In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensitie s. Technical terms are defined in Table 3.10-1 (Definitions of Acoustical Terms).
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common method in California is the A- weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives great er weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, envi ronmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.
This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called L eq. The most common averaging period is
hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.
Since the sensitivity to noise increases during t he evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour de scriptors have been devel oped that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-2 (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period.
Table 3.10-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms
Term Definition
Decibel, dB
A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).
Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure.
A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this section are A-weighted, unless indicated otherwise.
L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.
Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Community Noise Equivalent
Level, CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn or
DNL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.
Several methods are typically used to quantify the amplitude of vibration including Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) and Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity. PPV is defined as the maximum Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-3 instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, usually measured in decibels referenced to 1 micro-in/sec and reported in vibration decibels (V dB). PPV and VdB vibration velocity amplitudes are used in this analysis to evaluate the effect on buildings and human response to vibration.
Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating se condary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors or stacked dishes. The rattli ng sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. This rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows. In urban environments sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities, light and heavy rail transit, and heavy trucks and buses.
Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans.
The two primary concerns with construction-indu ced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life are evaluated against different vibration limits.
Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to
0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration va ries with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level.
Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic on ly, such as minor cracking of building elements, or may threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that c an be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high st ate of disrepair and the construc tion activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.
Existing Ambient Noise Environment
The Project site is bordered by existing single-family residential uses to the northwest and southeast at the site entry near Melita Road, multi-family residential uses to the southeast opposite Los Alamos Road, the Hope Chapel to the northwest, and distant single family homes opposite Highway 12 to the northeast. The noise environment at the Projec t site and the general vicinity is dominated by traffic on Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, with distant traffic from Melita Road and Montgomery Drive.
Four long-term noise measurements were conducted on the Project site to evaluate the existing noise environment. Measurement locations LT-1 and LT-2 were conducted simultaneously over a 117-hour weekend/holiday/weekday period between 2:00 p.m. Friday, May 27th and 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, June 1st, 2016. Measurement LT-3 was conduct ed over a 50-hour weekday period between 12:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 1st and 2:00 p.m. Friday, June 3rd, 2016. The fourth long measurement (LT- 4) was conducted over a 98-hour weekend/weekday period between 2:00pm on Friday July 14 th and
4:00 p.m. on Tuesday July 18th, 2017.
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-4 Sound level measurement LT-1 was located in a wooded area on the Los Alamos Road frontage on a tree trunk at a distance of approximately 72 f eet from the roadway centerline, which is the approximate distance of the adjacent single family home and the closest residential façades of the Los Alamos townhomes to the roadway centerline. Noise levels measured at this site were primarily produced by traffic on Los Alamos Road.
Sound level measurement LT-2 was conducted on th e upper trunk of a tree approximately 230 feet from the centerline of Melita Road the Project property line shared with the single-family home to the northwest. Noise levels measured at this site were primarily produced by traffic on Montgomery and Melita Roads.
Sound level measurement LT-3 was located on a tree trunk near the future façade of the proposed residence nearest Highway 12. Noise levels measured at this site were primarily produced by traffic on Hwy 12.
Sound level measurement LT-4 was located on a tr ee trunk near the property line shared by the proposed development, the Hope Chapel, and the residential property north of the Project site. Noise levels measured at this site were primarily produces by traffic on Highway 12 (Illingworth &Rodkin 2017).
Table 3.10-2 summarizes the noise ambient noise levels recorded during the acoustical study performed for the Project.
Table 3.10-2 Existing Ambient Base Noise Levels
Measurement
Location Period Day Night
LT-1
weekday average 53 to 60 dBA Leq 42 to 59 dBA Leq
weekend average 53 to 59 dBA Leq 40 to 54 dBA Leq
Memorial Day 2016 54 to 61 dBA Leq 40 to 55 dBA Leq at night average day/night 59 dBA Ldn
LT-2
weekday average 45 to 51 dBA Leq 38 to 50 dBA Leq
weekend average 44 to 51 dBA Leq 39 to 43 dBA Leq
Memorial Day 2016 45 to 52 dBA Leq 38 to 48 dBA Leq
average day/night 52 dBA Ldn
LT-3
weekday average 50 to 58 dBA Leq 43 to 58 dBA Leq
average day/night 59 dBA Ldn
LT-4
Weekday average 46 to 55 dBA Leq 35 to 51 dBA Leq
Weekend average 47 to 55 dBA Leq 39 to 48 dBA Leq
Average day/night 53 dBA Ldn
Source: Illingworth and Rodkin 2017
3.10.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Noise Control Act of 1972
The basic motivating legislation for noise control in the U.S. was provided by the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, which addressed the issue of noise as a threat to human health and welfare, Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-5 particularly in urban areas. In response to the No ise Control Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published Information on Levels of En vironmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA 1974). In summary, EPA findings were that sleep, speech, and other types of essential activity interference could be avoided in residential areas if the L dn did not exceed 55 dBA outdoors and 45 dB A indoors. The EPA intent was not that these findings necessarily be consi dered as mandatory standards, crit eria, or regulatory goals, but as advisory exposure levels below which there is no reason to suspect that the general population would be at risk from any of the identified health or welfare effects of noise. The EPA Levels report also identified 5 dBA as an adequate margin of safety before an increase in noise level would produce a significant increase in the severity of communi ty reaction (i.e., increased complaint frequency, annoyance percentages, etc.) provided that the existing baseline noise exposure did not exceed 55 dBA Ldn.
Table 3.10-3 provides examples of protective noise levels recommended by the EPA. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations protect the hearing of workers exposed to occupational noise.
Table 3.10-3 Recommended Noise Levels for Protection of Public Health and Welfare
Effect Level Area
Hearing Loss Leq(24) > 70 dBA All areas
Outdoor Activity
Interference and
Annoyance
Ldn > 55 dBA
Outdoors in residential areas and farms and other areas where people spend widely varying amount of time and
other places in which quiet is a basis for use
Leq(24) > 55 dBA Outdoor areas where people spend limited amounts of time, such as school yards and playgrounds
Indoor Activity
Interference and
Annoyance
Ldn > 45 dBA Indoor residential areas
Leq(24) > 45 dBA Other indoor areas with human activities, such as schools Source: EPA 1974
Note dBA = A-weighted decibels
L dn = day-night noise level
L eq(24) = energy-equivalent noise level over a 24-hour period.
Federal Transit Administration
The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Office of Planning and Environment has established the following construction vibration damage criteria for various structural categories, which are commonly used to evaluate construction vibration impacts, presented in Table 3.10-4 (Construction Vibration Damage Criteria).
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-6 Table 3.10-4 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (inches/second)
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
Source: FTA 2006
Note: PPV =peak particle velocity
State
2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2
The current (2019) California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Section 1206 (Sound Transmission) contains the following interior noise requirements:
1206.4 Allowable interior noise levels. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise element of the local general plan.
State Building Code
The development of new dormitory, apartment and other multi-family housing types other than detached single family dwellings are subject to t he Noise Insulation Standards set forth in the 2007 California Building Code (Chapter 12, Appendix Sect ion 1207.11.2). These standards establish the maximum interior noise level at an L
dn/CNEL of 45 dBA where exterior noise levels exceed an Ldn/CNEL of 60 dBA.
California Department of Transportation – Construction Vibration Caltrans recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards. A conservative vibration limit of 0.25 to 0.30 in/sec PPV has been used for older buildings that are found to be structurally sound but cosmetic damage to plaster ceilings or walls is a major concern. For historic buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened, a conservative limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV is often used to provide the highest level of protection. All of these limits have been used successfully and co mpliance to these limits has not been known to result in appreciable structural damage. All vibration limits referred to herein apply on the ground level and take into account the response of structural elements (i.e. walls and floors) to groundborne excitation (Caltrans 2013).
Regional and Local
Santa Rosa Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise The Noise and Land Use Compatibility standards adopt ed by the City of Santa Rosa (reference Figure 12-1 in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035) guide the evaluation of the proposed Project’s compatibility of the noise environment on the site. These standards identify four categories for noise and land use compatibility. “Normally acceptable” noise levels are satisfactory for the specified land use provided that buildings are conventional construction. “Conditionally acceptable” noise levels Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-7 require that new construction or development should be undertaken after a detailed noise analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and noise insulation features are included in the design for the Project. New construction or development is generally discouraged in the “normally unacceptable” noise level range. New developments should not be undertaken in noise environmental considered “clearly unacceptable.”
The City of Santa Rosa considers multi-family re sidential land uses “normally acceptable” in noise environments of 65 dBA L
dn or less. These multi-family residential land uses are considered “conditionally acceptable” in noise environments between 60 dBA L dn and 70 dBA L dn. In noise environments greater than 70 dBA L dn but less than 75 dBA L dn, single-family residential uses are considered “normally unacceptable.” Where the noise environment exceeds 75 dBA Ldn multi-family residential land uses are considered “clearly unacceptable.” Santa Rosa Noise Ordinance
The City of Santa Rosa has adopted a quantitative noise ordinance in Chapter 17-16 of the Municipal Code. Section 17-16.120 regulates noise from machinery and equipment: “It is unlawful for any person to operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to create any noise which would cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient base noise level by more than 5 decibels.” Ambient base noise levels for residential areas are established in Section 17-16.030. The applicable ambient noise level criteria are shown in Table 3.10-5.
Table 3.10-5 City of Santa Rosa Municipal Code Ambient Base Noise Levels (dBA)
Land Use Zone Daytime Level Evening Level Nighttime Level Single-Family Residential 55 50 45
Multi-Family Residential 55 55 50
Office and Commercial 60 60 55
Intensive Commercial 65 65 55
Industrial 70 70 70
Source: Santa Rosa Municipal Code
The Noise Ordinance defines ambient noise as follows:
Ambient noise is the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this chapter, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of 15 minutes without inclusion of noise from isolated identifiable sources at the location and time of day near that at which a comparison is to be made.
The noise descriptor, L
eq, is used in this EIR for the purposes of determining noise with respect to these limits.
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The following goal (in bold) and policies from the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are generally related to noise for the Project.
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-8 NS-B Maintain an acceptable community noise level to protect the health and comfort of people living, working and/or visiting in Santa Rosa, while maintaining a visually appealing community.
NS-B-1 Do not locate noise-sensitive uses in proximity to major noise sources, except residential is allowed near rail to promote future ridership.
NS-B-2 Encourage residential developers to pr ovide buffers other than sound walls, where practical. Allow sound walls only when projected noise levels at a site exceed land use compatibility standards in Figure 12-1.
NS-B-3 Prevent new stationary and transpor tation noise sources from creating a nuisance in existing developed areas. Use a comprehensive program of noise prevention through planning and mitigation, and consider noise impacts as a crucial factor in project approval.
NS-B-4 Require new projects in the following categories to submit an acoustical study, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant:
All new projects proposed for areas with existing noise above 60 dBA DNL.
Mitigation shall be sufficient to reduce noise levels below 45 dBA DNL in habitable rooms and 60 dBA DNL in private and shared recreational facilities.
Additions to existing housing units are exempt.
All new projects that could generate noise whose impacts on other existing uses would be greater than those normally acceptable (as specified in the Land Use Compatibility Standards).
NS-B-5 Pursue measures to reduce noise impacts primarily through site planning.
Engineering solutions for noise mitigation, such as sound walls, are the least desirable alternative.
NS-B-6 Do not permit existing uses to genera te new noises exceeding normally acceptable levels unless:
Those noises are mitigated to acceptable levels; or
The activities are specifically exempt ed by the City Council on the basis of community health, safety, and welfare.
NS-B-8 Adopt mitigations, including reduced speed limits, improved paving texture, and traffic controls, to reduce noise to normally acceptable levels in areas where noise standards may be exceeded (e.g., where homes front regional/ arterial streets and in areas of mixed use development).
NS-B-9 Encourage developers to incorporate acoustical site planning into their projects.
Recommended measures include:
Incorporating buffers and/or landscaped earth berms;
Orienting windows and outdoor living areas away from unacceptable noise exposure;
Using reduced noise-pavement (rubberized-asphalt);
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-9 Incorporating traffic calming measures, alternative intersection designs, and lower speed limits; and
Incorporating state-of-the-art stru ctural sound attenuation setbacks.
NS-B-10 Work with private enterprises to reduce or eliminate nuisance noise from industrial and commercial sources that impact nearby residential areas. If progress is not made within a reasonable time, the City shall issue abatement orders or take other legal measures.
NS-B-14 Discourage new projects that have pot ential to create ambient noise levels more than 5 dBA DNL above existing background, within 250 feet of sensitive receptors.
3.10.3 Approach to Analysis and Significance Thresholds Potential noise impacts is evaluated based on the findings of an environmental noise assessment y performed by Illingworth & Rodkin (I&R 2017 & 2020, see Appendix F). For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table 3.10-6 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are used to determine if the Project would have a significant effect related to noise.
Table 3.10-6 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
NOI-1: Would the project result in
generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Cause noise level at property
line of a single family residence
to exceed:
60 dBA daytime level
55 dBA evening level
50 dBA nighttime level
Cause noise level at property
line of a multi family residence to
exceed:
60 dBA daytime level
55 dBA evening level
55 dBA nighttime level
Traffic or operation-related noise
level increase of 3 dBA Ldn or
greater
Construction noise of 60 dBA
Leq or greater when increase
exceeds ambient noise level by
5 dBA Leq or more for more than
one year
Construction noise of 65 dBA
Leq or 75 dBA Lmax at exterior
facades of adjacent residences
CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G, Checklist
Item XIII (a)
General Plan Land Use
Compatibility Standards
General Plan goal NS-B
and policy NS-B-4
Santa Rosa Noise
Ordinance
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-10 Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
NOI-2: Would the project result in
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or noise
levels?
Generation of groundborne
vibration levels at adjacent
structures exceeding 0.25 in/sec
PPV
CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G, Checklist
Item XIII (b)
Caltrans Transportation
and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual
NOI-3: For a project located within
the vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
Location of project in area
exposed to effects of airport
noise
CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G, Checklist
Item XIII (b)
Caltrans Transportation
and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual
3.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.10-7 (Summary of Impacts - Noise) provides a summary of potential impacts from the Project.
Table 3.10-7 Summary of Impacts – Noise
Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
NOI-1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
LSM
NOI-2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels?
LSM
NOI-3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
NI
NOI-C-1: Would the project plus cumulative projects result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to noise? LS
Notes: NI = No Impact
LS = Less than Significant
LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impact NOI-1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise level s in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Analysis: Significant
In accordance with Santa Rosa General Plan policy NS-B-4, an acoustical study has been prepared for the Project by a qualified acoustical consultant. A copy of the study is included in Appendix F, Environmental Noise Assessment.
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-11 Construction
Neither the Santa Rosa General Plan nor the Santa Rosa Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 17-16 Noise) contain policies or regulations that apply to construction noise. Therefore, the Proj ect would not generate noise levels in excess of applicable local standards. Howe ver, for the purposes of analysis, the Project was further evaluated to deter mine if construction equipment and construction traffic would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels.
Construction noise is generally considered significant if the noise from construction activities exceed 60 dBA Leq and the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA L
eq at noise sensitive uses for more than one year, or construction activities result in average noise levels of 65 dBA L eq or maximum levels of 75 dBA L max or more at exterior facades of adjacent residences.
Site clearing and grading activities for the Project would occur within 20 feet of the nearest adjacent residence. The acoust ical study performed for the Project estimates that average construction noise levels during ground clearing and excavation could reach 83 to 89 dBA L eq and 93 to 98 dBA L max at the exterior façade of the closest residence to the Project site (Illingworth & Rodkin 2017 & 2020). This level of construction noise would exceed the significance threshold of 60 dBA L
eq and would increase noise above the ambient condition by over 5 dBA Leq and would also exceed the threshold of 65 dBA Leq or 75 dBA Lmax, which could result in speech interference inside the neighboring residence. The temporary impact of noise from construction equipment over the course of construction would be significant.
Construction-related truck tr affic for the Project would occur primarily during a three to four month period involved with site clearing and excavation. During this time heavy duty trucks would be expected on local roadways, including Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, Melita Road, and Montgomery Drive. Smaller medium duty trucks would also be expected on local roadways. Heavy duty trucks traveling at a constant speed may produce sound levels of up to 72 dBA L max at adjacent
residences along local roadways. Medium trucks traveling at a constant speed may produce sound levels of up to 62 dBA L max at adjacent residences (Illingworth & Rodkin 2017). The level of construction noise from haul trucks would be temporary and intermittent and would not exceed the significance threshold of 75 dBA L max.
Therefore the impact associated with construction-related truck traffic would be less than significant.
Operation
General Plan Land Use Compatibility
Consistency with the Santa Rosa General Plan’s Land Use Compatibility Standards as it pertains to the potential exposure of Project residents to noise from the surrounding environment is provided here for informational purposes only. The General Plan’s Land Use Compatibility Standards specify normally acceptable levels for community noise in various land use areas. The “Residential – Multifamily” land use included in the City’s Land Use Compatibility Standards was Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-12 deemed to be the most applicable land use to the Project. For this land use, normally acceptable noise levels are identified as 65 dBA Ldn or less.
In comparison, the maximum ambient noise level measured on the property was 59 dBA Ldn, which was located adjacent to Los Alamos Road and Highway 12.
Based on the ambient noise levels in the Project area, the existing noise environment is suitable for multi-family type land uses such as a senior housing.
Therefore, the Project would not expose future residents to noise levels in excess of standards established in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035.
Noise Ordinance Compatibility
The City of Santa Rosa Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 17-16 Noise) regulates stationary sources of noise, such as mechanical equipment. If implementation of the Project resulted in an adjacent property being exposed to noise 5 decibels above its’ ambient base, a significant impact would occur.
The nearest neighboring properties to the Project site are single-family residences.
Multi-family residences at the Villa Los Alamos are located approximately 110 feet away from the residential cottages proposed by the Project.
