21 Comment Letter 20
From:DanetteW<[email protected]>
Sent:Wednesday,June23,20215:08PM
To:Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]SpringLakeVillageEastDevelopment Hello,
IliveintheVillaLosAlamoscondocommunityandamextremelyopposedtothisdevelopment.Theroads cannothandlethetrafficthiswouldbringtotheneighborhoodonadailybasis,andespeciallyduringthenext fireevacuation.
IwalktowardsSpringLakeonadailybasiswithmydogandhavebeenalmosthitcountlesstimesbecause peopledonotstopatthestopsign.Igethonkedat,glaredatandflippedoff,simplyfortryingtogetthrough thatintersection.
Ihavesentemailstothecityinthepastaboutthisissueandhavebeentoldthatacrosswalkisn'tpossible becauseitwouldn'tconnectanything.Anewdevelopmentwouldaddevenmoretraffictoexacerbateroad rage.
Pleasefindadifferentsiteforthisdevelopment,asitethatcanhandlethetraffic. Thankyou,
DanetteWollschlager

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-22 Comment Letter 21
-----Original Message-----
From: REGINA REILLY <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:47 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] public hearing on Spring Lake Village east grove Hello Amy Nicholson, project planner,
I have lived here at Spring Lake Village for two years. I have been involved in two different evacuations because of fires.

I object to the off-site expansion project for 2 principal reasons:

1. The Village population is 400-500 seniors and staff people. In our neighborhood, there are families with multiple vehicles. When there is an emergency, like for a fire, there is only Montgomery Drive to escape and families as well as residents from Spring Lake Village must use that to get to safety.

In the last midnight evacuation it was slow-going mess with fire burning trees and houses visible as we tried to move away from danger.

To add 64 more residences makes no sense since it increases the likely congestion in an emergency.

2. The Village is at present a decent size: there is enough diversity, so life can involve activity, exercise, interactive gatherings, and meetings of various kinds to support our learning and our healthy social development to avoid isolation. 64 more units will tax the facilities for those of us already here such as the Assisted living facility and the Skilled Nursing facility. A better use of the land at this time is for gardens like what we have LQWKH'HOOQRZ3HRSOHDQG IRRGVHUYLFHIRONVFDQJURZJDUGHQVZLWKSODQWVDQGKHUEVWRXVHLQRXUNLWFKHQVIRURXUKHDOWK\IRRG*DUGHQLQJLVRQH RIWKHPRVWXVHIXOSRSXODUDQG
SURGXFWLYHDFWLYLWLHVIRUHOGHUV
3OHDVHWDNHWKHVHFRPPHQWVLQWRVHULRXVFRQVLGHUDWLRQ 7KDQN\RX
5HJLQD5HLOO\
0RQWJRPHU\'ULYH'
6DQWD5RVD&$

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-23 Comment Letter 22
From:SandyLitzie<[email protected]>
Sent:Friday,June25,20211:24PM
To:Ross,Adam<[email protected]>
Cc:Rose,Ben<[email protected]>;Trippel,Andrew<[email protected]>;Weeks,Karen<[email protected]> Subject:[EXTERNAL]SpringLakeVillageEast
Mr.Ross:
PleaseforwardthismessagetothePlanningCommission. TO:SantaRosaPlanningCommission
PleasedonotapprovetheproposedSpringLakeVillageEastdevelopment. Iunderstandadevelopmentofabout100units(MahoniaGlen)hasalreadybeenapprovedforthecornerofCalistoga andHighway12,andthehugeElnokaproject,whichwouldaddanother600+unitsrequiringaccessnearbyon12,isalso underconsideration..
AsatwoͲdaysͲnewRinconValleyhomeownerwhentheGlassfirebrokeoutin2020,IexperiencedfirstͲhandthe horrendousevacuationgridlockthatoccurredonHighway12.Ittookus30minutestodrivefromCalistoga/12to Mission/12,adistanceofamere1.6miles.IheardsomeOakmontresidentsweretrappedforovertwohourstryingto leavetheirdevelopmentbyturningonto12.
AllofthesedevelopmentswillcauseadditionalcongestiononCalistoga,Melita,andMontgomery...theverystreets (alongwithHwy12)thatfailedtoprovideadequateevacuationroutesforexistingresidentsduringtheGlassfire.Plus, the
Ibelievethereisnoplantoaddlanestothehighwayortoanyoftheseroadsinthenearfuturetofacilitateegress.The mentionintheEIRofextendedturnlanesasasolutionislaughablegiventhegridlockon12andnearbyroutesduring theevacuation,andevenforthecurrentdailycongestion. Wewereallveryluckyin2020,butthenextfire(andtherewillbeone)maynotallowforsucha"leisurely"escape; peoplewilldietryingtogetout.PleasedonotjeopardizeevenmorepeoplebyapprovingtheSpringLakeVillageEast development,withoutconcurrentlyfundingrobustinfrastructureimprovementsthatensurespeedyandsafeevacuation andemergencyvehicletransit.
Thankyou,
SandyandKenLitzie
P.S.IncreasedwildfirefuelloadandwaterusepostͲdevelopmentarealsonegativeimpactsdeservingconsideration, especiallyduringthisdroughtperiod.

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-24 Comment Letter 23
From:KimCohee<[email protected]>
Sent:Thursday,July1,20213:44PM
To:Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]SpringLakeVillageEastGrove
hiAmy
IhaveGREATconcernsaboutthesafetyoftheaboveproject,aswellastheElnokahousingunitsplannedatHwy 12/Melita. ThecongestiononHwy12duringevacuationshasbeenunacceptable.Toaddmorepeople/vehiclestothe congestionWITHOUTwideningHwy12iscriminal.
AssomeonewhohasanoldermotherinOakmontandwholostahouseinFountaingroveintheTubbsfireandnearly losta2ndhouseduetotheGlassFire,IBEGyoutopleaseprotectthecurrentresidents&DENYtheSpringLakeVillage EastGrove&Elnokaprojects.
thanks
KimCohee
5687QueenAnneDr.,SantaRosa,CA95409

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-25 Comment Letter 24
-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 12:20 PM
To: Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Spring Lake Village East Grove
I am contacting you to express my concern regarding the development of the above project.

The impact of increased density in that area is extremely concerning, given the wildfires and evacuations we have experienced over the past four years. The number of cars on the existing roads in and out of that area exceeded capacity for safe evacuation in 2020. I don’t think we can turn a blind eye to safety in that regard.

Additionally, the traffic between that segment of Melita Rd and Los Alamos Rd is heavy as it is, and traffic between Melita and Montgomery Rd is dangerously fast for a one and a half lane road. )RUWKHVHUHDVRQV,RSSRVHWKLVGHYHORSPHQW$VDQDVLGH,ILQGLWVDGWKDWWKHUHLVQRDWWHPSWWRPLWLJDWHWULEDOLPSDFWV 6LQFHUHO\
/HVOLH)LVKHU
*ROG'U
6DQWD5RVD&D

6HQWIURPP\L3KRQH

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-26 Comment Letter 25
From:Leong,Mark@DOT<[email protected]>
Sent:Monday,June14,202110:19AM
To:Nicholson,Amy<[email protected]>
Cc:Bhalla,Rajendra@DOT<[email protected]>;Ley,James@DOT<[email protected]> Subject:[EXTERNAL]SpringLakeVillageEastGroveProjectDEIR GoodmorningAmy,
Ihopethisemailfindsyouwell.CaltransisinthemidstofreviewingtheDEIRandwewantedtofindoutaheadofour reviewifyouortheapplicantmighthavethefollowing: 1) The threealternativesforFrontageImprovementsincludingsidewalkasmentionedbytheclientinoneofthe correspondence;and
2) Are thereanycrosssectionsatHwyͲ12closetoLosAlamosRd.showingcenterline,lanes,curb/gutter,shoulder widthandproposedsidewalketc.

Thanksaheadoftime!
MarkLeong,BranchChief
>ŽĐĂůĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚͲ/ŶƚĞƌŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĂů
ZĞǀŝĞǁĂůƚƌĂŶƐ͕ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϰͮĐĞůů͗ϱϭϬͲϵϲϬͲϬϴϲϴ

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-27 Comment Letter 26
STATE OF C ALIFORNI A—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AG ENC Y GAVIN NEWSOM, Gove rnor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS-10D
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.

July 14, 2021 SCH #: 2016052024
GTS #: SON-2017-00543
GTS ID: 7682
Co/Rt/Pm: SON/12/20.91
Amy Nicholson, Senior Planner
City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Re: Spring Lake Village East Grove Project + Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Amy Nicholson:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project.

We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the May 2021 DEIR.

Project Understanding
The Spring Lake Village East Grove Project is located in Santa Rosa, California in between Montgomery Drive to the south and State Route (SR)-12 to the north.

The project proposes an off-site expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). The project would include 32 independent senior living units as well as a community building, outdoor common areas, parking areas, and off-site pedestrian, bicycle, storm water and utility improvements.

Travel Demand Analysis
Caltrans commends the City’s effort to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce resident-based Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory. Per the DEIR and TR-2, this project is found to have Less than Significant impacts, therefore working towards meeting the State’s VMT

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-28 Comment Letter 27
reduction goals. Caltrans acknowledges the mitigation and TDM strategies incorporated into the DEIR and supports the implementation and monitoring of these strategies.

Design
Caltrans requires at least one complete cross-section of SR-12 in relation to Los Alamos Road showing the centerline, lanes, curb/gutter, shoulder width, and proposed sidewalk. In addition, please include plans of the three proposed alternatives for frontage improvements showing the proposed sidewalk.

The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan calls for Class I bike lanes along the project frontage. To ensure adequate room for the bike lanes at the frontage road, please comply with the Caltrans minimum standard sidewalk and shoulder widths.

Hydrology
The State drainage system currently crosses SR-12 and outlets onto Los Alamos Road. State culverts and pipes will likely be impacted by the curb, gutter, and sidewalk elements proposed in the northeast corner of the project site. Sheet flow from SR-12 that drains toward the project site will be blocked by the proposed sidewalk as well. Please include plans in the Final Environmental Impact Report in relation to Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (ROW) to ensure that the project meets Caltrans’ standards and does not impact the State drainage system.

Construction-Related Impacts
Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways require a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. To apply, visit: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/transportation- permits. Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to SR-12.

Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of Santa Rosa is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

&RQW

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-29 Comment Letter 27
Continued
Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto the ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating the State ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement.

Your application package may be emailed to [email protected].

To download the permit application and to obtain more information on all required documentation, visit https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic- operations/ep/applications.

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Llisel Ayon at [email protected]. Additionally, for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email [email protected].

Sincerely,

MARK LEONG
District Branch Chief
Local Development - Intergovernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-30 Comment Letter 27
Continued
July 15, 2021
Amy Nicholson, Senior Planner
City of Santa Rosa
Planning and Economic Development
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Santa Rosa, Ca 95404
Re: Spring Lake Village East Grove DEIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2016052024
Dear Ms. Nicholson:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Spring Lake Village East Grove DEIR. This is an important opportunity to improve safety and circulation network for pedestrians and bicyclists between the unincorporated areas, Highway 12, public parks (e.g. Spring Lake Regional Park, Trione-Annadel State Park), and City limits. Furthermore, there are opportunities for the project to satisfy policies set by the City of Sant a Rosa such as Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The Project area was evaluated for a c ontinuous pathway in the County’s Sonoma Valley Trail Feasibility Study (2016).

