Attachment 9 - Draft EIR — Santa Rosa City Council, May 12, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

Spring Lake Village East Grove
Draft Environmental
Impact Report
File No. MJP14-012
SCH No. 2016052024
May 2021
Attachment 9

City of Santa Rosa
Spring Lake Village East Grove
Draft Environmental Impact Report

Prepared for:

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

Prepared by:

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

May 2021

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

1. Introduction and Summary ........................................................................................................ 1-1

2. Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2-1

3. Introduction and Summary ........................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.3 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 3.3-1

3.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.5 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.6 Greenhouse Gas and Energy ...................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 3.7-1

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.9 Land Use, Population, and Housing ............................................................................ 3.9-1

3.10 Noise .......................................................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.11 Public Services and Recreation ................................................................................. 3.11-1

3.12 Transportation and Traffic ......................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.13 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 3.13-1

3.14 Utilites and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 3.14-1

4. Alternatives Description and Analysis ....................................................................................... 4-1

5. Other CEQA Required Sections ............................................................................................... 5-1

6. List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................ 6-1 Appendix Index
Appendix A – Notice of Preparation and Comments
Appendix B – Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C – Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix D – Geotechnical Study Report
Appendix E – Groundwater Availability Study
Appendix F – Noise Assessment
Appendix G – Traffic Impact Study
Appendix H – Cultural Resource Study (Confidential Report, Not included in Public Review Draft)

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page ii Acronyms and Abbreviations
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
-SR Scenic Road
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADWF Average Daily Dry Weather Flow
AERMOD AMS/EPA Regulatory Model
AES Aesthetics
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AQ Air Quality
ARB Air Resource Board
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Qua lity Management District
BIO Biological Resources
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/EPA California Environm ental Protection Agency
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CALUP Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CASQA California Stormwater Quality Association
CAT California Climate Action Team
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCRC Continuing Care Retirement Community
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 1980 CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CH
4 methane
CHP California Highway Patrol
CIWMA California Integrated Waste Management Act
CIWMP California Integrated Waste Management Board
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNG compressed natural gas
CNPPA California Native Plant Protection Act
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO
2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
ColWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page iii CR Cultural Resources
CRLF California red-legged frog
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted sound level
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DOF Department of Finance
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPS distinct population segment
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
F.A.R. Federal Aviation Regulations
Fed/OSHA Federal Occupational Saf ety and Health Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FIGR Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GEO Geology and Soils
GHG Greenhouse Gases and Energy
H
2O water vapor
HAS Hydrologic Sub Areas
HAZ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HI Hazard Index
HWQ Hydrology and Water Quality
IRWP Incremental Recycled Water Program
ISCST3 Gaussian Plume Air Dispersion Model?
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
kWh Kilowatt Hours
lbs pounds
Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level
L
eq energy equivalent sound/noise descriptor
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID Low Impact Development
LNG liquefied natural gas
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LS Less-than-Significant Impact
LSM Less-than-Significant Impact after Mitigation Incorporated LU Land Use, Population, and Housing
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mg/m
3 milligrams per cubic meter
mgd million gallons/day
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MM Modified Mercalli
MMT million metric tons
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MT metric tons
N
2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning
NCRWQCB North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page iv NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NI No Impact
NO
2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI Noise
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Dis charge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O
3 Ozone
OEHHA California’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazards OES California Office of Emergency Services
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PBC’s Polychlorinated biphenyl
PD 0308 Planned Development
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
PSR Public Services and Recreation
REL reference exposure level
RMS Root Mean Square
ROG reactive organic gases
RR-40 Rural Residential
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
S Significant Impact
SARA Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 SB Senate Bill
SCWMA Sonoma County Waste Management Agency
SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SMARA State Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
SO
2 sulfur dioxide
SR State Route
SRFD Santa Rosa Fire Department
SRPW Santa Rosa Plain Watershed
SU Significant and Unavoidable Impact with No Feasible Mitigat ion Available SUM Significant and Unavoidable after Mitigation Incorporated SVP Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
TACs toxic air contaminants
tpy tons per year
TPZ Timberland Production Zone
TR Transportation and Traffic
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UFC Uniform Fire Code
UGB Urban Growth Boundry
USA North Underground Service Alert North
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture
US EPA U.S. Environment al Protection Agency

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page v USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UT Utilities
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB vibration decibels
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
WCB Wildlife Conservation Board
WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements
WEAT Worker Environmental Awareness Training
WUI Wildland Urban Interface

Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-1 Introduction and Summary
The City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Depart ment has received an application from Covia Communities (formerly Episcopal Senior Communities) to develop an off-site expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village Continuing Care R etirement Community (CCRC) located in the City of Santa Rosa, California. The project, entitled Spring Lake Village East Grove, is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it would cause a direct physical change in the environment and involves the is suance of discretionary approvals, permits, and entitlements. The City of Santa Rosa will serve as the lead agency for CEQA compliance because it is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving the project.

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires that discretionar y decisions by public agencies b e subject to environmental review.

The City of Santa Rosa has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. This Draft EIR is an informat ional document to be considered by each applicable public agency prior to its approval or disapproval of the project. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to provide public agencies and the public in gener al with detailed information about the effects which the proposed project may have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of the project might be minimized; and to indicate alte rnatives to the project. Environmental effects of the project that must be addressed include the signi ficant effects of the project, growth- inducing effects of the project, and significant cumulative eff ects of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects.

Background
Covia Communities owns and operates the Spring Lake Village CCRC located at 5555 Montgomery Drive, referred to as Spring Lake Village. Spring Lake Village began operations in 1987 and was expanded in 2011. Sprin g Lake Village current ly includes 437 re sidential units composed of independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing units. Spring Lake Village also includes a fitness center and auditorium; a Village Center with dining fac ilities, activity, a nd common rooms; administrative offices; a Skilled Nursing Facility; and outdoor common areas.

Covia Communities now proposes to expand Spring Lake Village by adding independent senior living units and a central dining and community building at separate parcels to the east of the existing Spring Lake Village.

Public Scoping Process
The City of Santa Rosa issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR to Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, the Office of Planning and Research, Native A merican tribes, and neighboring property owners on May 11, 2016. A public scoping meeting was held on May 23, 2016 at Whited Elementary School, 4995 Sonoma Highway, Santa Rosa, California. A total of 15 people signed into the meeting, 10 of whom spoke on the project. Nine written comments were also received during the 30-day scoping period. Copies of the written comments are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

Subsequent to the May 11, 2016 NOP, Covia Communities modified the proposed Project. In accordance with the State CEQA G uidelines, the City of Santa Ro sa prepared a second NOP to inform agencies and interested parties of the modified project and the City’s intent to prepare an EIR Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-2 on August 30, 2017. One written comment letter was received dur ing the 30-day scoping period for the second NOP.

A copy of the NOPs is included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

Areas of Controversy and Key Issues to be Resolved
The public scoping process identified a number of key issues to be addressed in the EIR. These issues are listed in Table 1-1 (Key Issues to be Resolved in th e EIR), which provides references to the chapter and sections of the Draft EIR in which each issue is addressed.

Table 1-1 Key Issues to be Resolved in EIR
Issue Chapter / Section of EIR where
Issue is Evaluated
Potential to degrade the visual character of the project site and its surroundings 3.1 - Aesthetics
Potential to create a new source of light or glare in the area 3.1 - Aesthetics Potential impact on cultural resources 3.4 - Cultural Resources Potential effect of rezoning on future development in the project area 3.9 - Land Use
Potential for increased noise in residential areas from project traffic, emergency vehicles, and tree removals 3.10 - Noise Potential impacts to traffic safety and congestion on local roadways 3.12 - Transportation
Potential impacts on State highway system 3.12 - Transportation Potential for unsafe conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians in the project area 3.12 - Transportation
Potential impacts to pedestrian connectivity in the project area 3.12 - Transportation Potential impacts on parking conditions in the project area 3.12 - Transportation Potential impact on tribal cultural resources 3.13 - Tribal Cultural Resources Availability of the Draft EIR and Public Comment Period The Draft EIR will be circulated for 45 days, from June 1, 2021 to July 15, 2021, to allow public agencies and the public in general to review and comment on the document. A public hearing on the Draft EIR will be held before the Santa Rosa Planning Commission on June 24, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. Please refer to the City’s website for u pdates at www.SRCity.org/planningcommission. Written comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted by the City until 5:00 p.m. on July 15, 2021. Written comments may be emailed to [email protected] or mailed to the following address:

City of Santa Rosa
Planning and Economic Development Department
Attn: Amy Nicholson, Senior Planner
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-3 Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Email: [email protected]
The City encourages the electroni c submission of comments. To f acilitate underst anding of the comments, please provide a separa te sentence or paragraph for each comment and note the page and chapter of the Draft EIR to which the comment is directed. This approach to commenting will help the City to provide a clear and meaningful response to each comment received.

Copies of the Draft EIR is available for review at the following locations:
 Santa Rosa City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Planning and Econ omic Development Department (Room 3)
 Online at https://srcity.org/425/Plans-Studies-EIRs
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 1-2 (Impact and Mitigation Summary) identifies, by enviro nmental topic, the project impacts and proposed mitigation measures. Impact significance is shown in the table below as follows:
 No Impact (NI)
 Less-than-Significant Impact (LS)
 Less-than-Significant Impact afte r Mitigation Incorporated (LSM)  Significant and Unavoidable Impact with No Feasible Mitigation Available (SU)  Significant and Unavoidable after Mitigation Incorporated (SUM ) Additional information about the impacts and mitigation measures can be found in Chapter 3, Sections 3.1 through 3.13, of this Draft EIR.

Table 1-2 Impact and Mitigation Summary
Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
Aesthetics
AES-1: Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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)?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-4 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
C-AES-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts related to visual
resources?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Air Quality
AQ-1: Would the project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
AQ-3: Would the project expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
AQ-4: Would the project result in other
emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
C-AQ-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts related to air quality?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Significant BIO-1a: Avoid
Impacts to Special
Status Amphibians
and Reptiles
BIO-1b: Avoid
Impacts to Foothill
Yellow-legged Frog
BIO-1c: Avoid
Impacts to Nesting
Birds
BIO-1d: Avoid
Impacts to Sensitive
or Listed Bats
BIO-1e: Avoid
Impacts to
Steelhead
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-5 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Significant BIO-3: Compensate
for Loss of Wetlands
and Waters
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
BIO-5: Would the project conflict with
any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Significant BIO-5: Compensate
for Loss of Protected
Trees
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
C-BIO-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
impacts related to biological resources?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Cultural Resources
CR-1: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-6 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
CR-2: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Significant CR-2a: Protection
and Treatment of
Cultural Resources
and Tribal Cultural
Resources
CR-2b and 2c:

Additional
Avoidance
Measures
CR-2d: Protect
Unanticipated
Archaeological and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Significant
and
Unavoidable
with
Mitigation
CR-3: Would the project disturb any
human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Significant CR-2b and 2c:

Additional
Avoidance
Measures
CR-3: Treatment of
Human Remains,
Associated Grave
Goods, or Items of
Cultural Patrimony
Significant
and
Unavoidable
with
Mitigation
C-CR-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
impacts related to cultural or tribal
cultural resources?
Significant CR-2a: Protection
and Treatment of
Cultural Resources
and Tribal Cultural
Resources
CR-2b and 2c:

Additional
Avoidance
Measures
CR-2d: Protect
Unanticipated
Archaeological and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
CR-3: Treatment of
Human Remains,
Associated Grave
Goods, or Items of
Cultural Patrimony

Significant
and
Unavoidable
with
Mitigation
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-7 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
GEO-2: Would the project cause risk of
loss, injury, or death involving strong
seismic ground shaking?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
GEO-3: Would the project cause risk of
loss, injury, or death involving seismic
related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
GEO-4: Would the project cause risk of
loss, injury, or death involving
landslides?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
GEO-5: Would the project result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
GEO-8: Would the project directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Significant GEO-8: Protect
Paleontological
Resources if
Encountered during
Construction
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
C-GEO-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
a significant cumulative impact related to
geology and soils?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-8 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
GGE-2: Would the project conflict with
an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
GGE-4: Would the project conflict with or
obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
C-GGE-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
a significant cumulative impact relative to
greenhouse gas emissions and energy
use?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-9 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
HAZ-5: Would the project impair
implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Significant HAZ-6: Reduce
Wildland Fire
Hazards during
Construction
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
C-HAZ-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
a significant cumulative impact related to
hazards or hazardous materials?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Significant HWQ-1: Manage
Construction
Dewatering
BIO-1e: Avoid
Impacts to
Steelhead
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-10 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
HWQ-7: In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, would the project risk
release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
HWQ-8: Would the project conflict with
or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
C-HWQ-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts related to hydrology
and water quality?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Land Use, Population, and Housing
LUPH-1: Would the project physically
divide an established community?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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)?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-11 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
LUPH-4: Would the project displace
substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
C-LUPH-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts related to land use or
population?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Significant NOI-1a: Reduce
Construction Noise
NOI-1b: Revise Site
Plan to Reduce
Operational Noise
NOI-1c: Emergency
Generator Enclosure
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
NOI-2: Would the project result in
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or noise levels?
Significant NOI-2: Reduce
Groundborne
Vibration during
Construction
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
C-NOI-1: Would the project plus
cumulative projects result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts related to noise?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-12 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
PSR-C-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts related to public
services and recreational resources?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Transportation and Traffic
TR-1: Would the project conflict with a
program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
TR-2: Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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)?
Significant TR-3: Los Alamos
Road Bike Lane
Signage
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
TR-4: Would the project result in
inadequate emergency access?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
C-TR-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
a significant cumulative impact related to
transportation?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-13 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
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.