Operation of the Project would utilize ground level outdoor condensing units at the residential cottages, the Community Building, and the Villa. The location of the cottages would be as close as 23 feet from the nearest residential property line, the Community Building would be approximately 30 feet from the nearest residential property, and the Villa would be 30 feet from the nearest residential property line. The residential cottages w ould be 110 feet from the nearest multi- family residences (the Villa Los Alamos residences). Given these distances, the condensing units at the Villa and Community Building would produce noise levels below 50 dBA at the adjacent properties and therefore would be in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. The condensing units at the cottages would generate noise levels between 54 and 57 dBA at the closest residential property line and noise levels below 45 dBA at the Villa Los Alamos residence s. The condensing units may run continuously during both daytime and nighttime hours. Therefore, if the condensing units were in use during the evening and nighttime periods, as described above, they would meet the City ’s Noise Ordinance limits at the Villa Los Alamos residences, however the levels would exceed the City’s Noise Ordinance standards at the single-family residences by up to 7 dBA. The impact would be significant.
An emergency generator would be located approximately 225 feet from the nearest residential property line. At that distance, the operation of the emergency generator would produce sound levels between 54 to 63 dBA within a sound attenuating enclosure at the nearest residential property line, and up to 77 dBA if a non- enclosed, open air unit is installed (Illingworth & Rodkin 2017 & 2020). Such levels would exceed the City’s Noise Ordinance limits at the nearest residential property line. The impact would be significant.
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-13 Other Operational Noise
Implementation of the Project is expected to result in typical noises associated with residential development, such as the voices of the residents, automobile parking, maintenance activities, and the operation of building equipment. If the operational noise results in a permanent increase in noise levels of 3 dBA Ldn or more the Project would result in a significant impact. The voices, residents parking, and maintenance activities are not anticipated to result in a substantial permanent increase in noise. In regards to traffic, the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the Project estimates that the Project would generate an average of 80 daily vehicle trips (W-Trans 2017). This increase in daily vehicle trips would not produce a 3 dBA Ldn increase in roadway noise, as a doubling of all the existing traffic on local area roadways would be required to produce a 3 dBA Ldn increase in roadway noise. Therefore, the impact related to traffic noise increases would be less than significant.
Mitigation: Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: Reduce Construction Noise The Applicant and its contractor shall implement construction noise control measures during construction, with input from adjacent noise-sensitive land uses.
Noise control measures shall include, but would not be limited to the following:
Install a temporary construction noise barrier with a height of 8 feet above grade on the Project property lines shared with the residential properties. The noise barrier shall be installed before loud construction activities begin and shall remain in place until construction within 150 feet of the barrier location is complete. The noise barrier may be composed of mass loaded construction blankets on temporary fencing or solid plywood construction barriers and should have a minimum surface weight of 1.0 lb. /ft
2 and an equivalent sound
transmission class rating of 25 or more.
Muffle and maintain all equipment used on site. All internal combustion engine- driven equipment shall be fitted with mufflers, which are in good condition.
Good mufflers shall result in non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of 80 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet. Utilize “quiet” models of air compress ors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area.
Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. Prohibit construction workers’ radios which are audible on adjoining properties. Restrict noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Do not allow machinery to be cleaned or serviced past 6:00 p.m. or prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday.
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-14 The allowable hours for delivery of materi als or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose to shall be limited to Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Construction or construction related activities at the Project site shall not occur on weekends or holidays.
Allowable construction hours shall be posted clearly on a sign at the construction site.
The construction contractor shall desi gnate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for respondi ng to any local complaints about construction noise. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site. The Disturbance Coordinator shall:
Notify area residents of construction activities, schedules, and potential impacts.
Receive and act on complaints about construction disturbances. Determine the cause and implement remedial measures as necessary to alleviate problems.
Clearly post his/her name and phone number(s) on a sign at the construction site.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: Revise Site Plan to Reduce Operational Noise The Applicant shall incorporate the fo llowing measures into the design and construction of the Project:
The condensing units of the residential Cottages adjacent to residential property lines shall be located on the front sides of the buildings (out of line- of-sight to the neighboring residential property line). A noise barrier fence/wall with a minimu m top of wall elevation of 6 feet above the finished grade shall be constructed along the property line adjacent to and the nearest residential property line.
The noise barrier fence/wall shall be built without cracks or gaps in the face or large or continuous gaps at the base. The wall shall also have a minimum surface weight of 3.0 lbs. per sq. ft. Acceptable materials for such walls include a 2x4 wood framed wall with wood or stuc co finishes, masonry, and pre-cast concrete panels. A wood fence type wall may also be used, but shall be double faced with butted vertical fence boards on each side with a continuous layer of 1/2” plywood.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1c: Emergency Generator Enclosure The Applicant shall incorporate the following measures into the design, construction, and operation of the on-site emergency generator:
The on-site emergency generator shall be fitted with an acoustical enclosure which results in noise emissions of no more than 55 dBA at any adjacent property line, which shall be confirmed by a noise consultant. Emergency generator testing shall only be conducted between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-15 After Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure NO I-1a would reduce construction-related noise levels at the exterior façade of the closest residences to below the significance thresholds of 60 dBA Leq and 5 dBA Leq at noise sensitive uses and 65 dBA Leq and 75 dBA Lmax. Therefore, the impact level following mitigation would be less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1b and NOI-1c would reduce noise levels associated with proposed mechanical systems and the emergency generator to meet the City’s Noise Ordi nance limits. The impact level for the Project following mitigation would be less than significant.
Impact NOI-2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels?
Analysis: Significant
Construction
Construction of the Project is not antici pated to generate substantial sources of groundborne noise. Construction of the Project as currently designed may require the use of a 9-ton vibratory roller within 35 feet of an adjacent residence. The use of a 9-ton vibratory roller would generate groundborne vibration levels of 0.3 in/sec PPV at the exterior facade of the nearby adjacent residence during construction.
This level of groundborne vibration would exceed the significance threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV. The impact is significant.
Operation
Following construction, no sources of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise would be anticipated as part of the Project. Therefore, the operational phase of the Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. No operational impact would result.
Mitigation: Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Reduce Groundborne Vibration during Construction
The Applicant and its contractors shall conduct construction activities within 45 feet of a residential property line in a manner that minimizes vibration, including:
Heavy vibratory rollers (weight rating of more than 2 tons) shall not be used on any portion of the Project site that is located within 45 feet of a residential property line.
After Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would prevent the generation of excessive groundborne vibration levels at the Project site. With implementation of this measure, construction activities would not generate vibration levels that would result in architectural damage to adjac ent residential stru ctures. Therefore, implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level.
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-16 Impact NOI-3: For a project located within the vi cinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Analysis: No Impact
The Project site is not included in an adopted airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of a private airstrip or public airport. The closest airport is the Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport, which is located more than 10 miles from the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not expose people to noise in the vicinity of an airport. No impact would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation is required.
Impact C-NOI-1: Would the project plus cumulative projects result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to noise? Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) The geographic context for the analysis of potential cumulative noise and vibration consists of the Project site and any cumula tive projects within proximity of the Project site, including construction haul routes.
As noted in Table 3-1 (Projects Considered for the Cumulative Analysis), there are no cumulative projects immediately adjacent to the Project site. Given the distance (noise typically attenuates 6 dBA per doubling of distance) and intervening terrain, the cumulative temporary construction noise impact would be less than significant.
None of the cumulative projects identif ied in Table 3-1 are close enough to the Project site to contribute to vibration levels.
Project related future traffic would not result in an increase in the noise environment on the Project site and surrounding properties adjacent to Highway 12 and only a 0.1 dBA increase in the noise environment on the Project site and surrounding properties adjacent to Los Alamos Road. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1a and NOI-1b, Project operational noise would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance limits at the adjacent residential uses.
Furthermore, once the Project is completed, its occupation and use would be expected to result in typical noise as sociated with residential and institutional development, which are considered to be compatible with the surrounding residential and institutional land uses. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on noise would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore is less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-17
3.10.5 References
California Department of California (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information of Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2017. Spring Lake Village East Grove Expansion Environmental Noise Assessment. September.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2020. East Grove Expansion of Spring Lake Village - Acoustical Update for Partial or Maximum Cultural Avoidance Alternatives. March.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Office of Planning and Environment. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035.
W-Trans. 2017. Traffic Impact Study for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project.
W-Trans. 2020. Addendum to the Traffic Study for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project.
January.
Public Services and Recreation
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.11-1
3.11 Public Services and Recreation
This section provides a description of public services and recreation facilities in the Project area and evaluates changes to those conditions that would result from implementation of the Project.
3.11.1 Setting
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
The Santa Rosa Fire Department is responsible for responding to emergency incidents within the City. The Fire Department responds to calls regarding fires, alarm responses, medical emergencies, hazardous materials incidents, automobile accidents, and citize n calls for assistance. The Fire Department also implements the Santa Rosa Emergency Operations plan which addresses how the City would respond to extraordinary events or disasters (Santa Rosa 2013).
The City of Santa Rosa Fire Depa rtment currently operates 11 fire stations within the City. The nearest fire station to the Project site, and the primary responder, would be Fire Station #6 located at 205 Calistoga Road, approximately 1 mile to the west of the Pro ject site. The secondary responder would be Fire Station #7, located at 6590 Stonebridge Drive, approximately 1.9 miles southeast from the site.
Police Services
Police protection in the Project area would be provided by the Santa Rosa Police Department. The department provides a variety of law enforcement services and programs, including day-to-day patrol activities, criminal investigations, traffic enforcement, envir onmental enforcement, and other specialized operations. The Santa Rosa Police Department is located at 965 Sonoma Avenue, approximately 3.8 miles west of the Project site. Mutual aid be tween neighboring law enforcement agencies is provided as needed.
Schools
The Santa Rosa public school system consists of eight public sc hool districts. The Project site is located within the Rincon Valley Union School District. The nea rest public school to the Project site is Austin Creek Elementary School, located north of Highway 12 on Snowy Egret Drive, approximately one-half mile to the north.
Parks and Recreational Facilities
The City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Regional Parks, and the C alifornia Department of Parks and Recreation each operate and maintain parks in the Project a rea. The range of parks and recreational facilities in the area include City-operated neigh borhood and community parks, as well as regional and State parks. Annadel State Park is located approximately one mile south of the Project site and includes numerous hiking trails. Spring Lake Regional Park is located approximately one mile west of the Project site and includes multi-use trails, a lake for boating and fishing, a summer swimming lagoon, and camping and picnic areas. Table 3.11-1 (Parks in Project Vicinity) lists several additional parks and recreational facilities, each of which is located within two miles of the Project site.
Public Services and Recreation
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.11-2 Table 3.11-1 Recreational Facilities in Project Vicinity Table Head Acreage
Annadel State Park 5,000
Spring Lake Regional Park 320 ac
Howarth Park 152 ac
Skyhawk Park 18 ac
Tanglewood Park 8 ac
Oak Lake Green Park 7 ac
Rinconada Park 3 ac
Rincon Valley Community Park 25 ac
In addition, the existing Spring Lake Village campus has recrea tional amenities that would be available to the residents of the project, including bocce ball courts, a community garden, exercise classes, walking paths, a swimming pool, and an outdoor chapel.
3.11.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
There are no federal regulations that are directly applicable to the Project regarding public services and recreation.
State
Office of Emergency Services
Title 19, Chapters 1 through 6, of the California Code of Regulations establishes regulations related to emergency response and preparedness under the Office of Emergency Services (OES). The OES serves as the lead State agency for emergency management. The O ES coordinates the State response to major emergencies in support of local government. T he primary responsibility for emergency management resides with local government.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration In accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 8 Sect ions 1270 “Fire Prevention and Fire Equipment,” the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible ma terials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.
Uniform Fire Code
The Uniform Fire Code (UFC) contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire respond ers, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The UFC contains specialized technical re gulations related to fire and life safety.
Public Services and Recreation
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.11-3 California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which includes regulations for building standards (as set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification syst ems, fire protection devices su ch as extinguishers, smoke alarms, high-rise building, childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.
Regional and Local
Santa Rosa Emergency Operations Plan
The City of Santa Rosa adopted an EOP Update in 2017 (Santa Rosa 2017). The Santa Rosa EOP identifies the City’s emergency planning, organization and resp onse policies and procedures. It addresses how the City will respon d to extraordinary events or disasters, from preparation through recovery, and the responsibilities of each department and emerg ency operations center position. It also addresses the integration and coordination with other governmental levels and special districts.
The EOP designates specific evacuation planning areas and routes. The Project site is located within the Melita Evacuation Planning Area. Designated evacuation tra vel routes identified in the Project area include Highway 12 and Montgomery Drive.
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are related to public services and recreation for the Project.
PSF-E Provide fire and police services that ensure the safety o f the community.
PSF-A Provide recreational facilit ies and parks for all sectors of the community.
PSF-A-8 Integrate the bicycle and pedestrian path networks envisioned in both the Citywide Creek Master Plan and updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan with regional park plans, so that users can safely and comfortably access the full range of public open spaces.
3.11.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table
3.11-2 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are us ed to determine if the Project would have a significant effect related to public services and recreation.
Public Services and Recreation
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.11-4 Table 3.11-2 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance
Thresholds Sources
PSR-1: Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
following public services: fire protection,
police protection, schools, parks, and/or
other public facilities?
Inadequate police
and fire service
capabilities to serve
the project, resulting
in the need for a new
or expanded fire or
police station
Inadequate schools
to serve the project,
resulting in the need
for development of a
new school
Inadequate City
parkland to meet
citywide standard
CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G,
Checklist Item XV (a)
General Plan goal
PSF-E
PSR-2: Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated, or
include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreation
facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Increased use of
existing parks or
other recreational
facilities that results
in substantial
physical deterioration
Increased population
resulting in the need
to acquire park
facilities to achieve
citywide standard
CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G,
Checklist Item XVI
(a)(b)
General Plan goal
PSF-A and policy
PSF-A-8
3.11.4 Approach to Analysis
Potential impacts to public services and recreational facilities are evaluated for both construction and operational activities. The evalu ation considers whether the Project would affect Santa Rosa’s existing public services and rec reation facilities, including f ire and police protection, parkland, and educational/library services. The evaluation considers increase s in public service and parkland demands, and whether such increased demands require the need fo r development of new facilities to adequately serve the community. The evaluation also consider s temporary disruption to park facilities during construction.
3.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.11-3 (Summary of Impacts - Public services and Recreation) provides a summary of potential impacts from the Project.
Public Services and Recreation
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.11-5 Table 3.11-3 Summary of Impacts – Public services and Recreation Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
PSR-1: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and/or other public facilities?
NI
PSR-2: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, or include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreation facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
LS
C-PSR-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to public services and recreational resources? LS
Notes: NI = No Impact
LS = Less than Significant
Impact PSR-1: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the cons truction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: fire protection, poli ce protection, schools, parks, and/or other public facilities?
Analysis: No Impact
The Project would construct 32 independent senior living units. This increase in housing would increase the demand for fire protection, emergenc y response services, and police services in the Project area.
The nearest fire station to the Project site is Fire Station #6 located at 205 Calistoga Road, approximately 1 mile to the west of the site. The secondary responder would be Fire Station #7 located at 6590 Stonebridge Drive, approxima tely 2 miles southeast from the site. As stated in Section 2.5.5 (Environmen tal Protection Action 5 - Implement MEDF Program and Lift Team Training), in accordance with Santa Rosa Fire Department direction, the Project applicant would obtain coverage in the Sonoma County Medical Facility Scene Call Program (MEDF Program) and would require lift team training for employees. Inclusion of the Project in the MEDF Program and the provision of lift team training would satisfy t he Santa Rosa Fire Department’s suggestions for reducing demand for fire protection and emergency services. According to Santa Rosa Fire Department personnel, based on the scale of the Project, it would be adequately served through existing fire facilities (Personal Communication, 2021). No new or physically altered fire facilities would be required. No impact would result.
Public Services and Recreation
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.11-6 The nearest police station to the Project site is the Santa Rosa Police Department located approximately 3.8 miles west of the site. The Project would be expected to result in a modest increase of police calls compared with exist ing conditions.
Development of the Project site was anticipated in the General Plan 2035, and the General Plan 2035 EIR did not find significant impacts to police protection due to anticipated development under buildout of the General Plan. The Project would not result in new or substantially greater impacts beyond those previously identified in the Santa Rosa General Plan EIR, and no new or physically altered police facilities would be required. No impact would result.
The proposed 32 new independent senior living units would not i ntroduce new school age children in the Project area. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on local school facilities. The Project could result in more people utilizing local library facilities. Rincon Valley Library is the nearest library to the Project site, located approximately two miles northwest of the Project site a long Montecito Boulevard. The Santa Rosa Gen eral Plan 2035 does not identify t he anticipated need for a new library branch to serve the Rincon Valley area in which the Project is located, which is based on build-out of the General Plan. Th e small increase in senior living units proposed as part of the Project would not increase demands on library services such that a new library would be needed. No impact would result.
Impact PSR-2: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational fac ilities such that substantial ph ysical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, or include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreation facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Analysis: Less than Significant
The Project would include new on-site recreational facilities, including a community building, outdoor common areas, and off-site pedestrian and bicycle improvements along State Route 12, Los Alamos Road, and Melita Road. The po tential environmental impacts associated with construction of the propo sed new on-site recreational facilities and the off-site pedestrian and bicycle improvements are evaluated as part of this EIR.