Transportation and Traffic
Pages 3.12-14 and 15 (Impact TR-3)
DEIR Statement: “The Project as proposed would result in a bike lane along Los Alamos Road that would end mid-block at the southeastern corner of the Project site. This situation is not uncommon in areas where not all properties are fully developed. It is reasonable to conclude that the bike lane would be extended further upon development of other pr operties adjacent to the Project along Los Alamos Road. However, because the bike lane would end mid-block, there would be a potential safety hazard related to bicycle lane continuity until such time that a bike lane extension from Los Alamos Road to Melita Road occurs. The potential impact would be significant.”
Mitigation Measure TR-3 recommends amending the Los Alamos Road frontage improvement plans to include signage to notify both riders and drivers of a mid- block bicycle lane change.

SCRP Response:

Both Los Alamos Road and Melita Road connects to Montgomery Drive, which provides public access to Spring Lake Re gional Park and Trione-Annadel State Park. Thus, it is important to provide a safe and continuous pedestrian/bicycle pathway to Montgomery Drive. The proposed Project sidewalks and bike lanes on
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-31 Comment Letter 28
Melita Road and Los Alamos Road do not extend far enough to provide a safe continuous pathway to Montgomery Drive and will leave gaps.

In order to provide a continuous pathway and to mitigate Impact TR-3, we recommend allowing the general public (e.g. pedestrians and bicyclists) to use the interior sidewalks and road to access Montgomery Drive. Please refer to the attachment for the illustrated route. This will allow pedestrians and bicyclists to safely bypass sections of Melita Road and Los Alamos Road that do not have sidewalks and bike lanes. A public access ea sement will need to be recorded for public use because the interior sidewalks and road are located on private land.

By allowing the public to use the interior sidewalks and road, the Project can satisfy the City’s Greenhouses and Energy Use Policies LUL-S-3 “Link pedestrian and bicycle paths to community destinations (parks, etc.), to the surrounding rural countryside trail system, and the downt own area.” and LUL-E-2 “Neighborhoods should be well connected to local shops a nd services, public plazas and gathering places, park lands, downtown, schools, and recreation by adequate and safe streets, bike lanes, public pathways, trails, gene ral infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks and crosswalks), and transit.”
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Project. If you have any questions, please call me at 707-565-3348 or email [email protected] Sincerely,
Kenneth Tam
Park Planner II
Attachment: Comments on Proposed Project Improvement Plan (Figure 2-4) c: Steve Ehret, Sonoma County Regional Parks

&RQW
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-32 Comment Letter 28
Continued
To Spring Lake
Regional Park
Proposed sidewalk and bike
lane ends at property line
Spring Lake Village East Grove DEIR
SCH No. 2016052024
Sonoma County Regional Parks Comments
Date: July 15, 2021
Record a public access
easement to allow the
general public (pedestrians,
bicyclists) to use the interior
sidewalks and road (shown
in a green line) to access
Montgomery Drive which
connects to Spring Lake
Regional Park.

Dedicate right of way to the
City for the section of
sidewalk on private property.

No sidewalks and bike lanes on this
section of Los Alamos Road and Melita
Road to allow for a continuous pathway
to Montgomery Drive.

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-33 Comment Letter 28
Continued
Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-34 Responses to Comments and Emails Received
Eric Anderson, Responses 1-1 to 1-3
Response to Comment 1-1
Comment Summary: The c ommenter suggested that the proposed parking may be inadequate for the Project.

As discussed in Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR, the Project would provide 72 parking spaces and Alternative 2 would provide approximately 65 parking spaces contained within carports, surface parking lots, and cottage unit garages. The proposed parking supply exceeds that required under Section 20- 36.040 of the Santa Rosa Zoning Code.

Response to Comment 1-2
Comment Summary: The commenter alleged that there is inadequate water and electrical supply for the expansion of residential land uses in east Santa Rosa.

Please see Master Response I (Water Supply) in Chapter 2. As noted in Section 2 of the Draft EIR, electricity would be provided by PG&E from existing utility lines adjacent to the Project site. As summarized in Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR, all electricity and telecommunication infrastructure would be located underground and would tie-in to existing infrastructure adjacent to the site. No additional electrical facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required to serve the Project.

Response to Comment 1-3
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about traffic associated with mandatory wildfire related evacuations and voiced opinions against the Project.

E. Weeks, Response 2-1
Response to Comment 2-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure to support the development during a wildfire evacuation.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) , Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information), and Mater Response E (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2.

Stephanie Edgar, Responses 3-1 to 3-2
Response to Comment 3-1 and 3-2
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project in combination with the proposed Elnoka Village project during a wildfire evacuation, as well as concerns about the traffic in the Project area.

Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-35 Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) , Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) and Mater Response E (Project -Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2. The Draft EIR for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project acknowledges the previously proposed Elnoka Village project as a cumulative project on Figure 3-1 and within the cumulative analysis throughout the Draft EIR.

Tony Martin, Response 4-1
Response to Comment 4-1
Comment Summary: The c ommenter expressed concerns about the location of the Project in a wildfire adjacent area and voiced opinions against both the Project and the separate Elnoka Village project.

Please see Master Response A (Statements for or Against the Project) , Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) , and Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2. The Spring Lake Village East Grove Project and the previously proposed Elnoka Village Project are separate projects by different applicants. The proposed development at the Elnoka site has shifted from the previously proposed 664- unit Continuing Care Retirement Community to a smaller senior housing development led by Burbank Housing, now called the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project. Each project has independent utility and is not related to the other. The Draft EIR for the Spring Lake Village East Grove P roject acknowledges the previously proposed Elnoka Village project as a cumulative project on Figure 3-1 and within the cumulative analysis throughout the Draft EIR. The City of Santa Rosa is evaluating each project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Lynne and Robert Hughes, Response 5-1
Response to Comment 5-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project during a wildfire evacuation, as well as concerns about traffic in the Project area and questions about water supply.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) , Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information), Mater Response E (Project -Related Transportation and Traffic), and Master Response I (Water Supply) in Chapter 2.

Deidre Harrison, Response 6-1
Response to Comment 6-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the location of the Project in a wildfire adjacent area and voiced concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure to support both the Project and the separate Elnoka Village project during a wildfire evacuation.

Please see Master Response A (Statements for or Against the Project) , Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) , Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information), and Mater Response E (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2. The Spring Lake Village East Grove Project and the previously proposed Elnoka Village Project are separate projects by different applicants. The proposed development at the Elnoka site has shifted from the previously proposed 664- unit Continuing Care Retirement Community to a smaller senior housing development led by Burbank Housing, now called the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project. Each project has independent utility and Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-36 is not related to the other. The Draft EIR for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project acknowledges the previously proposed Elnoka Village project as a cumulative project on Figure 3-1 and within the cumulative analysis throughout the Draft EIR. The City of Santa Rosa is evaluating each project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Vicki Wailing, Response 7-1
Response to Comment 7-1
Comment Summary: The c ommenter expressed concerns about the location of the Project in a wildfire adjacent area and voiced concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation.

Tim Smith, Responses 8-1 to 8-3
Response to Comment 8-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concern over the adequacy of water supply to support the Project along with existing water demands.

Please see Master Response I (Water Supply) in Chapter 2.

Response to Comment 8-2
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concern about traffic congestion in the Project area.

Please see Mater Response E (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2.

Response to Comment 8-3
Comment Summary: The commenter voiced concerns about wildfire safety issues.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) and Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) in Chapter 2.

Suzanne Lanahan, Response 9-1
Response to Comment 9-1
Comment Summary: The commenter suggested that the Project be conditioned to pay a fair share of the costs for widening Highway 12 from Pythian Road to Melita Road.

Please see Mater Response E (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2.

Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-37 Pastor Fred Karlen, Responses 10-1 to 10-2
Response to Comment 10-1
Comment Summary: The commenter voiced concerns about the location of the Project in a wildfire adjacent area and concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure to support both the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) , Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information), and Master Response E (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2.

Response to Comment 10-2
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concern about the Project’s impact on wilderness views along Highway 12 and adjacent roadways.

Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR includes visual simulations of the proposed Project development t o help evaluate its effect on visual character from surrounding scenic roadways and Chapter 4 includes visual simulations of Alternative 2. The Project and Alternative 2 buildings are within allowable height limits, and the visual simulations show that the buildings would not affect views of the Sonoma Mountain foothills or surrounding ridgelines. As discussed in Section 3.1 and Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, the Project and Alternative 2 development meets or exceeds the City’s required setbacks related to scenic roadways.

Design Review would also be required and would involve a review of all applicable language contained in the Design Review Guidelines.

Rick and Marna Hill, Response 11-1
Response to Comment 11-1
Comment Summary: The c ommenter expressed concerns about the location of the Project as well as a separate project in a wildfire adjacent area and expresses concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation. The commenter also stated concerns over traffic, greenhouse gas impacts, and impacts to Santa Rosa Creek watershed. The comment primarily refers to impacts related to the Elnoka Village project, which is a separate project.

The Spring Lake Village East Grove Project and the previously proposed Elnoka Village Project are separate projects by different applicants. The proposed development at the Elnoka site has since shifted from the previously proposed 664-unit Continuing Care Retirement Community to a smaller senior housing development led by Burbank Housing, now called the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project. Each project has independent utility and is not related to the other. The Draft EIR for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project acknowledges the previously proposed Elnoka Village project as a cumulative project on Figure 3- 1 and within the cumulative analysis throughout the Draft EIR. The City of Santa Rosa is evaluating each project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

The Spring Lake Village East Grove Project is a proposed off -site expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), located at 5555 Montgomery Drive. The proposed expansion site is approximately 1,000 feet east of t he existing Spring Lake Village Community, and Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-38 residents of both the existing community and the proposed East Grove expansion would be able to use amenities at both locations. The sites would share operations, maintenance, management, staff and services, dining services, shuttle service between the two communities, and enrichment activities at either facility. Pedestrian improvements are proposed to encourage walkability between both facilities.

Greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption are evaluated in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR. The Project would be designed and operated in a manner consistent with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan, and by extension, the requirements of Assembly Bil l 32 and the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan. Compliance with the City’s All Electric Reach Code is also required for this project.

Hydrology and water quality impacts within the Santa Rosa Creek watershed are evaluated in Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR. No Project activities are proposed to occur directly within Santa Rosa Creek; however, the Project would be required to implement stormwater control measures during construction to prevent runoff.

The Project is designed to treat stormwater runoff generated from Project -related rooftops, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces in accordance with the City’s stormwater low impact development requirements.

Maria Cobo, Response 12-1
Response to Comment 12-1
Comment Summary: The commenter voiced an opinion against the Project.

Please see Master Response A (Statements for or Against the Project) in Chapter 2.

Diane Baines, Response 13-1
Response to Comment 13-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the Project’s location in a wildfire adjacent area and the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation.

Marisa Castellano, Response 14-1
Response to Comment 14-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the location of the Project and a separate project in a wildfire prone area, as well as the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation.