Significant CR-2a: Protection
and Treatment of
Cultural Resources
and Tribal Cultural
Resources
CR-2b and 2c:

Additional
Avoidance
Measures
CR-2d: Protect
Unanticipated
Archaeological and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
CR-3: Treatment of
Human Remains,
Associated Grave
Goods, or Items of
Cultural Patrimony
Significant
and
Unavoidable
with
Mitigation
C-TCR-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
impacts related to cultural or tribal
cultural resources?
Significant CR-2a: Protection
and Treatment of
Cultural Resources
and Tribal Cultural
Resources
CR-2b and 2c:

Additional
Avoidance
Measures
CR-2d: Protect
Unanticipated
Archaeological and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
CR-3: Treatment of
Human Remains,
Associated Grave
Goods, or Items of
Cultural Patrimony
Significant
and
Unavoidable
with
Mitigation
Introduction and Summary
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 1-14 Environmental Topic Project Impact
Proposed
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Impact after
Mitigation
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
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?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A
UT-5: Would the project comply with
federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
No Impact No mitigation is
needed
N/A
C-UT-1: Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts related to utilities?
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is
needed
N/A

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-1 Project Description
Introduction
This section describes the proposed Project, which would provid e an off-site expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village Cont inuing Care Ret irement Community (CCRC). The Project would include independent senior living units, a community building, outdoor common areas, parking areas, paved walking paths, landscaping, drainage features, lig hting, fencing, retaining walls, and off-site pedestrian, bicycle, storm water and utility improveme nts. The Project would include 32 independent living units supporting up to 64 residents at full occupancy.

This Project Description is organized as follows:
 Section 2.1 – Introduction
 Section 2.2 – Project Objectives
 Section 2.3 – Location of the Proposed Project
 Section 2.4 – Description of Proposed Project
 Section 2.5 – Environmental Prot ection Actions Incorporated into Proposed Project  Section 2.6 – Required Permits and Approvals
Alternatives included in the EIR are both described and evaluat ed in Chapter 4, (Alternatives Description and Analysis).

Project Objectives
Covia Communities owns and operates the Spring Lake Village CCRC located at 5555 Montgomery Drive. Spring Lake Village began op erations in 1987 and was exp anded in 2011. Spring Lake Village currently includes 437 residential units composed of independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing facilities.

Covia Communities is proposing to expand the existing Spring La ke Village CCRC by adding independent senior living units and a central dining and commun ity building on three parcels to the east of the existing Spring Lake Village.

The Project is intended to achieve the following objectives:
 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; Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-2  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.

Location of Proposed Project
As shown on Figure 2-1 (Regional Map), the existing Spring Lake Village CCRC is located along Montgomery Drive in the City of S anta Rosa. The City of Santa Rosa is located in Sonoma County, approximately 45 miles north of the City of San Francisco.

The Project site is 7.28 acres in size and located approximatel y 1,000 feet east of the existing Spring Lake Village CCRC. The Project site consists of three Ap plicant-owned properties, including a vacant parcel at 225 Los Al amos Road and two developed parcel s containing single family residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road.

As shown on Figure 2-2 (Project Site), the Project site is surr ounded to the north 1 by Highway 12 and single-family residences; to the east by Los Alamos Road an d multi-family residences; to the south by single-family residence s, Melita Station Bed & Breakfa st Inn, Melita Road, Montgomery Drive, and Annadel State Park; and to the west by single-family residences and a church. As shown on Figure 2-3 (Proposed Project Site Plan) and Figure 2-4 (Proposed Project Improvement Plan), the Project would also include off-site improvements located al ong portions of Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, and Melita Road. The Project site is located approximately 0.7 mile to the southwest of CalFire designated very high fire hazard severity zones, but within the vicinity of areas damaged by the 2020 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 Project s ite is located approximately 0.1 mile northwest of properties damaged along Melita Road during t he Glass Fire, and between approximately 0.25 mile and 0.7 m ile southwest of properties da maged along Los Alamos Road and adjacent roadways.

Description of Proposed Project
The Project would include both on-site and off-site improvement s. On-site improvements would include new residential units, a resident community building, support buildings, parking, outdoor lighting, fencing, landscaping, and other improvements. Implementation of the Project would include removal of two existing single-family residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road.

The residences are owned by the Project applicant, Covia Commun ities, wh o cur rentl y re nts the two homes. Overall, implementation of the Project would result in a net increase of 30 residential units at the Project site and within the City of Santa Rosa. Of f-site improvements would include pedestrian, bicycle, storm water , and utility improvements. The Project is anticipated to require approximately 18 months to construct. At full occupancy, the Project would support up to 64 residents.

1Highway 12 is generally considered to be oriented east to west, even though it is actually oriented southeast to northwest near the Project site. For simplicity, this EIR will identify Highway 12 to be to the north of the Project site.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-3 The description of the Project is organized as follows:
 Section 2.4.1 On-site Improvements
 Section 2.4.2 Off-site Improvements
 Section 2.4.3 Construction Information
 Section 2.4.4 Operat ion and Maintenance

2.4.1 On-site Improvements
Residential Units
The Project would include 32 independent living residential units. As shown in Table 2-1 (Proposed Residential Units), the on-site residential buildings would inc lude 10 single-story duplex cottages and a two-story residential Villa building.

Table 2-1 Proposed Residential Units
Land Use Number of
Buildings Living Units Bedrooms Number of
Stories Total GSF(a)
Cottages 10 20 40 1 46,400
Villa 1 12 24 2 28,540
Note: (a) Gross square feet (GSF) is defined here as the sum o f all areas on all floors of the building within the outside faces of its exterior walls.

Each of the ten residential cottages would provide two independent living units, and each independent living unit would provide two bedrooms. Cottages wo uld include individual patios, parking garages and driveway spaces. The cottages would be up t o 20 feet 7 inches in height, and would range from approximately 4,415 to 4,988 gross square feet, with a total area of approximately 46,400 gross square feet. The cottages would be a rranged around a central drive aisle, pedestrian walkway, and community building. Figure 2-5 ( Proposed Project Building Perspectives) includes a rendering of the residential cottages.

A two-story residential Villa building would provide 12 independent living units. Each Villa unit would provide two bedrooms with an individual patio. Adjacent parking facilities would include a mix of covered and uncovered surface parking spaces. The residential V illa building would be approximately 28 feet 3 inches in height (plus approximately fi ve feet of mechanical equipment and stairway/elevator shafts above the roof peak), with an overall area of approximately 28,540 gross square feet. Figure 2-5 (Proposed Project Building Perspectives ) includes a rendering of the residential Villa, while Figure 2-6 (Proposed Project Villa Exterior Elevations) illust rates the exterior elevations of the building.

Resident Community Building
The Project would include a single-story community building for residents and their guests. The community building would be approximately 4,435 square feet in size and approximately 23 feet in height. The community building would include kitchen and dining facilities, activity/common rooms, and administrative office space. Outdoor features would include a patio and outdoor common areas. Figure 2-5 (Proposed Project Building Perspectives) includes a rendering of the community building.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-4 Other Site Improvements
The Project would include several support buildings, parking, outdoor amenities, lighting, fencing, landscaping, retaining walls, and other improvements. Figure 2- 3 (Proposed Project Site Plan) illustrates the general location of these improvements. A description is provided below.

Support Buildings
The Project would include an emergency backup generator buildin g, landscape shed, garden shed, and an open garden pavilion, and garbage enclosure.

On-site Parking
The Project would provide approximately 72 parking spaces conta ined within carports, surface parking lots, and cottage unit garages. Four of the parking spaces would be accessible spaces as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for A ccessible Design, two near the community building entrance and two near the Villa entrance. Te n bicycle parking spaces would also be provided.

Outdoor Lighting
Outdoor lighting at the Project site would include exterior building light fixtures, pathway bollard fixtures, and pole mounted fixtures. Figure 2-7 (Proposed Proje ct Site Lighting Plan) illustrates the location and fixture types of outdoor lights. The outdoor ligh ting would comply with requirements contained in City Municipal Code Section 20.30.080, which inclu des maximum heights light standards and requirements that lighting fixtures be shielded or recessed to reduce light spillage onto adjoining properties.

Fencing
Wooden fencing approximately 3 to 6 feet in height would be con structed along the southern perimeter of the Project site adjacent to existing contiguous r esidential properties. Undulating stone walls 3 to 4 feet in height would be constructed along portions of the Los Alamos Road and Melita Road frontages.

Landscaping
Landscaping along the southwest portion of the site would include riparian and meadow plantings within and adjacent to rain gar dens. Landscaping in the center of the Project site would include ornamental trees, shrubs, and grass plantings. Landscaping on t he northern portion of the Project site would include native plantings. The landscape plan include s the planting of on-site trees to replace trees removed during construction in accordance with th e City of Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance. A resident garden would also be provided.

Retaining Walls
Retaining walls would be constructed to provide stability to hi llside slopes. A two-tier stone/boulder retaining wall with 4-foot tall tiers would be constructed alon g the north side of the Project site adjacent to Highway 12. A single tier stone/boulder retaining wall up to 4 feet in height would be constructed along the northeast portion of the Project site near a new earthen berm.

On-site Circulation and Utility Improvements
Circulation
Vehicular access to the Project site is proposed via a new driveway from Los Alamos Road. The entrance to the Project site would be aligned with an existing entrance to a multi-family residential Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-5 complex on the opposite side of Los Alamos Road, approximately 450 feet south of Highway 12. A secondary, emergency-only access point would be provided at Melita Road.

On-site vehicular circulation would include a circular drive. I ndividual driveways connecting to the main circular drive aisle would provide access to the residential cottages. The driveway and circular drive aisle have been designed for consistency with required em ergency vehicle access widths. No additional improvements, such as a stop sign or traffic signal, are proposed at the intersection of the Project driveway and Los Alamos Road.

Pedestrian access would be provided at Melita Road and Los Alam os Road. Pathways and sidewalks would be placed throughout the site for easy pedestri an circulation to and from the residential units and the amenities provided throughout the campus.

Utilities
As shown on Figure 2- 8a (Proposed Project Utility Plan – Melita Road) and Figure 2-8b (Proposed Project Utility Plan – Los Alamos Road), the development would tie into existing utilities located within adjacent roadways. Potable and fire supply water would b e supplied to the Project site from an existing 12-inch water main located in Los Alamos Road. Two existing groundwater irrigation wells located on the Project site would be retained and used to meet the Project’s irrigation demands.

For wastewater service, the Project would connect to an existin g 18-inch trunk sewer located within Melita Road.

Electricity and natural gas would be provided by PG&E from exis ting utility lines adjacent to the Project site, including a natural gas line located within Melita Road.

An emergency back-up generator would be located on the Project site to provide a backup power source in the event of a power outage. The generator would be e nclosed in a shed on the Project site and would be equipped with an integrated diesel tank. No s eparate underground or aboveground diesel storage tank is proposed.

Storm Water
The Project would create approximately 3.4 acres of new impervious surfaces and would be subject to the City of Santa Rosa’s Low Impact Development storm water requirements. The Project design proposes collection and conveyance of storm water through a ser ies of on-site vegetated swales and storm drains that would convey storm water to several on-si te rain gardens 2. As shown on Figure 2-3 (Proposed Project Site Plan), the rain gardens would be located on the southwest portion of the Project site near Melita Road. The rain gardens would treat storm water runoff generated from rooftops, parking lots, and other impervious sur faces. The rain gardens would be sized to provide water quality treatment and volume capture, de taining and infiltrating runoff generated by the 85th percentile storm event.

2 Rain gardens function as a soil and plant-based filtration and infiltration feature that removes pollutants though a variety of natural physical, biological, and chemical treatment processes.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-6

2.4.2 Off-site Improvements
Off-site Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Montgomery Drive / Melita Road Intersection
As shown on Figure 2-4 (Proposed Project Improvement Plan), the Project would include circulation improvements within and adjacent to the intersection of Montgom ery Drive and Melita Road. The improvements are intended to facilitate pedestrian connectivity between the Project site and the existing Spring Lake Village CCRC. The improvements would inclu de construction of a 5-foot wide crosswalk at the intersection. The intersection would be reconfigured and would include a new 5- foot wide sidewalk connecting to the new on-site walking path a t Melita Road. A raised pedestrian island with curb ramps would be provided in the middle of the c rosswalk to promote pedestrian safety and accessibility. A new sidewalk and pedestrian pathway would also be constructed on the south side of Melita Road connecting to Montgomery Drive.

Los Alamos Road
As shown on Figure 2-3 (Proposed Project Site Plan) and Figure 2-4 (Proposed Project Improvement Plan), the Project would include a publicly accessi ble off-street pedestrian path along the Project’s Los Alamos Road frontage. The pathway would extend from an existing crosswalk at Highway 12 to the southeast limits of the Project site. Additio nally, the Project would widen and re- stripe a section of Los Alamos Road to provide a 5-foot wide Class II bicycle lane adjacent to the Project site as envisioned in the City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Highway 12
As shown on Figure 2-4 (Proposed Project Improvement Plan), the Project would improve an approximately 725-foot segment of Highway 12 with sidewalk and bike path adjacent to the eastbound travel lane of Highway 12. The proposed improvements to Highway 12 would not require widening of the roadway.

Off-site Storm Water Improvements
As shown on Figure 2-8a (Proposed Project Utility Plan – Melita Road), the Project would construct off-site storm drain improvements along Melita Road. The improvements are intended to increase the capacity of the immediate o ff-site storm drain utilities to alleviate localized flooding that periodically occurs in the Project vicinity during major rainst orms. The off-site storm drain improvements along Melita Road include a new storm drain manhole, replacement of an existing drop inlet, installation of approximately 200 feet of new 18-in ch storm drain pipe, replacement of approximately 40 feet of existing 15-inch pipe with a new 18-in ch pipe, and replacement of a 12- inch diameter storm water culvert beneath Melita Road with a ne w 18-inch diameter culvert with new rock slope protection placed below the new culvert discharge point.

2.4.3 Construction Information
A specific construction start date has not been established for the Project. For the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed that constru ction would begin in 2021 and re quire approximately 18 months to complete. The anticipated construction work hours are 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Project is not anticipated to require nighttime or weekend construction activity.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-7 Mobilization, Staging, and Construction Parking
Prior to construction, the app licant’s contractor would mobiliz e construction equipment and materials to the Project site and would likely place a job site trailer and portable sanitary facilities on the site. The primary vehicle and haul truck route to the Proje ct site is anticipated to be Highway 12 to Los Alamos Road, with an entrance to the construction site from Los Alamos Road.