The proposed 32 independent senior living units could result in more people in the Project area utilizing local and regional parks and other recre ational facilities. As shown in Table 3.11-1 (Recreatio nal Facilities in Project Vicin ity), eight primary parks and recreational facilities are located within approximat ely two miles of the Project site, including Annadel State Park, Spring Lake Regiona l Park, Howarth Park, Skyhawk Park, Tanglewood Park, Oak Lake Green Park, Rinco nada Park, and Rincon Valley Community Park. Given the number of existing park and recreational options available in the Project vicinity and the modest increase of 32 dwelling units proposed, the Project would not increase use of parks such that substantial physical deteriorati on would occur or such that exp ansion of recreational facilities would be required. The impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
Public Services and Recreation
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.11-7 Impact C-PSR-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively cons iderable contribution to cumulative impacts related to public services and recreational resources? Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) For public services and recreation the geographic scope for assessing cumulative impacts is the City of Santa Rosa.
Because the Project would not result in impacts related to publ ic services, implementation of the Project would not contribute to a cumulative impacts related to public services.
The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in a cumulative incre ase in recreational use and demand for new or expanded recreational facilities. As discussed in Impact PSR-2, the proposed Project would include on-site recrea tional facilities and would not substantially increase demand on regional parks such that physical damage would occur, nor result in the need to acquire and develop additional off- site park facilities. The Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on water service and supply would be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
3.11.6 References
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2010. Taming Natural Disasters, Hazards Mitigation Plan.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2017. Santa Rosa Emergency Operations Plan.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2016. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. October Sonoma County Regional Parks. 2016. Sonoma Valley Trail Feasibility Study.
Personal communication. 2021. Scott Moon, Division Chief Fire Marshal, Santa Rosa Fire Department. May 26, 2021.
Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-1
3.12 Transportation and Traffic
This section evaluates potential environmental impacts related to transportation and traffic during construction and operation of the Project. In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following subjects are related to transportation and traffic, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
Potential impacts related to interfering with an adopted emergency response plan, and with the transport of hazardous materials during construction, are addressed in Section 3.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
Potential impacts related to increases in ambient noise levels due to changes in traffic levels and circulation are addressed in Section 3.10 (Noise).
3.12.1 Setting
Local Roadways
Local roadways in the Project area include Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, Melita Road, and Montgomery Drive. Highway 12 between Mountain Hawk Way and Los Alamos Road is a four-lane highway running southeast-northwest with two lanes in each direction and a 15-foot wide planted median separating the directions of travel. The roadway segment has 12-foot wide lanes and 8-foot shoulders in both directions and a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph).
Los Alamos Road between Highway 12 and Melita Road runs northeast-southwest along the Project frontage and has a 15-foot travel lane in each di rection with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The Project driveway would be located on the west side of Los Alamos Road. The intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road is a signalized four-way intersection with channelized right-turn lanes and left-turn pockets with protected left-turn phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches.
Marked crosswalks are present on the southbound, eastbound, and northbound approaches.
Melita Road between Los Alamos Road and Montgomery Drive runs east-west and is 350 feet in length. The roadway segment has two travel lanes within the 25-foot paved width. The intersection of Los Alamos Road and Melita Road is an all-way stop-controlled tee intersection with no crosswalks or street lighting.
Montgomery Drive between Melita Road and Channel Drive runs east-west and has two travel lanes with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. The roadwa y is 40 feet wide and has marked bicycle lanes in both directions. The intersection of Montgomery Drive and Melita Road is a tee-intersection stop controlled on the southbound Melita Road approach. No crosswalks or streetlights exist at this intersection.
Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
In accordance with California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), effective July 1, 2020, Level of Service (LOS) no longer constitutes a transportation impact un der CEQA. Instead, SB 743 changes the method used to measure transportation impacts associated with development and/or roadway projects to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and the bill require s California municipalities to use VMT to comply with CEQA assessments of transportation impacts. In addition to VMT, the City of Santa Rosa still uses the measurement method of LOS, which focuses on congestion at intersections and roadways, to address local roadway operations. Therefore, a discussion of Santa Rosa’s LOS Standard and Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-2 related information is included in this EIR for informational purposes and because the environmental review commenced prior to the effective date of SB 743.
LOS is used to rank traffic operation on vari ous types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter desi gnations ranging from A to F. Generally, LOS A represents free flow conditions and LOS F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The City of Santa Rosa's adopted LOS Standard is contained in the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. General Plan Policy TD-1 states that the City will try to maintain a LOS D or better along all major corridors. Exceptions to meeting this standard are allowed where attainment would result in significant environmental degradation; where topography or environmental impacts makes improvement impossible; where attainment would ensure loss of an area's unique character; and within downtown Santa Rosa.
Table 3.12-1 summarizes the existing peak hour LOS for the intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road. Under existing conditions, the stud y intersection is operating acceptably during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. At the study intersection, the weekday a.m. peak hour occurred between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. and the p.m. peak hour occurred between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m.
Table 3.12-1 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Highway 12 / Los Alamos Road 13.7 B 14.9 B
Source: W-Trans 2017
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Ma ster Plan (Santa Rosa 2019) classifies bicycle facilities into the following four categories:
Class I (Shared Use Paths) – Paved trails comple tely separated from the street. They allow two- way travel by people bicycling and walking, and are often considered the most comfortable facilities for children and inexperienced riders as there are few potential conflicts between people bicycling and people driving.
Class II (Bicycle Lanes) – Striped preferential l anes on the roadway for one-way bicycle travel.
Sme bicycle lanes include a striped buffer on one or both sides to increase separation from the traffic lane or from parked cars, where people may open doors into the bicycle lane. Class III (Bicycle Routes) – Signed routes where people bicycling share a travel lane with people driving. Because they are shared facilities, bi cycle routes are only appropriate on quiet, low- speed streets with relatively low traffic volumes. Some Class III bicycle routes include shared lane markings or “sharrows” that recommend proper bicycle positioning in the center of the travel lane and alert drivers that bicyclists may be pr esent. Others include more robust traffic calming features knows as “bicycle boulevards.”
Class IV (Separated Bi keways) – On-street bicycle facilities that ar e physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical element or barrier, such as a curb, bollards, or vehicle parking aisle. They can allow for one- or two-way travel on one or both sides of the roadway.
Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-3 In the Project area, Class II bike lanes exist on Montgomery Drive between Melita Road and Channel Drive. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan doe s not identify existing bicycle facilities along Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, or Melita Road in th e Project vicinity. Bicyclists ride in the roadway and/or on sidewalks along these streets within the Project area.
Proposed bicycle facilities identified in the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan include a Class II bicycle lane along Los Alamos Road and Highway 12. The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan does not identify proposed bicycle facilities along Melita Road in the Project vicinity.
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswal ks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and various streetscape amenities su ch as lighting, benches, etc. Along Highway 12, gaps in sidewalk connectivity exist on both sides of the highway between Mountain Hawk Way and Los Alamos Road. Curb ramps and crosswalks at side-street approaches are intermittent. Intermittent lighting is provided by overhead streetlights.
Along Los Alamos Road, intermittent sidewalk coverage is provided on the east side of the roadway near Villa Los Alamos. No sidewalk coverage is provided on the west side along the proposed Project site frontage, and no streetlights are present along the road.
Along Melita Road, there are no sidewalks or str eetlights present on either side of the roadway between Los Alamos Road and Montgomery Drive.
Sonoma Valley Trail Feasibility Study
Sonoma County Regional Parks is currently studying the feasibility of the Sonoma Valley Trail, an envisioned bicycle and pedestrian trail along Highwa y 12 in the Valley of the Moon. The Sonoma County Regional Parks Sonoma Valley Trail Feas ibility Study (Feasibility Study) (Sonoma County Regional Parks 2016) contains details of the commu nity framework, discussions of constraints and challenges that were evaluated and used in preliminary trail alignment planning, a benefits analysis, and draft trail concepts. The Feasibility Study also contains design guidelines and an implementation plan.
The Feasibility Study includes three different alternatives for the start of the trail in the vicinity of the Project site. The identified alternatives include:
Preferred Alignment. The preferred alignment identified would begin near the intersection of Montgomery Drive and Melita Road and continue east along Melita Road past Los Alamos Road. Alternative Alignment. An alternative trail alignment would include a trail along Santa Rosa Creek east of Los Alamos Road that would connect to Highway 12. Potential Alternative Alignment. The potential alternative alignment would begin on the Project site at Melita Road and proceed north along the edge of the Project site to Highway 12 The Feasibility Study was released upon completion, and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution accepting the finding and reco mmendations presented in the Feasibility Study at their February 2, 2016 meeting.
Transit Facilities
Sonoma County Transit (SCT) provides fixed route bus service in Sonoma County. SCT Route 30, 30X, and 34 provides transit service between Santa Rosa and Sonoma seven days a week and stops at the Highway 12/Los Alamos Road intersection, approximately 500 feet from the proposed Project Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-4 driveway. SCT buses are equipped with racks that can hold two or three bikes. Bicycle rack space is on a first come, first served basis. Additional bicycles are allowed on SCT buses at the discretion of the driver.
Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit, or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physi cal or mental disability. SCT Paratransit is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within Santa Rosa and the greater Sonoma County area. Paratransit service is available between 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
3.12.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
There are no federal plans, polic ies, regulations, or laws related to transportation and traffic applicable to the Project.
State
California Department of Transportation
Transportation analysis in California is guided by policies and standards set at the State level by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for high way facilities under State jurisdiction, as well as by local jurisdictions. Any work or traffic control within the State right-of-way or from the State access-control right-of-way requires an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans. This permit requires submittal of a Traffic Control Plan, which would include plans for re-routing of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, and proposed road clos ure date(s) and hours. Traffic controls would be required in accordance with the Caltrans standards, and cont ractors would be required to comply with the general conditions of the encroachment permit. In addition, work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on highway facilities requires a transportation permit by Caltrans.
Senate Bill 743
SB 743 creates a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA.
In accordance with SB 743, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) amended the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to control delay and associated LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. OPR recommends that VMT become the primary metric of transportation impact across California. For the purposes of CE QA, VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. By July 1, 2020, all CEQA lead agencies must analyze project’s transportation impacts using VMT.
In December 2018, OPR published the Technical Ad visory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. The advisory contains recommendations regarding the assessment of VMT impacts under CEQA, including screening thresholds for small pr ojects. The City of Santa Rosa uses the VMT threshold recommendations contained in the OPR Technical Advisory for evaluating projects pursuant to CEQA.
Regional and Local
Sonoma County Transportation Authority Comprehensive Transportation Plan The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) is the countywide planning and programming agency for transportation in Sonoma County. The SCTA has developed a Comprehensive Transportation Plan that serves as the vision fo r transportation planning in the County. The SCTA Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-5 adopted the Updated 2016 Comprehensive Transpor tation Plan (CTP) in September 2016, also known as Moving Forward 2040, Sonoma County’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a 25-year plan, the goals of which include to maintain the transportation system, relieve traffic congestion , reduce greenhouse gas emissions, plan for safety and health, and promote economic vitality.
City of Santa Rosa Encroachment Permit
The City requires that anyone wishing to create or construct an encroachment in the public right-of- way obtain permission through an en croachment permit. The term "encroachment" refers to use of public property by someone other than the City in the public right-of-way. The "public right-of-way" is defined to include those areas within any dedicated public roadway or other property within the jurisdiction of the City, whether or not the entir e area is actually used for its intended purpose. The encroachment permit application would require the development and implementation of a Traffic Control Plan.
City of Santa Rosa General Plan Goals and Policies
The Transportation Element of the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 outlines goals and policies that coordinate the transportation and circulation system with planned land uses. The following goals and policies are relevant to the proposed Project:
T-D Maintain accept able motor vehicle traffic flows.
T-D-1 Maintain a Level of Service (LOS) D or better along all major corridors. Exceptions to meeting the standard include:
Within downtown;
Where attainment would result in significant environmental degradation; Where topography or environmental impact makes the improvement impossible;
Where attainment would ensure loss of an area’s unique character.
The LOS is to be calculated using the average traffic demand over the highest 60- minute period.
T-D-3 Require traffic studies for development projects that may have a substantial impact on the circulation system.
T-E Complete needed transportation improvements in a timely manner.
T-E-2 Require development projects to pay a fair share of costs for multi-modal transportation systems improvements. Periodically update the City’s impact fees to assure the adequacy of funding for needed transportation system improvements.
T-G Identify, preserve, and enhance scenic roads throughout Santa Rosa in both rural and developed areas.
T-G-7 Provide bikeways along scenic roads, where right-of-way exists or where its acquisition will not jeopardize roadway character.
Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-6 T-H Expand the existing transit network to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to provide convenient and efficient public transportation to workplaces, shopping, SMART stations, and other destinations.
T-H-7 Require community care facilities and senior housing projects with more than 25 units to provide accessible transportation services for the convenience of residents. Provision of transportation services at large facilities will reduce demand on the paratransit and fixed route transit systems.
T-H-8 Improve transit service along corrid ors where increased densities are planned.
T-J Provide attractive and safe streets for pedestrians and bicyclists.
T-J-1 Pursue implementation of walking and biki ng facilities as envisioned in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
T-K Develop a safe, convenient, and continuous network of pedestrian sidewalks and pathways that link neighborhoods with schools, parks, shopping areas, and employment centers.
T-K-1 Link the various citywide pedestrian path s, including street sidewalks, downtown walkways, pedestrian areas in shopping centers and work complexes, park pathways, and other creekside and open space pathways.
T-L Develop a citywide system of designated bikeways that serves both experiences and casual bicyclists, and which maximizes bicycle use for commuting, recreation, and local transport.
T-L-1 Provide bicycle lanes along all regional/arterial streets and high volume transitional/collector streets.
T-L-3 Improve bicycle networks by finishing incomplete or disconnected bicycle routes.
T-L-5 Consider bicycle operating characteristics and safety needs in the design for roadways, intersections, and traffic control systems.
City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018 establishes a long-term vision for improving walking and bicycling in Santa Rosa (Santa Rosa 2019). The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan provides a strategy to develop a comprehensive bicycling and walking network to provide access to transit, schools, and downt own alongside support facilities like bicycle parking and pedestrian amenities. The following polic ies and actions are relevant to the proposed Project:
Policy 1 Integrate bicycle and pedestrian network and facility needs into all City planning documents and capital improvement projects.
Action 1.5 Ensure that all traffic impact studi es, analyses of proposed street changes, and development projects address impacts on bicycling and walking facilities.
Specifically, the following should be considered:
Consistency with General Plan, Area Plan, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018 policies and recommendations
Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-7 Impact on the existing bikeway and pedestrian network Degree to which bicycle and walking travel patterns are altered or restricted by the projects
Safety of future bicycle and pedestri an operations (based on conformity to Plan Update 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Guidelines and City, State, and Federal design standards)
Action 1.6 Require new development, or reconstruction if applicable, to address the pedestrian and bicycle circulation element based on the above considerations.
Action 1.8 Continue to implement the City's Bi cycle and Pedestrian Facility Guidelines for all new development projects to support int egration of transportation into land use planning decisions.
Policy 4 Design a connected, convenient, and comf ortable pedestrian network to serve people of all ages and abilities.
Action 4.1 Include sidewalks on all new or retrofitted roadways.
Action 4.2 Identify and construct sidewalks in areas where they are incomplete.
Action 4.4 Plan and develop well-connected stre ets, sidewalks, and pat hways that provide the most direct paths of travel for pe destrians. Provide connections between or through cul-de-sacs and remove barriers to walking where feasible.
Policy 5 Design accessible, comfortable, and conti nuous off-street paths that contribute to the framework of Santa Rosa’s active transportation network.
Action 5.1 Utilize the bicycle and pedestrian fac ility guidelines in this Plan Update 2018 and most recent State and Federal design st andards and guidelines to develop plans for ADA-compliant off-street trails (Class I shared-use paths).
Policy 10 Ensure that bicyclists and pedestrians have accommodation in work zones.
Action 10.1 Incorporate routine accommodatio n for pedestrian and bicycle facilities when developing priority lists for overlay and construction projects, maintenance, and traffic control plans.
3.12.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table
3.12-2 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Threshol ds) are used to determine if the project would have a significant effect related to transportation and traffic.
Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-8 Table 3.12-2 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
TR-1: Would the project conflict
with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Result in intersection of Los
Alamos Road and Highway 12 to
deteriorate below LOS D
Inadequate provision of accessible
transportation services for the
convenience of future residents
Inconsistency with pedestrian and
bicycle network envisioned in
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item XVII (a)
General Plan Policies
T-D-1, T-H-7, and T-L-3
City of Santa Rosa Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
TR-2: Would the project conflict or
be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Substantial increase in average
per capita vehicle miles traveled
Less than significant impact
presumed if project generates 110
trips or fewer trips per day or
meets other screening criteria
specified by the OPR Technical
Advisory.
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item XVII (b)
OPR Technical Advisory
TR-3: Would the project
substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Non-conformance with defined
safety regulations or roadway
design standards, or otherwise
create unsafe conditions
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item XVII (c)
Bicycle facility standards
defined in Chapter 1000 of
the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual
City of Santa Rosa Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
TR-4: Would the project result in
inadequate emergency access?
Increases in traffic, road closures,
or insufficient emergency access
during construction or inadequate
design features to accommodate
emergency vehicle access and
circulation during operation
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item XVII (d)
3.12.4 Approach to Analysis
Potential transportation impacts are evaluated based on the findings of a traffic study performed by Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W-Trans 2017 & 2020, see Appendix G). The analysis presented in the traffic study was completed in accordance with the criteria established by the City of Santa Rosa and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques. 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.
Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-9 The traffic study determined the existing LOS at the intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road using the “signalized” methodology published in the Highway Capacity Manual (2000) by the Transportation Research Board, and estimated the number of new vehicle trips that would be associated with the Project based on standard trip generation rates as published in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012) by the Institute of Transportat ion Engineers (ITE). The ITE rates were higher than actual traffic volumes surveyed entering and exiting the existing Spring Lake Village facility, at least partially because a shuttle service from the Spring Lake Village complex would replace several passenger vehicle trips. To be conservative, the ITE rates were used in the traffic study analysis to determine trip generation associated wi th the Project. The study used Sonoma County Transportation Authority’s travel demand model to estimate future volumes of traffic in the study intersection in the year 2040, and estimated the amount of traffic from pending or approved projects to be analyzed under cumulative conditions. The study then assessed if the increased traffic from the Project (in existing conditions and future conditions) and from cumulative projects would exceed the City’s established LOS standard, and therefore be in conflict with this standard.