The Spring Lake Village East Grove Project and the previously proposed Elnoka Village Project are separate projects by different applicants. The proposed development at the Elnoka site has since shifted from the previously proposed 664-unit Continuing Care Retirement Community to a smaller senior housing development led by Burbank Housing, now called the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project. Each project Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-39 has independent utility and is not related to the other. The Draft EIR for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project acknowledges the previously proposed Elnoka Village project as a cumulative project on Figure 3- 1 and within the cumulative analysis throughout the Draft EIR.

The Spring Lake Village East Grove Project is a proposed off -site expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), located at 5555 Montgomery Drive. The proposed expansion site is approximately 1,000 feet east of t he existing Spring Lake Village Community. Residents of both the existing community and the proposed East Grove expansion would have access to amenities at both locations. The sites would share operations, maintenance, management, staff and services, dining services, shuttle service between the two communities, and enrichment activities. Pedestrian improvements are also proposed to encourage walkability between the two facilities.

Rod Walling, Response 15-1
Response to Comment 15-1
Comment Summary: The c ommenter expressed concerns about the location of the Project as well as a separate project in a wildfire adjacent area and the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation. The c ommenter also refer red to traffic congestion along Highway 12 south of Oakmont.

Please see Master Response A (Statements for or Against the Project) , Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans), Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information), and Master Response E (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2. The Spring Lake Village East Grove Project and the previously proposed Elnoka Village Project are separate projects by different applicants. The proposed development at the Elnoka site has since shifted from the previously proposed 664-unit Continuing Care Retirement Community to a smaller senior housing development led by Burbank Housing, now called the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project. Each project has independent utility and is not related to the other. The Draft EIR for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project acknowledges the previously proposed Elnoka Village project as a cumulative project on Figure 3-1 and within the cumulative analysis throughout the Draft EIR.

Susan Weinstein, Responses 16-1 to 16-5
Response to Comment 16-1
Comment Summary: The c ommenter asked about the nature of the proposed improvements along Los Alamos Road and the proposed access point into the Project site.

The proposed access to the property is designed in accordance with the City of Santa Rosa Design and Construction Standards. These standards include design criteria, specifications, and plans for construction, as well as guidelines for contractors performing the construction. The alignment of the access road to the proposed East Grove site, directly across from the existing entrance to Villa Los Alamos, ensures coordinated turning movements and provides the safest flow of traffic onto Los Alamos Road.

The intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road is a signalized four -way intersection with a channelized right-turn lane. The project does not include a separate traffic light for the channelized right - turn lane onto Los Alamos Road. Please see Master R esponse G (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) and Master Response H (Collision History for State Route 12 / Los Alamos Road) in Chapter 2 for additional details.

Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-40 As described in Section 2.4.2 of the Draft EIR, the Project proposes several off -site improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access. Along Melita Road, new sidewalks would be installed. At the intersection of Melita Road and Montgomery Drive, new sidewalks, ADA curb ramps, and crosswalks would be installed to improve crossing facilities and safety. Along Los Alamos Road, an off -street pedestrian path would be installed from an existing crosswalk at Highway 12 to the limits of the Project site. Additionally, the section of Los Alamos Road adjacent to the Project site would be widened to provide a Class II bicycle lane consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Along Highway 12, a sidewalk extension is proposed along the Project frontage, connecting to an existing sidewalk near Hope Chapel Church. As part of the City’s conditions of approval for the Project, transit-related improvements along Highway 12 are also being proposed. These include the relocation of the Sonoma County Transit stop on westbound Highway 12 and the extension of the sidewalk to the transit stop on eastbound Highway 12.

Response to Comment 16-2
Comment Summary: The c ommenter expressed concern that the Project will affect parking access and availability at Villa Los Alamos , and that construction- related vehicles will damage pavement and landscaping.

As described in Section 2.4.3 of the Draft EIR, construction staging areas, including construction worker parking, would be established on the Project site. As shown in Figure 2-4 (Proposed Project Improvement Plan) of the Draft EIR, parking for constructi on personnel may also occur at a paved church parking lot located immediately west of the Project site. A temporary walking path may be constructed to allow workers to walk from the church parking lot to the Project site. This temporary path is not intended to support the movement of automobiles or construction equipment. Construction staging would not occur within Los Alamos Road or Villa Los Alamos.

Response to Comment 16-3
Comment Summary: The commenter noted conditions within Villa Los Alamos and questioned whether the Project will result in an increased need for integrated pest management.

As described in Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR, the City of Santa Rosa maintains a collection services contract to provide solid waste collection and curbside recycling for residential and commercial uses. Solid waste disposal services within Santa Rosa must comply with applicable state and local regulations related to solid waste collection. Compliance with these statutes and regulations would be conditionally required as part of the Project. Additionally, the City of Santa Rosa Weed Abatement Ordinance (Ordinance No. 3681) requires property owners to cut weeds and grasses over 4 inches in height once fire season is declared and to maintain that level of compliance throughout the season.

Response to Comment 16-4
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about potential increases in noise and traffic.

Please see Mater Response E (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2.

As described in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR, the estimated increase of 80 daily vehicle trips would not raise noise levels above the significance threshold. The Draft EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce construction noise and vibration at neighboring residences to below threshold levels. Additionally, the siting of mechanical equipment and the emergency generator is planned to keep noise levels below the City’s Noise Ordinance limits.

Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-41 Response to Comment 16-5
Comment Summary: The c ommenter expressed concern about community safety during construction activities.

Construction staging would not occur within Los Alamos Road or Villa Los Alamos. Please see Response to Comment 16-2 for additional details.

As described in Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR, construction of utility improvements and pedestrian and bicycle improvements within portions of Los Alamos Road, Melita Road, Highway 12, and the Montgomery Drive/Melita Road intersection may require temporary partial lane closures. In accordance with City of Santa Rosa and Caltrans requirements, the construction contractor would be required to obtain an applicable encroachment permit from the City for work within Melita Road and Los Alamos Road, and from Caltr ans prior to work within the Highway 12 right-of-way. The encroachment permit application would, in both cases, require the development and implementation of traffic and pedestrian control plans to preserve access and ensure public safety, which would typically include:
• Traffic controls, signs, and flaggers conforming with the current California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
• Pedestrian and bicycle control devices.
• Notifications/arrangements for any driveway access restrictions. • Notifications to public transit agencies, emergency vehicles, and school systems. • Scheduling of lane closures during off-peak hours.

These traffic controls would reduce temporary safety hazards to pedestrian facilities.

Charles Robin Marrs, Response 17-1
Response to Comment 17-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the location of the Project and a separate project in a wildfire adjacent area, as well as the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation.

Frances Danoff, Response 18-1
Response to Comment 18-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about traffic congestion along Los Alamos Road and the adequacy of roadway infrastructure to support the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation.

Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-42 Mike Raymond, Responses 19-1 to 19-2
Response to Comment 19-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about traffic congestion along Highway 12.

Please see Master Response E (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2.

Response to Comment 19-2
Comment Summary: The commenter referred to air quality impacts identified in the CEQA documentation for a separate project.

Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR evaluates air quality -related impacts from the implementation of the Project.

Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact, as individual projects are rarely sufficient in size to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions may contribute to cumulative adverse air quality impacts. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) developed regional thresholds of significance for criteria and precursor air pollutants, considering the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable.

As shown in Table 3.2-6 of the Draft EIR, the Project’s estimated construction emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s air pollutant thresholds. The impact of construction -related activities on local and regional air quality would be less than significant. The Project would have substantially fewer units than the operational criteria pollutant screening levels established by the BAAQMD, equivalent to less than 5 percent of either the retirement community or congregate care facility screening levels. Therefore, the Project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s operational criteria pollutants thresholds.

The Project-level analysis in the Draft EIR shows that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in a criteria pollutant for which the area is non-attainment. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact related to air quality would not be cumulatively considerable.

Teresa Denniston, Response 20-1
Response to Comment 20-1
Comment Summary: The c ommenter expressed concerns about the Project and a separate project in relation to traffic, sewer, water, open green space, and wildfire evacuation.

Regarding open green space, the nature of the commenter’s concern is unclear. For the purposes of this response, the comment is interpreted to mean that the implementation of the Project would remove open green space. The Project site is privately owned and partially developed with two single-family residences and remnants of a previous orchard. The Project site is not utilized as publicly accessible open green space.

As noted in Section 3.9 (Land Use, Population, and Housing) of the Draft EIR, the site is designated as Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-43 very low -density residential and is not designated for Open Space. As discussed in Section 3.01 (Aesthetics) of the Draft EIR, the Project site is not located along a ridgeline nor would the Project block scenic views of nearby open green spaces such as Taylor Mountain and Bennett Mountain. Additionally, the Project would comply with local regulations related to the scenic quality of the site. Landscaping along the southwest portion of the site would include riparian and meadow plantings within and adjacent to proposed rain gardens. Landscaping in the center of the Project site would include ornamental trees, shrubs, and grass plantings. Landscaping on the northern portion of the Project site would include native plantings. Trees would be planted throughout the site, with pockets of “open space” incorporated into the site plan, including a resident garden, a scenic corridor setback along the Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road frontages, and meandering pathways retaining the semi-open rural feel of the area.

Danette Wollschlager, Response 21-1
Response to Comment 21-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about traffic congestion and pedestrian safety along local roadways, as well as the adequacy of roadway infrastructure to support the Project and other developments during a wildfire evacuation.

As described in Section 2.4.2 of the Draft EIR, the Project proposes several off -site improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access. Along Melita Road, new sidewalks would be installed. At the intersection of Melita Road and Montgomery Drive, new sidewalk s, ADA curb ramps, and crosswalks would be installed to improve crossing facilities and safety. Along Los Alamos Road, an off -street pedestrian path would be installed from an existing crosswalk at Highway 12 to the limits of the Project site. Additionally, the section of Los Alamos Road adjacent to the Project site would be widened to provide a Class II bicycle lane consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Along Highway 12, a sidewalk extension is proposed along the Project frontage, connecting to an existing sidewalk near Hope Chapel Church. As part of the City’s conditions of approval for the Project, transit-related improvements along Highway 12 are also being proposed. These include the relocation of the Sonoma County Transit stop on westbound Highway 12 and the extension of the sidewalk to the transit stop on eastbound Highway 12. Additional information about this proposed condition of approval is provided in Chapter 5 of this Final EIR.

Regina Reilly, Responses 22-1 to 22-2
Response to Comment 22-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the adequacy of roadway infrastructure to support the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation.

Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) , Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information), and Master Response G (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2.

Response to Comment 22-2
Comment Summary: The c ommenter expressed concerns that the proposed expansion will strain the services currently provided to the existing Spring Lake Village CCRC , including the assisted living and Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-44 skilled nursing facilit ies. The c ommenter suggested using the Project site for gardens and gardening activities for the current Spring Lake Village residents.

The Project is a proposed off-site expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). Residents of both the existing Spring Lake Village community and the proposed East Grove expansion would have access to amenities at both locations. The sites would share operations, maintenance, management, staff, services, dining, shuttle service, and enrichment activities.

The Project includes a resident garden, garden shed, and an open garden pavilion. Pedestrian improvements are also proposed to enhance walkability between the two facilities. The Project would feature independent senior living units and would not increase demands on assisted living or skilled nursing facilities. Additionally, the Project would create the equivalent of 12 full-time employee positions.