Construction staging areas, including construction worker parki ng, would be established on the Project site. As shown on Figure 2-4 (Proposed Project Improvement Plan), parking for construction personnel also may potentially occur at a paved church parking lot located immediately west of the Project site 3. A temporary walking path would be constructed to allow worker s to walk from the church parking lot onto the Project site. The temporary path is not intended to support the movement of automobiles or construction equipment.

General Construction Activities
Construction is anticipated to begin with site preparation, inc luding demolition of two existing residences, and clearing and grading of the Project site to provide a relatively level surface for the movement of construction equipment.

Prior to demolition of the existing single-family residential h omes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road, the buildings would be surveyed for the presence o f hazardous materials (e.g. lead and asbestos-containing materials). Hazardous wastes would be required to be separated, stored, and disposed of according to local state, and federal regulations. After hazardous building materials have been removed, demolition would proceed. Hoses or other wat ering equipment would be used to control dust.

Site clearing and grubbing would remove select trees, grass, an d other vegetation. Approximately 140 existing trees on the Project site would be preserved. Temp orary protective fencing would be installed to form a continuous barrier around each tree and/or group of trees to be preserved.

Approximately 264 trees would be removed to accommodate constru ction of the Project. Table 2-2 (Proposed Project Tree Removals) lists the tree types that woul d be removed as part of the construction process. Based on the Project plans, 151 of the tr ees to be removed are non-exempt trees under Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 17-24 (Trees).

Following site preparation, the Project site would be rough gra ded to elevations shown on final improvement plans and in accordance with recommendations in the Project’s design-level geotechnical study. Rough grading activities would include buil ding pad preparation, grading of roadways, and installation of erosion and sediment control features. Importation of clean fill material would also occur during this phase.

Utility connections would be inst alled using open trench constr uction methods. Such methods would include removal of surface material; excavation and shoring of a trench; installation of pipe bedding, pipelines and conduits; backfilling of the trench; and resurfacing. Trenches are anticipated to be excavated to a depth of approximately 4 to 6 feet below the ground surface.

Vertical construction activities would include construction of the residential units, community buildings, support buildings, and other site improvements. The final phase of construction is anticipated to include establishment of on-site open space areas, including installation of landscape plantings, trees, irrigation systems, and finished hardscapes.

3 An agreement with the adjoining property owner would be required prior to any such use.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-8 Table 2-2 Proposed Project Tree Removals
Tree Species Approximate Number of
Trees to be Removed
Tree Removals Subject to City of Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance Black Oak (Quercus kellogii) 1
Black walnut (Juglans nigra) 7
California Buckeye (Aesculus californica) 1
Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 76
Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 4
Crepe Myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) 2
Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) 2
English walnut (Juglans regia) 20
Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) 2
Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) 7
Juniper (Juniperus spp.) 1
London plane tree (Platanus acerifolia) 1
Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) 1
Olive (Olea europaea) 6
Silver Dollar Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus polyanthemos) 1
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) 1
Valley oak (Quercus lobata) 18
Total 151
Tree Removals Exempt from City of Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance Apple (Malus domestica) 1
Green wattle (Acacia decurrens) 95
Persimmon (Diospyros kaki) 7
Wild plum (Prunus domestica) 10
Total 113
Construction Equipment and Hauling Estimates
A variety of construction equipment would be used to construct the Project, including excavators, rubber-tired bulldozers, backhoes, graders, cranes, forklifts, aerial lifts, cement mixers, pavers, rollers, chainsaws, industrial saws, generators, air compressor s, welders, and other general construction equipment.

Material from the demolition of the single-family homes along w ith vegetation removed from the Project site would be off-hauled for recycling, composting, or disposal. Soil and other materials found unsuitable for reuse at the Project site would be dispose d of at a regional landfill or transfer station.

Table 2-3 (Proposed Project Haul Volumes and Trips) summarizes the quantities of construction materials, off-haul waste, and haul truck trips anticipated during construction of the Project.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-9 The number of construction-related vehicles traveling to and fr om 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 at maximum.

Table 2-3 Proposed Project Haul Volumes and Trips
Construction Component Quantity Haul Truck Trips (round trip) Project Off-haul
Demolition/Clearing 1,423 CY 142
Vegetation 339 trees and other vegetation 34
Soil 2,900 CY 290
Project In-haul
Aggregate Base (fill) 2,375 CY 238
Asphalt Concrete 901 tons 44
Pipe and Appurtenances 6,458 feet 5
Concrete 1,900 CY 189
Other Building Materials varies 760
Source: Covia Communities 2017
Traffic Controls
Construction of utility connections, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and roadway reconfigurations would require work within the City’s right-of-way in Los Alamos Road, Melita Road, and Montgomery Drive, as well as w ithin Caltrans’ right-of-way along Highway 12. In accordance with City of Santa Rosa and Caltrans requirements, the applicant’s contractor would be required to develop and implement controls to minimize effects of the work on traffic and pedestrians, including signs and flaggers conforming with the current California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Groundwater Dewatering
If needed, temporary groundwater dew atering would be conducted within excavations to provide a dry work area. Dewatering would generally involve pumping water out of a trench or excavation to Baker tanks (or other similar ty pe of settling tank). Following the settling process, the groundwater would normally be pumped to a bag and cartridge filter system ( or similar system) before being discharged to the sanitary sewer system or to a portion of the Project site sufficient in area to allow for complete infiltration into on-site soils, or for use as dust control.

2.4.4 Operation and Maintenance
At full occupancy, the Project would support up to 64 residents and would be anticipated to create the equivalent of up to 12 full-time employment opportunities.

Residents would have access to the co mmunity facilities on the existing Spring Lake Village campus, and vice versa. To facilitate connectivity, a shuttle b us would connect the existing Spring Lake Village campus with the Project site. The shuttle is antic ipated to stop at the Project site daily on the half hour between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-10 Operation of the Project is expected to generate an average of 80 daily vehicle trips 4. Five daily trips are anticipated to occur during the a.m. peak hour (betwe en 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.), and six daily trips are anticipated to occur during the p.m. peak hour (between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.).

Two existing groundwater wells located on the Project site are anticipated to be used to meet irrigation demands. Based on t he proposed Project’s landscape p lan, the irrigation demand for initial establishment of the plantings would be approximately 2.9-acre feet per year. If necessary to comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, a reduced irrigation demand may be achieved through modifications to the landscape plan.

The Project would utilize water to be purchased from the City of Santa Rosa to meet potable water demands. Potable water demand for the community building would be approximately 670 gallons per day, which equates to approxim ately 0.7-acre feet per year. Potable water demand for the residences would be approximately 288 gallons per day per dwell ing unit 5, which equates to
approximately 10.3-acre feet per year for the 32 residential un its. Therefore, the combined potable water demand anticipated for the Project would be approximately 11-acre feet per year.

The Project would include an emergency backup generator, which would be operated periodically for testing and maintenance purposes and to generate electricity in the event of an outage. There would be a maximum limit of 50 hours per year of non-emergency operation under normal conditions allowed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. During testing periods, the engine would typically be run for less than one hour per day.

2.4.5 Energy Use
Construction equipment, haul trucks, and worker vehicles used d uring construction would utilize electricity and a variety of petroleum products, including gasoline and diesel over approximately 18 months. Equipment idling times would be required to be minimize d either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five min utes or less (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 24 85 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Project operation would result in energy consumption in the for m of electricity and natural gas for heating and cooling of buildings, generation of hot water, lighting of indoor and outdoor spaces, and providing power to various forms of equipment. The Project woul d also result in energy use associated with disposal of solid waste and for pumping, distri bution, and treatment of Project- related water and wastewater demands, as well as energy use ass ociated with vehicle trips and an emergency generator.

The site development would be subject to the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations. Titl e 24, Part 6 applies to all new construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulates energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Add itionally, in accordance with the City of Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan (CAP) New Development Checklist, the Project would be conditioned to comply with the CALGreen Tier 1 Standards, which requires a 15 percent improvement over the minimum Title 24, Part 6 requirements.

4 Based on trip generation rates for Continuing Care Retirement Communities, as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
5 Based on demand factor for Low Density Residential, as published in the Santa Rosa Water Master Plan Update.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-11 The Project is anticipated to result in an average residential energy use of approximately 24 kilowatt hours (kWh) per day per unit, and an average community building use of approximately 259 kWh per day. Therefore, the combined annual energy demand for operation of the Project is estimated to be approximately 375,000 kWh. Annual energy use of the buildin g is also anticipated to include 3,264 therms of natural gas, based on energy use modeling assumptions conducted for the Project.

Environmental Protection Actions Incorporated into Proposed Project
The following environmental protection actions are typically required for projects subject to approvals by the City of Santa Rosa. The Project would comply w ith the following environmental protection actions, and thus each protection action is a part o f the Project. The Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will include these environment al protection actions to ensure implementation.

2.5.1 Environmental Protection Action 1 – Implement Geotechnical Design Recommendations
As part of the Project design process, the applicant has engaged a California-registered Geotechnical Engineer to conduct a design-level geotechnical st udy for the proposed Project.

Project design and construction must comply with the site-specific recommendations made in geotechnical reports for the Pr oject. This will include design in accordance with the seismic and foundation design criteria, as well as site preparation and gra ding recommendations included in the report. The geotechnical recommendations will be incorporated i nto the final plans and specifications for the Project and will be implemented during construction.

2.5.2 Environmental Protection Action 2 – Implement Air Quality Control Measures during Construction
To limit dust, criteria pollutants, and precursor emissions ass ociated with the construction activity, the Project shall implement the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommended Basic Construction Measures during construction:
 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access roads) shall be watered or a non-toxic soil binder applied two times per day;  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;  All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry po wer sweeping shall be prohibited;
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved ar eas shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;  All paving shall be completed as soon as possible after work is finished;  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment o ff when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points;
 All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tu ned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked b y a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation; and Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-12  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and per son to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond an d take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visibl e to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

2.5.3 Environmental Protection Action 3 – Implement Greenhouse Gas Control Measures during Construction
Contractors are required to implement actions 9.2.1 through 9.2.3 of the City’s Climate Action Plan during construction, as follows:
 Action 9.2.1 - Minimize idling times either by shutting equipm ent off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes or less (as required by th e California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Provide clear s ignage at all access points to remind employees of idling restrictions.
 Action 9.2.2 - Construction equipment shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
 Action 9.2.3 - Limit GHG emissi ons from construction equipment by selecting one of the following measures, as feasible and appropriate to the construction Project:
– Substitute electrified equipm ent for diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment where practical.
– Use alternative fuels for construction equipment on-site, whe re feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel. – Avoid the use of on-site generators by connecting to grid ele ctricity or utilizing solar- powered equipment.

2.5.4 Environmental Protection Action 4 – Implement Storm Water Control Measures during Construction
The Project applicant and/or its contractor will obtain coverage under State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, Waste Discharge Requirem ents for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Distur bance Activities, as amended by Order No. 2012-0006. This will include submittal of permit regi stration documents (notice of intent, risk assessment, site maps, Stor m Water Pollution Prevention Pl an (SWPPP), annual fee, and certifications) to the State Wate r Resources Control Board. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will address pollutant source s, non-storm water discharges resulting from construction dewatering, best management practices, and other requirements s pecified in the above-mentioned Order. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will also include dust control practices to prevent wind erosion, sediment tracking, and dust generation by constru ction equipment. A Qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Practitioner will oversee implementation of the Plan, including visual inspections, sampling and analysis, and ensuring overall compliance.

Project contractors will implem ent an erosion and sediment cont rol plan, which includes storm water best management practices (BMPs) required by the City’s s torm water permit and other applicable regulations. This erosion and sediment control may be substituted by a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared in accordance with Order No. 2009-0009, as long as the Plan includes measures equivalent to those listed below:
 Erosion Control: Schedule the Project to sequence constructio n activities with the installation of erosion and sediment control measures and prese rving existing vegetation.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-13 Utilize a combination of BMPs to minimize soil erosion, including hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, soil binders, straw mulch, geotextiles and mats, and wood mulching (CASQA Handbook BMP EC-1 to EC-8 or Caltrans Handbook BMP SS-1 to SS-8).  Sediment Controls: Install a combination of BMPs to detain se diment-laden runoff, including fiber rolls, gravel bag berms, street sweeping and/or vacuuming , storm drain inlet protection, sediment basins; check dams, silt fencing, and sand bag barrier s (CASQA Handbook BMP SE-1, SE-2, SE-4, SE-5, SE-6, SE- 7, SE-8, SE-10) or Caltrans Ha ndbook BMP SC-1, SC-2, SC-4, SC-5, SC-6, SC-7, SC-8, SC-10).
 Tracking Controls: Install a stabilized construction entrance/exit and entrance/exit tire wash at the site to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public ro ads (CASQA Handbook BMP TR-1 and TC-3 or Caltrans Handbook BMP TC-1 and TC-3).
 Additional Controls: Implement wind erosion controls and stab ilized construction roadways as needed (CASQA Handbook BMP WE-1 and TC-2 or Caltrans Handboo k BMP WE-1 and TC-2).
 Non-Storm Water Management: Implement a combination of BMBs t o prevent the potential for non-storm water discharges, including water conservation practices, dewatering operations, and vehicle and equipment washing/fueling/maintenan c e ( C A S Q A o r C a l t r a n s Handbook BMP NS-1, NS-2, NS-8, NS-9, NS-10).
 Waste Management: Implement general site and materials management BMPs, including material delivery and storage, stockpile management, spill prevention and control, solid waste management, concrete waste management, and sanitary/septi c waste management (CASQA and Caltrans Handbook WM-1, WM-3, WM-4, WM-5, WM-8, and WM-9).