The traffic study also evaluated the VMT for the Project by multiplying the average trip length (using the Sonoma County Transportation Authority’s Traffic Analysis Zones model) by the Project’s daily trip generation estimate which, similarly to the IT E model for Project-related trip generation, over- estimated VMT due to the proposed shuttle service. A quantitative VMT threshold was not determined in the traffic study, however the proposed shuttle service is noted to decrease the estimated VMT associated with the Project. The traffic study also evaluated the su itability of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the adequacy of the proposed emergency access and parking facilities, the adequacy of transit facilities to serve the site, and an assessment of site distance and sight lines from Project’s access road. The Project is also evaluated for consistency with adopted plans and policies regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and for the potential for construction activities to limit emergency access in the project area.
3.12.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.12-2 (Summary of Impacts - Transportation and Traffic) provides a summary of potential impacts from the project.
Table 3.12-2 Summary of Impacts – Transportation and Traffic Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
TR-1: Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
LS
TR-2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
LS
TR-3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
LSM
TR-4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? LS C-TR-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to transportation? LS
Notes: LS = Less than Significant
LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation
Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-10 Impact TR-1: Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Analysis: Less than Significant
Construction
Construction-Generated Traffic
Construction of the Project is expected to begin in 2021 and continue for approximately 18 months. During this time, vehicle trips would vary depending on the work activity at the site. A construction staging area and construction personnel parking would occur at the Project site. T he primary vehicle and haul truck travel route to the Project site would be Highway 12 to Los Alamos Road. An off-site construction-worker parking area may po tentially be used on the adjacent Hope Chapel parking lot. If this site were used, access would be directly from Highway 12, thus reducing construction-worker trips accessing Los Alamos Road. Because use of this site is contingent on the Ap plicant entering into an agreement with the property owner, for the purposes of this analysis, all construction-worker trips are assumed to enter at Los Alamos Road.
As identified in Section 2 (Project Desc ription), Project off-haul during demolition and grading would result in approximately 466 round trips, while haul-in trips associated with construction would result in approximately 1,236 total round trips over the duration of grading and building construction. The number of construction- related vehicles traveling to and from the Project site would vary on a daily basis.
For the purposes of evaluation, it is anticipated that the peak number of haul trucks would occur during the import of construction materials, and would consist of up to 24 round trips on any one day. In addition to haul trucks, it is anticipated that construction crew trips would require up to 24 round trips per day. Therefore, up to 48 vehicle round trips could occur per day, during peak construction, at maximum.
The level of short-term traffic generation that would occur during Project construction is not substantial in relation to the existing traffic loads and capacity of Los Alamos Road, which accommod ates a combined north and southbound volume of 4,716 vehicles daily between Melita Road and Highway 12 (Pacific Traffic & Transit Data Services 2017). The Santa Rosa General Plan and the OPR guidance does not establish standards re lated 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). The construction-period impact on LOS would be less than significant.
Temporary Lane Closures
Construction of off-site improvements would require activity within the Montgomery Drive / Melita Road intersection, as well as within Melita Road, Los Alamos Road and Highway 12. At the Montgomery Drive / Melita Road intersection, improvements would include reconfiguration of the intersection with a new berm, Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-11 installation of new sidewalks, and a raised island with curb ramps. Offsite improvements along Los Alamos Road would include widening and re-striping of the road to provide a 5-foot wide Class II bi cycle lane consistent with the City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and installation of a publicly accessible off-street pedestrian path, both to be located along the Project’s Los Alamos Road frontage. Work within t he roadways would al so include utility connections in Melita Road and Los Alamos Road, and a new pedestrian sidewalk along Highway 12.
Construction of utility improvements an d pedestrian and bicycle improvements within portions of the 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 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 conf orming 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 reduce the temporary safety hazards to pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts related to lane closures during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
Intersection Level of Service (Informational)
In accordance with City policies, a traffic study was prepared for the Project to determine the potential operational impact on the circulation system. The traffic study included a determination of the num ber of new trips associated with the project and the existing and future LOS at the Highway 12/Los Alamos Road intersection.
The traffic study determined that the Hi ghway 12/Los Alamos Road intersection currently operates at a LOS B overall du ring both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Regarding new operational traffic, the traffic study estimated that the Project would 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. Upon the additi on of Project-related traffic to the existing volumes, the Highway 12/Los Alam os Road intersection is expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS B during both peak hours, with only a 0.1- second increase in aver age delay (W-Trans 2017 & 2020). As such, the study Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-12 intersection is expected to continue operating acceptably at the same levels of service and with an imperceptible change in average delay upon the addition of Project-generated traffic. The Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy T-D-1.
The traffic study also estimates the amount of traffic from pending or approved projects to be analyzed under cumulative conditions. Evaluation of the project in conjunction with other projects is contained in the Cumulative Impacts section at the end of this chapter.
Pedestrian Facilities
Proposed pedestrian facility improvements would include a publicly accessible off- street pedestrian path along Los Alamos Road adjacent to the Project site within the City’s right-of-way, effectively linki ng the Project site to the SCT stop at Highway 12/Los Alamos Road. The Project also would improve an approximately 725-foot segment of Highway 12 with a sidewalk adjacent to the eastbound travel lane and include a sidewalk connection to the Montgomery Drive / Melita Road intersection where a crosswalk with a center island refuge would be provided to connect to Montgomery Drive. Pedestrian facilities serving the Project site would be adequate upon completion of the proposed improvements. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plan, or programs supporting pedestrian facilities, including Policy 4 of the City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. No impact would result.
Bicycle Facilities
Proposed off-site bicycle facility improvements along Los Alamos Road would include the widening and restriping of the road along the Project frontage to provide a 5-foot Class II bicycle lane consistent wi th the City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The proposed bicycle lane would begin at Highway 12 and terminate at the Project site’s southeastern property boundary. Existing bicycle facilities along Montgomery Drive together with the proposed improvements along Los Alamos Road and the shared use of minor streets provide adequate access for bicyclists in the Project area. The Project is expected to generate minimal bicycle trips given the size and nature of the facility, and those can easily be accommodated by the proposed on- and off-site improvements. No impact would result. Further evaluation of the bicycle facility safety is provided in Impact TR-3.
Proposed Sonoma Valley Trail
As stated in Section 3.12.1, Sonoma County Regional Parks has studied the feasibility of the Sonoma Valley Trail, an envisioned bicycle and pedestrian trail along Highway 12 that would begin near the Project site. The Sonoma Valley Trail is currently in the planning phase and the County Board of Supervisors accepted the findings and recommendations presented in the Feasibility Study. As provided within the Sonoma County Regional Parks Feasibility Study for the Sonoma Valley Trail, the Feasibility Study is not yet a “project” that requires adoption, approval or commitment of funding, and has not been app roved or adopted itself. Rather the recommendations presented in the Feasibility Study have been accepted (via resolution) by the Board of Supervisors. The Feasibility Study includes three Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-13 different alternatives for the start of the trail in the vicinity of the Project site (Sonoma County Regional Parks 2016). The identified alignment alternatives, as described in detail in the setting secti on, are the Preferred Alignment, the Alternative Alignment, and the Potential Alternative Alignment.
Implementation of the Project would pr eclude development of the Potential Alternative Alignment as this alternative alignment utilizes a portion of the Project site. However, the Project would not conflict with implementation, or preclude development, of either the Preferred Ali gnment or the Alternative Alignment.
Because the Project would hinder development of the least favorite alignment, but not interfere with the two preferred alignments, the Project would not conflict with the preliminary plans for the Sonoma Valley Trail. No impact would result.
Transit Access
SCT Route 30 stops at the Highway 12/Los Alamos Road intersection, approximately 500 feet from the proposed Project driveway. Existing transit routes are adequate to accommodate Project-genera ted transit trips. Existing stops are within acceptable walking distance of the site and continuous sidewalks would be provided by the Project. No transit-related conflict would result.
Accessible Transportation for Seniors
An existing shuttle loop operated as part of the Spring Lake Village CCRC would be extended to the Project site, and residents would be able to access 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. Therefore, the Project would comply with City Policy T-H-7, which requires community care facilities and senior housing projects with more than 25 units to prov ide accessible transportation services for the convenience of residents. No impact would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
Impact TR-2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Analysis: Less than Significant
As noted in the OPR guidelines, agencies are directed to choose metrics that are appropriate for their jurisdiction to evaluat e the potential impacts of a project in terms of VMT. The City of Santa Rosa uses the VMT threshold recommendations contained in OPR’s 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Therefore, OPR’s screening thresholds for Land Use Projects, found in the Technical Advisory, is used (OPR 2 018). According to the technical advisory projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.
The Project is estimated to generate 80 trips on a daily basis, less than OPR’s screening threshold. In addition, the Project incorporates Transportation Demand Management practices. This includes adequate facilities to allow residents to walk or bicycle between the Project site and the main campus of Spring Lake Village.
In addition, the Project would include a shuttle service that would allow residents to make off-site trips, such as for medical appointments and shopping, in multi- Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-14 passenger vehicles. Similarly, a shuttle service between the Project site and the main campus would accommodate short tr ips that might otherwise be made by private vehicle.
The Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with an applicable threshold of significance adopted per CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The Project’s estimated 80 trips per day would be below the 110 trip per day screening threshold suggested by OPR guidance (OPR 2018), and the Project incorporates applicable Transportation Demand Management Program practices for a senior community facility. The Project’s impact on VMT would be less than significant.
Impact TR-3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Analysis: Significant
Construction
The 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 al ong Melita Road, Los Alamos Road, and HIGHWAY 12 would cause temporary safety hazards to pedestrians and roadway users. However, as described under Impac t TR-1, implementation of traffic and pedestrian control plans and as required by encroachment and transportation permits would mandate traffic and pedestrian control plans, which would include:
traffic controls, signs, and flaggers conf orming; pedestrian and bicycle control devices; notifications to public transit agencies, emergency vehicles, and school systems; and scheduling of major lane/r oad closures during off-peak hours. The controls would reduce the temporary safety hazards, and impacts related to traffic and construction activity during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
As provided in the Project’s traffic study, the collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine if any trends or patterns may indicate a safety issue. The analysis included a review of the collision history for the Highway 12 / Los Alamos Road intersection and segments of Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, and Melita Road. The analysis indicated that the Highway 12 / Los Alamos Road intersection had a lower collision rate than the statew ide average for signalized four-way intersections. This indicates that the in tersection is performing acceptably with regards to safety. In addition, because the Project would include vehicular access from Los Alamos Road and not from Highway 12, the potential for the Project to cause speed differentials and increase conflicts on Highway 12 is considered low.
The traffic study performed for the Project also evaluated site distance at the proposed new driveway (W-Trans 2017 & 2020). The analysis concluded that a minimum sight distance of 315 feet is required for adequate lines of sight between drivers in the Project driveway and oncoming drivers. In comparison, sight distances along Los Alamos Road at the proposed driveway are adequate to accommodate speeds of 40 mph, however sight distance to the north is Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-15 compromised by a bush that appears to be in the road right-of-way. However, the bush would be removed to accommodate planned frontage improvements, and the Conceptual Planting Plan shows new landscaping trees would be set back farther from the road than the existing bush and would therefore not compromise the future line of sight. Therefore, adequate site distances at the Project driveway are provided. The Project’s impact creating potential hazards would be less than significant.
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 properties 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: Mitigation Measure TR-3: Los Alamos Road Bike Lane Signage The City shall ensure the Applicant amends the Los Alamos Road Frontage improvement plans to include signage to notify both riders and drivers of a mid- block bicycle lane change between Los Alamos Road and Melita Road. Signage shall be designed and implemented to the satisfaction of the City and shall not substantially reduce line-of-sight from the proposed Project driveway.
After Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-3 would reduce the impact to bicycle lane continuity to a less-than-significant level by including signage to notify riders and drivers of the mid-block bicycle lane change.
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 si te 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 tra ffic 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 tr affic control requirements, which would Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-16 include submittal of a Traffic Contro l Plan, potential temporary delays to emergency access during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project site would be served by a single primary access point off of Los Alamos Road, 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 De partment vehicles with adequate turn- around space for larger vehicles. Therefore, emergency access is expected to be acceptable. No operational impact would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
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 unknow n, 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 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 over lap 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.
Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-17 Construction of the Project may overlap with the Elnoka Continuing Care Retirement Community, located approximately 0.7 mile east of the Project site off of Highway 12. If the 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 hori zon 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 practices of connected pedestrian facilities and shuttle service. Therefore, the Project’s VMT would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore would be less than significant.
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 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.
3.12.6 References
City of Santa Rosa. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. November.
City of Santa Rosa. 2019. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018. March.
Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation impacts in CEQA. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. December.
Pacific Traffic & Transit Data Services. 2017. Traffic Counts: Los Alamos Road between Melita and Sonoma Highway. February.
Sonoma County Regional Parks. 2016. Sonoma Valley Trail Feasibility Study. February.
Transportation and Traffic
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.12-18 Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA). 2016. Moving Forward 2040, Sonoma County’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan. September.
W-Trans. 2017. Traffic Impact Study for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project. September.
W-Trans. 2020. Addendum to the Traffic Study for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project.
January.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-1
3.13 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section evaluates potential tribal cultural resources impacts from implementation of the Project.
In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following related subjects are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
Potential impacts to cultural re sources are addressed in Section 3.4 (Cultural Resources).
3.13.1 Setting
The following sections describe the environmental setting for tribal cultural resources within the region and Project area. Information included in this section is based , in part, on the Cultural Resources Summary prepared for the Project by Tom Origer & Associates (Origer & Associates 2020). This and additional resource details are included in the confidential Appendix H, which has been withheld from public disclosure for confidentiality reasons in accordance with Federal and State Law and pursuant to requests from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and the Lytton Rancheria.
Assembly Bill 52 Consultation
Formal notification of the Proj ect pursuant to Assembly Bill (A B) 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 was initiated between the City of Santa Rosa, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and the Lytton Rancheria of California in May 2016. On June 3, 2016, the Lytton Rancheria acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced referral for AB 52 purposes and requested to initiate consultation under AB 52. Although FIGR did not for mally request consultation during the initial notification period, they have been included in further consultation efforts between the City of Santa Rosa and Lytton Rancheria.
The Lytton Rancheria initially requested that the City and Proj ect Applicant conduct a Phase I archaeological survey for the Project. Subsequent to the initial consultation request, the City of Santa Rosa required completion of the Phase I archaeological survey. A consultation meeting was then held between representatives of Lytton Rancheria, FIGR, City of Santa Rosa staff, and the Project Applicant on December 12, 2017 to discuss the results of the Phase I survey. Lytton Rancheria and FIGR representatives requested that the Project design incorpor ate measures to protect against disturbance of potential tribal cultural resources.
On March 28, 2018, the City of Santa Rosa submitted a consultat ion package to Lytton Rancheria and FIGR that included a summary of cultural resource investigations that had been completed to date at the site, avoidance measures proposed by the Project Ap plicant, and draft mitigation measures for the Project EIR. Subsequent to the March 28, 2018, consultation package, the City met with representatives from Lytton Rancheria and FIGR at the Proj ect site on June 7, 2018. In June 2019, the City of Santa Rosa submitted an updated consultation package to Lytton Rancheria and FIGR that included updated summaries of cultural resource inves tigations and updated draft mitigation measures for the Project EIR. A conference call between the City of Santa Rosa, Lytton Rancheria, and FIGR was held on February 9, 2021 to discuss the consultation summary to date and the status of the EIR. Lytton Rancheria and FIGR noted the importance of protecting against potential disturbance of tribal cultural resources. On February 10, 2021, the City of Santa Rosa submitted an updated consultation package to Lytton Rancheria and FIGR that included drafts of the EIR impact evaluation and mitigation measures for both tribal cultural resources and cultural resources. On April 29, 2021, FIGR provided responses to the City of Santa Rosa in advance of releasing the Draft EIR.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-2 Native American Heritage Commission
Tom Origer and Associates contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 29, 2016 and May 1, 2017 requesting a review of the Sacred Land s File for information on Native American cultural resources in the Project area, and the names of Native American individuals and groups that would be appropriate to contact who may be able to provide additional information on the potential for cultural resources in the study area. Responses from the NAHC were received via email on July 13, 2016 and May 5, 2017 indicating their records searc h did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources. The NAHC response also incl uded a list of Native American individuals and organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the study area. Letters were sent to all groups on the NAHC list informing them of the proposed Project and asking for any additional information or concerns. On July 29, 2016, letters w ere sent to representatives of the Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians, the Dry Creek Rancheria o f Pomo Indians, the FIGR, the Lytton Rancheria of California, t he Stewarts Point Rancheria, a nd Ya-Ka-Ama. An additional letter was sent to the FIGR on July 7, 2016. Letters were also sent to representatives of the FIGR and the Lytton Rancheria of California on May 2, 2017. A final letter w as sent to the Middletown Rancheria on June 1, 2017.
A response was received from the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians on July 5, 2016 stating that they were not aware of any resources in the area. The Stewarts Point Rancheria responded on July 7, 2016 stating that the Project is outside of their aboriginal territory and that they have no comments or concerns at this time. The Lytton Rancheria of California responded on July 14, 2016 that the Tribe had no specific information about the Project area but believed there was potential for tribal cultural resources to be found in the area and the Tribe would be consul ting further with the lead agency (discussed above in AB 52 consultation). The FIGR responded via email on May 25, 2017 that the Tribe would review the Project within 10 business days, however no responses from FIGR were received during that time period. The Middletown Rancheria resp onded on June 27, 2017 that the Tribe had no specific comments and requested that all work to cease if evidence of human habitation is found as the Project progresses and to be contacted immediat ely. No other responses were received from the letters sent under the NAHC process.