Sandy and Ken Litzie, Responses 23-1 to 23-2
Response to Comment 23-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the location of the Project, as well as two separate projects along Highway 12. They also raised concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation.

Response to Comment 23-2
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the increased wildfire fuel load and water use.

Please see Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information) and Master Response I (Water Supply) in Chapter 2.

Kim Cohee, Response 24-1
Response to Comment 24-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the location of the Project , as well as a separate project along Highway 12. They also raised concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project and other proposed developments during a wildfire evacuation.

Leslie Fisher, Responses 25-1 to 25-3
Response to Comment 25-1
Comment Summary: The commenter expressed concerns about the location of the Project along Highway 12 and concerns about the adequacy of roadway infrastructure to support the Project and other developments during a wildfire evacuation.

Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-45 Please see Master Response E (Status of Wildfire Mapping and Emergency Response Plans) , Master Response F (Additional Wildfire Information), and Master Response E (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2. The Spring Lake Village East Grove Project and the previously proposed Elnoka Village project are separate projects by different applicants. The proposed development at the Elnoka site has shifted from the previously proposed 664- unit Continuing Care Retirement Community to a smaller senior housing development led by Burbank Housing, now called the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project. Each project has independent utility and is not related to the other. The Draft EIR for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project acknowledges the previously proposed Elnoka Village project as a cumulative project on Figure 3-1 and within the cumulative analysis throughout the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 25-2
Comment Summary: The c ommenter expressed concerns about traffic congestion and safety along Los Alamos Road and Melita Road in the project area.

Please see Master Response G (Project-Related Transportation and Traffic) in Chapter 2. As described in Section 2.4.2 of the Draft EIR, the Project proposes several off-site improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access. Along Melita Road, a new sidewalk would be installed. At the i ntersection of Melita Road and Montgomery Drive, new sidewalk, ADA curb ramps, and crosswalks would be installed to improve crossing facilities and safety. Along Los Alamos Road, an off -street pedestrian path would be installed from an existing crosswalk at Highway 12 to the limits of the Project site. Additionally, the section of Los Alamos Road adjacent to the Project site would be widened to provide a Class II bicycle lane consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Along Highway 12, a sidewalk extension is proposed along the Project frontage, connecting to an existing sidewalk near Hope Chapel Church. Additionally, as part of the City’s conditions of approval for the Project, transit-related improvements along Highway 12 are also being proposed. These include the relocation of the Sonoma County Transit stop on westbound Highway 12 and the extension of the sidewalk to the transit stop on eastbound Highway 12. Additional information about this proposed condition of approval is provided in Chapter 5 of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 25-3
Comment Summary: The c ommenter expressed opposition to the Project and refer red to potential tribal impacts.

Please see Master Response A (Statements for or against the Project), Master Response C (Tribal Cultural Resources and Archaeological Resource Protection ), and Section 3.4 and 3.13 of the Draft EIR for a discussion of cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including mitigation measures developed in consultation with local Native American tribes.

Mark Leong - Caltrans, Response 26-1
Response to Comment 26-1
Comment Summary: The c ommenter inquired about the availability of project information and cross sections related to proposed frontage improvements along Highway 12 near Los Alamos Road.

Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-46 Mark Leong - Caltrans, Responses 27-1 to 27-8
Response to Comment 27-1
Comment Summary: The commenter summarized Caltrans’ understanding of the Project.

Caltrans’ project understanding accurately summarizes the proposed Project. However, the City would like to note that as part of the its planned conditions of approval for the Project, transit -related improvements along Highway 12 are also being proposed. These include the relocation of the Sonoma County Transit stop on westbound Highway 12 and the extension of the sidewalk to the transit stop on eastbound Highway

12. Additional information about this proposed condition of approval is provided in Chapter 5 of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 27-2
Comment Summary: The commenter noted that the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) analysis and significance determination provided in the Draft EIR were undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory.

The City appreciates Caltrans’ comments on the Draft EIR as a Responsible/Trustee Agency. The comment does not specify any issue regarding the adequacy of the VMT analysis in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response to the comment is necessary.

Response to Comment 27-3
Comment Summary: The commenter noted the required Project information and cross sections related to the proposed frontage improvements along Highway 12 near Los Alamos Road. The c ommenter also requested plans of proposed alternatives for frontage improvements showing the proposed sidewalk along Highway 12, referred to the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan, and requested compliance with Caltrans minimum standard sidewalk and shoulder widths.

On June 18, 2021 and June 21, 2021, Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development staff provided Caltrans with Project exhibits illustrating design alternatives for sidewalk and ADA connectivity for the proposed Highway 12 frontage improvements. The City and Applicant also attended a conference call with Caltrans staff on September 29, 2021, to discuss plan submittals for future Caltrans approvals. The City and Applicant will submit plans and cross-sections to Caltrans in conformance with Caltrans’ standards as part of the encroachment permit submittal, ensuring that the design does not impact the State system.

As shown on Figure 2-4 (Proposed Project Improvement Plan), the Project would improve an approximately 725-foot segment of Highway 12 with a sidewalk and bike path adjacent to the eastbound travel lane of Highway 12. The proposed improvements to Highway 12 would not require widening of the roadway. The Project would not preclude the development of a future Caltrans Class 1 corridor improvement along Highway 12, as the Project would comply with Caltrans’ minimum standard sidewalk and shoulder widths.

The proposed sidewalk along Highway 12 would include a 4-foot section with a 5-foot by 5-foot turning area and a transition from 4 feet to 5.5 feet near the intersection of Los Alamos Road.

Additionally, as part of the City’s planned conditions of approval for the Project, transit -related improvements along Highway 12 are being proposed. These include the relocation of the Sonoma County Transit stop on westbound Highway 12 and the extension of the sidewalk to the transit stop on eastbound Highway 12. Additional information about this proposed condition of approval is provided in Chapter 5 of this Final EIR.

Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-47 Response to Comment 27-4
Comment Summary: The commenter requested plans that show Caltrans’ drainage standards are met and that the Project would not impact the State drainage system that crosses Highway 12 and outlets onto Los Alamos Road.

As part of the Project, storm water runoff from Highway 12 adjacent to the site would be collected into storm water improvements, such as curb inlets along the proposed sidewalk, and designed in accordance with applicable Caltrans standards. The City and Applicant will submit plans to Caltrans in conformance with Caltrans’ standards as part of the encroachment permit submittal, ensuring that the design does not impact the State drainage system.

Response to Comment 27-5
Comment Summary: The commenter noted that a Caltrans-issued transportation permit would be required for Project involving the movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on Highway 12. Additionally, the Project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access along Highway 12 during construction.

Section 2.6.2 of the Draft EIR acknowledges that a transportation permit would be required for the Project in relation to the movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles, and that an encroachment permit would be necessary for any improvements made wit hin Caltrans right -of-way along Highway 12. Further discussion of the required transportation and encroachment permits is provided in Impacts TR-1 and TR-3 of the Draft EIR, including the implementation of traffic and pedestrian controls to preserve access and ensure public safety related to pedestrian facilities. The Project would be required to fully comply with the applicable permit requirements described in Caltrans’ Comment 27-5.

Response to Comment 27-6
Comment Summary: The c ommenter noted the City’s responsibility for ensuring implementation of mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR.

The City acknowledges its responsibility. If the Project is approved, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be adopted in compliance with CEQA requirements. The City will be responsible for implementing the MMRP, including tracking and documenting compliance.

Response to Comment 27-7
Comment Summary: The commenter noted that any Caltrans facilities impacted by the Project must comply with American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion.

The Project would fully comply with the applicable ADA standards as described in Caltrans’ Comment 27-7.

Response to Comment 27-8
Comment Summary: The commenter noted that a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit would be required for any Project work that encroaches onto the Highway 12 right-of-way.

Section 2.6.2 of the Draft EIR acknowledges that an encroachment permit would be necessary for any improvements within the Caltrans right-of-way along Highway 12. Further discussion of the encroachment permit is provided in Impacts TR -1 and TR-3 of the Draft EIR, including the implementation of traffic and pedestrian controls. The Project must fully comply with the applicable permit requirements described in Caltrans' Comment 27-8.

Written Comments Letters and Responses
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 4-48 Kenneth Tam – Sonoma County Regional Parks, Response 28-1 Response to Comment 28-1
Comment Summary: The commenter recommended that the Project applicant allow the general public to use the interior sidewalks and road s within the development to access Montgomery Drive to provide a continuous pathway to Montgomery Drive.

Due to the need for resident and employee privacy and safety, as well as risk and liability issues, the Project Applicant does not allow public access within its Continuing Care Retirement Communities.

As discussed in Impact TR -1 of the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with the implementation or development of the Preferred Alignment or the Alternative Alignment identified for the Sonoma Valley Trail.

As described in Section 2.4.2 of the Draft EIR, the Project proposes several off -site improvements for bicycle and pedestrian use. These proposed off-site improvements meet the required frontage improvement commitments for the development project. Along Melita Road, a new sidewalk would be installed. At the intersection of Melita Road and Montgomery Drive, new sidewalks, ADA curb ramps, and crosswalks would be installed to improve crossing facilities and safety. Along Los Alamos Road, an off-street pedestrian path would be installed from an existing crosswalk at Highway 12 to the limits of the Project site. Additionally, the section of Los Alamos Road adjacent to the Project site would be widened to provide a Class II bicycle lane consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Along Highway 12, a sidewalk extension is proposed along the Project frontage, connecting to an existing sidewalk near Hope Chapel Church. The proposed frontage improvements, along with the implementation of Mitigation M easure TR -3, which includes signage, adequately support pedestrian uses associated with the Project.

Additionally, as part of the City’s conditions of approval for the Project, transit-related improvements along Highway 12 are also being proposed. These include the relocation of the Sonoma County Transit stop on westbound Highway 12 and the extension of t he sidewalk to the transit stop on eastbound Highway 12.

Additional information about this proposed condition of approval is provided in Chapter 5 of this Final EIR.

Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-1

5. Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
This chapter outlines updates to the Draft EIR, including revisions to the Applicant’s proposed preferred alternative. It also evaluates minor land use changes within the City’s right-of-way along Los Alamos Road, adjacent to the Project site, that have occurred since the Draft EIR was circulated. Additionally, it describes and assesses minor off-site enhancements proposed by the City as conditions of Project approval.

Changes to Chapter 2, Project Description
The Project evaluated in the Draft EIR included a primary fire apparatus access point via Los Alamos Road and a secondary access point off Melita Road. According to the 2022 California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Santa Rosa, two fire apparatus access roads are required only for multi-family residential projects with more than 50 units (Section D106.1) or one- and two-family dwelling developments with more than 30 units (Section D107.1). This Project proposes 20 single-family Cottage units and 12 multi-family Villa units, which falls below both thresholds. Therefore, the secondary fire apparatus access road off Melita Road is no longer required and has been removed from the Project. As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made under Section 2.4.1, starting on page 2-4 of the Draft EIR:

On-site Circulation and Utility Improvements
Circulation
Vehicular access to the Project site is proposed via a new driveway from Los Alamos Road.

The entrance to the Project site would be aligned with an existing entrance to a multi -family residential complex on the opposite side of Los Alamos Road, approximately 450 feet south of Highway 12. A secondary, emergency-only access point would be provided at Melita Road.