2.5.5 Environmental Protection Action 5 – Implement MEDF Program and Lift Team Training
The Project applicant will obtain coverage in the Sonoma County Medical Facility Scene Call Program (MEDF Program). The MEDF Program includes a protocol for designated medical facilities meeting ce rtain criteria to receive an ambulance-onl y response to a 911 call. The Santa Rosa Fire Department has deemed the Project’s inclusion into th e MEDF Program as being necessary for the proposed use of the site. Inclusion into the MEDF Program allows approved Skilled Nursing Facilities, Clin ics, and other facilities with medical staff to defer a fire department first response if warranted by patient condition. Certain patient conditions or specific facility requests will continue to receive a standard fire/emergency ser vices response. In order to participate in the program, the Project applicant will submit a MEDF Program application form, which would be reviewed by local fire and emergency responder a gencies, Coastal Valleys Emergency Medical Services Agency and Redwood Empire Dispatch C ommunications Authority, before being approved. In additi on, the Project applicant will require that lift team training be provided to all employees working on-site as part of their first-week employment orientation.

Required Permits and Approvals
This EIR is intended to apply to all the Project approvals list ed below, as well as to any other permits or approvals necessary or desirable to implement the Project.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-14

2.6.1 City of Santa Rosa Entitlements
The following discretionary actions and other approvals from the City of Santa Rosa may be required for the Project:
 Rezoning: As an expansion project, the applicant is requesting that the Project parcels be rezoned from Rural Residential RR-20 and RR-40 to Planned Development (PD 0308), which is the current zone for the existing Spring Lake Village CCRC. The Planned Development zone is specifically envisioned as a mechanism to preserve and/or creat e distinctive, high quality, single or mixed-use developments that meet or exceed the goals of the General Plan. The requirements of this zone are intended to encourage preservation of existing amenities and creation of new amenities; provide for a variety of housing typ es and densities; and achieve superior relationships among uses, both within and surrounding the district. The PD 0308 would also be modified to reflect the increased site area and number of residential units associated with the Spring Lake Village CCRC.
 Lot Merger: The Project would r equire a lot merger of APN 031-101-026, 034, and 035.  Conditional Use Permit: The Project would require a conditiona l use permit to accommodate the community care facilities pursuant to Chapter 20-42 of the Zoning Code.  Hillside Development Permit: The Project would require a hills ide development permit pursuant to the City’s Hillside Development Standards in Chapter 20-32 of the Zoning Code.  Design Review: The Project would require design review approva l from the City of Santa Rosa Design Review Board.
 Grading and Building Permit: T he Project would require a grading permit and a building permit.  Encroachment Permit: An encroachment permit would be necessary for improvements made within the City right-of-way.
 Tree Removal Permit: The Projec t would require a tree removal permit.  Post-construction Storm Water: The Project would be required t o comply with the Santa Rosa Area Low Impact Development storm water requirements.

2.6.2 Other Permits and Approvals
The following is a list of potentially applicable permits, consultations, and approvals from federal, state and local agencies. These agencies may issue approvals fo r the Project, and thus need to rely upon the EIR. This EIR is intended to apply to all the Project approvals listed below, as well as to any other permits or approvals necessary or desirable to implement the Project.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: The Project may require a Sectio n 404 Permit under the Clean Water Act for filling of wetlands or other waters of the U.S.  North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board: The Project would require a 401 Water Quality Certification under the Clean Water Act for filling of wetlands or other waters of the U.S. or Waste Discharge Permit for f illing State-only wetlands, and may require a Low Threat Discharge Permit for discharge of any water from dewatering to a waterway.  State Water Resources Control Board: The Project would require a General Construction Permit for disturbance of one or more acres of soil.
 California Department of Transpo rtation: An Encroachment Permi t would be necessary for improvements made within a Caltrans right-of-way along Highway 12, and a transportation permit would be required for movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways.

Project Description
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 2-15  California Department of Socia l Services: The Project would require a Certificate of Authority for operation of a continuing care retirement community.
 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control: The Proje ct would require an alcoholic beverage license for operation of the dining facilities.  Bay Area Air Quality Management District: The Project would re quire an Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate for o peration and maintenance of an emergency backup generator.
 Sonoma County Human Services Department: The Project would req uire a License to Operate the community care facility.

Annadel
State Park
Spring
Lake
Project Site
Existing Spring
Lake Village
Campus
Melita Rd
Los AlamosRd
Montogomery Dr
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 2-1
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\08-GIS\Maps\Figures\Vicinity Map.mxd 0 600 1,200 1,800
Feet
© 2012. While every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.

Job Number
Revision
11109018
Date 06 May 2020
o
Spring Lake Village East Grove EIR

Regional Map
Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. Created by:rmremillard 2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa CA 95407 USA T 707 523 1010 F 707 527 8679 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet
Paper Size 8.5" x 11" (ANSI A)

Figure 2-2

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

Project Site
11109018
Revision
Job Number
Date
May 2020
N
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\Project Site_v2.indd May 29, 2020 1:09 PM LEGEND
Melita RdMelita Rd
Santa Rosa CreekSanta Rosa Creek
Santa Rosa CreekSanta Rosa Creek
Montgomery RdMontgomery Rd
Los Alamos RdLos Alamos Rd
Fairway DrFairway Dr
Highway 12Highway 12
Approximate Scale
Project SiteProject Site
Villa Villa
Los AlamosLos Alamos
Hope Chapel Hope Chapel
ChurchChurch
Existing Spring Existing Spring
Lake Village Lake Village
CampusCampus
Melita Melita
StationStation
Project Site
Approximate Area of Off-Site Improvements

Figure 2-3

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

Proposed Project Site Plan
11109018
Revision
Job Number
Date
Apr 2020
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\Proposed Proj Site Plan.indd Apr 2020 Figure 2-4
Revision
Job NumberSpring 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

Proposed Project
Improvement Plan
11109018
Date
May 2020
Source: Adobe Associates, Inc.

G:\111\11110656 Santa Rosa AMI-AMR\04-Technical Work\PD\Figures\InDesign/P Project Improvement Plan.indd May 19, 2020 1:56 PM

Figure 2-5

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

Proposed Project
Building Perspectives
11109018
Revision
Job Number
Date
Apr 2020
N
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\Building Perspectives.indd April 30, 2020 4:07 PM

VILLA BUILDING - PERSPECTIVE VIEW
Source: Perkins Eastman, December 2014
COMMUNITY BUILDING - 3D VIEW
Figure 2-6

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

Proposed Project
Villa Elevations
11109018
Revision
Job Number
Date
N
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\Villa Elevations.indd April 30, 2020 4:12 PM Apr 2020
Source: Perkins Eastman, December 2014
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\ \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign P Proj Site Lighting.indd April 30, 2020 4:18 PM
Figure 2-7
Revision
Job NumberSpring 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

Proposed Project
Site Lighting Plan
11109018
Date
Apr 2020
Source: Perkins Eastman, September 2017
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\ \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign Proposed Proj Utility Plan Melita Rd.indd April 30, 2020 3:06 PM Figure 2-8a
Revision
Job NumberSpring 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

Proposed Project Utility
Plan - Melita Road
11109018
Date
Apr 2020
Source: Perkins Eastman, September, 2017
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\ \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign Proposed Proj Utility Plan Melita Rd.indd May 5, 2020 8:56 AM Figure 2-8b
Revision
Job NumberSpring 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

Proposed Project Utility
Plan - Los Alamos Road
11109018
Date
May 2020
Source: Perkins Eastman, September, 2017
Introduction to Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3-1 Introduction to Analysis
Scope of Analysis
The City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department received an application for the Project in 2016. The environmental review process for the Project was initiated in 2016. This Draft EIR analyzes the potential effects of the Project on the environment under the applicable environmental resource topics listed in the 2020 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Initial Study Checklist.

Each environmental resource area potentially impacted by the Project is addressed in its own section, numbered as follows:
 3.1 Aesthetics
 3.2 Air Quality
 3.3 Biological Resources
 3.4 Cultural Resources
 3.5 Geology, Soils and Seismicity
 3.6 Greenhouse Gas and Energy
 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
 3.9 Land Use, Population, and Housing
 3.10 Noise
 3.11 Public Services and Recreation
 3.12 Transportation
 3.13 Tribal Cultural Resources
 3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Each section of Chapter 3 contains the following elements:

Setting. This subsection presents a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the Project area with respect to each resource area at an appropriate level of detail to understand the impact analysis. It describes existing conditions and provides a baseline by which to compare the potential impacts of the Project.

Regulatory Framework. This subsection provides a brief discussion of federal, State, and local regulations and policies that are relevant to the resource.

Significance Thresholds. This subsection provides the significance thresholds for evaluation of environmental impacts.

Methodology. The methodology subsection discusses the approach to the analysis.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This subsection evaluates the potential for the Project to significantly affect the physical environment described in the setting. Potential impacts are identified and characterized, and where feasible, mitigation measures are identified to avoid or reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures . Cumulative impacts are discussed in each environmental resource section following the description of the P roject-level impacts and mitigation measures. The cumulative impact analysis is based on the same setting, regulatory framework, and Introduction to Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3-2 significance thresholds presented in each resource topic section. Additional mitigation measures are identified if the analysis determines that the Project’s contribution to an adverse cumulative impact would be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, significant.

Significance Determinations
The significance thresholds for each environmental resource topic are presented in each section of Chapter 3. For the impact analyses, the following categories are used to identify impact significance:

No Impact. This determination is made if a resource is absent or i f a resource exists within the Project area, but there is no potential that the Project could affect the resource.

Less-than-Significant Impact. This determination applies if there is a potential for some limited impact on a resource, but the impact is not significant relative to the significance threshold.

Less-than-Significant Impact after Mitigation Incorporated. This determination applies if there is the potential for a significant impact relative to the significance threshold, but mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Significant and Unavoidable Impact after Mitigation Incorporated. This determination applies to impacts that are significant, and mitigation has been recommended, but the mitigation does not reduce the impact to less than significant and no additional feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Cumulative Impact Analysis
CEQA requires the discussion of cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time.

The cumulative impact analysis for each environmental resource topic is described in the appropriate subsections of this Chapter, following the description of Project impacts and mitigation measures.

Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis
Two approaches to cumulative impact analysis are discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b).

The first approach utilizes a list of probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts.

The second approach utilizes a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, such as a general plan or related planning document, or in an adopted or certified environmental document, which describes or evaluates conditions contributing to cumulative effects.

For this Draft EIR, the cumulative impacts analysis uses the list approach for most environmental resources. For the cumulative analysis of air quality, the analysis relies upon the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s regional projections. In developing regional thresholds of significance for criteria and precursor air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified regional significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions (BAAQMD 2017a). For the cumulative analysis of traffic and transportation impacts, the analysis includes a discussion of Santa Rosa’s level of service (LOS) standard for informational purposes, which relies on the Sonoma County Transit Authority ( SCTA) model which is based on planned projects in the region through 2040.

Introduction to Analysis
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3-3 Table 3-1 (Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts) provides a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including a brief description of the projects and their anticipated construction schedules. Figure 3-1 (Location of Cumulative Projects) shows the location of the cumulative projects.

The geographic area considered for each environmental resource topic is defined in the cumulative impact analysis in each subsection of this Chapter.

Table 3-1 Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts
Project Name Project Description
Estimated
Construction
Schedule
Project Location
A - Los Alamos
Trunk Sewer
Replacement
Proposed replacement of an
outdated and undersized section
of Los Alamos Sewer Trunk,
which runs north and parallel to
Santa Rosa Creek from Elaine
Drive to Melita Road.
2022-2024, could
overlap with Project
Melita Rd, ≈0.6 mile
west of Project site
B - Montgomery
Drive
Improvements
Pedestrian improvements along
Montgomery Drive, including
pedestrian pathway adjacent to
westbound travel lane, sidewalk
extension with curb and gutter,
Class II bike lanes, and repaving
and restriping.

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

Completed in 2019-
2020
Highway 12;
≈0.2 mile from
Project Site
D - PG&E Pipeline
Safety Project
Tree removal along Highway 12. Unknown, could
overlap with Project
Highway 12, east of
Los Alamos Road
≈0.1 mile from
Project site
E - Elnoka
Continuing
Care
Retirement
Community
664 senior care units and 12
affordable housing units.

Phased construction
between 2021-2025,
could overlap with
Project
Hwy 12 at Elnoka
Lane;
≈0.7 mile east of the
Project Site.

F – Regional
Glass Fire
Debris
Removal and
Clean Up
Removal of structural ash and
debris from properties affected
by the 2020 Glass Fire
2021-2022, could
potentially overlap
with Project
Multiple properties
along Melita Road,
Channel Drive, and
other roadways;
≈0.5 mile east and
northeast of the
Project Site.

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

Figure 3-1

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

Location of
Cumulative Projects
11109018
Revision
Job Number
Date
May 2021
N
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\111\11109018 SLV East Grove Expansion EIR\04-Technical Work\Figures\InDesign\Cumulative Projects Map Alt 2.indd May 2021 LEGEND
Montgomery DrMontgomery Dr
Summerfield RdSummerfield Rd
Mission Blvd.Mission Blvd.

Middle Rincon RdMiddle Rincon Rd
Highway 12Highway 12
Highway 12Highway 12
OakmontOakmont
Dr Dr
Calistoga RdCalistoga Rd
Approximate Scale
0 1000
Feet
2000 3000
C
A
B
B
A
E
C
D
D
Spring Lake Village Project Location
Los Alamos Trunk Sewer Replacement
Montgomery Dr. Improvements
Annadel Estates
PG&E Pipeline Safety Project
E
F
Elnoka Continuing Care Retirement Community
Regional Glass Fire Debris Removal and Clean Up
F
F
Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-1

3.1 Aesthetics
This section evaluates aesthetics-related impacts from implementation of the Project. In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following subjects are related to aesthetics, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
 Compliance with Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance requirements is discussed in Section 3.3 (Biological Resources), and Section 3.6 (Greenhouse Gas and Energy).  Consistency with zoning requirements, such as height restrictions, is discussed in Section 3.9 (Land Use, Population, and Housing).