3.13.2 Regulatory Framework
State
California Environmental Quality Act
Tribal Cultural Resources
CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on tribal cultural resources. CEQA section 21074 defines a tribal cultural resources as: (1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objec ts with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are included or determined to be eli gible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources, or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; (2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.
While some tribal cultural resources include physical archaeolo gical resources, described above, tribal cultural resources are not limited to physical resources that have scientific significance. Tribal cultural resources also inclu de cultural landscapes and non-unique archaeological resources.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-3 Nonunique resources are resources that are deemed culturally significant to a tribe, but do not contain information needed for scientif ic purposes, and may not be the best specimen in terms of quality, uniqueness, or age.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility t o the California Register are based on National Register criteria (PRC Section 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, includ ing California properties formally determined eligible for or listed in the National Register.
To be eligible for the California Register as a historical reso urce, a prehistoric or historic-period resource must be significant at the local or State level under one or more of the following criteria:
Criteria 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; Criteria 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criteria 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
Criteria 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [a][3]).
For a resource to be eligible for the California Register, it m ust also retain enough integrity to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey its signifi cance. The seven aspects of integrity are: 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling and 7) association. A resource that does not retain sufficient integrity to meet the National Register cri teria may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource tha t has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.
Office of Historic Preservation
The California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) is responsible for administering federally and state mandated historic preservation programs to further th e identification, evaluation, registration and protection of California’s irreplaceable archaeological and historical resources under the direction of the State Historic Preservation Officer and th e State Historical Resources Commission.
OHP reviews and comments on federally sponsored projects pursua nt to NHPA Section 106, and state programs pursuant to PRC Sections 5024 and 5024.5, which provide policies and plans for preserving and maintaining all state-owned historical resources or eligible historical resources. OHP also reviews and comments on local government and state projects pursuant to CEQA.
A variety of programs have been created by OHP in order to mana ge historic resources and to determine eligibility for classification as a historic resource . The programs that OHP administer includes: the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historical Landmar ks, and the California Points of Historical Interest. Each progr am has different eligibility cri teria and procedural requirements; the Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-4 eligibility criteria listed through the NRHP (mentioned above) and CRHR (mentioned below) are used to evaluate significance of potential cultural resources within this Project.
California Public Resources Code (PRC)
Several sections of the PRC protect cultural resources. Under S ection 5097.5, no person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site (including fossilized footprints), inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature situated on public lands, except with the ex press permission of the public agency that has jurisdiction over the lands.
PRC Section 5097.98 states that if Native American human remain s are identified within a project area, the landowner must work with the Native American Most Likely Descendant as identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to develo p a plan for the treatment or disposition of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity. These proce dures are also addressed in Section 15046.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 pr ohibits disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Section 30244 of the PRC requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological a nd archaeological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands.
Pursuant to Section 21084.1 a pr oject that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
For purposes of this section, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources . Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for the purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources, or no t deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 shall not preclu de a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be an historical resource for purposes of this section.
A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource i f it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act, se t s f o r t h a p r o a c t i v e a p p r o a c h intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts betwee n Native American and development interests. AB 52 adds tribal cultural resources to the specific cultural resources protected under CEQA. Under AB 52, a tribal cultural resource is defined as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape (must be geographically defined in terms of size and scope), sa cred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either incl uded or eligible for inclusion in the Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-5 California Register, or included in a local register of historical resources. A Native American Tribe or the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, may choose at its discretion to treat a resource as a tribal cultural resource. AB 52 also mandates lead agencie s to consult with tribes, if requested by the tribe, and sets the principles for conducting and conclu ding consultation. Refer to the Tribal Cultural Resource section above for a summary of the City’s con sultation process with Lytton Rancheria and FIGR.
California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act This Act applies to both State and private lands. The Act requi res that upon di scovery of human remains, that construction or excavation activity cease and that the county coroner be notified. If the remains are Native American in origin, the coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons mostly likely to be descended from the Native Ame rican remains. The Act stipulates the procedures the descendants may follow for treating or dispo sing of the remains and associated grave goods.
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 prohibits disi nterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Section 7050.5 also requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the Coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If determined to be Native American, the Coroner must contact the California NAHC by telephone within 24 hours.
Regional and Local
City of Santa Rosa Landmarks and Preservation Districts The Santa Rosa City Council adopted a Preservation Ordinance in 1988 and created the City's Cultural Heritage Board. The Boar d recommends to the City Council designation of landmarks and preservation districts, reviews permits for alterations to landmarks and buildings within preservation districts, and promotes public awareness of historic resources. The Preservation Ordinance defines a landmark as “any site, including significant trees or other significant permanent landscaping located thereon, place, building, structure, street, street furniture, sign, work of art, natural feature or other object having a specific historical, archaeological, cultural or architectural value in the City and which has been designated a landmark by the City Council.” Similar to the federal and State criteria, the City uses the following specific criteria to determine historical significance:
Event. Is the property associated with an event that has made a significant contribution to Santa Rosa’s history; or
Person. Is the property associa ted with the life of a person who was significant in Santa Rosa’s history; or
Design. Does the property embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction found in Santa Rosa before 1950; or
Information. Has the property yi elded, or may be likely to yield, information important in Santa Rosa’s prehistory or history; and
Integrity. Does the property reta in enough aspects of location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association to convey its historic significance? There are no City designated landmarks or preservation districts at the Project site.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-6 City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are generally related to cultural resources and apply to the Project.
HP-A Protect Native American heritage.
HP-A-1 Review proposed developments and work in conjunction wit h the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, to determine whether project areas con tain known archaeological resources, either prehistoric and/or historic-era, or have the potential for such resources.
HP-A-2 Require that project areas found to contain significant archaeological resources be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist for recommendations concerning protection and preservation.
HP-A-3 If cultural resources are encountered during development, work should be halted to avoid altering the materials and their context until a quali fied consulting archaeologist and Native American representative (if appropriate) have evaluated the situation, and recorded ident ified cultural resources and d etermined suitable mitigation measures.
HP-A-4 Consult with local Native American tribes to identify, e valuate, and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process.
HP-A-5 Ensure that Native American human remains are treated wi th sensitivity and dignity and assure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
3.13.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table
3.13-1 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are us ed to determine if the proposed Project would have a significant effect related to tribal cultural resources.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-7 Table 3.13-1 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
TCR-1: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074
as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is
listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or a resource
determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.
Adverse alteration of those
physical characteristics of a
tribal cultural resource that
justify its eligibility for the
CRHR or in a local register of
historical resources
Adverse alteration of a tribal
cultural resource that cause it
to be significant to a California
Native American Tribe
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item XVIII (a)
Public Resource Code
21074, 5020.1(k), 5024.1,
and 21080.3.
General Plan Goal
HP-A
3.13.4 Approach to Analysis
The evaluation of potential impacts on tribal cultural resources is based on the potential for alteration of a known or previously unrecorded tribal cultural resources.. In evaluating tribal cultural resources under CEQA, a lead agency considers the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. The analysis in this EIR section is based on the formal consultation of the Project pursuant to AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 b etween the City of Santa Rosa, FIGR, and the Lytton Rancheria of California, as well as Projec t-specific analysis performed by cultural resource specialists.
3.13.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.13-2 (Summary of Impacts – Tribal Cultural Resources) p rovides a summary of potential impacts from the proposed Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-8 Table 3.13-2 Summary of Impacts – Tribal Cultural Resources Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
TCR-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
SUM
C-TCR-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to tribal cultural resources?
SUM
Notes: SUM = Significant Unavoidable with Mitigation
Impact TCR-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse cha nge in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Se ction 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is ge ographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American trib e, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Pu blic Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or a resource determined by the lead ag ency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
Analysis: Significant
Based on the AB 52 consultations and cultural resource investigations completed to date, tribal cultural resources which are potentially eligib le for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources may be impacted by construction related activities. Therefore, the Project’s impact on tribal cultural resources would be significant.
Project operation would not include ground disturbing activitie s other than those related to routine maintenance such as landscaping and irrigati on repair.
Therefore, the operational impact would be less than significant. Project operation would not disturb tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation: Mitigation Measure CR-2a: Protection and Treatment of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The City shall ensure implementation of the following actions r elated to cultural and tribal cultural resources:
Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-9 Protection of Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources, Pre-Construction Data Recovery, and/or Construction Monitoring
The City shall ensure that an Archaeological and Tribal Cultura l 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). 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 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 protec tion and preservation. Protection can be achieved by either avoidance (n ot developing within the boundaries of an archaeological resource), by coveri ng 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 a re not protected and preserved in place, data recovery within a sensitive ar ea to be affected by the Project is necessary. Data recovery must be performed by qualified archaeologists using st andard archaeological techniques. Data recovery must include processing and analysis of recovered cultural materials using appropriate archaeological m ethods, and preparation of the recovered materials for permanent disposition (e.g., re-burial in a location that would be protected in perpetuity) per the requi rements of 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 Re sources 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 t he excavation, grading, trenching, and other earth-moving processes. Monitorin g 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 Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-10 by the monitoring archaeologist. If the deposit contains Historic Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources, or Tribal Cultural Resources as defin ed 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 representati ve agree that no further damage would result.
Mitigation Measure CR-2b and CR-2c: Additional Avoidance Measures The City shall ensure implementation of further avoidance measures as identified in Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c in the confidential Appendix H.
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 whi ch are provided in the following: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tool s; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally dar kened 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 featu re remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps).
A qualified archaeologist and representatives of FIGR and/or Ly tton 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 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 proceed on other parts of the Project while mitigation for these resources is being carried out.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Treatment of Human Remains, Associated Grave Goods, or Items of Cultural Patrimony
Should human remains, associated grave goods, or items of cultural patrimony be encountered during Project construction, the following procedur es shall be Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-11 followed as required by Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 an d Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
If human remains are encountered, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area shall occur until the Sonoma County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin, in accordance with Health and Safety Code 7050.5.
In accordance with Public Resourc es Code 5097.98 if the coroner believes the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone, within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission shal l immediately notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) or Descendants. The Descendent shall inspect t he site of the discovery and may recommend the means for treating or disposing , with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The Descendants shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of their notification by the Native American Heritage Commission.
The remains shall not be damaged or disturbed by further develo pment until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD regarding th eir recommendations.
After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Meas ure CR-2a would reduce the imp act to tribal cultural resources by requiri ng the development and implementat ion 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 red uce the potential impact to tr ibal cultural resources by requiring avoidance measures as identified in the confidential Appendix H.
Mitigation Measure CR-2d would reduce the potential impact to currently unknown tribal cultural resources by outlining procedures to be taken i n the event of inadvertent discovery of resources during Project construction. Mitigation Measure CR-3 also would minimize the potential impact to tribal cultural resources by requiring the contractor to notify the MLD and avoid the area if human remains are encountered, and to follow procedures outlined in Public Re sources Code § 5097.9 and Health and Safety Code § 7050.5.
However, even with implementatio n of these measures, Project-re lated excavations and ground-disturbance may materially impair the in tegrity of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation.
Impact C-TCR-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to tribal cultural resources?
Analysis: Significant
The geographic boundary for cumulative impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be the range of tribe(s) cu lturally affiliated with the P roject site and the locality of related tribal cultura l resources. Implementation o f the cumulative Tribal Cultural Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.13-12 projects listed in Table 3-1 (Projects Considered for Cumulativ e Impacts) may require grading and excavation that could potentially affect tribal cultural resources. Construction activitie s associated with cumulative projects would be subject to existing federal, state, local regulations, and poli cies for Project design and approval. CEQA requirements for protecting tribal cultural resources would be applicable to each of the cumulative projects. The existing federal, state and local regulations, design policies and CEQA requirements would genera lly reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources from implementat ion of cumulative projects to a less-than-significant level. However, as discusse d above under the Project impact analysis, the Project may potentially impact tribal cultural resources.
The Project’s contribution to the potential cumulative impact would be cumulatively considerable, and therefore significant.
Mitigation: Mitigation Measure CR-2a: Protection and Treatment of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-2b and CR-2c: Additional Avoidance Measures Mitigation Measure CR-2d: Protect Unanticipated Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Treatment of Human Remains, Associated Grave Goods, or Items of Cultural Patrimony
Please refer to Impact TCR-1 for the description of Mitigation Measures CR-2a through CR-3.
After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation As noted under Impact TCR-1, implementation of Mitigation Measu res CR-2a through CR-3 would reduce the impact to tribal cultural resources, however, even with implementation of these measures, Project-related excavati ons and ground- disturbance may materially impa ir the integrity of tribal cultu ral resources. The Project’s contribution to the cum ulative impact would therefore be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation.
3.13.6 References
Tom Origer & Associates. 2016. A Cultural Resources Study for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. Report by J. Franco and E. Barrow. August.
Tom Origer & Associates. 2017. Historical Resources Study for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. Report by J. Franco and E. Barrow. June.
Tom Origer & Associates. 2020b. Cultural Resources Summary for the Spring Lake Village – East Grove Project located at 225 Los Alamos Road and 5803 and 5815 Melita Road Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. January.
Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-1
3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
This section provides a description of the existing utilities in the Project area and evaluates changes to those conditions that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following subj ects are related to utilities, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
Potential impacts related to storm water runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems are evaluat ed in Section 3.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality).
3.14.1 Setting
Water Distribution and Supply
The City of Santa Rosa is a retail water supplier to residential and commercial accounts located within the City’s service area. According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City provided water to 53,193 customers and supplied 16,539 acre-feet of water (Santa Rosa 2016).
The majority of the City’s potable water supply comes from the Russian River watershed and is delivered under contractual agreement by Sonoma Water. Sonoma Water produces water from the Russian River that is pumped from groundwater wells below the river bed. Six groundwater wells, also known as collectors, pump the water through natural sands and gravels that act as a filtering system. Sonoma Water adds chlorine to its water supply to provide residual disinfection throughout its water transmission system. Sonoma Water also adjusts the pH of its water. City owned and maintained water distribution facilities include treated water reservoirs, pipelines, pump stations, and one well treatment facility.
Under its current agreement with Sonoma Water, the City is entitled to receive up to an annual volume of 29,100 acre feet per year (AFY) and an average of 40 million gallons per day (mgd) from Reach 1, 2 and 3a of the Intertie Aqueduct, 40 mgd from the Santa Rosa Aqueduct, 4.0 mgd from the Sonoma Aqueduct, or a maximum combined average total of 56.6 mgd for a one-month period from all aqueducts. In addition to Sonoma Water’s supply, the City has two active production wells which provide up to 2,300 AFY. The City is also the ow ner and operator of the Subregional Water Reuse System, providing up to 140 AFY of recycled water for approved uses which offset potable water use within Santa Rosa. (Santa Rosa 2016)
Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
The City’s wastewater system collects, treats, and disposes of sewage from residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Wastewater generated from the City is collected and transported to the Subregional Laguna Water Reuse Facility (Laguna Treatment Plant) for treatment and disposal. The Laguna Treatment Plant provides tertiary treatment of wastewater collected from the four subregional partners that include Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, and Sebastopol, as well as the South Park Sanitation District. Recycled water is disposed of through Geysers recharge, agricultural irrigation, urban reuse, and discharge to the Russian River.
The Laguna Treatment Plant is currently permitted to treat an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of
21.34 mgd, 16.31 mgd of which is allocated for the City of Santa Rosa. The Laguna Treatment Plant’s ADWF in 2017 was 14.5 mgd, indicating that approximately 6.84 mgd of capacity is available (Santa Rosa 2017a). The City of Santa Rosa approved an Incremental Re cycled Water Program in 2004, Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-2 which would be implemented as growth occurs, eventually increasing the Laguna Treatment Plant’s ADWF capacity to 25.89 mgd (19.14 mgd of which would be allocated to Santa Rosa).
Storm Water Collection and Treatment
The Santa Rosa Public Works Department mainta ins storm water pipes and structures within the City. The City of Santa Rosa’s current municipal storm water permit regulates both stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from public and private projects with the intent to reduce stormwater pollution, protect the water quality of creeks and waterways, and promote infiltration.
The existing storm water collection system in the Project area consists of storm drain and open drainage ditches along the edges of the project site. Along Los Alamos Road, an open drainage ditch conveys storm water along the edge of the property and ultimately drains to Santa Rosa Creek near Montgomery Drive. Along Melita Road, existi ng storm drain pipes and an open drainage ditch conveys storm water along the north side of Melit a Road, which then crosses the road beneath an existing culvert and drains towards Santa Rosa Creek.
Solid Waste
The City of Santa Rosa currently contracts with the North Bay Corporation to provide solid waste collection and curbside recycling for residential and commercial uses in Santa Rosa. The North Bay Corporation provides a single-stream recycling program (all recyclables in one container). The North Bay Corporation collects and transports commerci al and residential solid waste to the Central Disposal Site Transfer Station at 500 Meacham Road in the City of Petaluma. Sonoma County’s municipal solid waste is then delivered to three out-of-County landfills within the Bay Area, including the Redwood Landfill in Marin County, Keller Canyon Landfill in Contra Costa County, and Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County.
Gas, Electricity, Cable and Telephone
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas service to the project area. PG&E is regulated by the Califor nia Public Utilities Commission and purchases both gas and electrical power from a variety of sources, including other utility companies. AT&T provides cable and telephone service to the area.
3.14.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
There are no federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to utilities that would be applicable to the project.
State and Regional
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Ac t) was originally established by Assembly Bill 797 (AB 797) on September 21, 1983. The primary objective of the UWMP Act is to direct “urban water suppliers” to develop an Urban Water Management Plan which provides a framework for long- term water supply planning, and documents how urban water suppliers are carrying out their long- term resource planning responsibilities to ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. The UWMP Act applies to water suppliers that provide over 3,000 acre-feet per year or have over 3,000 connect ions. The City of Santa Rosa 2015 Urban Water Management Plan was adopted by Resolution No. 28799 of the City Council on June 14, 2016.
Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-3 California Integrated Waste Management Act
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (C IWMA), also known as Assembly Bill 939, required each jurisdiction in the state to divert 25 percent of its solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. Accepted diversion methods include source reduction, recycling and composting activities. The CIWMA also required each County to prepare a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (C oIWMP), which is the main planning document for solid waste management in each County. Sonoma County’s CoIWMP is the principal planning document for solid waste management in Sonom a County. The CoIWMP identifies goals and objectives of the County and the incorporated cities in the County with respect to solid waste reduction, recycling diversion, and disposal of solid waste. Concurr ent with the preparation of the CoIWMP, all incorporated cities in the County and the County entered into a Joint Power Agreement which formed the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA) to deal with household hazardous waste, yard and wood waste, and public education. The most recent update to the CoIWMP was adopted and certified by SCWMA in February 2010.
Local
Wastewater Permit
The City has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for operation of the Laguna Treatment Plant and is required to comply with applicable regulations regarding wastewater treatment. Wastewater within the City of Santa Rosa may be discharged into City sewers for collection, treatment, and disposal by the City, pr ovided that such wastes do not contain prohibited substances or exceed limitation of wastewater volu me or strength, as applicable. The City of Santa Rosa Municipal Code includes specific wastewater discharge prohibitions. These include, but are not limited to, limits and prohibitions related to pH, temperature, toxic pollutants, and malodorous liquids.
Daily maximum allowable discharge limits are established for metals, biochemical oxygen demand, pH, total toxic organics, total suspended solids, total petroleum hydrocarbons, total dissolved solids, and other constituents.
City of Santa Rosa General Plan Goals and Policies
The following goals and policies from the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are generally related to utilities for the project.
PSF-F Ensure that an adequate supply of water is available to serve existing and future needs of the City.
PSF-F-1 Utilize high quality water from the SCWA aqueduct system as the primary water supply.
PSF-F-2 Ensure that water supply capacity and infrastructure are in place prior to occupancy of new development.
PSF-F-3 Develop available groundwater resources for the purpose of providing a supplemental source of water in the event of an emergency.
PSF-G Ensure that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve existing and future needs of the City.
PSF-G-2 Maintain existing levels of wastewater service by preserving and improving infrastructure, including replacing sewer mains as necessary.
Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-4 PSF-H Meet the city’s solid waste dispo sal needs, while maximizing opportunities for waste reduction and recycling.
PSF-H-1 Continue contracting for garbage and recycling collection services. Expand the single-stream recycling program (all recyclables in one container) to all users.
PSF-H-4 Require provision of attractive, conv enient recycling bins and trash enclosures in residential and non-residential development.
PSF-I Manage, maintain, and improve stormwater drainage and capacity.
PSF-I-1 Require dedication, improvement, and maintenance of stormwat er flow retention areas as a condition of approval.
PSF-I-2 Require developers to cover the co sts of drainage facilities needed for surface runoff generated as a result of new development.
3.14.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table
3.14-1 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Threshol ds) are used to determine if the project would have a significant effect related to utilities.
Table 3.14-1 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
UT-1: Would the project require or
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electrical
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
Inadequate water supply,
storm water drainage,
natural gas, or
telecommunications
infrastructure to serve the
site
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item XIX (a)
General Plan goals PSF-F, G, I
General Plan policies PSF-F-2,
PSF-F-4, G-2, I-1, I-8
UT-2: Would the project have
sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
Inadequate water supply
capacity or infrastructure
to serve the needs of the
project
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item XIX (b)
General Plan policy PSF-F-2
UT-3: Would the project result in a
determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Inadequate sewer capacity
to serve the project and
future needs of the City
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item XIX (c)
General Plan goal PSF-G
Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-5 Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
UT-4: Would the project generate
solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Inadequate regional landfill
capacity to serve the
project
Violation of solid waste
reduction goals
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item XIX (d)
General Plan goal PSF-H
UT-5: Would the project comply
with federal, state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Non-compliance with
applicable solid waste
diversion regulations
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item XIX (e)
General Plan goal PSF-H
3.14.4 Approach to Analysis
Potential impacts on utilities are analyzed based on the potential for the propo sed Project to affect the wastewater, wate r, stormwater, solid wast e, and other utility facilities during construction or operation, as indicated in the thresholds above.
3.14.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.14-2 (Summary of Impacts - Utilities) pr ovides a summary of potential impacts from the project.
Table 3.14-2 Summary of Impacts – Utilities
Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
UT-1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? LS
UT-2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
LS
UT-3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
NI
UT-4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
LS
UT-5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI
C-UT-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to utilities?
LS
Notes: NI = No Impact
LS = Less than Significant
Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-6 Impact UT-1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunicatio ns facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Analysis: Less than Significant
Water Facilities
The proposed Project would construct 32 dwelling units and a community building with kitchen facilities, which would increase potable water demand on the site. Two existing irrigation wells would be used to provide landscaping irrigation. Using the assumptions established by the 2014 Water Master Plan Updat e (City of Santa Rosa 2014), development of the Project si te as proposed would be projected to result in a water demand of approximately 11 acre-feet per year. In actuality, the Project is anticipated to require a smaller demand than that noted above, in part due to the proposed use of the existing groundwater irrigation wells and having fewer occupants per unit than an average household.
The total water demand within Santa Rosa in 2020 is estimated to be 24,289 acre feet per year (Santa Rosa 2016), and the water supply available within the City is estimated to be 7,251 acre feet in 2020. Therefore, adequate water supplies would be available to serve the estimated 11 acre feet demand for the proposed Project, and construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities would not be required. Therefore, no environmental impacts associated with construction of new treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities would result.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
During construction, groundwater may be generated during re-development or testing of the existing irrigation wells located on the Project site, or during dewatering operations if necessary to provide a dry work area. Groundwater generated during construction activities may potentially be conditioned to be discharged to the City’s wastewater collection system, which would then convey the water to the Laguna Treatment Plant. The City of Santa Rosa conditionally allows the discharge of wastewater generated as a result of purging groundwater wells and groundwater dewatering for projects that will not exceed six months.
Prior to any such discharges, the project Applicant or its construction contractor would be required to obtain and implement a one-time wastewater discharge permit from the City of Santa Rosa. Because the discharge of groundwater to the Laguna Treatment Plant would be temporary in nature and would not substantially alter existing wastewater characteristics or result in the need for new treatment methods, the impact would be less than significant.
Using generation rates established in the 2016 Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Update (Santa Rosa 2016), the proposed Project would be expected to produce approximately 3,560 gpd of wa stewater (based on 64 residents and 12 employees). The Laguna Treatment Plant’s ADWF in 2017 was 14.5 mgd, indicating that approximately 6.84 mgd of capacity is available. Based on the existing capacity of the Laguna Treatment Plant and the projected Project Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-7 wastewater flows, the Project can be adequately served from existing wastewater treatment facilities. Theref ore, the Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and no environmental impacts associated with construction of new treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities would result.
Following construction, the project Applicant would be required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit fr om the City of Santa Rosa for the non-residential discharge from the Community Building and kitchen. The permit would be required to be in place prior to the discharge of operational wastewater into the wastewater collection system. The pro posed kitchen would be requi red to include approved and properly sized grease removal devices, and food service activities would be subject to regulations and inspections by the City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department Environmental Compliance Sect ion. As a primarily residential land use, the proposed Project would not ge nerate wastewater strengths that would compel special treatment to meet the purposes of the City’s wastewater treatment requirements. The new residences would not alter existing wastewater characteristics or result in the need for new treatment methods.
Storm Water
The Project includes new on-site and off-site storm water facilities as identified in Section 2, Project Description. The on-site facilities include vegetated swales and storm drain inlets that will drain to new on-site rain garden detention basins. The off-site facilities include a new storm drain to be inst alled along Melita Road and an upsized culvert across Melita Road.
Project plans indicate that the new storm water facilities would comply with the City of Santa Rosa Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan and the City of Santa Rosa Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (Santa Rosa 2017b). A drainage analysis was completed for the Project to calculate existing and future runoff at the Project site and to evaluate the adequacy of the storm water drainage capacity to serve the site. The drainage analysis indicates that upsizing an existing 12-inch culvert that crosses Melita Road to an 18-inch culvert would improve the existing drainage conditions, and therefore, is proposed as part of the Project.
Therefore, the adequacy of the storm water drainage system to serve the site has been evaluated and necessary on-site and off-site improvements have been identified and incorporated into the proposed Project design. The potential environmental impacts associated with construction of the new and expanded storm water drainage facilities are evaluated as part of this EIR. No additional storm water drainage facilities or expa nsion of existing facilities beyond those identified in the project description and evaluated in the EIR would be required.
The impact related to storm water drainage capacity is less than significant.
Other Utilities
Electrical power and natural gas would be provided by PG&E from existing utility lines adjacent to the Project site, including a natural gas line located within Melita Road. All electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure would be located underground and would tie-in to existing infrastructure. The potential Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-8 environmental impacts associated with tie-in connections are evaluated as part of this EIR. No additional electrical, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required to serve the Project.
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
Impact UT-2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Analysis: Less than Significant
As summarized in Impact UT-1, the Project is projected to result in a water demand of approximately 11 acre-feet per year.
The City of Santa Rosa 2015 UWMP provides an assessment of the City’s expected water supply and demands from 2015 through 2040. As shown in Table
3.14-2, the total water demand within Santa Rosa in 2015 was estimated at 16,679 acre-feet, and the total water demand in 2020 is estimated to be 24,289 acre-feet per year. In comparison, the current water supply available in 2020 within the City is estimated to be 31,540 acre feet. Therefore, an estimated capacity of 14,861 acre-feet was available in 2015 and an estimated capacity of 7,251 acre-feet would be available in 2020.
Table 3.14-2 Normal Year Water Supply and Demand
Demand/Supply
2015 2020
Acre-Feet
Total Water Demands 16,679 24,289
Normal Year Supply 31,540 31,540
Source: Santa Rosa 2016
The City’s 2015 UWMP further evaluates water demands and supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry year scenarios. The 2015 UWMP notes that due to the City’s extensive water conservation implementation, it is not likely that single -dry year conditions would reduce the volume of surface water available to the City to less than the average for all Water Contractors. In addition, the City’s 2015 UWMP notes that due to the short duration of a single-dry year and the artesian 1 conditions
of the City’s groundwater wells, it is not anticipated that groundwater supply would be impacted during a single-dry year (Santa Rosa 2016).
As further explained in the City’s 2015 UWMP, if a supply shortfall occurs during a single-dry year, the City would enact the app ropriate stage of the City’s Water Shortage Plan to reduce customer demands to match available supplies. This approach was used in 2015 in response to a state-wide drought, resulting in the City’s 2015 water use being 24 percent less than in 2013. As indicated in the City’s 2015 UWMP, a City demand reduction of about 14 percent would be required during a single-dry year under 2040 conditions (Santa Rosa 2016). Experience during the 2015 drought indicated that such customer reductions are feasible.
1 Groundwater level at or above the ground surface.
Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-9 If a supply shortfall occurred during a multiple -dry year scenario, the City would enact the appropriate stage of the City’s Water Shortage Plan to reduce customer water demands.
Based on the findings of the City of Santa Rosa 2015 UWMP, the proposed Project’s water demand could be adequately served from existing water supply entitlements. Although the Project would resu lt in an increase in the dwelling unit density and a potential increase in wate r demand previously unaccounted for in the 2014 Water Master Plan Update, such increases would not require or result in the need to acquire new or expanded enti tlements. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
Impact UT-3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Analysis: No Impact
As summarized in Impact UT-1, the Project would be expected to produce approximately 3,560 gpd of wastewat er (based on 64 residents and 12 employees). The Laguna Treatment Plant is currently permitted to treat an ADWF of 21.34 mgd, 16.31 mgd of which is allocated for the City of Santa Rosa. The City of Santa Rosa also approved an Incremental Recycled Water Program in 2004 which would be implemented as growth occurs, eventually increasing the Laguna Treatment Plant’s ADWF capacity to 25.89 mgd (19.14 mgd of which would be allocated to Santa Rosa). The Laguna Treatment Plant’s ADWF in 2017 was 14.5 mgd, indicating that approximately 6.84 mgd of capacity was available. Based on the existing capacity of the Laguna Treat ment Plant and the projected Project wastewater flows, the Laguna Treatment Plant has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected wastewater demand in addition to existing commitments. No impact would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
Impact UT-4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Analysis: Less than Significant
Construction of the Project would result in a temporary increase in solid waste disposal needs associated with construc tion waste. Construction wastes would include solid waste from demolition of the two single-family homes, site clearing, grading, tree removal, and street improvements, including demolished asphalt pavement and concrete. Excavated soils may be utilized for backfill at the project site or off-hauled with other construction debris for recycling or disposal as required by City and County regulations.
Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-10 Following construction, the Project would generate approximately 128 pounds (0.06 tons) of solid waste per day, or approximately 46,720 pounds (23.36 tons) per year. Such volumes are based on a standard residential waste generation rate of 4.0 pounds per dwelling unit per day, as provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The Project would also provide a dining area to serve the resi dents. This is estimated to generate approximately 0.005 pounds of waste per square foot per day.
Solid waste within the City of Santa Rosa is collected and transported to the Central Disposal Site Transfer Station. Municipal solid waste is then disposed of at both the Central Disposal site and at out-of-County landfills within the Bay Area.
Out-of-County landfills include Redwood Sani tary Landfill in the City of Novato, Potrero Hills Landfill in Suisun City, Vasco Road Landfill in the City of Livermore, and Keller Canyon Landfill in the City of Pittsburg.
As shown in Table 3.14-4, sufficient capacity exists at regional landfills to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. Solid waste generated during construction and operation of the Project would represent a small fraction of the daily permitted tonnage of these facilities. Therefore, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs would be sufficient ly accommodated by existing landfills, and the impact would be less than significant.
Table 3.14-4 Landfill Capacity Summary
Landfill Location
Remaining
Capacity
(cubic yards)
Estimated
Closure Date
Central Petaluma 9 million 2034
Redwood Novato 26 million 2024
Potrero Hills Suisun City 13.9 million 2048
Vasco Road Livermore 7 million 2022
Keller Canyon Pittsburg 63.4 million 2030
Source: CalRecycle, 2016
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
Impact UT-5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Analysis: No Impact
No applicable federal solid waste regula tions would apply to the Project. At the State level, the Integrated Waste Management Act mandates a reduction of waste being disposed and establishes an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance. The City of Santa Rosa has entered into a franchise agreement to provide construction and demolition debris collection service within the City in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 9-12. The existing franchise agreement requires that the franchisee recycle 50 percent of all construction and demolition debris collected within the City. The City of Santa Rosa also maintains a collection Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-11 services contract to provide solid waste collection and curbside recycling for residential and commercial uses in Santa Rosa. Solid waste disposal services provided within Santa Rosa must follow the applicable State and local regulations related to the collection of solid waste. Compliance with applicable statutes and regulations would be conditionally required as part of Project. Therefore, no impact would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
Impact C-UT-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to utilities?
Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) Water
For water service, the geographic scope for assessing cumulative impacts is the area within the City of Santa Rosa po table water service area. The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in a cumulative increase in water demand and the need for new or expanded water facilities. As discussed in Impact UT-1 and UT-2, the proposed Project would not create the need for new or expanded water facilities or demand a significant amount of the existing water supply. Based on the City of Santa Rosa’s Urban Water Management Plan, there is adequate water supply in normal years to meet demands through 2040. As indicated in the City’s 2015 UWMP, a City demand reduction of about 14 percent would be required during a single-dry year under 2040 conditions (Santa Rosa 2016). Experience during the 2015 drought indicated that such customer reductions are feasible. If a supply shortfall occurred during a multiple -dry year scenario, the City would enact the appropriate stage of the City’s Water Shor tage Plan to reduce customer water demands. The Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on water service and supply would be less than significant.
Wastewater
For wastewater service the geographic scope for assessing cumulative impacts is the wastewater treatment service area of the City of Santa Rosa. As discussed in the above Project-specific analysis, ho wever, service demand by the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on wastewater treatment capacity or create the need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Currently, the City of Santa Rosa expects capacit y to be adequate to serve the Project combined with other anticipated projects, and no significant cumulative impact would occur. The effect of the proposed Project on wastewater service, in combination with other past, present, and foreseeable projects, would be less than significant.
Electricity
For electricity, the geographic scope for assessing cumulative impacts consists of the PG&E distribution grid the Project is located on. The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in a cumulative increase in electricity demands and the need for new Utilities
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.14-12 or expanded facilities. As discussed in the above Project-specific analysis, the Project would only require a marginal amount of electricity. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would contribut e significantly to a cumulative impact related to insufficient electricity. The cumulative effect of the proposed Project on electricity supply would be less than significant.
Solid Waste
For solid waste disposal service, the geographic scope for assessing cumulative impacts consists of the service area for the landfills serving the region the Project is within. Construction and operation of the proposed Project in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in a cumulative increase in construction and operation-related solid waste and debris.
Implementation of state and local waste reduction and diversion requirements and programs has and would continue to reduce the potential for exceeding existing capacities of the regional landfills, which still have adequate capacity. For these reasons, the effect of the proposed Proj ect on solid waste disposal service, in combination with other past, present, and foreseeable projects, would be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.
3.14.6 References
CalRecycle. 2016. Solid Waste Information System. Accessed October 28, 2016, online at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/
CalRecycle. 2016. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed March 26, 2018, online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. November 3.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2014. Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2016. City of Santa Rosa, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June Santa Rosa, City of. 2017a. Laguna Subregional Water Reclamation System 2017 Annual Report.
Santa Rosa, City of. 2017b. Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual.