Changes to Chapter 3, Introductions to Analysis
As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made to Table 3-1, on page 3-3 of the Draft EIR:

Table 3-1 Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts
Project Name Project Description
Estimated
Construction
Schedule
Project Location
A - Los Alamos
Trunk Sewer
Replacement
Proposed replacement of an
outdated and undersized section
of Los Alamos Sewer Trunk,
which runs north and parallel to
Santa Rosa Creek from Elaine
Drive to Melita Road.
2022-2026, could
overlap with Project
Melita Rd, ≈0.6 mile
west of Project site
B - Montgomery
Drive
Improvements
Pedestrian improvements along
Montgomery Drive, including
pedestrian pathway adjacent to
westbound travel lane, sidewalk
extension with curb and gutter,
Class II bike lanes, and repaving
and restriping.

Completed in
Summer 2018
Montgomery Drive;
<0.1 mile from
Project site
C - Annadel
Estates
Subdivision Extension – 10 Unit
Housing Development.

Completed in 2019-
2020
Highway 12;
≈0.2 mile from
Project Site
Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-2 Project Name Project Description
Estimated
Construction
Schedule
Project Location
D - PG&E Pipeline
Safety Project
Tree removal along Highway 12. Unknown, could
overlap with Project
Highway 12, east of
Los Alamos Road
≈0.1 mile from
Project site
E - Elnoka
Continuing
Care
Retirement
Community

Southeast
Santa Rosa
Housing
Project
664 senior care units and 12
affordable housing units.

275 senior housing units

Phased construction
between 2021-2025,
could overlap with
Project

Unknown, could
potentially overlap
with Project
Hwy 12 at Elnoka
Lane;
≈0.7 mile east of the
Project Site.

F – Regional
Glass Fire
Debris
Removal and
Clean Up
Removal of structural ash and
debris from properties affected
by the 2020 Glass Fire
2021-2026 2, could
potentially overlap
with Project
Multiple properties
along Melita Road,
Channel Drive, and
other roadways;
≈0.5 mile east and
northeast of the
Project Site.

Note Probable future cumulative projects were identified at the beginning of the environmental review process for the project, and again in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2025.

Changes to Chapter 3.4, Cultural Resources and Chapter 3.12, Tribal Cultural Resources
As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made to Mitigation Measure CR -2a, starting on page

3.4-14 and page 3.13-8 of the Draft EIR:

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure CR-2a: Protection and Treatment of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The City shall ensure implementation of the following actions related to cultural and tribal cultural resources:

Protection of Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources, Pre-Construction Data Recovery, and/or Construction Monitoring
The City shall ensure that an Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment Plan is developed and implemented for the area outlined in the Cultural Resources Summary prepared for the Project by Tom Origer & Associates (Origer & Associates 2020) , and any other archaeological resources identified by subsurface testing. The Treatment Plan shall be reviewed by the City, FIGR, and Lytton, and approved by the City prior to the start of Project construction. The Treatment Plan shall detail recommended steps for protecting, preserving, or data recovery for archaeological and tribal cultural resources. The Treatment Plan shall include one or more of the following strategies to ensure that appropriate actions Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-3 to protect cultural and tribal cultural resources are taken, as described in more detail below.
1) Protection and Preservation;
2) Pre-construction data recovery; and
3) Construction Monitoring
Protection and Preservation
The preferred treatment of an archaeological resource is protection and preservation. Protection can be achieved by either avoidance (not developing within the boundaries of an archaeological resource), by covering an archaeological resource with geo- fabric and sufficient fill to protect it during and after construction, or by reducing/restricting development within the boundaries of a resource.

Pre-Construction Data Recovery
For significant resources that are not protected and preserved in place, data recovery within a sensitive area to be affected by the Project is necessary. Data recovery must be performed by qualified archaeologists using appropriate archaeological techniques that protect the integrity of a resource and ensure that no resources are affected. Data recovery must include processing and analysis of recovered cultural materials using appropriate archaeological methods, and preparation of the recovered materials for permanent disposition (e.g., re-burial in a location that will be identified in collaboration with FIGR and Lytton and that would be protected in perpetuity) per the requirements of the Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment Plan. Prior to any ground disturbing activities, for all areas of the project site that have not undergone previous subsurface investigations, one of the following Extended Phase I investigation methods shall be conducted: (1) shovel test pits/shovel probe, (2) backhoe trenching, or (3) hand augering. The archaeologist shall determine the appropriate method and provide the scope of work to FIGR and Lytton for a 14-day comment period. Any resources identified during subsurface testing shall be treated in accordance with the Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment Plan.

Construction Monitoring
A program of archaeological monitoring shall be instituted for ground- disturbing activities associated with the area outlined in the Cultural Resources Summary prepared for the Project by Tom Origer & Associates (Origer & Associates 2020).

Monitoring shall be performed by a qualified archaeologist and may also include a Native American monitor and will consist of directly watching the excavation, grading, trenching, and other earth -moving processes. Monitoring shall continue on a daily basis until the depth of excavation has been reached at which resources could not be present. This will be determined by the monitoring archaeologist based on observed soil conditions.

In the event that archaeological deposits are encountered, the piece of equipment that encounters the suspected materials must be stopped, and the find inspected by the monitoring archaeologist. If the deposit contains Historic Resources, Unique Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-4 Archaeological Resources, or Tribal Cultural Resources as defined by CEQA, all work must be stopped in the immediate vicinity and the archaeologist shall undertake data recovery of the deposit. Data recovery efforts must follow standard archaeological methods. Work may proceed after a find has been appropriately addressed and a qualified archaeologist and tribal representative agree that no further damage would result.

As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made to Mitigation Measure CR -2d, starting on page

3.4-15 and 3.13-10 of the Draft EIR:

Mitigation Measure CR-2d: Protect Unanticipated Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources
The City shall ensure that if potential unanticipated archaeological or tribal cultural resources are uncovered during construction, the Applicant and its contractor shall halt work, and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context. Project personnel shall not collect cultural materials, examples of which are provided in the following description. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include:
obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils.

Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps).

A qualified archaeologist and representatives of FIGR and/or Lytton shall be retained by the Applicant to investigate the find and make recommendations as to treatment and handling of those resources. If the find potentially qualifies as a historic resource, unique archaeological resource, or tribal cultural resource under CEQA, all work must remain stopped in the immediate vicinity to allow the archaeologist and tribal representatives to evaluate any materials and recommend appropriate treatment. Avoidance of impacts to the resource are preferable. In considering any recommended measures proposed by the archaeologist, FIGR, or Lytton, the City shall determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, Project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures as determined by the City upon consideration of recommendations recommended by the archaeologist, FIGR, or Lytton (e.g., data recovery or protection in place) shall be i nstituted. A buffer area around the resource would be established by a qualified archaeologist and tribal representative to ensure that no further damage to a resource would result. Work may then proceed on other parts of the Project while mitigation for these resources is being carried out.

Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-5 Changes to Chapter 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made under Impact HAZ-5, starting on page 3.7-12 of the Draft EIR:

Impact HAZ-5: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Analysis: No Impact
The Santa Rosa EOP identifies the City’s emergency planning, organization, and response policies and procedures. The EOP also addresses the integration and coordination with other governmental levels and special districts as required. The EOP outlines how the City responds to extraordinary events or disasters, from preparation through recovery. The EOP designates specific evacuation planning areas and routes. Both the existing Spring Lake Village community and the proposed East Grove expansion are The Project site is located within the Melita Evacuation Planning Area.

Designated evacuation travel routes identified in the Project area include Calistoga Road, Highway 12, and Montgomery Drive.

Construction
Los Alamos Road and Melita Road, in which utility connections would be constructed, are not designated as evacuation travel routes. The Project would include installation of new sidewalk along Highway 12, but would not otherwise alter the functionality of the roadway or effect the use of Highway 12 as an evacuation route. Additionally, no full roadway closures would occur during construction of the Project, and no on-street worker parking or equipment staging would be allowed.

Operation
The Project development includes access in compliance with the California Fire Code. The primary driveway is designed with sufficient width to enable emergency vehicles to turn around. A secondary emergency access is not required for the Project. Per the 2022 California Fire Code adopted by Santa Rosa, two fire apparatus access roads are required only for developments Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-6 exceeding 50 multi -family units or 30 single- family units. The Project proposes 20 single -family units and 12 multi -family units, which is below these limits. In addition, the tallest building has a roof-to-exterior wall height of less than 30-feet. Therefore, aerial access requirements do not apply.

Spring Lake Village utilizes chartered buses to facilitate the evacuation of residents and reduce the number of vehicles on the road. The Project Applicant’s Emergency Response Evacuation Plans include protocols for wildfire evacuations, including announcements of Red Flag Warning alerts issued by the National Weather Service, a dedicated Command Center that notifies bus companies during an evacuation order, bus staging areas, buddy systems, and a dedicated evacuation destination. The Project Applicant has coordinated with the Santa Rosa Fire Department to procure a facility specific temporary evacuation site for the existing Spring Lake Village, which would also apply to the proposed East Grove expansion site. The designated evacuation site is located at A Place to Play Park, located along W 3rd Street, in Santa Rosa.

Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s EOP or evacuation travel routes. No impact would result.

As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made under Impact HAZ-6, starting on page 3.7-13 of the Draft EIR:

Impact HAZ-6: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Analysis: Significant
The City of Santa Rosa and CALFIRE have identified and designated areas within their jurisdiction that are at risk of wildland fires. The Project site and off -site improvement areas are not located within the established the boundaries of the Santa Rosa Wildland–Urban Interface Fire Area (Santa Rosa 2009). The Project site is not in a State Responsibility Area or within an established v ery high fire hazard severity zone. The nearest State Responsibility Area is located approximately 0.2-mile to the south of the Project site within Annadel State Park, and the nearest State- designated very high fire hazard severity zone is located approximately 0.5 75-mile to the northeast of Highway 12 and from the Project site (CALFIRE 2024 2007, 2019). The nearest Local Responsibility Area designated very high fire hazard zone is located approximately 0.70 -mile to the north of Highway 12 and the Project site (CALFIRE 2008).

Although the Project site and off -site improvement areas are not located within designated areas at risk of wildland fires, The Project site and off-site improvement areas are located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), which is an area where a local agency, in this case the City of Santa Rosa, has primary responsibility for fire and emergency response. On February 24, 2025, CALFIRE finalized updated Fire Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-7 Hazard Severity Zone maps for LRAs to incorporate improved fire science, data, and mapping techniques (CALFIRE 2025). Based on the updated mapping, the Project site is located within a designated Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The site is approximately 0.17 mile from the nearest LRA High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which is located north of Highway 12, and approximately 1.1 miles from the nearest LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. i It is possible that accidental fire ignition could occur during construction (e.g. related to heavy machinery usage). Because the vegetation at the Project site could be dry during construction, and because of the close proximity of nearby residences, the construction-related impact is considered significant.

The Project site could also be subject to wildland fires that spread to the Project area from surrounding areas. The Project site is located approximately 0.1 mile northwest of properties damaged along Melita Road during the 2020 Glass Fire, and between approximately 0.25 mile and 0.7 mile southwest of properties damaged along Los Alamos Road and adjacent roadways during the Glass Fire.