3.1.1 Setting
Visual Character
Visual or aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Visual character is a general description of the visual attributes of a particular land use setting and the unique set of landscape features.

The Project site is located in a primarily residential area in east Santa Rosa. The site is bordered to the north by Highway 12 and single-family residences; to the south by single-family residences, the Melita Station Inn, and Melita Road, Montgomery Drive, and Annadel State Park; to the east by Los Alamos Road and multi-family residences; and to the west by single-family residences and Hope Chapel Church. The character of the area generally consists of a mix of Very Low to Medium High Density Residential.

The visual c haracter of the Project site consists of a mix of annual grasslands that are more or less ruderal in character, trees, and two single-family residences. The visual character of the surrounding area consists of a mix of single- family residential dwellings, apartment complexes, open lawn and field areas, a church, and paved and landscaped parking lots. Roadways bound a large portion of the Project site. Vertical elements of the Project site and surrounding area include: mature trees; one and two-story residences and associated sheds, barns, and similar structures; utility poles; roadway signs; fencing; and light poles.

The Project site encompasses 7.28 acres, is largely vacant and is in a predominantly undeveloped condition (with the exception of two residences on the southernmost portion of the property).

Existing vegetation on t he P roject site consists primarily of annual grassland and coast live oak woodland. Willow riparian forest and ruderal habitats occur along Melita Road adjacent to the Project site where some of the off -site improvements would occur. The two residences are located on the southwestern portion of the property, along with two outbuildings, a carport, and three she ds.

Although visible from Melita Road, the residences are partially screened from view by existing vegetation.

Light sources located on and adjacent to the Project site along Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, and Melita Road include headlights from vehicle traffic, porch and interior lighting from adjoining residential properties, and streetlights along Los Alamos Road.

Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-2 General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning
City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 (Santa Rosa 2009) land use designations along Montgomery Drive approaching the Project site from the west range from Medium Density Residential (8.0 to 13.0 units per acre) on the north side of Montgomery Drive to Parks and Recreation on the south side of Montgomery Drive. The parcels along Melita Road are designated Very Low Density Residential (0.2 to 2.0 units per acre). To the east of the Project site is the Villa Los Alamos condominium complex, which is designated Medium Density Residential.

As noted in Table 3.9- 1 in Section 3.9, Land Use, Population, and Housing, of this Draft EIR, the height limit for the Project site’s current Rural Residential (RR-40 and RR-20) zoning is 35 feet. With the proposed rezoning of the site to Planned Development (PD-0308), the height limit at the Project site would increase to 45 feet. However, the tallest building proposed for the Project is the residential Villa building, which would be 28 feet 3 inches tall (plus approximately five feet of mechanical equipment and stairway/elevator shafts above the roof peak).

Scenic Highways and Roadways
The City of Santa Rosa has designated roadways within the City that have unique scenic qualities because of their natural setting as well as historical and cultural features. The City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 defines a scenic road as a highway, road, drive, or street that, in addition to its transportation function, provides opportunities for the enjoyment of natural and human-made scenic resources and directs views to areas of exceptional beauty, natural resources or landmarks, or historic or cultural interest. The City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 designates all of the roadways adjacent to the Project site as scenic roads, including the segment of Highway 12 along the Project frontage, Los Alamos Road, Melita Road, and Montgomery Drive (Santa Rosa 2009).

Section 20-2 8.050 of the City’s Zoning Code summarizes visual character along three of the four scenic roadways that border the Project site: Highway 12 (Calistoga Road to Oakmont). Los Alamos Road, and Melita Road.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), through its California Scenic Highway Program, has also designated segments of Highway 12 as scenic highway corridors. The portion of Highway 12 from Danielli Avenue to London Way is part of an officially designated State Scenic Highway; however, that section ends approximately one mile east of the Project site and, therefore, is not adjacent to the Project site (Caltrans 2018). Highway 12 from US Highway 101 to Danielli Avenue is listed as an eligible State Scenic Highway; the Project site is located along this section of Highway 12 (Caltrans 2018).

Views of the Project Site
To the north, viewers are primarily motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists along Highway 12. To the southeast, viewers include users of Los Alamos Road and residents of the Villa Los Alamos condominium complex. To the south, the viewers are users of Melita Road, single-family residences, and visitors of the Melita Station Inn. To the west, viewers are predominantly parishioners and employees of the Hope Chapel Church. Cobblestone Trailhead in Annadel State Park is located approximately 300 feet south of the Project boundary; however, the Project site is not visible from the trailhead parking lot or the trail due to intervening vegetation. Since all of the adjacent roadways are designated as scenic by the City, in addition to pedestrians and bicyclists, motorists traveling along the adjacent roadways are also considered sensitive viewers.

Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-3 Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-4 provide viewpoint locations and existing views of the Project site from varying viewer locations1. Viewpoint A looks southwest towards the Project site from Highway 12 in the direction of the proposed Villa. Viewpoint B looks northeast towards the Project site from Melita Road in the direction of proposed Cottages. Viewpoint C looks west towards the Project site from Los Alamos Road near Highway 12, whereas Viewpoint D looks north from Los Alamos Road near the proposed new driveway.

3.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
There are no federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to aesthetics applicable to this Project.

State
California Scenic Highway Program
Sections 260 through 263 of the State Streets and Highways Code establish the California Scenic Highways Program and require local government agencies to take the following actions to protect the scenic appearance of any designated scenic corridors:
 Regulate land use and density of development;
 Provide detailed land and site planning;
 Prohibit off-site outdoor advertising and control on-site outdoor advertising;  Pay careful attention to and control earthmoving and landscaping; and  Sc rutinize the design and appearance of structures and equipment.

Nighttime Sky – Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards
The California legislature passed a bill in 2001 requiring the California Energy Commission (CEC) to adopt energy efficiency standards for outdoor lighting for both the public and private sectors. The CEC adopted changes to Title 24, parts 1 and 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which included changes to the requirements for outdoor lighting for residential and non-residential development. The standards regulate lighting characteristics such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off.

Local
City of Santa Rosa Zoning Code
The following sections of the City’s Zoning Code governing scenic quality are applicable to the Project:

Section 20.30.080 (Outdoor Lighting). A pplies to outdoor lighting on private property and is applicable to the Project. Section 20.30.080 includes maximum heights for outdoor light standards, as well as requirements that lighting fixtures be shielded or recessed to reduce light spillage onto adjoining properties. This includes requiring light fixtures to be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way, so that no on-site fixture directly illuminates an area off-

1 Figure 3.1-1 through 3.1-4 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.

Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-4 site. Section 20.30.080 specifies that no lighting on private property shall produce an illumination level greater than one footcandle on any property within a residential zoning district except on the site of the light source.

Section 20.50.100 (Visual Analysis). Applies to p roject applications that are determined by the City’s Planning and Building Director to require a visual analysis. The visual analysis must consist of one or more three-dimensional depictions of a proposed project, including all proposed structures and site development, illustrating how the project will appear to observers, viewing the project from public rights-of-way and other public areas near the site. The three-dimensional visual depictions may be in the form of rendered perspectives, photo-montages, computer generated simulations, and/or any other technique deemed acceptable by the City.

Section 20.32.020 (Hillside Development). Applies to all proposed development or new land uses on the portions of a site that have a slope of 10 percent or greater. Relevant to the P roject is the provision requiring that development on sites with significant natural landforms or features be designed in a manner that minimizes the alteration of the topography, drainage patterns, and vegetation on slopes of 10 percent or more.

Section 20.28.050 (Scenic Road (- SR) Combining District). The -SR combining district can be combined with any primary zoning district but the standards apply only to the portions of parcels within 125 feet from the edge of the pavement of a locally-designated scenic road (portions of a parcel more than 125 feet from a locally-designated scenic road are regulated by the standards of the primary zoning district). The -SR combining district is intended to enhance and preserve the natural and constructed features (including trees, rock walls, view corridors, road configuration, and tree canopy) that contribute to the character of scenic roads. A summary of the surrounding scenic roadways, as taken from the zoning code, is provided below. In addition, tree removal requirements of the –SR combining district are provided at the end.

Highway 12 (Calistoga Road to Oakmont). Scenic characteristics consist of the picturesque views of the surrounding hills from the valley floor as one enters and leaves Santa Rosa. The area has a semi-rural character due to the variations in development patterns consisting of rural homes on large lots and suburban subdivisions separated by open pasture. The highway has a boulevard character due to the urban improvements with a landscaped median. As the highway leaves Santa Rosa, the character changes to a rural highway. The minimum setback from Highway 12 for single story structures less than 25 feet in height is 50 feet. The setback is measured from the Highway 12 right-of-way or the back of sidewalk, whichever provides the greater setback. Additionally, landscaping plans must include dense planting of coniferous tree and shrubs to screen development from view from Highway 12.

Melita Road. Scenic characteristics consist of the many native and ornamental trees that line the roadway that give the roadway a sense of shelter and offer varied patterns in light and shadow as one travels along the corridor. The rural character is enhanced by the very narrow width and curves of the road. In addition, portions of the road parallel Santa Rosa Creek. The most scenic areas of the road lack urban street improvements. Most of the area has a very low density rural character with relatively small homes on large lots. The road has an historic feel due to the rock walls and former stagecoach station. The minimum setback from Melita Road for single story structures less than 25 feet in height is 50 feet. The setback is measured from the edge of pavement.

Los Alamos Road. Scenic characteristics consist of the picturesque views of hills and valleys from the road as one enters or leaves Santa Rosa. Development along the road has a semi- Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-5 rural-suburban character due to the very low density development, consisting mostly of low ranch style homes on large lots. Existing road improvements enhance the semi-rural character due to the lack of urban improvements. The minimum setback from Los Alamos Road for single story structures less than 25 feet in height is 30 feet.

Tree Removal. The following requirements apply to tree removal on parcels within the –SR combining district. These regulations apply in addition to those in Municipal Code Chapter 17- 24 (Trees).

1. Existing developed parcels within 50 feet of a scenic road. A Tree Removal Permit is required prior to the removal of any tree, including an exempt tree. Prior to the approval of a Tree Removal Permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the removal of the tree will not have a negative impact on the scenic quality of the corridor, or that the tree is a hazard and/or unhealthy as determined by the Planning and Building Director. If the Planning and Building Director cannot determine whether the tree is a hazard or the health of the tree, the applicant shall hire an arborist to make the determination.

2. Tree removal for new development within 100 feet of a scenic road. Special care shall be taken to preserve the maximum number of trees possible, including exempt trees.

Prior to the approval of a project the applicant shall demonstrate that each tree proposed for removal shall not have a negative impact on the scenic quality of the corridor, or that the tree is a hazard or unhealthy, as determined by a certified arborist.

City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are applicable to the Project.

UD-A Preserve and enhance Santa Rosa’s scenic character, including its natural waterways, hillsides, and distinctive districts.

UD-A-1 Maintain view corridors to natural ridgelines and landmarks, such as Taylor Mountain and Bennett Mountain.

UD-A-4 In new developments, minimize overall grading by limiting site grading to the minimum necessary for driveways, parking areas, and understructure areas.

UD-A-5 Require superior site and architectural design of new development projects to improve visual quality in the city.

UD-A-10 Relate landscape design to the natural setting. Require that graded areas within the new development be revegetated.

UD-A-13 Review guidelines for parking lot trees to ensure adequate summertime shading.

UD-E Create a framework of public spaces at the neighborhood, city, and regional scale.

UD-E-2 Provide an open space network that is linked by pedestrian and bicycle paths, and that preserves and enhances Santa Rosa’s significant visual and natural resources.

Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-6 UD-E-4 Enhance pedestrian activity and safety by designing streets, buildings, pathways, and trails to provide a visual connection with public spaces such as parks and Santa Rosa Creek.

UD-F Maintain and enhance the diverse character of Santa Rosa’s neighborhoods.

Promote the creation of neighborhoods – not subdivisions – in areas of new development.

UD-F-2 Protect natural topographic features such as hillsides, ridgelines, and mature trees and stands of trees. Minimize grading of natural contours in new development.

UD-F-4 Provide visual interest in building, site, and landscape design that avoids the sense of a monotonous tract development.

T-G Identify, preserve, and enhance scenic roads through Santa Rosa in both rural and developed areas.

T-G-5 Retain existing trees and vegetation along scenic roads, as possible. Enhance roadway appearance through landscaping, using native plant material.

T-G-6 Provide large setbacks from scenic roads, as possible, to avoid encroachment of buildings on the view of the roadway.

T-G-7 Provide bikeways along scenic roads, where right-of-way exists or where its acquisition will not jeopardize roadway character.

T-G-8 D isallow on-street parking along scenic roads. Bus stops or scenic overlooks may be provided at appropriate intervals.

T-G-9 Require curbs and gutters only where they are necessary for drainage and pedestrian safety purposes.

Santa Rosa Design Guidelines
Santa Rosa’s design review process ensures that new or remodeled development in the city will enhance the City’s environment and be compatible with the surrounding area. All professional offices, commercial buildings, multi-family housing units, Planned Unit Developments, and Planned Residential Zones are subject to design review. Projects are reviewed for site planning, circulation, architectural design, quality and type of materials, colors and landscaping. The staff of the Planning and Economic Development Department reviews minor projects and sign programs and the Design Review Board reviews all other projects. The City has adopted Design Guidelines to implement the Urban Design Element of the General Plan.

The following goals and guidelines are the most relevant aspects of the Santa Rosa Design Guidelines with regard to the proposed Project:

4.3.I-A. To provide for continuity of design between existing and new development.

4.3.I-B. To ensure that projects are designed in such a way as to reduce to a minimum possible negative consequences, such as: loss of privacy, noise, increased traffic and lighting overspill that infill development may have on existing neighbors.

Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-7

4.3.II-1. Integrate new development carefully into existing neighborhoods with respect to scale, level of detailing, use of materials, landscaping, and other characteristics of the neighborhood.