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-1 Alternatives Description and Analysis
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the alternatives analysis for the Project . CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). In a ddition, an EIR must identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency and were r ejected as infeasible during the scoping process and should briefly explain the reasons underlyi ng the lead agency’s determination (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 [(c]).
For ease of reference, the project objectives identified in Cha pter 2, the Project Description, are repeated below:
Create and operate at least 32 new senior community care facil ity units for independent living, ranging in size from approximately 1,500 square feet to 1,800 square feet; Harmonize with the aesthetic of the existing campus and with t he existing neighborhood and scenic corridors near the Project site;
Expand the existing Spring La ke Village campus facilities with new on-site state of the art amenities, including recreation and dining spaces, in a safe an d secure environment for senior residents, within walking distance of the main campus;
Utilize more fully the existing infrastructure, facilities, and services of the existing campus; Incorporate sustainable design, and enhanced energy and water efficiency measures; Serve the growing senior population by providing housing with convenient access to medical care facilities, transportation, retail, cultural, and recreational amenities; Continue to attract and retain seniors as part of the greater Santa Rosa community through provision of a progression of care and services on the expanded Spring Lake Village campus, allowing residents to age in place; and
Continue to provide quality senior care licensed by the State of California.
One of the alternatives analyzed must be the “No Project” alter native. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1) states that the purpose of describing and analyzing the no project alternative is “to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.” The no project analysis is required to “discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published…a s well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (Section 15126.6[e][2]).
The alternatives are described and analyzed below, followed by a matrix (Table 4-1) that compares the impacts of the alternatives to that of the Project. This section also includes a description of those alternatives that were considered but not carried forward in the analysis.
4.2 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward in this EIR During the preliminary planning process, the EIR scoping proces s, and the environmental analysis, several alternatives to the Project were evaluated and/or sugge sted. These alternatives are Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-2 summarized below, and are evaluated to determine if they meet the qualifications for alternatives, as required under CEQA.
In accordance with CEQA requirements, an alternative must meet the following three criteria: 1) the alternative would attain most of a project’s basic objectives; 2) the alternative would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project; and 3) the alternative must be potentially feasible. An EIR need not analyze an alternative whose impact cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote an d speculative. Furthermore, an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative, but must c onsider a reasonable range of alternatives that will foster well-informed decision-making and public participation.
4.2.1 Main Street Alternative
During preliminary planning of the Project, the Applicant devel oped a secondary Project alternative to be evaluated, identified as the Main Street Alternative, whi ch was included in a Notice of Preparation to agencies and interested parties on August 30, 2017. The Main Street Alternative was to be located on the same site as the proposed Project and woul d have included the same total number of independent living units, namely 32 units supporting up to 64 residents at full occupancy.
The Main Street Alternative had the same vehicle access and off-site pedestrian, bicycle, storm water and utility improvements as the proposed Project. The Main Stre et Alternative also would have removed the existing single-family residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road.
After reviewing the potential environmental impacts of the Main Street Alternative, it was determined that the alternative would not s ubstantially reduce the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the alternative is not evaluated further in this EIR.
4.2.2 Partial Avoidance Alternative
During the EIR process, the Applicant developed an alternative that would partially respond to the significant cultural resources and tribal cultural resource impacts identified for the proposed Project.
This alternative would include the same number of independent living units, vehicle access, and off- site pedestrian, bicycle, storm water and utility improvements as the proposed Project. This alternative also would remove the existing single-family reside ntial homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road. After reviewing the potential environmental i mpacts of this alternative, it was determined that it would be the same as the proposed Project ev en with incorporation of Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c into the design. The Partial Avoidanc e Alternative would not substantially reduce the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources would remain significan t and unavoidable. Therefore, the Partial Avoidance Alternative is not evaluated further in this EIR.
4.2.3 Access Road off Highway 12 or Melita Road
During the EIR scoping process, a commenter suggested the vehic ular access point to the Project site be moved from Los Alamos Road to either Highway 12 or Meli ta Road. However, no impacts were identified that would be reduced or avoided by moving the primary access road to either Highway 12 or Melita Road. In addition, given the speeds along Highway 12, an access point at this location could pose a safety impact to slower moving vehicles a ttempting to enter and exit the site.
Thus, the alternative would not offer any environmental advanta ge over the Project. Therefore, the alternative was not evaluated further in this EIR.
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-3
4.3 Analysis of Alternatives
This section describes the Project alternatives that were selec ted and analyzed in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a). The rule of reason was used for the range of alternatives considered. The alternatives are limited to those that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. No off-site alternative was identified as being feasible, as the Project is proposed as an expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village CCRC located at 5555 Montgomery Drive that is intended to be within walking distance of the main campus, and because the Project Applicant does not own other property within the vicinity that may be utilized while meeting the Project’s basic objective. Other alternatives that were conside red are described in Sections 4.2.1,
4.2.2 and 4.2.3 above, however they did not substantially lessen the significant impacts, so were not carried forward.
Two alternatives are evaluated further in this EIR: the No Proj ect Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Maximum Avoidance Alternative (Alternative 2).
4.3.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The Project site is 7.28 acres in size, consisting of three par cels, two of which have single family residential units and associated improvements. The third parcel is vacant, consisting mostly of annual grassland and coast live oak woodland. Details regarding the ex isting environmental setting of the Project site can be found in each of the respective environmental topic sections.
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing residences at 58 03 and 5815 Melita Road would continue to operate, with no anticipated change in use or to th e existing site layout. Therefore, any impacts related to these two parcels would not occur. While the re are no impacts solely associated with these two parcels, impacts related to certain resources su ch as tribal cultural resources or the removal of trees would be lessened overall under the No Project Alternative.
Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no improvement of off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, or Melita Road, or off-site storm drain facilities along Los Alamos Road or Melita Road. The property at 225 Los Alamos Road would remain as a RR-40 zoned property that may be developed in the future. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative, the vacant parcel at 225 Los Alamos Road, totaling 5.77 acres, could be developed under current land use and zoning designations, subject to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Rosa. Based on the existing zoning designation of the vacant parcel (RR-40), the parcel could potentially be subdivided into five lots, with each lot supporting one single-family residence, one accessory dwelling unit, and one junior accessory dwelling unit (total of 15 dwelling units). Alternatively, the vacant RR- 40 zoned parcel could also support a 2 units/acre multifamily r esidential development, or approximately 10 multifamily residential units. Any future deve lopment would be subject to discretionary approval and environmental review by the City of Santa Rosa.
Development of the vacant parcel, in compliance with the current land use and zoning designations, would be consistent with the Ci ty of Santa Rosa General Plan 20 35 and would not result in any increase in unplanned growth. Impacts related to the developmen t of these units are analyzed and mitigated in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Environmental Imp act Report (General Plan EIR).
The General Plan EIR found that all significant impacts from im plementation of the General Plan would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation, with the exception of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Since certification of the General Plan EIR, the issues related to both the air quality and greenhouse gas emission significant unavoidable impacts have been resolved. The growth projections in the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 have been incorporated into the 2017 Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-4 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which is the current applicable regional air quality planning document, and the City adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2012 which addresses community-wide greenhouse gas emissions, implementing a program to reduce emissions in accordance with State directives.
For the purposes of this EIR, impact levels for the No Project Alternative assume maximum allowable buildout of the vacant parcel at 225 Los Alamos Road, which cou ld be either one single-family residence with one acc essory dwelling unit, or a 12-unit multi- family residential development.
Because of the relatively large size of the parcel at 225 Los A lamos Road, it is anticipated that a smaller density project consistent with existing RR-40 zoning would be able to avoid the identified on-site archaeologically sensitive areas, and subsequently that the potential impact to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources would be mitigatable to a less-than-significant level. Similarly, it is anticipated that a smaller density project consistent with existing RR-40 zoning would be able to avoid the small 0.096 acre on-site seasonal wetland. Therefore, the impact to cultural, tribal cultural, and wetlands is expected to be reduced under the No Project Alternative.
Finally, with regard to off-site improvements, the No Project Alternative would not improve off-site storm water drainage facilities along Melita Road to alleviate existing localized flooding nor improve the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure fronting the Project site. Localized flooding would continue and safe multi-model connections would not be implemented.
4.3.2 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 Alterna tive 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 heig ht plus any rooftop mechanical equipment or stairway/ elevator shafts, expected to add approxi mately 5 additional feet to the peak of the roof. The residential unit mix would include seven on-si te 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 un its 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 the same v ehicle access, emergency access, and off-site pedestrian, bicycle, storm water and utility improvements as the proposed Project.
The existing residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would rema in in place and would be used either as rented living units or utilized as office space for t he Spring Lake Village CCRC. Under this alternative, the southern portion of the Project site, near Mel ita Road, would be utilized for storm water treatment and landscaping i mprovements. Utility connectio ns and an emergency vehicle access road through the southern portion of the property would remain as envisioned under the proposed Project. The constructi on schedule, construction haul truck trips, tree removals, and operational water, sewer, and irri gation groundwater demands would be substantially the same as the proposed Project.
A comparison of Alternative 2 to the Proposed Project is provided in Table 4-1.
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-5 Table 4-1 Comparison of Alternative 2 and Proposed Project Construction Component Proposed Project Alternative 2
Villa 2 story
28 feet 3 inches tall
(plus rooftop equipment and
stairway/ elevator shaft estimated
at 5 feet above peak)
12 units
3 story
36 feet 9 inches tall
(plus rooftop equipment and
stairway/ elevator shaft estimated
at 5 feet above peak)
18 units
Cottages 10 cottages
20 units
7 cottages
14 units
Resident Community Building 4,435 GSF
23 feet tall No Change
Total Units & Bedrooms 32 units
64 bedrooms No Change
Analysis
The following discussion focuses on the difference between the impacts of implementing the Project and the impacts of implementing Alternative 2. All environmenta l protection actions identified in Chapter 2 and mitigation measures identified in Chapter 3 are a pplicable to Alternative 2. Refer to Table 4-2 at the end of this section for a summary comparison of the Project’s impacts to the Alternative’s impacts.
Aesthetics
Under Alternative 2, the tallest building would be the Villa at 36 feet 9 inches (plus rooftop equipment and stairway/ elevator shaft es timated at 5 feet above the peak ), which is within the 45-foot height limit of the proposed PD-0308 zoning. To aid in the analysis of visual impacts, visual simulations of the site with implementation of Alternative 2 were completed (see Figures 4-2-A through 4-2-D)1. As shown in Figure 4-2-A, the visu al simulation of the taller 3-st ory Villa building under Alternative 2 looking south from Highway 12 would not affect views of the Son oma Mountain foothills natural ridgeline from the highway corridor. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 exceeds (complies with) all setback requirements related to scenic roadways. As a condition of approval, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with Zoning Code lighting requirements contained in City Municipal Code Section 20.30.080, which includes maximum heights for outdoor l ight standards, as well as requirements that lighting fixtures be shielded or recessed to reduce light spillage onto adjoining properties. Under Alternative 2, the same trees that would be removed for the Project within the 100- foot setback of Los Alamos Road and Melita Road would be removed for Alternative 2, and the Project would be required to comply with Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 17-24 for planting and regenerating trees, which would include plantings along Los Alamos Road and Melita Road, thus visually replacing those removed. Under Alternative 2, the two existing single-fam ily residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road would not be removed, minimizing visu al changes from Melita Road.
Overall, Alternative 2 would have equivalent aesthetic impacts as compared to the proposed Project.
1 Figure 4-2-A through 4-2-D depict existing site conditions prior to the removal of several eucalyptus trees at the Project site for safety reasons. The trees removed were not highly visible in the photographs and do not materially alter the visual simulations conducted for the Project.
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-6 Air Quality
Under Alternative 2, the amount of development and construction activity would be similar to the proposed Project design. However, the footprint of construction activity would change slightly, as the residences at 5815 and 5803 Melita Drive would remain in place. The Air Quality Assessment (Appendix B) evaluated the potential for construction activitie s to affect 5815 and 5803 Melita Drive as sensitive receptors under Alternative 2. The maximum impacts were identified to be the same as for the proposed Project and would be less than significant. Si milar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in the generation of criteria area p ollutants and dust during construction and implementation. The air quality impacts associated with the proposed Project were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Environmenta l Protection Action 2, which would require provisions in contractor agreements for implementing th e BAAQMD basic dust abatement actions. The impacts of Alternative 2 would similarly be less t han significant with implementation of Environmental Protection Action 2.
Biological Resources
Impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed Project were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Comparative to the proposed Project, impacts to biological resources under Alternative 2 would be marginally reduced due to the reduction in area that would be disturbed in the southern portion of the Project site near Melita Road. However, the potential to impact each of the species identified in Section 3.4 during the construction phase would remain the same under Alternative 2, and all identified mitigat ion measures (Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 3, and 5) would remain applicable. Therefor e, the impacts related to biological resources for Alternative 2 would be equivalent to the proposed Project.
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 existing single- family residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Ro ad 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 elig ible 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 Am erican 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.
With a reduction in the area of ground disturbance, Alternative 2 would substantially reduce direct disturbance, and with implementat ion of mitigation measures ide ntified 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.
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-7 Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 would be located on the same site as the proposed Project and would include the same general level of excavation and earthwork. Similar to the propo sed Project, Alternative 2 would require implementation of Environmental Protection Action 1, which requires design and construction to be in conformance with site-specific recommendations contained in geotechnical studies and any subsequent related geotechnical reports. In addition, the same mitigation measure for the proposed Project related to paleontological resources would be required for Alternative 2 to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level (reference Section 3.5).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in a temporary increase in GHG emissions during Project construction, including exhaust emissions from on-road haul trucks, worker commute vehicles, and off-road heavy-duty equipment. Comparatively, con struction-related GHG emissions associated with Alternative 2 w ould substantially be the same a s the estimated emissions for the proposed Project. As with the pr oposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in a less than significant impact to GHG emissions, because neither the Project nor Alternative 2 would conflict with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan. Comparatively, construction-related, and operational energy use under Alternative 2 would be substantially the same as the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in a less than significant impact to energy resources because it would not result in a substantial increase in energy use, in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuels or other energy resources, or conflict with an applicable plan for energy efficiency.
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, t he two existing single-family residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road woul d not be removed, and therefore Alternative 2 would not result in the need for handling potenti ally hazardous building materials (e.g. lead and asbestos-containing materials). The same mitigation me asures for the proposed Project would apply to Alternative 2 to reduce construction-related imp acts associated with wildfire risk to a less-than-significant level (refe rence Section 3.7). Operationa lly, Alternative 2 would result in the same use of small quantities of common household cleaners, batt eries, fertilizers, and similar products, as well as periodic maintenance of a backup generator. The operational impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for Alternative 2 would be less than significant, equivalent to the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 2 would be located on the same site as the proposed Project and would include the same general level of excavation and earthwork, with the exception t hat the two existing single-family residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road would not be removed. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would require implementation of Environmental Protection Action 4, which requires implementation of storm water controls during construction to ensure compliance with applicable requirements and to pre vent erosion, sedimentation, or water quality impacts from occurring. In addition, the same m itigation measure for the proposed Project related to managing construction dewatering and avoiding water quality impacts to Santa Rosa Creek would be required for Alternative 2 to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level (reference Section 3.8). Alternative 2 would have the same irrigation groundwater demands as the proposed Project, which would be adequately served by the on-site groundwater supply well withou t substantially decreasing Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-8 groundwater supplies or interfering with off-site domestic well s. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality under Alternative 2 would be equiva lent to what would occur under the proposed Project.
Land Use, Population, and Housing
As with the proposed Project, implementation of Alternative 2 w ould result in less-than-significant impacts to land use, population, and housing. Alternative 2 would be located on the same site as the proposed Project and would include the same total number of independent living units, namely 32 units supporting up to 64 residents at full occupancy. Alternative 2 would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and would be consistent with applic able City land use policies and zoning requirements. Under Alternative 2, the two existing single-family residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road would not be removed, and ther efore Alternative 2 would result in preservation of existing housing as compared to the proposed Project. Overall, land use, population, and housing impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to what would occur under the proposed Project.
Noise
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would generate c onstruction-related noise associated with the use of heavy equipment for construction. The activities under Alternative 2 would generally occur for the same amount of time and utilize the same equipmen t as the proposed Project.
Alternative 2 would place residential uses in the same proximit y to Highway 12 as the Project, thus noise levels would continue to meet City noise standards. Alter native 2 would not place any project residential uses or the emergency generator closer to any adjacent (non-project) residential property lines. Because of this, operational noise from Alternative 2 on surrounding noise sensitive uses would remain the same as that discussed for the Project. Alternative 2 would not generate significantly more or less noise from the occupation and use of the residential units or traffic on area roadways than the proposed Project. The same mitigation measures for the proposed Project construction and operational activity would apply to Alternative 2 to reduce imp acts to a less-than-significant level (reference Section 3.10). Therefore, the impacts related to noise for Alternative 2 would be equivalent to the proposed Project.
Public Services and Recreation
It is anticipated that Alternative 2 would have nominal impacts to public services and recreation similar to the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would include the same number of residential units as the proposed Project and would be adequately served through existin g public services and regional recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts to public services and recreation associated with Alternative 2 would be less than significant, equivalent to what would occur under the proposed Project.
Transportation
Transportation impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be equivalent to the proposed Project as it is anticipated that the construction phase would still requi re similar, if not equivalent, construction worker and equipment trips, and the operation of the developmen t would generate equivalent trips within the Project Area. Alternative 2 would include the same o ff-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). Therefore, impacts to transportation under Alternative 2 would be equivalent to what would occur under the proposed Project.
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-9 Utilities and Service Systems
Utility and service system impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be equivalent to the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would have the same water, sewer, and groundwater demands as the proposed Project, and would be adequately served by all required utiliti es and public services. Therefore, impacts to public services and utilities associated with Altern ative 2 would be less than significant (reference section 3.13 Utilities and Service Systems), and equivalent to what would occur under the proposed Project.