In the event of a fire or wildland fire, the City’s existing EOP evacuation plan would be implemented, compliant with its standards for safety and evacuation. The Project would be required to be compliant with the current version of the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, and City of Santa Rosa Fire Department Standards. The Project includes access design in compliance with the California Fire Code as amended and adopted by the City of Santa Rosa. Project development plans would require review by the Santa Rosa Fire Department during the permit process to ensure compliance with applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. The City of Santa Rosa Fire Department has reviewed the current Project plans according to adopted construction standards and specifications and confirmed that adequate emergency access is provided. Approved conditions for the Project related to Fire Department access and hydrants include:
• The 24-foot-wide Entry Drive, the One- Way Loop, and other roads are to be signed/striped “No Parking – Fire Lane” per current Fire Department standards.
• Hydrants must be spaced a maximum of 500 feet apart, complying with current Fire Department standards.
• No trees are to be planted adjacent to the sidewalks that have the rolled curbs.

Any trees shall be set back at a distance so when they mature their canopy will not hang over the sidewalks with the rolled curbs.

The Project does not include high-density housing, and is not situated in a remote or constrained area with limited emergency access. Emergency vehicle access is designed in accordance with the California Fire Code, as amended and adopted by the City of Santa Rosa, and the Project does not interfere with evacuation routes or emergency response infrastructure.

The Project includes two points of emergency vehicle access to satisfy the requirements of the California Fire Code for buildings exceeding 30 feet in height.

The primary emergency vehicle access would be from Los Alamos Road, with a Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-8 secondary emergency vehicle access from Melita Road. Adequate turning space would be provided along the emergency access pathways to allow emergency vehicles to quickly maneuver and egress.

The Project would not impair implementation of the City's EOP or interfere with established evacuation travel routes (see Impact HAZ-5). As discussed in Impact HAZ-5, the Project Applicant has developed Emergency Response Evacuation Plans that address wildfire scenarios through a range of coordinated measures.

These include procedures for disseminating Red Flag Warning alerts from the National Weather Service, activating a Command Center to coordinate with transportation providers during evacuation events, establishing designated bus staging areas, implementing buddy systems, and identifying a specific evacuation destination. In collaboration with the Santa Rosa Fire Department, the Applicant has also secured a temporary evacuation facility tailored to the existing Spring Lake Village community, which would likewise serve the proposed East Grove expansion.

The Project would not change existing circulation patterns or effect emergency response routes. Electrical power and natural gas would be provided by PG&E from existing underground utility lines adjacent to the Project site. All electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure would be located underground and would tie- in to existing infrastructure. Because the Project site is located outside of the Santa Rosa Wildland– Urban Interface Fire Area and outside of designated very high fire hazard severity zones, and because the Project would require mandatory compliance with the California Fire Code and City of Santa Rosa Fire Development Standards, the operational impact would be less than significant.

Changes to Chapter 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality
As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made under Impact C-HWQ-1 starting on page 3.8-19 of the Draft EIR:

Impact C- HWQ-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality? Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) The geographic boundary for cumulative projects related to hydrology and water quality impacts would be the area of the sub -basin which could be potentially impacted by the Project. As described in HWQ-1 above, the Project would comply with water quality measures contained in the State Water Board’s Construction General Permit, as well as the City’s NPDES Permit. Compliance with applicable regulations as well as Mitigation Measure HWQ -1 would reduce potential water quality impacts during construction to a less-than-significant level. In addition, the Project would comply with the City’s Storm Water LID Manual to capture and treat stormwater from the new impervious surfaces created by the Project. With implementation of the LID stormwater treatment improvements it is anticipated the Project would have less than significant impacts related to water quality and runoff.

Future projects, including those in Table 3- 1 such as the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project Elnoka Continuing Care Retirement Community , also would be Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-9 subject to existing federal, state, and local regulations, including the City’s Storm Water LID standards and the State Water Board’s Construction General Permit regulations. Therefore, impacts to water quality during construction and operation would not be cumulatively considerable.

Changes to Chapter 3.12, Transportation and Traffic
As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made under Impact TR -4, starting on page 3.12-15 of the Draft EIR:

Impact TR-4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Analysis: Less than Significant
Construction
As identified in Impact TR-3, presence of construction vehicles and equipment on nearby roadways and at the Project site would temporarily increase the normal traffic hazard in the Project area. Construction of improvements along Melita Road, Los Alamos Road, and Highway 12 could temporarily result in a slight delay of access of emergency vehicles to the site and general vicinity. The Applicant and its construction contractor(s) would be required to prepare traffic control plans for review and acceptance of planned work within the City of Santa Rosa and Caltrans right-of-way. Implementation of the traffic controls would then be required during construction, including the use of signs, flaggers, scheduling of partial lane closures during off -peak hours, pedestrian and bicycle control devices, notifications/arrangements for any driveway access restrictions, notifications to emergency responders and public transit agencies, and ability to accommodate access by emergency vehicles during construction. Through required compliance with City of Santa Rosa and Caltrans traffic control requirements, which would include submittal of a Traffic Control Plan, potential temporary delays to emergency access during construction would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project includes access design in compliance with the California Fire Code as amended and adopted by the City of Santa Rosa. The Project site would be served by a single primary access point off of Los Alamos Road. The City of Santa Rosa Fire Department has reviewed the current Project plans according to adopted construction standards and specifications and confirmed that adequate emergency access is provided. Approved conditions for the Project related to Fire Department access and hydrants include:
• The 24-foot-wide Entry Drive, the One- Way Loop, and other roads are to be signed/striped “No Parking – Fire Lane” per current Fire Department standards.
• Hydrants must be spaced a maximum of 500 feet apart, complying with current Fire Department standards.

Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-10 • No trees are to be planted adjacent to the sidewalks that have the rolled curbs.

Any trees shall be set back at a distance so when they mature their canopy will not hang over the sidewalks with the rolled curbs.

The Project would not include gated or private roads that would restrict emergency vehicle access. The Project does not include high -density housing, and is not situated in a remote or constrained area with limited emergency access. The Project provides adequate emergency access and on-site circulation, meeting the necessary design standards. Emergency access and site circulation are anticipated to function acceptably with incorporation of applicable design standards and conditions of approval incorporated into the site layout. , as well as a secondary, emergency-only access point to be provided off of Melita Road. Although the City of Santa Rosa’s Street Design Standards do not require a secondary access point for developments with less than 50 residential units, the inclusion of a secondary emergency -only access point would provide improved overall emergency access to the Project site. In the event of a medical emergency occurring while the primary driveway was blocked, emergency access could be gained via the secondary emergency access from Melita Road. The driveways are designed to provide Fire Department vehicles with adequate turn-around space for larger vehicles. Therefore, emergency access is expected to be acc eptable. No operational impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made under Impact C -TR-1, starting on page 3.12-16 of the Draft EIR:

Impact C-TR-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to transportation? Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts on transportation and circulation consists of the areas that use the same roadways as the Project.

Implementation of cumulative projects identified in Table 3-1 (Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts) is not anticipated to result in overlapping construction - related traffic near the Project site due to location and/or schedule. Two of the five projects listed in Table 3- 1 have already been completed and therefore do not result in overlapping construction-related traffic near the Project site.

The PG&E Pipeline Safety Project is located east of Los Alamos Road, and therefore is not expected to overlap with construction-related traffic near the Project site (located on the western side of Los Alamos Road) because density in this area decreases due to greater distance from Santa Rosa. The implementation schedule for the PG&E project is unknown, and construction of the proposed Project would last for up to approximately 18 months. Therefore, should the PG&E Pipeline Safety Project be implemented during the proposed Project, the potential for overlapping construction- related traffic would be short -term and would likely Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-11 occur on Highway 12, a four -lane highway, and would not result in cumulatively considerable contributions to access or safety impacts.

Construction of the Project may overlap with the Los Alamos Trunk Sewer Replacement project, the nearest portion of which would be located along Melita Road approximately 0.6 mile west of the Project site. The potential for overlapping construction-related traffic would be short-term and would not likely occur on Melita Road, as Project related construction traffic would primarily utilize Highway 12 and would not result in cumulatively considerable contributions to access or safety impacts.

Construction of the Project may overlap with the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project, Elnoka Continuing Care Retirement Community, located approximately

0.7 mile east of the Project site off of Highway 12. If the Southeast Santa Rosa Housing Project Elnoka project is implemented simultaneously with the proposed Project, the potential for overlapping construction -related traffic would be short - term and would likely be limited to Highway 12, a four-lane highway, and would not result in cumulatively considerable contributions to access or safety impacts.

For operational traffic, the Traffic Impact Study for the Project evaluated a cumulative conditions scenario for horizon year 2040 in accordance with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority’s travel demand model. In accordance with recent revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines, LOS no longer constitutes a transportation impact under CEQA. However, the traffic study evaluates the project against Santa Rosa’s LOS Standard for informational purposes and because the environmental review commenced prior to the effective date of SB 743. Segment volumes for the cumulative scenario were obtained from the County’s gravity demand model maintained by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, which accounts for planned projects. Upon the addition of Project-generated traffic to the anticipated cumulative scenario volumes, the study intersection is expected to continue to operate at a LOS B, which is considered acceptable.

As discussed in Impact TR -2, the Project’s estimated 80 trips per day would be below the 110 trip per day screening threshold for determining a less than significant impact, as suggested by OPR guidance. The Project as proposed also incorporates a Transportation Demand Management prac tices of connected pedestrian facilities and shuttle service. Therefore, the Project’s VMT would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore would be less than significant.

As discussed in Impact TR -4, the Project includes access design in compliance with the California Fire Code as amended and adopted by the City of Santa Rosa.

The City of Santa Rosa Fire Department has reviewed the current Project plans according to adopted construction standards and specifications and confirmed that adequate emergency access is provided. The Project provides adequate emergency access and on- site circulation, meeting the necessary design standards.

Because the cumulative projects identified in Table 3 -1 (Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts) are not likely to result in overlapping construction- related traffic or roadway modifications near the Project site and because there is a Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-12 secondary emergency access to the Project site from Melita Road, the cumulative impact associated with transportation hazards or emergency access would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Changes to Chapter 4, Alternatives Description and Analysis Following the circulation of the Draft EIR, the P roject Applicant elected to pursue a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative), which was described in Section 4.3.2 of the Draft EIR, and which was identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. This alternative would result in less direct disturbance at the Project site and as currently designed would further minimize impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources.

Under a modified version of Alternative 2, the two parcels containing single-family residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would remain outside the Planned Development (PD 0308) zone, limiting future use absent a discretionary zone change. Easements would be recorded on portions of these parcels to allow stormwater detention, parking, and private access. The reduction in development and avoidance of deeper ground-disturbance elements under Alternative 2 would substantially reduce direct disturbance. With t he implementation of mitigation measures identified in Sections 3.4 and 3.13 of the Draft EIR, the impacts to cultural resources (Impact CR-2 and CR-3) and tribal cultural resources (Impact TCR-1) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Master Response B describes modifications to Alternative 2 proposed since circulation of the Draft EIR.

The modifications to Alternative 2 do not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact compared to the impacts disclosed in the Draft EIR.