4.3.II-2. Where Santa Rosa's General Plan calls for a change or an intensification in land use new development should consider the character of the surrounding neighborhood or district, particularly at the edges adjacent to existing development.

4.3.II-7. Utilize shielded light fixtures to minimize on-site light straying beyond a project boundary. Hours of operation should be considered as well.

4.3.II-8. If a multi-family project is located across the street from a single-family neighborhood, design the buildings to relate to the street with individual entries, patio areas and landscaping facing the single family homes. Parking lot areas, carports, etc. should not be located along these street frontages.

4.3.II-9. When adding a duplex, triplex or fourplex to an existing single-family neighborhood, design the new structure to have the "look" of a single family home so as to enhance its compatibility.

3.1.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table

3.1-1 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are used to determine if the Project would have a significant effect related to aesthetics and lighting.

Table 3. 1 -1 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
AES-1: Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Major alteration of a view
from a scenic vista or
major obstruction in
viewed area towards a
scenic vista.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item I (a)
City of Santa Rosa General
Plan 2035
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?
Affect a scenic resource
within view of a roadway
designated as scenic by
Caltrans.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item I (b)

California Scenic Highway
Program
Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-8 Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
AES-3: In non-urbanized areas, would
the project substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its
surroundings? If the project is in an
urbanized area, 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)?
Conflict with the City of
Santa Rosa’s Design
Guidelines, General Plan
goals and policies, and/or
Zoning Code related to
visual character (see
Section 3.1.2, Regulatory
Framework).

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item I (c)

City of Santa Rosa General
Plan 2035

City of Santa Rosa Zoning
Code Section 20-52.030
(Design Review)

City of Santa Rosa Design
Guidelines
AES-4: Would the project create a new
source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or night-time
views in the area?
Non-compliance with the
City’s adopted outdoor
lighting standards.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item I (d)

City of Santa Rosa Zoning
Code Section 20-30.080

3.1.4 Approach to Analysis
Visual impacts are assessed by estimating the amount of visual change introduced by a project’s components, the degree to which visual changes may be visible from scenic highways and scenic vistas, or other publicly accessible vantage points, and consistency with zoning and other local regulations governing scenic quality. Visual changes are assessed from publicly -accessible viewpoints and usually measured by three factors:
 the amount of visual contrast that project components create (changes to form, line, color, texture, and scale in the landscape);
 the amount of view obstruction (loss of view) that occurs; and  the degradation of specific scenic resources (e.g., removal of heritage trees or impacts on scenic vistas).

Impacts related to inconsistency with zoning and regulations governing scenic quality are assessed by evaluating the Project against the City of Santa Rosa’s Design Guidelines and General Plan goals and policies related to scenic resources. To aid in the analysis of visual impacts, photos depicting existing publicly-accessible views of the site from Highway 12, Melita Road, and two locations along Los Alamos Road were compared against visual simulations of the site with implementation of the Project from the same locations (see Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-4). These simulations were produced from accurately scaled, three-dimensional computer models of the proposed improvements.

Simulation photos were taken with a “normal” camera lens setting (roughly 50 mm or 40 degree horizontal angle of view) at about five feet in height to approximate the sense of scale that would be experienced by viewers in the field.

3.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.1-2 (Summary of Impacts - Aesthetics) provides a summary of potential impacts from the Project.

Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-9 Table 3.1-2 Summary of Impacts – Aesthetics
Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
AES-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 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
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)?
LS
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
C-AES-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to visual resources?
LS
Notes: NI = No Impact
LS = Less than Significant
Impact AES-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Analysis: Less than Significant
Goal UD-A and Policy UD-A-1 of the Santa Rosa General Plan seeks to maintain view corridors to natural ridgelines and landmarks, such as Taylor Mountain and Bennett Mountain. Taylor Mountain is located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the P roject site. Bennett Mountain is located approximately 3.2 miles to the south of the Project site. Taylor Mountain and Bennett Mountain are not visible from the Project site or from adjacent areas, as they are obscured by views of the nearer Sonoma Mountain foothills. Therefore, the Project would not affect view corridors to Taylor Mountain or Bennett Mountain.

In addition to specific views of Taylor Mountain and Bennett Mountain, Policy UD- A-1 seeks to retain views of the Sonoma Mountain foothills that are prominently visible from many locations in the flatland areas of the city. Views of the Sonoma Mountain foothills are most noticeable looking southwest from Highway 12 (see Figure 3.1 -1 Viewpoint A). The tallest building proposed for the Project is the residential Villa building, which would be approximately 28 feet 3 inches tall (plus approximately five feet of mechanical equipment and stairway/elevator shafts above the roof peak). All other buildings, including cottages and the resident community building, would be less in height. As shown in Figure 3.1-1, the visual simulation of the Project site looking south from Highway 12, indicates that the proposed Project, including the tallest building in the development, would not affect views of the Sonoma Mountain foothills natural ridgeline from the highway corridor.

As seen in Figures 3.1 -2, 3.1- 3, and 3.1- 4 the remaining vistas and ridgelines surrounding the Project site are obscured by existing topography and vegetation.

The Project site is not located along a ridgeline nor would i t block the scenic view of a natural ridgeline or landmark. The impact of the Project on scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-10 Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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?
Analysis: No Impact
The California Scenic Highway Program includes a list of officially designated and eligible State Scenic Highways. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the nearest designated State Scenic Highway in the P roject vicinity is the portion of Highway 12 between Danielli Avenue to London Way , approximately one mile east of the P roject site (Caltrans 2018). The P roject site and off -site improvement areas are not located within the scenic corridor, and would therefore have no impact on associated scenic resources.

According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Highway 12 adjacent to the Project site is part of an eligible State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2018) . An eligible State Scenic Highway designation differs from an official designation and does not require local jurisdictions to enact a scenic corridor protection program.

No impact would result.

See impact AES- 3 for further evaluation of potential Project impacts to locally - designated scenic roadways.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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)?
Analysis: Less than Significant
Local regulations form the basis of the majority of the aesthetics -related requirements applicable to the P roject. Because the P roject is located in an urbanized area, these specific regulations serve as the basis of the analysis. The Project is considered to be located within an urbanized area because it meets the definition contained in §21071 of the Public Resources Code; specifically, it is located within an incorporated city with a population of at least 100,000 persons.

Applicable local regulations include the goals and policies of the Santa Rosa General Plan and the Santa Rosa Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Municipal Code).

The Zoning Code provides for the regulation of aesthetics via the Design Review process (which is informed by the adopted Design Review Guidelines) and, specific to the Project site, by the Scenic Road Combining District (which considers the appearance of development near designated scenic roads.) Urban Design Policies UD -A-5, UD-A-10, and UD-F-4 describe the intent of the community for new development to be of high architectural value with landscape design that reflects the natural setting of the area. Value is placed on designs that create visual interest in the buildings, site, and landscaping and that avoid monotonous design. As shown in Figure 2-3 (Proposed Project Site Plan), Figures

3.1-1 through 3.1- 4 ( Visual Simulations), and Figure 2- 5 (Proposed Project Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-11 Building Perspectives), the development is village-like in its building and landscape layout. All internal roads curve and buildings are not located parallel or perpendicular to each other – reflecting design features that are evocative of a rural, pastoral development. The landscaping contains large amounts of greenspace and many shade trees. Changes in topography are naturalistic, consisting of earthen berms and a rain garden. The low retaining wall built from stones/boulders mimics stone walls found in surrounding agricultural areas. The building facades are heavily articulated and contain (or mimic the appearance of) numerous façade materials such as masonry, shake siding, and vertically-oriented “board and batten” siding.

Transportation Policies T-G-6 and T-G-7 call for large setbacks to preserve locally designated scenic roads and to encourage bikeways. The proposed development meets or exceeds all setbacks related to scenic roadways as described in Section

3.1.2, above. Cottages 2, 5, and accessory are located 50’ and 100’ (one and two story setbacks, respectively) from Highway 12. Cottages 1 and 4 are located approximately 80’ from Los Alamos Road. Cottages 8 and 9 are located approximately 50’ from Melita Road. The Proje ct includes off-site bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including sidewalk and bike path adjacent to Highway 12; pedestrian pathway and Class II bike lane along Los Alamos Road; and pedestrian improvements along Melita Road (See Section 2.4.2 of Project Description for additional detail regarding off -site bike and pedestrian improvements).

Santa Rosa Zoning Code
Design Review. Section 20-52.030 of the Santa Rosa Zoning Code establishes procedures for the City’s review of the design aspects of proposed dev elopment (for example, building design, landscaping, site planning and development, and signs), in compliance with the City’s Design Guidelines . Regulatory compliance depends on the consistency of a proposed project with the adopted Design Review Guidelines, relationship to existing adjacent development, and consistency with neighborhood character.

Design Guidelines Section 3.2 Multi -Family Residential is the section of the guidelines that provides the most direction regarding the design of the proposed development. The multi-family residential section focuses on common and semi - private open space, materials, massing/articulation, and security. The proposed development contains common space in the form of the community building, pathways, community garden, and landscaped area s. Ground-level private open space is provided for each of the cottages. The buildings are all highly articulated with both horizontal and vertical projections (including the foundation), eaves, and variable roof pitches. Each façade contains a similar level of detail and articulation – thus avoiding blank or visually uninteresting walls. There are a variety of façade materials and architectural details used in the development. Façade materials include vertical board and batten siding, wood shake siding, and stucco. The roof has exposed beams and rafter tails. Design Review is a required condit ion of approval and will involve a thorough review of all applicable language contained in the Design Review Guidelines.

Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-12 The surrounding single-family residential development is low density and rural in nature. The single-family homes in these areas are typically conventional 1 to 2 story homes with pitched roofs. The distance between structures is typical for the rural/suburban environment but varies somewhat depending on the age of the subdivision. The adjacent multi-family residential development (Villa Los Alamos) presents the best opportunity for comparison to the proposed development. Villa Los Alamos is comprised of dark toned, heavily articulated, and steep roofed condos. The development is landscaped to provide shade and privacy throughout.

The architecture, layout, and landscaping of the proposed development is similar enough to Villa Los Alamos to provide complementarily consistency but retains sufficient distinct architectural features, materials, and colors to visually stand apart. The proposed development meets all required setbacks, as noted above, and would be screened by on- site landscape vegetation. For these reasons the proposed development may be considered compatible with the existing adjacent development and is consistent with the neighborhood character.

Scenic Roads. Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, and Melita Road are designated as scenic roads in the Santa Rosa General Plan and are regulated under section

20.28.050 (Scenic Road (-SR) Combining District) of the Santa Rosa Zoning Code.

This section of the Zoning Code specifies minimum setbacks for buildings near designated scenic roads . The proposed development meets all of the minimum building setbacks that are intended to protect scenic quality. (See Section 3.1.2, above, for more detailed information).

The Scenic Road Combining District also addresses the removal of trees for new development within 100 feet of a scenic road. This provision applies to both the Melita Road, Los Alamos Road, and Highway 12 frontage of the Project. It requires that a tree removal permit be obtained for all trees removed within the 100- foot band and that each tree removed cannot have a negative impact on the scenic quality of the corridor. Based on the preliminary design drawings, no trees would be removed within the 100- foot setback of Highway 12, two trees would be removed within the 100-foot setback of Los Alamos Road, and four trees would be removed within the 100-foot setback of Melita Road. Table 3.1-3 (Tree Removals Within 100-Foot Scenic Setback) summarizes the impacted trees.

Table 3.1-3 Tree Removals Within 100-Foot Scenic Setback Species Common Name Trunk
(dbh)
Height
(feet) Location
Quercus lobata Valley Oak 6 35 Los Alamos Rd
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 5 25 Los Alamos Rd
Quercus lobate Valley Oak 7 25 Melita Rd
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 5 14 Melita Rd
Quercus lobate Valley Oak 5.5 20 Melita Rd
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 21 45 Melita Rd
In the location along Los Alamos Road, the two trees to be removed are small, between 5 and 6 inches in diameter, and are within a cluster of 11 trees many of which are equal to or larger in size than those to be removed. As can be seen in Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-13 Figures 3.1-3 and 3.1-4, there are numerous oak trees along this segment of Los Alamos Road, and the removal of two trees would not negatively impact the scenic quality of the corridor. In the location along Melita Road, four trees of various sizes between 5 and 21 inches would be removed. Three are small (less than 7 inches in diameter) and clustered together and one is 21-inches in diameter and set apart from the others. In Figure 3.1-2, although these trees are just out of view to the left of the frame, the scenic quality of the site from Melita Road can be seen. Note the two large trees in either corner of the frame that will be preserved as part of the Project, thus retaining some of the trees contributing to the scenic corridor. As with the Los Alamos corridor, there are several other trees that will remain along the corridor, and thus the removal of four trees, three of which are small, are not anticipated to have a negative impact on the scenic quality of the corridor. In addition, as described in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, the Project applicant 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.

For the reasons described above, the design of the Project does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations concerning scenic quality. There would be no conflict with an applicable zoning code, and the impact from tree removal s within scenic roadway corridors would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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? Analysis: Less than Significant
Nighttime construction work is not anticipated for the Project. Therefore, no exterior lighting would be required during construction, and no impacts would result.

Following construction, the Project would be located in a largely built-out area where nighttime lighting currently exists, including existing street and parking lot lighting. The Project would add additional sources of nighttime light in the Project area from outdoor lighting and from lighting on buildings. The new outdoor lighting would include bollard, pole, and exterior porch lighting through the development.

As a condition of approval, the P roject would be required to comply with Zoning Code lighting requirements contained in City Municipal Code Section 20.30.08 0, which includes maximum heights for outdoor light standards, as well as requirements that lighting fixtures be shielded or recessed to reduce light spillage onto adjoining properties. This includes requiring light fixtures to be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way, so that no on-site fixture directly illuminates an area off -site. Pole-mounted light fixtures are distributed throughout the site but are not located on or very near shared property lines. This and other specific design features of the lights greatly reduce the possibility of light trespass. As described in the Project Description, the outdoor lighting would be installed to meet the requirements of City Municipal Code Section

20.30.080. Design review, required as a standard use permit condition of approval, includes review of all proposed exterior lighting to ensure such lighting would be Aesthetics
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.1-14 compatible with City requirements and with the surrounding area. Therefore, the new exterior lighting would not create a new source of substantial nighttime light or glare.