4.3.3 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 4-2 (Alternatives Analysis Matrix) compares the impacts o f the Project with each of the alternatives. Impact levels for the No Project Alternative assume maximum allowable buildout of the vacant parcel at 225 Los Alamos Road, which could be either one single-family residence with one accessory dwelling unit, or a 12- unit multi-family residential development. Impact significance is shown in the table below as follows:
No Impact (NI)
Less-than-Significant Impact (LS)
Less-than-Significant Impact after Mitigation Incorporated (LS M) Significant and Unavoidable Impact with No Feasible Mitigation Available (SU) Significant and Unavoidable after Mitigation Incorporated (SUM ) Table 4-2 Alternatives Analysis Matrix
Impact Category Project Alternative 1 -
No Project
Alternative 2 -
Maximum
Avoidance
Aesthetics
AES-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
LS LS LS
AES-2: Would the project substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State
scenic highway?
NI NI NI
AES-3: In urbanized areas, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
concerning scenic quality (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
points)?
NI NI NI
AES-4: Would the project create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
LS LS LS
Air Quality
AQ-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
NI NI NI
AQ-2: Would the project result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
LS LS LS
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-10 Impact Category Project Alternative 1 -
No Project
Alternative 2 -
Maximum
Avoidance
AQ-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
LS LS LS
AQ-4: Would the project result in other emissions
(such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
LS LS LS
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
LSM LSM LSM
BIO-2: Would the project have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
LS LS LS
BIO-3: Would the project have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
LSM LS LSM
BIO-4: Would the project interfere substantially with
the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
LS LS LS
BIO-5: Would the project conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
LSM LSM LSM
BIO-6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
NI NI NI
Cultural Resources
CR-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
LS LS LS
CR-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
SUM LSM LSM
CR-3: Would the project disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
SUM LSM LSM
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-11 Impact Category Project Alternative 1 -
No Project
Alternative 2 -
Maximum
Avoidance
Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Would the project cause risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
NI NI NI
GEO-2: Would the project cause risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
LS LS LS
GEO-3: Would the project cause risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
LS LS LS
GEO-4: Would the project cause risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
LS LS LS
GEO-5: Would the project result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
LS LS LS
GEO-6: Would the project be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable or expansive, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
LS LS LS
GEO-7: Would the project have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
NI NI NI
GEO-8: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
LSM LSM LSM
Greenhouse Gas and Energy
GGE-1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
LS LS LS
GGE-2: Would the project conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
LS LS LS
GGE-3: Would the project result in potentially
significant environmental impacts due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
LS LS LS
GGE-4: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
NI NI NI
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-12 Impact Category Project Alternative 1 -
No Project
Alternative 2 -
Maximum
Avoidance
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: Would the project 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?
LS LS LS
HAZ-2: Would the project emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
LS LS LS
HAZ-3: Would the project be located on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
NI NI NI
HAZ-4: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
NI NI NI
HAZ-5: Would the project impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
NI NI NI
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?
LSM LSM LSM
Hydrology and Water Quality
HWQ-1: Would the project violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
LSM LSM LSM
HWQ-2: Would the project substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
LS LS LS
HWQ-3: Would the project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
LS LS LS
HWQ-4: Would the project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site?
LS LS LS
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-13 Impact Category Project Alternative 1 -
No Project
Alternative 2 -
Maximum
Avoidance
HWQ-5: Would the project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
LS LS LS
HWQ-6: Would the project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?
NI NI NI
HWQ-7: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
would the project risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
NI NI NI
HWQ-8: Would the project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
NI NI NI
Land Use, Population, and Housing
LUPH-1: Would the project physically divide an
established community?
NI NI NI
LUPH-2: Would the project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
NI NI NI
LUPH-3: Would the project induce substantial
unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
LS NI LS
LUPH-4: Would the project displace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
LS NI NI
Noise
NOI-1: Would the project result in generation of a
substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
LSM LSM LSM
NOI-2: Would the project result in generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels?
LSM LSM LSM
NOI-3: For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
NI NI NI
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-14 Impact Category Project Alternative 1 -
No Project
Alternative 2 -
Maximum
Avoidance
Public Services and Recreation
PSR-1: Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public
services: fire protection, police protection, schools,
parks, and/or other public facilities?
NI NI NI
PSR-2: Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, or include
recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreation facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
LS LS LS
Transportation
TR-1: Would the project conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
LS LS LS
TR-2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
LS LS LS
TR-3: Would the project substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
LSM LS LSM
TR-4: Would the project result in inadequate
emergency access?
LS LS LS
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k), or a resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
SUM LSM LSM
Alternatives Description and Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 4-15 Impact Category Project Alternative 1 -
No Project
Alternative 2 -
Maximum
Avoidance
Utilities and Service Systems
UT-1: Would the project require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
LS LS LS
UT-2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years?
LS LS LS
UT-3: Would the project result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
NI NI NI
UT-4: Would the project generate solid waste in
excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
LS LS LS
Figure 4-1
Spring Lake Village East Grove EIR
2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa California 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 W www.ghd.com
Alternative 2 Site Plan
11109018
Revision
Job Number
Date
May 2020
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\Alt 2 Site Plan.indd May 2020 Figure 4-2-A
Spring Lake Village East Grove EIR
2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa California 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 W www.ghd.com
Viewpoint A Simulation –
Alternative 2
11109018
Revision
Job Number
Date
May 2020
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\Visual Simulations View A_Alt 2.indd May 29, 2020 1:23 PM Source: Perkins Eastman, February, 2020
Viewpoint A Vantage Point – Looking southwest from Highway 12 Viewpoint A – Simulation from Highway 12
Viewpoint A Vantage Point – Existing views from Highway 12 Viewpoint A – Simulation from Highway 12 with 5 Year landscape growth
Figure 4-2-B
Spring Lake Village East Grove EIR
2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa California 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 W www.ghd.com
Viewpoint B Simulation –
Alternative 2
11109018
Revision
Job Number
Date
May 2020
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\Visual Simulations View B_Alt 2.indd May 11, 2020 11:29 AM Source: Perkins Eastman, February, 2020
Viewpoint B Vantage Point – Looking northeast from Melita Road Viewpoint B – Simulation from Melita Road
Viewpoint B Vantage Point – Existing view from Melita Road Viewpoint B – Simulation from Melita Road with 5 Year landscape growth
Figure 4-2-C
Spring Lake Village East Grove EIR
2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa California 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 W www.ghd.com
Viewpoint C Simulation –
Alternative 2
11109018
Revision
Job Number
Date
May 2020
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\Visual Simulations View C_Alt 2.indd May 29, 2020 1:24 PM Source: Perkins Eastman, February, 2020
Viewpoint C Vantage Point – Looking northeast from Melita Road Viewpoint C – Simulation from Los Alamos Road
Viewpoint C Vantage Point – Existing view from Los Alamos Road Viewpoint C – Simulation from Los Alamos Road with 5 Year landscape growth
Figure 4-2-D
Spring Lake Village East Grove EIR
2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa California 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 W www.ghd.com
Viewpoint D Simulation –
Alternative 2
11109018
Revision
Job Number
Date
May 2020
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\Visual Simulations View D_Alt 2.indd May 29, 2020 1:25 PM Source: Perkins Eastman, February, 2020
Viewpoint D Vantage Point – Looking north from Los Alamos Road Viewpoint D – Simulation from Los Alamos Road
Viewpoint D Vantage Point – Existing view from Los Alamos Road Viewpoint D – Simulation from Los Alamos Road with 5 Year Landscape growth
Other CEQA Required Sections
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 5-1 Other CEQA Required Sections
5.1 Effects Found Not to Be Significant
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requ ires an EIR to briefly descri be any possible significant effects that were determined not to be significant and were, therefore, not discussed in detail in the EIR. For the purposes of this Draft EIR, an evaluation of agricultural and forest resources, mineral resources, and wildfire were eliminated from further evaluation in the scoping phase of the environmental analysis for the reasons presented below.
5.1.1 Agriculture and Forest Resources
The Project site does not include any Prime Farmland, Unique Fa rmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or land covered by a Williamson Act contract (CDC 2016, CDC 2013a). In addition, the Project site is not zoned for agricultural, forest land, or tim berland, nor are there any agricultural or forest lands within the site. No impact to agriculture or forestry resources would result.
5.1.2 Mineral Resources
Construction of the Project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource or availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site as delineate d on a land use plan, such as a local general plan or a specific plan. Neither the California Department of Conservation Mineral Land Classification studies (CDC 2013b ) nor the Sonoma County Aggreg ate Resource Management (ARM) Plan (Sonoma County 2010) designate the Project site as having a known mineral resource.
No impact to mineral resources would result.
5.1.3 Wildfire
The Project site is not located in or contiguous to a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire severity zones (VHFHSZ). The Project site is located approximately 0.2 miles from the nearest designated SRA in Annadel State Park, and approximately 0.75 miles from the nearest lands classified as a VHFHSZ northeast of Highway 12 (CalFire F HSZ Viewer 2019). Additionally, the Project site is not located with the City’s Wildland-Urban Interface Area Zone. As such, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist section for wildfire is not applicable to the Project. The Project site is located in the vicinity of areas damaged by the Glass Fire, which was an approximately 67,500- acre wildfire that was active for 23 days from September 27, 2020 to October 20, 2020. The wildfire destroyed 1,555 structures, as well as damaged 282 additional structures, including structures along Los Alamos Road north of Highway 12 and Melita Road. The Proje ct site is located approximately
0.1 mile northwest of properties damaged along Melita Road during the Glass Fire, and between approximately 0.25 mile and 0.7 mile southwest of properties damaged along Los Alamos Road and adjacent roadways. Impacts relat ed to potential exposure of pe ople or structures to risks involving wildland fires is evaluated in this Draft EIR in Section 3.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
5.2 Significant Unavoidable Effects
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify any significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Project were implemented, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. The analysis presented in this EIR concludes that implementation of the proposed Project would res ult in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources.
Other CEQA Required Sections
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 5-2 Under Impact CR-2, which eval uates the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursua nt to §15064.5, it was determined that the Project could result in a significant unavoidable impact because Project-related construction may materially impact archaeological resources.
Under Impact CR-3, which evaluates the potential for the Projec t to disturb human remains, it was determined that the Project could result in a significant unavo idable impact if human remains are encountered during construction.
Under Impact TCR-1, which evaluates the potential for the Proje ct to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, it was determined that the Project could result in a significant unavoidable impact to a tribal cultural resource if impacted by construction.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2a would reduce the imp act to archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources by requiring the development and implementation of an Archaeological Resource and Tribal Cultural Resource Treatment Plan and archaeological monitoring in consultation with representatives of the FIGR and Lytton Rancheria Native Am erican Tribes. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR -2c would further reduce the po tential impact to archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources by requiring further avoidance measures as identified in the confidential Appendix H. Mitigati on Measure CR-2d would reduce the potential impact to archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources by outlining procedures to be taken in the event of inadvertent discovery of such resources during construction. Mitigation Measure CR-3 would minimize the potential impact to inadvertent discovery of human remains and tribal cultural resources by requiring the contractor to notify the MLD and avoid the area if human remains are encountered, and to follow procedures outlined in Public Resources Code § 5097.9 and Health and Safety Code § 7050.5. However, even with imple mentation of the mitigation me asures, significant Project-related excavations and ground-disturbance may materially impair the integrity of archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the impact on cultural resource s and tribal cultural resources would be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation.
5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 21100(b)(2)(B) of CEQA requires that an EIR include a d iscussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from Project implementa tion. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) describes irreversible environmental changes in the following manner:
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Construction activities associated with the Project would resul t in an irretrievable and irreversible commitment of non-renewable resour ces through the use of constr uction materials. This would include the use of fossil fuels (such as gasoline, diesel and o il) during the construction period, and the use of earth minerals and ores (such as concrete and steel). The Project would expand the Spring Lake Village CCRC in an area that has already been developed with supporting infrastructure and would not expand off-site roadways; therefore, the Project would not modify regional access or result in access to a previously inacce ssible area. As a proposed CCRC expansion, the Project is not Other CEQA Required Sections
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 5-3 representative of a land use type that would result in accidents that could lead to irreversible environmental damage. Overall, given the Project’s low consumption of irretrievable resources, such commitment is justified.
5.4 Growth-inducing Impacts of the Project
CEQA requires that the EIR eval uate the growth-inducing impacts of the Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) describes growth-inducing impacts in the following manner:
“[T]he ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water tr eatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Incr eases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discus s the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[e]).
The State CEQA Guidelines do not distinguish between planned and unplanned growth for purposes of considering whether a project would foster additional growth. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, to reach the conclusion that the Project is growth-inducing as defined by CEQA, the EIR must find that it would foster (i.e., prom ote, encourage, or allow) addit ional growth in economic activity, population, or housing, regardless of whether the growth is already approved by and consistent with local plans. The conclusion does not determine that induced gro wth is beneficial or detrimental, consistent with Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines . If the analysis conducted for the EIR results in a determination that a project is growth-inducin g, the next question is whether that growth may cause adverse effects on the environment. Environmental effects resulting from induced growth (i.e., growth-induced effects) fit the CEQA definition of “indirect” effects in Section 15358(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Growth-inducing impacts can occur when development of a project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional development in the project area. Also included in this category are projects that would remove physical obstacles to population growth, such as the constructi on of a new roadway into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity to serve additional new development. Construction of thes e types of infrastructure proj ects cannot be considered isolated from the immediate development that they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth or projects that indirectly induce growth are those that may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in the area (such as a new residen tial community that requires additional commercial uses to support residents). The growth-in ducing potential of a project could also be considered significant if it fosters growth in excess o f what is assumed in the local master plans and land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies.
The Project would provide 32 independent living units to serve up to 64 residents. Two existing Applicant-owned single-family residences would be removed as pa rt of the Project. The Project is also anticipated to create the equivalent of up to 12 full-time employment opportunities. The vacant parcel at 225 Los Alamos Road, totaling 5.77 acres, is currently zoned as RR-40. Under the existing Other CEQA Required Sections
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 5-4 zoning, the maximum buildout of the vacant parcel could be eith er one single-family residence with one accessory dwelling unit, or a 12-unit multi-family resident ial development. While the Project would create new residential units and employment opportunities beyond that which was analyzed in the 2035 Santa Rosa General Plan EIR, the increase is not expec ted to result in substantial unplanned population growth. It would provide needed community care housing for senior citizens and would be an off-site expansion of an existing local facilit y. It is anticipated that a majority of the new employees would be existing residents of Santa Rosa and surrounding communities. Therefore, the increase in employment opportunities would not result in an increase in population that would require the construction of additional housing. The Project would be constructed within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary and would not result in the extension of urban infrastructure to an area that is currently not serviced. T he additional demand for utilities and public services generated by operation of the proposed Project would be met with existing facilities. The Project would not extend or expand utility systems, road ways or highways, or otherwise remove an obstacle to population growth or result in the provision of access to a previously inaccessible area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts.
5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
If it is determined that the No Project Alternative would be th e environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior al ternative among the other Project alternatives (Section 15126.6[e][2]). For reference, significan ce is determined based on substantial or potentially substantial adverse changes of any of the physical environmental conditions due to the Project. The degree of change is evaluated against existing env ironmental conditions. Please refer to Chapter 4, Alternatives Description and Analysis, for a comparison of the primary differences in environmental impacts among the alternatives and the Project.
Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, in that it would not have any impacts greater than identified in the Santa Rosa General Plan and General Plan EIR and would have fewer impacts than the Project or Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative).
When the No Project Alternative is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be selected from among the other alternatives. The Maximum Avoidance Alternative and the Project have similar impacts, except as follows:
The Maximum Avoidance Alternative (Alternative 2) would result in less direct disturbance at the Project site and a smaller overall Project footprint. Under Al ternative 2, the two existing single- family residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Ro ad would not be removed, further reducing the extent of excavation within the Project si te. The reduction of development and avoidance of deeper ground-disturbance elements under Alter native 2 would substantially reduce direct disturbance, and with implementation of mitigatio n measures identified in Section
3.4 and Section 3.13, 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.
Therefore Alternative 2 is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
5.6 Energy Resources
To guarantee that energy implications are considered in project decisions, Appendix F, Energy Conservation, in the CEQA Guidelines requires that EIRs “include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoid ing or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.” An evaluation of potent ial impacts related to the energy Other CEQA Required Sections
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 5-5 consumption of the Project and the applicability of state or lo cal plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency is discussed in Section 3.6 (Greenhouse Gas and Energy).
5.7 References
California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2016. Sonoma County Important Farmland 2016.
California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2013a. Sonoma County William Act FY 2013/2014.
Available online: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/WA/Sonoma_13_14_WA.pdf California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2013b. Mines and Mineral Resources Interactive Web Maps. Available online: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources/#webmaps County of Sonoma. 2010. Aggregate Resource Management Plan.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) . 2019. CalFire FHSZ Viewer.
Available online: https://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones
List of Preparers
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 6-1 List of Preparers
6.1 City of Santa Rosa (Lead Agency)
Amy Nicholson, Senior Planner
Kristinae Toomians, Senior Planner
Clare Hartman, Deputy Director – Planning
Ashle Crocker, City Attorney
6.2 GHD Inc.
Brian Bacciarini, Senior Environmental Scientist
Kristine Gaspar, Senior Environmental Planner
Patricia Collins, Seni or Environmental Planner
Chryss Meier, Senior Environmental Planner
Haley Cahill, Environmental Planner
Kerry McNamee, Environmental Planner
Elissa Overton, Project Coordinator
Renee Remillard, Graphic Designer
6.3 Technical Consultants
Illingworth & Rodkin, Air Quality and Noise
Lucy Macmillan, Biological Resources
Tom Origer & Associates, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources EBA Engineering, Groundwater
W-Trans, Transportation