As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made under Section 4.3.2, starting on page 4- 4 of the Draft EIR:

Alternative 2: Maximum Avoidance Alternative
Description
This alternative responds to the significant cultural resources and tribal cultural resource impacts of the proposed Project (see Figure 4- 1, Maximum Avoidance Alternative Site Plan).

The residential Villa building would be located in the same location as proposed under the Project, however, it would be a three -story building as opposed to a two -story building. The residential Villa would provide 18 independent living units, and would be 36 feet 9 inches in height plus any rooftop mechanical equipment or stairway/ elevator shafts, expected to add approximately 5 additional feet to the peak of the roof. The residential unit mix would include seven on -site residential cottages as opposed to the ten residential cottages under the proposed Project. The resident community building would be the same as in the proposed Project. While total residential units would remain the same as the Project at 32 units, the mix would change from 12 Villa units and 20 cottage units to 18 Villa units and 14 cottage units. The alternative also would include a pedestrian path connecting to Melita Road, and the same vehicle access , emergency access , and off -site pedestrian, bicycle, storm water and utility improvements as the proposed Project.

Under Alternative 2, the two parcels containing single- family residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would remain outside the Planned Development (PD 0308) zone, limiting future Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-13 use absent a discretionary zone change. Easements would be recorded on portions of these parcels to allow stormwater detention, parking, and private access. The existing residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would remain in place and would be used either as rented living units or utilized as office space for the Spring Lake Village CCRC. Under this alternative, the southern portion of the Project site, near Melita Road, would be utilized for storm water treatment and landscaping improvements. Utility connections and an emergency vehicle access road through the southern portion of the property would remain as envisioned under the proposed Project. The construction schedule, construction haul truck trips, tree removals, and operational water, sewer, and irrigation groundwater demands would be substantially the same as the proposed Project.

As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made to the cultural resources and tribal cultural resources evaluation in Section 4.3.2 of the Draft EIR, on page 4-6 of the Draft EIR:

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under the proposed Project, cultural resources and tribal cultural resource impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable impacts with mitigation because Project -related construction may materially impact cultural and tribal cultural resources. Alternative 2 would result in less disturbance at the Project site and a smaller overall Project footprint. Under Alternative 2, the two parcels containing single-family residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would remain outside the PD 0308 zone, limiting future use absent a discretionary zone change. Easements would be recorded on portions of these parcels to allow stormwater detention, parking, and private access. The two existing single-family residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road would not be removed, further reducing the extent of excavation within the Project site.

The same mitigation measures for the proposed Project (Mitigation Measures CR-2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 3) would be applicable to Alternative 2 (see Section 3.4 and 3.13). Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2a would reduce the impact to historic register eligible archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources by requiring the development and implementation of an Archaeological Resource and Tribal Cultural Resource Treatment Plan, archaeological monitoring, and consultation with representatives of the FIGR and Lytton Rancheria Native American Tribes. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c would further reduce the potential impact to cultural and tribal cultural resources by requiring further avoidance measures as identified in the confidential Appendix H. Mitigation Measure CR-3 would minimize the potential impact to human remains by requiring the contractor to notify the MLD and avoid the area if human remains are encountered.

Alternative 2 includes design changes that substantially lower the project footprint and disturbance.

With a reduction in the area of ground disturbance, Alternative 2 would substantially reduce direct disturbance, and with implementation of mitigation measures identified above, the potential for impacts to archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources (Impact CR-2, CR- 3, and TCR-1) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made to the hazards and hazardous materials evaluation in Section 4.3.2, on page 4-7 of the Draft EIR:

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Although Alternative 2 would result in slightly less excavation than the proposed Project, the general risk for accidental spills of construction fuels and accidental fire ignition during construction would remain the same as the proposed Project. Under Alternative 2, the two existing single -family Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-14 residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road would not be removed, and therefore Alternative 2 would not result in the need for handling potentially hazardous building materials (e.g. lead and asbestos -containing materials). The same mitigati on measures for the proposed Project would apply to Alternative 2 to reduce construction-related impacts associated with wildfire risk to a less-than-significant level (reference Section 3.7). Operationally, Alternative 2 would result in the same use of sm all quantities of common household cleaners, batteries, fertilizers, and similar products, as well as periodic maintenance of a backup generator.

Alternative 2 adopts the same evacuation measures as described for the Project, including chartered buses, a wildfire evacuation plan with Red Flag alerts, a Command Center for bus coordination, staging areas, buddy systems, a designated site at A Place to Play Park, and use of Los Alamos Road to Montgomery Drive as the primary evacuation route. Given the modest number of 32 senior living units proposed and the implementation of the existing Spring Lake Village evacuation plan that employs chartered busses to facilitate evacuations and reduced vehicles on the roadway, the contribution of traffic from Alternative 2 to the roadway system during an emergency evacuation would not overwhelm evacuation routes.

Alternative 2 provides emergency access in compliance with the California Fire Code as adopted by Santa Rosa. The Alternative 2 plans have been reviewed by the Santa Rosa Fire Department to ensure code compliance, and the current design has been confirmed to provide adequate access.

Conditions include “No Parking – Fire Lane” signage on the Entry Drive, One -Way Loop, and other requirements. Alternative 2 does not involve high- density housing or constrained access and is designed to maintain clear evacuation routes and emergency response infrastructure.

The site is located outside of the Santa Rosa Wildland– Urban Interface Fire Area and outside of designated very high fire hazard severity zones, and because the Project would require mandatory compliance with the California Fire Code and City of Santa Rosa Fire Development Standards, the operational impact would be less than significant.

The operational impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for Alternative 2 would be less than significant, equivalent to the proposed Project.

As part of this Final EIR, the following revisions are made to the transportation evaluation in Section 4.3.2, on page 4-8 of the Draft EIR:

Transportation
Transportation impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be equivalent to the proposed Project as it is anticipated that the construction phase would still require similar, if not equivalent, construction worker and equipment trips, and the operation of the development would generate equivalent trips within the Project Area. Alternative 2 would include the same off -site pedestrian facilities along Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, or Melita Road as the proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1 would be applicable to Alternative 2, and would reduce the impact to bicycle safety to a less-than-significant level by including signage to notify riders and drivers of the mid- block bicycle lane change (reference Section 3.12 Transportation). Alternative 2 provides emergency access in compliance with the California Fire Code as adopted by Santa Rosa. The Alternative 2 plans have been reviewed by the Santa Rosa Fire Department to ensure code compliance, and the current design has been confirmed to provide adequate access. Conditions include “No Parking – Fire Lane” signage on the Entry Drive, One- Way Loop, and other requirements. Alternative 2 does not involve high-density housing or constrained access and is designed to maintain emergency response Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-15 infrastructure. Therefore, impacts to transportation under Alternative 2 would be equivalent to what would occur under the proposed Project.

As part of this Final EIR, Figure 4‑ 1 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative Site Plan), originally presented on page 4‑16 of the Draft EIR, has been updated as follows.

FIGURE 4-1
Mar 2026Date
-Revision No.
11109018Project No.

MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 2 SITE PLAN

SPRING LAKE VILLAGE

EAST GROVE EXPANSION

FINAL EIR

CITY OF SANTA ROSA
Paper Size ANSI A
Data source: . Created by: ethompson3\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\08- GIS\Maps\Figures\11109018_SR_EastGrove\11109018_SR_EastGrove.aprx - 11109018_04_01_SitePlan Print date: 03 Mar 2026 - 14:48

Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-17 Supplemental Biological Resource Evaluation
A supplemental biological resources assessment was conducted for the P roject site to evaluate any changes in biological conditions at the site and off -site improvement areas, collectively referred to as the biological study area, since the prior circulation of the Draft EIR. The supplemental report confirmed that there are no new signi ficant biological resource- related impacts, special -status species, or associated habitats on the site or in the off -site improvement areas. This assessment included an updated review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society inventories, official special-status species lists, and an additional field reconnaissance at the site and off -site improvement areas for biological resources and jurisdictional wetlands/waters. The report verified that there were no changes observed in the size and condition of the on- site wetland and roadside drainages, no new listed species or habitats for special -status species were identified, and no new biol ogical impacts or mitigation measures were deemed necessary.

Changes to City Right of Way Along Los Alamos Road
Following the circulation of the Draft EIR, a utility improvement was constructed by PG&E along the frontage of Los Alamos Road adjacent to the P roject site. The PG&E improvements involved abandoning a previously existing utility vault and underground gas lines on the east side of Los Alamos Road. These were replaced with a new utility vault and Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) within the City right -of-way on the west side of Los Alamos Road. The PG&E improvements included the installation of a new driveway with a culvert, a graveled area, a concrete pad, new underground gas mains crossing beneath Los Alamos Road, the extension of an overhead electric line, new utility vaults, and the removal of a tree. These improvements were implemented by PG&E and unrelated to the Project.

Proposed Minor Off-site Transit Improvements Along Highway 12 As part of the City’s conditions of approval for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project, the following transit-related improvements along Highway 12 are being proposed. Figure 5-1 (Additional Off-Site Transit Improvements) in this Final EIR shows the transit-related improvements. These improvements apply to both the Project and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR.

Relocation of Sonoma County Transit Stop on Westbound Highway 12 : As a condition of Project approval, the City of Santa Rosa proposes requiring the Applicant to relocate an existing westbound Sonoma County Transit stop, currently situated on the northwest side of the Highway 12 / Los Alamos Road intersection, to a new location next to the sidewalk on the northeast side of the intersection. This relocation aims to provide ADA accessibility, which the current stop lacks.

Sonoma County Transit has agreed to this proposed relocation. The relocation of the bus stop on westbound Highway 12 would require minimal ground disturbance to install a new signpost within an existing sidewalk.

Extension of Sidewalk to Transit Stop on Eastbound Highway 12 : As a condition of P roject approval, the City of Santa Rosa proposes requiring the Applicant to extend the existing sidewalk to an existing Sonoma County transit stop on eastbound Highway 12, just east of the intersection with Los Alamos Road. The sidewalk extension would be approximately 80 to 100 linear feet and provide ADA accessibility to the transit stop. When installing the new sidewalk, ground excavation would need to extend to a depth of about 5 to 7 inches below the established finish grade and would be within the compacted shoulder of the existing roadway.

Sonoma Hw
y
Sonoma
Hwy
Los Al
amo
s Rd
Sonom a H wy
Los Al
am
os
Rd
Los Alamos Rd
Eag
le
Ro
ck
Ct
Los Al
am
os Ct
Santa Rosa Creek
Los Ala
mos R
d
Los Alam os C t
Los V
erd
es C
t
Santa R osa C reek
Sono
ma H
wy
Sonom
a Hwy
Stop Code: 7735500
Routes: 30, 30x, 34
Westbound
Stop Code: 7725200
Routes: 30, 30x, 34
Eastbound
Legend
Sonoma County Transit Bus
Stop Locations
Existing
Proposed
Proposed Sidewalk
Extension
FIGURE 5-1
Mar 2026Date
-Revision No.
11109018Project No.