The buildings would generally have non- reflective surfaces with interspersed windows. The façades of the buildings include various building projections and a variety of siding materials that will scatter or absorb light. No façade contains large reflective surfaces of metal or glass wall panels. Thus, no daytime glare is anticipated.

The Project’s impact on light and glare would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact C-AES-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to visual resources?
Analysis: Less than Significant
The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts on visual res ources consists of the Project site and the immediate vicinity around the s ite. Refer to Section 3 (Environmental Analysis), Table 3- 1 (Projects Considered for Cumulative Analysis), for a summary of the cumulative projects.

The proposed Project would not result in impacts relative to a State scenic highway or conflict with an applicable zoning code or regulation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on such resources. The proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to impacting scenic vistas, and the creation of a new source of light and glare. The cumulative projects listed in Table 3-1 are generally located too far away from the Project site to contribute to a cumulative aesthetic impact in that the other projects would not be visible from the same public vantage points as the proposed Project . One exception is the Los Alamos Trunk Sewer Replacement, which may potentially be extended adjacent to the Project site. However, the sewer project would involve replacement of a trunk sewer with belowground improvements that would not alter the visual character of the area. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative aesthetic impact.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

3.1.6 References
Caltrans. 2018. State of California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Scenic Route. Accessed April 6, 2018. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ Santa Rosa, City of. 1990. Tree Preservation Ordinance. October 2.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2005. Design Guidelines.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. November 3.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2016. Zoning Code 20-28.050. Scenic road.

Figure 3.1-1

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

Proposed Project Viewpoint A –
Existing View and Simulations
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_2.indd May 6, 2020 4:08 PM Source: Perkins Eastman, August, 2017
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 3.1-2

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

Proposed Project Viewpoint B –
Existing View and Simulations
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_2.indd May 7, 2020 9:49 AM Source: Perkins Eastman, August, 2017
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 3.1-3

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

Proposed Project Viewpoint C –
Existing View and Simulations
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_2.indd May 11, 2020 11:33 AM Source: Perkins Eastman, August, 2017
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 3.1-4

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

Proposed Project Viewpoint D –
Existing View and Simulations
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_2.indd May 7, 2020 9:47 AM Source: Perkins Eastman, August, 2017
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
Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-1

3.2 Air Quality
This section evaluates air quality related impacts from implementation of the Project. In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following subjects are related to air quality, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
 Generation of greenhouse gas emissions, including consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations related to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, is discussed in Section 3.6 (Greenhouse Gas and Energy).

3.2.1 Setting
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
The Project site is located in Sonoma County, which is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

Ambient concentrations of air pollutants in the Project area are a product of the quantity of pollutants emitted by local sources and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect air quality and pollutant transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and the presence of sunlight.

The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is divided into subregions. The subregion that stretches from Santa Rosa to the San Pablo Bay is often considered as two different valleys: the Cotati Valley in the north and the Petaluma Valley in the south. The Project is located in the Cotati Valley subregion. To the east, the valley is bordered by the Sonoma Mountains, while to the west is a series of low hills, followed by the Estero Lowlands, which open to the Pacific Ocean. This low -terrain area allows marine air to travel into the Air Basin and is known as the Petaluma Gap.

Wind patterns in the Petaluma and Cotati Valleys are strongly influenced by the Petaluma Gap, with winds flowing predominantly from the west. As marine air travels through the Petaluma Gap, it splits into northward and southward paths moving into the Cotati and Petaluma Valleys. The southward path crosses San Pablo Bay and moves eastward through the Carquinez Strait. The northward path contributes to Santa Rosa's prevailing winds from the south and southeast.

When the ocean breeze is weak, strong winds from the east can predominate, carrying pollutants from the Central Valley and the Carquinez Strait. During these periods, upvalley flows can carry the polluted air as far north as Santa Rosa. The annual average wind speed in Santa Rosa is 5 mph.

Summer maximum temperatures for this subregion are in the low-to-mid-80's, while winter maximum temperatures are in the high- 50's to low -60's. Summer minimum temperatures are around 50 degrees, and winter minimum temperatures are in the high 30's.

The Cotati Valley has a higher pollution potential than does the Petaluma Valley. The Cotati Valley lacks a gap to the sea, contains a larger population and has natural barriers at its northern and eastern ends. There are also industrial facilities in and around Santa Rosa. (BAAQMD 2017) Criteria Air Pollutants and Effect
The California Air Resources Board ( CARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently focus on the following air pollutants as indicators of ambient air quality: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2); and particulate matter (PM). Because these are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be deleterious to human health and extensive health-effects criteria documents are available, they are commonly referred to as criteria air Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-2 pollutants. The Project region is in attainment for lead and sulfur dioxide, and therefore, lead and sulfur dioxide are not further discussed.

Ozone
Ground-level ozone is the principal component of smog. Ozone is not directly emitted into the atmosphere, but instead forms through a photochemical reaction of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides, which are known as ozone precursors. Ozone levels are highest from late spring through autumn when precursor emissions are high and meteorological conditions are warm and stagnant. Motor vehicles create the majority of ROG and nitrogen oxide emissions in the Cotati Valley sub-region. Exposure to levels of ozone above current ambient air quality standards can lead to human health effects such as lung inflammation and tissue damage and impaired lung functioning.

Short-term exposure can irritate the eyes an -d cause constriction of the airways. Besides causing shortness of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue. Ozone can also damage plants and trees, and materials such as rubber and fabrics (BAAQMD 2017a). The greatest risk for harmful health effects belongs to outdoor workers, athletes, children and others who spend greater amounts of time outdoors during periods of high ozone (during summer) or PM (during winter) levels (e.g., “Spare the Air” days).

Carbon Monoxide (CO)
CO is a non- reactive pollutant that is toxic, invisible, and odorless. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels. The largest sources of CO emissions are motor vehicles, wood stoves, and fireplaces. Unlike ozone, CO is directly emitted to the atmosphere. The highest CO concentrat ions occur during the nighttime and early mornings in late fall and winter. CO levels are strongly influenced by meteorological factors such as wind speed and atmospheric stability. The health threat from elevated ambient levels of CO is most serious for those who suffer from heart disease, like angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. For a person with heart disease, a single exposure to CO at relatively low levels may cause chest pain and reduce that person's ability to exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other cardiovascular effects. High levels of CO can affect even healthy people. People who breathe high levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty performing complex tasks. At extremely high levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Nitrogen dioxide is an essential ingredient in the formation of ground- level ozone pollution. NO 2 is one of the nitrogen oxides emitted from high -temperature combustion processes, such as those occurring in trucks, cars, and power plants. Home heaters and gas stoves also produce NO2 in indoor settings. Besides causing adverse health effects, NO2 is responsible for the visibility reducing reddish- brown tinge seen in smoggy air in California. NO 2 is a reactive, oxidizing gas capable of damaging cells lining the respiratory tract. Studies suggest that NO 2 exposure can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease (BAAQMD 2017).

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a strong odor. It can damage materials through acid deposition.

It is produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels, such as oil and coal. Refineries, chemical plants, and pulp mills are the primary industrial sources of sulfur dioxide emissions. Sulfur dioxide concentrations in the Bay Area are well below the ambient standards. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to high levels of sulfur dioxide include irritation of lung tissue, as well as increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory illness.

Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-3 Particulate Matter (PM)
Particulate matter is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, s olid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size, and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust. Particles 10 microns or less in diameter are defined as "respirable particulate matter" or "PM10." Fine particles are 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM 2.5) and, while also respirable, can contribute significantly to regional haze and reduction of visibility. Inhalable particulates come from smoke, dust, aerosols, and metallic oxides. Although particulates are found naturally in the air, most particulate matter found in the study area is emitted either directly or indirectly by motor vehicles, industry, construction, agricultural activities, and wind erosion of disturbed areas. Most PM

2.5 is
comprised of combustion produc ts such as smoke. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease. PM10 is of concern because it bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles and can lodge deep in the lungs. (BAAQMD 2017). PM e xposure is also associated with increased risk of premature deaths, especially in the elderly and people with pre -existing cardiopulmonary disease. In children, studies have shown associations between PM exposure and reduced lung function and increased respiratory symptoms and illnesses.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer or serious illness) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants listed above. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TA Cs is relatively new compared to that for criteria air pollutants that have established ambient air quality standards.

TACs are regulated or evaluated on the basis of risk to human health rather than comparison to an ambient air quality standard or emission-based threshold.

Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), which is a component of diesel exhaust, is the predominant TAC in urban air with the potential to cause cancer. In 1998, the results of a 10-year research program conducted by CARB demonstrated that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long- term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk. It is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). According to the CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program.

TACs are measured for their increased cancer risk and non -cancer risk on se nsitive receptors.

Sensitive receptors are locations where an identifiable subset of the general population (children, asthmatics, the elderly, and the chronically ill) that is at greater risk than the general population to the effects of air pollutants are likely to be exp osed. These locations include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, hospitals, and medical clinics.

Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-4 Existing Air Quality Conditions
Table 3.2-1 (Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status), summarizes the ambient air quality standards and the attainment status of the San Francisco Bay Area Basin. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as non -attainment for the state standards for 8-hour and 1-hour ozone, 24-hour and annual PM10, and annual PM2.5, as well as for the national standards for 8-hour ozone and 24-hour PM2.5.

Table 3.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status Pollutant Averaging
Time
California
Standards
California
Attainment
Status
National
Standards
National
Attainment
Status
Ozone 8-hour 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
Nonattainment 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
Nonattainment
1-hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3)
Nonattainment None —
Carbon Monoxide 1-hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Attainment 35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
Attainment
8-hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
Attainment 9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide 1-hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3)
Attainment 0.100 ppm
(188 µg/m3)

Attainment/
Unclassifiable
Annual 0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3)
— 0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3)
Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide 1-hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3)
Attainment 0.075 ppm
(196 µg/m3)

Attainment/
Unclassifiable
24-hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)
Attainment 0.14 ppm
(365 µg/m3)

Attainment/
Unclassifiable
Annual None — 0.030 ppm
(80 µg/m3)

Attainment/
Unclassifiable
Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
24-hour 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Unclassified
Annual 20 µg/m3 Nonattainment None —
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24-hour None — 35 µg/m3 Nonattainment

Annual 12 µg/m3 Nonattainment 12 µg/m3 Attainment/
Unclassified
Source: BAAQMD 2020, EPA 2012, EPA 2018
Notes:
ppm = parts per million
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
The Morris Street Sebastopol ambient air quality monitoring station is located approximately 10 miles southwest of the Project site and is the monitoring station closest to the Project site. The Sebastopol station monitors ozone, PM 2.5 and NO 2. The nearest ambient air quality monitoring station that monitors PM10 is the Healdsburg station, located approximately 16 miles north of the P roject site.

Table 3.2 -2 (Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary) reports data from the Sebastopol and Healdsburg stations for those air pollutant levels for which the area is in nonattainment, measured over the three most recent years in which data was available (2016 to 2018).

Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-5 Table 3.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant Averaging
Time Metric
Year
2016 2017 2018
Ozone1

1-Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.073 0.087 0.071
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 0 0 0
8-Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.064 0.071 0.053
Days > NAAQS (0.070 ppm) 0 1 0
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24-Hour1 Max 24 Hour (µg/m3) 43.5 161.5 278.6
Est. Days > CAAQS (50 µg/m3) * 7.4 13.5
Days > NAAQS (150 µg/m3) 0 1 2
Annual1 Annual Average (µg/m3) 13.8 17.0 17.6
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24-Hour
Max 24 Hour (µg/m3) 18.7 81.8 175.3
Days > NAAQS (35 µg/m3) 0 4 13
Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 4.6 8.0 8.3
Source: CARB 2020
Notes: 1. State measurements * means there was insufficient D.V. = design value data available to determine the
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter value

3.2.2 Regulatory Framework
The federal Clean Air Act of 1977 governs air quality in the U.S. In addition to being subject to federal requirements, air quality in California also is governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act . At the federal level, the U.S. EPA administers the Clean Air Act . The California Clean Air Act is administered by the CARB and by the Air Quality Management Districts at the regional and local levels. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates air quality at the regional level, which includes Sonoma County.

Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
At the federal level, the U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing the federal Clean Air Act , which establishes the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The U.S. EPA regulates emis sion sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The U.S. EPA has jurisdiction over emission sources and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California.

State and Regional
California Clean Air Act
In addition to being subject to federal requirements, air quality in California also is governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act. The California Clean Air Act is administered by the CARB and by the BAAQMD at the regional level (described below).

In California, the CARB , which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for meeting the State requirements of the federal Clean Air Act, administering the California Clean Air Act, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The California Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-6 Clean Air Act, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. It is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off -road equipment. The CARB oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the regional and county level.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the regional agency responsible for air quality regulation within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, regulating air quality through planning and review activities. The BAAQMD has permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and can require stationary sources to obtain permits, impose emission limits, set fuel or material specifications, or establish operational limits to reduce air emissions. The BAAQMD’s responsibilities include operating an air quality monitoring network as well as awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities.

To protect public health, BAAQMD has adopted plans to achieve ambient air quality standards.

BAAQMD must cont inuously monitor its progress in implementing attainment plans and must periodically report to CARB and the U.S. EPA. It must also periodically revise its attainment plans to reflect new conditions and requirements.

CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD publishes the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans undergoing CEQA review in the Bay Area. The original Air Quality Guidelines were published in 1999. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were updated in June 2010 to include new recommended thresholds of significance (2010 Thresholds) adopted by the BAAQMD Governing Board. The BAAQMD’s Air Quality Guidelines were further updated in May 2017 to address the California Supreme Court’s 2015 opinion in California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal.4th 369. The BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance are provided in Table 3.2-3.