ADDITIONAL OFF-SITE

TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS

SPRING LAKE VILLAGE

EAST GROVE EXPANSION

FINAL EIR

CITY OF SANTA ROSA
o
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet
0 50 100 150 200
Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
Data source: Tiled service layer: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Reference - Full: . Created by: ethompson3
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\08- GIS\Maps\Figures\11109018_SR_EastGrove\11109018_SR_EastGrove.aprx - 11109018_01_BusStop Print date: 03 Mar 2026 - 14:48
Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-19 The minor modifications resulting from the proposed conditions of approval for the Project have been evaluated using the same impact criteria and significance thresholds applied to the Project in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics
The proposed relocation of a transit stop and installation of a new sidewalk along the highway would not obstruct scenic vistas and would not be located within a designated State Scenic Highway . The relocated transit stop and new sidewalk would integrate with the existing landscape and not obstruct views. The visual character of the area would remain largely unchanged, and the improvements would not introduce new sources of light or glare. Any lighting installed for a relocated transit stop would be designed to minimize glare and would be consistent with existing street lighting.

As addressed above, there would be no aesthetics related impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on aesthetic resources remains less than significant.

Air Quality
The proposed additional transit improvements a long Highway 12 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, as the improvements would enhance accessibility and safety for transit users. The construction activities to complete the additional off-site improvements would be short- term and would be subject to the construction control measures recommended by BAAQMD to minimize particulate emissions, as identified in Environmental Protection Action 2 (Implement Air Quality Control Measures during Construction) in the Draft EIR. Given that the construction work for the transit improvements would involve small -scale activities , with use of minimal construction equipment , the construction process would be brief and would result in minimal air pollutants. Therefore, the improvements would not expose sensitive receptors to additional substantial pollutant concentrations , result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutant emissions, nor create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of individuals.

As addressed above, would be no air quality related impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on air quality remains less than significant.

Biological Resources
The proposed relocation of a transit stop and installation of a new sidewalk along Highway would not negatively affect habitat for special status species as no suitable habitat features such as seasonal wetlands or riparian corridors are present in the off -site areas. The construction of the sidewalk w ould lead to temporary disturbances and removal of a small amount of non -native ruderal vegetation along the compacted road shoulder . Implementation of the improvements would be required to comply with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, including the City's tree preservation ordinance and Mitigation Measures BIO-1b (Avoid Impacts to Nesting Birds), BIO -1c (Avoid Impacts to Sensitive or Listed Bats), and BIO -5 (Compensate for Loss of Protected Trees), where applicable. Any removal of mature trees would require a permit and replacement planting to offset the loss. The improvements would not interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species , and Project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.

As addressed above, there would be no biological resource related impacts from the transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on biological resources remains less than significant after mitigation. .

Cultural Resources
Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-20 The proposed relocation of a transit stop and installation of additional sidewalk along Highway 12 would not affect any additional known historical or archaeological resources in the P roject area. The Draft EIR evaluated improvements along Highway 12, including new sidewalk along the Project frontage. The relocation of the bus stop on westbound Highway 12 would require minimal ground disturbance to install a new signpost within an existing sidewalk. The physical disturbance for the additional sidewalk installation along eastbound Highway 12 would extend to a depth of approximately 5 to 7 inches and be within the compacted shoulder of the existing roadway. Given that the construction work for the transit improvements would involve small-scale activities with shallow ground excavation, the construction process would result in minimal new ground disturbance. To mitigate potential impacts on potential undiscovered resources, work would cease if any archaeological resources are discovered, as recommended in Mitigation Measures CR-2d (Protect Unanticipated Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources) and CR -3 (Treatment of Human Remains, Associated Grave Goods, or Items of Cultural Patrimony) of the Draft EIR. Implementing these mitigation measures would be required for the Project as a whole, which would include the proposed additional transit improvements, and would ensure protection of cultural resources during construction.

As addressed above, there would be no known cultural resource related impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on cultural resources remains less than significant after mitigation.

Geology and Soils
The proposed additional transit improvements along Highway 12 would not occur within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and the improvements would have a low risk of seismic hazards. The improvements must be completed in accordance with standard engineering practices and with required storm water controls to mitigate potential soil erosion during construction, as required by Environmental Protection Action 4 (Implement Storm Water Control Measures during Construction) in the Draft EIR. By adhering to these control measures, the impact on geology and soils would be less than significant.

As addressed above, there would be no geology and soils r elated impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact from geology and soils remains less than significant.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
The proposed relocation of a transit stop and installation of additional sidewalk along Highway 12 would result in slightly more construction activity and would, therefore, result in a minor increase in construction- phase GHG emissions. Given that the construction work for the transit improvements would involve small- scale activities with minimal construction equipment, the construction process would be brief and would not result in substantial amounts of additional GHG emissions. The construction activities to complete the additional off -site transit improvements would be subject to the construction control measures recommended in the Draft EIR. These would include the BAAQMD recommended measures to minimize particulate emissions, as identified in Environmental Protection Action 2 (Implement Air Quality Control Measures during Construction), and the construction related control measures from the City’s Climate Action Plan, as identified in Environmental Protection Action 3 (Implement Greenhouse Gas Control Measures during Construction). The proposed transit improvements would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City’s Climate Action Plan, as the improvements would enhance accessibility and safety for transit users, consistent with Climate Action Policy T-H-8. Additionally, the improvements would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-21 As addressed above, there would be no greenhouse gas and energy r elated impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions remains less than significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed additional transit improvements along Highway 12 would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The improvements would not require the use of additional hazardous materials during construction beyond those that will already be in use during the overall construction, and would not require the use of hazardous material s following construction. The area of the proposed off-site improvements is not located within a known hazardous materials site or within proximity to any schools or airports that would pose additional risks. The improvements would enhance accessibility and safety for transit users, and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The relocated bus stop on westbound Highway 12 would be contiguous to a wildland urban interface area, however, it would not result in new ground disturbance or a physical alteration to the roadway network. This relocation aims to provide ADA accessibility, which the current stop lacks.

The additional transit improvements would not result in new risks involving wildland fires.

As addressed above, there would be no hazards and hazardous material related impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact from hazardous materials remains less than significant.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed relocation of a transit stop and extension of the existing sidewalk along Highway 12 to an existing bus stop would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere with groundwater recharge. Given that the construction work for the transit improvements would involve small -scale activities with shallow ground excavation, the construction process would not result in a substantial increase in the potential for sedimentation and pollutant runoff. However, required implementation of BMPs for erosion and sediment control, as required in Environmental Protection Action 4 (Implement Storm Water Control Measures during Construction) in the Draft EIR, will minimize these potential impacts. Additionally, the minor improvements would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that would result in significant erosion, siltation, or flooding, and would not utilize or encounter groundwater. The additional impervious surface would be minor, excavation shallow, and the sidewalk extension would be level with the existing sidewalk.

As addressed above, there would be no hydrology and water quality r elated impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on hydrology and water quality remains less than significant.

Land Use and Housing
The proposed additional transit improvements along Highway 12 would not displace existing people or housing, and would not physically divide an established community or conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. The improvements would modify existing public transportation infrastructure and would enhance pedestrian connectivity and accessibility.

As addressed above, there would be no land use and housing r elated impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on land use and housing remains less than significant.

Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-22 Noise
The proposed relocation of a transit stop and installation of a new sidewalk along Highway 12 to an existing bus stop would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity. The construction activities would be short-term and would be subject to the noise control measures, as required in Mitigation Measure NOI-1a (Reduce Construction Noise) in the Draft EIR. Operationally, the transit improvements would not increase transit trips or traffic, and there would be no increase in traffic - related noise sources.

As addressed above, there would no noise related impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on noise remains less than significant.

Public Services and Recreation
The proposed additional transit improvements along Highway 12 would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. The additional improvements would not require new or expanded fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public services. The improvements would support public transportation infrastructure and would enhance pedestrian connectivity and accessibility. In addition, the improvements would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The improvements would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

As addressed above, there would be no public services and recreation related impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on public services and recreation remains less than significant.

Transportation
The proposed relocation of a transit stop and installation of a new sidewalk along Highway 12 to an existing bus stop would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The improvements would not cause an increase in traffic or transit trips nor change the roadway system in a manner that would result in inadequate emergency access. The improvements would support public transportation infrastructure and would enhance pedestrian connectivity and accessibility.

As addressed above, there would be no transportation related impacts from the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated by the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on transportation remains less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The proposed additional transit improvements along Highway 12 would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. The Draft EIR evaluated improvements along Highway 12, including new sidewalk along the Project frontage. The additional relocation of the bus stop on westbound Highway 12 would require minimal ground disturbance to install a new signpost within existing sidewalk . The physical disturbance for the additional sidewalk installation along eastbound Highway 12 would extend to a depth of approximately 5 to 7 inches and be within the compacted shoulder of the existing roadway . Given that the construction work for the additional transit improvements would involve small-scale activities such as installing new bus stop signs and a short sidewalk extension with shallow ground excavation, the construction process would result in minimal new ground disturbance. To mitigate potential impacts on potential undiscovered tribal cultural resources, work would cease if any Revisions to Draft EIR by Lead Agency
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 5-23 resources are discovered, as recommended in Mitigation Measures CR -2d (Protect Unanticipated Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources) and CR-3 (Treatment of Human Remains, Associated Grave Goods, or Items of Cultural Patrimony) of the Draft EIR. Implementing these mitigation measures would be required for the Project as a whole, which would include the proposed additional transit improvements, and would ensure protection of tribal cultural resources during construction.

As mentioned above, there would be no known tribal cultural resource s related impacts specific to the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated in the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on tribal cultural resources remains significant and unavoidable for the Project and less than significant after mitigation for Alternative 2.

Utilities
The proposed relocation of a transit stop and installation of a new sidewalk along Highway 12 to an existing bus stop would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electri c power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. The improvements would not generate additional demands for utilities nor req uire new infrastructure. The improvements support public transportation infrastructure and would enhance pedestrian connectivity and accessibility.

As mentioned above, there would be no utilities related impacts specific to the additional transit improvements that were not adequately evaluated in the Draft EIR. The Project’s impact on utilities remains less than significant.

Wildfire
The proposed additional transit improvements along Highway 12 would enhance accessibility and safety for transit users, and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The relocated bus stop on westbound Highway 12 would be contiguous to a wildland urban interface area, however, it would not result in new ground disturbance or a physical alteration to the roadway network. This relocation aims to provide ADA accessibility, which the current stop lacks. The additional transit improvements would not result in new risks involving wildland fires.

The Project’s impact on emergency response plans and wildfire risk would remain less than significant.

References
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 6-1

6. References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Sonoma County. April 1.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. Loal Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, City of Santa Rosa – Sonoma County. February 24.

California Department of Transportation. 2018. Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area.

County of Sonoma. 2021. Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021. Volumes 1 and 2. October.

County of Sonoma. 2025. Draft Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Volumes 1 and 2. October.

Macmillan, Lucy. 2024. Biological Resources Assessment, Spring Lake Village East. October.

Personal communication. 2021. Paul Lowenthal, Assistant Fire Marshal. June 28.

List of Preparers
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Final EIR | Page 7-1

7. List of Preparers
City of Santa Rosa (Lead Agency)
Monet Sheikhali, Supervising Planner
Amy Nicholson, Supervising Planner
GHD
Brian Bacciarini, Senior Environmental Scientist
Kristine Gaspar, Senior Environmental Planner
Technical Consultants
Lucy Macmillan, Biological Resources

Santa Rosa City CouncilMay 12, 2026

Santa Rosa City Council
May 12, 2026