Table 3.2-3 BAAQMD Recommended Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction-
Related Operational Related
ROG 54 lbs/day1 54 lbs/day1 10 tpy2
NOX 54 lbs/day1 54 lbs/day1 10 tpy2
PM10 (exhaust) 82 lbs/day1 82 lbs/day1 15 tons/year
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 lbs/day1 54 lbs/day1 10 tons/year
PM10/PM2.5
(fugitive dust)
Best Management
Practices
None
Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-7 Pollutant Construction-
Related Operational Related
Risk and Hazards
for New Sources
and Receptors
(individual project)
Same as Operational
Thresholds2
Compliance with Qualified Community Risk
Reduction Plan

Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in a million
Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index
(Chronic or Acute)
Ambient PM2.5 increase: > 0.3 μg/m3 annual
average
Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property
line of source or receptor
Risk and Hazards
for New Sources
and Receptors
(cumulative)
Same as Operational
Thresholds3
Compliance with Qualified Community Risk
Reduction Plan

Cancer: > 100 in a million (from all local sources)
Non-cancer: > 10.0 Hazard Index (from all local
sources) (Chronic)
PM2.5: > 0.8 μg/m3 annual average (from all local
sources)
Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property
line of source or receptor
Odors None 5 confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years
Source: BAAQMD 2017a
Notes 1. Average daily emissions threshold.

2. The BAAQMD recommends that for construction projects that are less than one- year duration, Lead Agencies should annualize impacts over the scope of actual days that peak impacts are to occur, rather t han the full year.

The Best Management Practices (BMPs) used as the BAAQMD’s performance -measure threshold of significance for construction- generated dust are contained in the Air Quality Guidelines and are listed below for reference:
 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day;
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;  All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall be prohibited;
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved areas shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.  All paving shall be completed as soon as possible after trenching work is finished;  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-8 Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points;
 All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation;  A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Town regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air-Cool the Climate
In April 2017, BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air-Cool the Climate (2017 Plan) (BAAQMD 2017c). The 2017 Plan focuses on two closely related goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. The 2017 Plan is a multi -pollutant air quality plan addressing four categories of air pollutants:
 Ground-level ozone and the key ozone precursor pollutants (reactive organic gases and NO X),
as required by State law;
 Particulate matter, primarily PM2.5, as well as the precursors to secondary PM2.5;  Toxic air contaminants; and
 Greenhouse gases.

For air quality, the 2017 Plan updates the most recent Bay Area ozone plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan.

In addition, the 2017 Plan builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and TACs. The 2017 Plan contains 85 individual control measures in nine economic sectors:
stationary (industrial) sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and super-GHG pollutants.

These control strategy measures are primarily policy-level and would be implemented by BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (examples: establishing new emission limits on stationary sources, requiring new control measures on industrial facilities, implementing public education programs, promoting trip reduction programs, etc.).

Regional and Local
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The following are the goals and policies from the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 that are applicable to the Project.

Goal OSC-J Take appropriate actions to help Santa Rosa and the larger Bay Area region achieve and maintain all ambient air quality standards.

Policy OSC-J-1 Review all new construction projects and require dust abatement actions as contained in the CEQA Handbook of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-9

3.2.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table

3.2-4 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are used to determine if the P roject would have a significant effect related to air quality.

Table 3.2-4 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
AQ:1 Would the project conflict
with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality
plan?
Conflict with Bay Area 2017
Clean Air Plan
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item III (a)

Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan
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?
Exceed BAAQMD CEQA
thresholds of significance
for criteria air pollutants,
precursors, and carbon
monoxide

Non-compliance with
BAAQMD recommended
dust abatement actions
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item III (b)

BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Guidelines,
Tables 2-1, 3-1, and 8-2, Sections 3.3
and 4.1

General Plan goal OSC-J and policy
OSC-J-1
AQ-3: Would the project
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Exceed BAAQMD CEQA
individual project thresholds
of significance for risks and
hazards for new sources
and receptors
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item III (c)

BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Guidelines,
Table 2-1, Section 5
AQ-4: Would the project result
in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Creation of a new odor
source near existing
sensitive receptors
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item III (d)

2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines, Tables 2-1, 3-3. Section 7.1

3.2.4 Approach to Analysis
Use of BAAQMD Thresholds
The air quality analysis in this EIR utilizes the thresholds of significance, screening criteria and levels, and impact assessment methodologies presented in the BAAQM D CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a).

The BAAQMD developed screening criteria and screening levels to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. Screening criteria and screening levels are provided for the following air pollutant impact categories:
 Operational criteria air pollutants and precursors
 Operational community risk and hazard impacts
 Carbon monoxide impacts
 Construction-generated criteria air pollutants and precursors  Construction-related community risk and hazard impacts Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-10 As provided by the BAAQMD’ s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a), if the p roposed Project meets the screening criteria for an impact category, and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria, then its air quality impact for that category may be considered less than significant.

Modeling
A construction community risk assessment was prepared for the Project (Illingworth & Rodkin 2020, Appendix B). The assessment focused on modeling on-site construction activity using construction fleet information estimated for the Project. Construction period emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) along with projected construction activity. CalEEMod provided total annual exhaust emissions (all of which was conservatively assumed to be diesel particulate matter) for the off -road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles (haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicles). A trip length of 1 mile was used to represent vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that these emissions from on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site.

The U.S. AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) dispersion model was used to calculate concentrations of diesel particulate matter and PM

2.5 at existing sensitive receptors (residences) in
the vicinity of the Project site. The AERMOD dispersion model is a BAAQMD- recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these types of emission activities for CEQA projects. Emissions from vehicle travel around the Project site were included in the modelled area sources. Construction emissions were modelled as occurring daily between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.

Increased cancer risks were calculated using the modeled concentrations and BAAQMD - recommended risk assessment methods for infant exposure (third trimester through two years of age), child exposure, and for an adult exposure. The cancer risk calculations were based on applying the BAAQMD recommended age sensitivity factors to the diesel particulate matter exposures. Age- sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer-causing TACs.

Due to the relatively short, anticipated duration of Project construction activities (about one and a half years), infant exposures were assumed in calculating cancer risks for residential exposures. Because an infant (0 to 2 years of age) has a breathing rate that is greater than the breathing rate for the 3rd trimester, the contribution to total cancer risk from an infant exposure is greater than if the initial exposure assumed for the 3rd trimester is assumed. It was conservatively assumed that an infant exposure to construction emissions would occur over the entire construction period. Infant, child, and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all residences during the entire construction period.

Potential non-cancer health effects due to chronic exposure to diesel particulate matter were also evaluated. Non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI), which is the ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). California’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazards (OEHHA) has defined acceptable concentration levels for contaminants that pose non- cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the REL are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals.

Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-11

3.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.2-5 (Summary of Impacts – Air Quality) provides a summary of potential impacts from the Project.

Table 3.2-5 Summary of Impacts – Air Quality
Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
AQ-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
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
AQ-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
LS
AQ-4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? LS
C-AQ-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to air quality?
LS
Notes: NI = No Impact
LS = Less than Significant
Impact AQ-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Analysis: No Impact
Per the BAAQMD Air Quality CEQA Guidelines, the BAAQMD considers a project consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan if it:

1. C an be concluded that a project supports the primary goals of the Plan (by showing that the project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts);

2. I ncludes applicable control measures from the Plan, and;

3. D oes not disrupt or hinder implementation of any Plan control measure. An evaluation of each of these three criteria is provided below.

The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to protect air quality, public health, and the climate. As shown in Impacts AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-C-1, the Project would not c reate a localized violation of State or federal air quality standards, significantly contribute to cumulative nonattainment pollutant violations, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan.

The 2017 Plan includes 85 control measures in nine economic sectors: 1) stationary sources; 2) transportation (mobile) sources; 3) energy; 4) buildings; 5) agriculture; 6) natural and working lands; 7) waste management; 8) water; and 9) super-GHG pollutants. The control measures are not directly applicable to the proposed Project, and the Project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measure. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan. No impact would result.

Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-12 Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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? Analysis: Less than Significant
Potential violations of an air quality standard (State or federal standards) include the potential to emit fugitive dust (PM10/PM2.5) during earth-disturbing construction activities, and CO emissions during Project operation. Operational CO hotspots (localized violations of the State or federal CO standard) are related to increases in on-road vehicle congestion. These potential impacts are localized in nature, occurring near the emissions source.

In addition, non-a ttainment pollutants of concern for the Air Basin are PM10, PM2.5, and ozone. This pollution is largely a cumulative impact, in that individual projects are rarely sufficient in size to result in nonattainment of State or federal standards. Instead, a proj ect‘s individual emissions may contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project‘s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions are considered to be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region‘s existing air quality conditions (BAAQMD 2017a).

Construction
Construction activities would include demolition of existing residential structures, grading, building construction, and paving. Generally, the most substantial air pollutant emissions during construction would be dust generated from site grading.

The BAAQMD has identified fugitive dust from con struction activities as a source of localized PM10/PM2.5. If uncontrolled, these emissions could lead to both health and nuisance impacts.

BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive dust from project construction. Instead, BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If the basic construction measures recommended by BAAQMD are implemented for a project, then fugitive dust emissions during construction are not considered significant. City of Santa Rosa General Plan policy OSC -J-1 requires implementation of the BAAQMD-recommended dust abatement actions in new development projects. As described in Section 2.5 of the Project Description (Environmental Protection Actions Incorporated into the Proposed Project), Environmental Protection Action 2 would require provisions in contractor agreements for implementing the BAAQMD basic dust abatement actions. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with General Plan policy OSC -J-1 and would meet the BAAQMD’s construction-related threshold for fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5). The potential impact to air quality is considered less than significant.

Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-13 Construction would also result in regional air pollutant and precursor emis sions from equipment exhaust and worker trips to the Project site. The BAAQMD’s 2017 Air Quality Guidelines provides screening criteria for determining if a Project could potentially result in significant construction-phase impacts from criteria pollutants and precursors. The screening levels represent the size of development by land use type at which BAAQMD’s emissions thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not be exceeded. The BAAQMD identifies a construction screening size of 114 dwelling units for a retirement community and 240 dwelling units for a congregate care facility. In comparison, t he proposed Project would involve construction of 32 senior residenti al units, a community building, and associated structures. Nevertheless, the Project’s construction-related emissions were quantified for this EIR. As shown in Table 3.2-6 , the P roject’s estimated construction emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD air pollutant thresholds.

The impact of construction-related activities on local and regional air quality from would be less than significant.

Table 3.2-6 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Project ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Project construction
emissions

2.9 5.1 0.3 0.2
BAAQMD
Thresholds
54 54 82 54
Threshold
Exceeded?
No No No No
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin 2020
Operation
Carbon Monoxide
Localized high levels of CO (CO hotspot) are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow -moving vehicles. BAAQMD recommends a screening analysis to determine if a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when site- specific CO dispersion modeling is not necessary.

As provided by the BAAQMD, a project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality for local CO if all of the following screening criteria are met:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local c ongestion management agency plans; or
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; or
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-14 As summarized in Section 3.12 (Transportation and Traffic), no c onflict with an adopted congestion management program would result . Los Ala mos Road and State Route 12 is the most used intersection affected by the p roposed Project.

Traffic volumes at the Project-affected intersection are provided in Table 3.2-7. As shown in the table, the Project-affected intersection would handle less than 2,500 vehicles in the future with Project trips. The Los Alamos Road and State Route 12 intersection would have substantially fewer trips during the highest-use peak hour scenario than the BAAQMD’s screening criteria.

Table 3.2-7 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes for Los Alamos Road/SR 12 Intersection
Traffic Scenario (Year) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Conditions (2016) 1,794 2,263
Future (2040) 2,117 2,468
Proposed Project 5 6
Future Plus Project (2040) 2,122 2,474
The P roject-affected intersection would not exceed the BAAQMD’s screening criteria for congestion management plan consistency and peak -hour trips.

Therefore, the Project would not cause a violation of the CO air quality standard or have a considerable contribution to a cumulative violation of this standard. The impact would be less than significant.

Regional Criteria Pollutants
The BAAQMD developed screening levels to help determine when detailed analysis is necessary to determine significance for operational criteria pollutant and precursor emissions. The screening levels represent the size of development by land use type at which BAAQMD’s regional emissions thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not be exceeded. The BAAQMD identifies an operations screening level of 487 dwelling units for a retirement community and 657 dwelling units for a congregate care facility (BAAQMD 2011). The screening levels represent the size of development by land use type at which BAAQMD’s emissions thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not be exceeded. In comparison, the Proposed Project would result in operation of 32 new senior community care units for independent living. The Project would have substantially fewer units than the operational criteria pollutant screening levels, equivalent to less than 5 percent of either the retirement community or congregate care facility sc reening levels. Therefore, the Project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s operational criteria pollutants thresholds. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact AQ-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Analysis: Less than Significant
Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-15 Sensitive receptors are defined by the BAAQMD as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. The BAAQMD’s 2017 Air Quality Guidelines recommend assessing community risk and hazards within a 1,000-foot-radius ‘zone of influence’ from the property line of the emission source.

Construction
The two emissions of concern for construction-generated health impacts are DPM and PM 2.5. Construction equipment and associated heavy -duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which is a known toxic air contaminant. Diesel exhaust and PM

2.5 pose both potential health and nuisance impacts to nearby receptors.

A construction health risk assessment of anticipated Project construction activities was conducted to evaluate potential health effects of sensitive receptors at nearby residences from construction emissions. A copy of the risk assessment is included in Appendix B, Air Quality Assessment.

The number and types of construction equipment and diesel vehicles, along with the anticipated length of their use for different phases of construction were based on site-specific construction activity schedules for the Project . The receptor w ith the highest modeled risk is considered the maximally exposed individual (MEI).

The dispersion modeling indicated that the maximum -modeled diesel particulate matter and PM

2.5 concentrations from construction of the Project occurred at the first floor level of a single family residence located to the northwest of the P roject site north of Highway 12. Detailed unmitigated risks are provided in Table 3.2- 8 with operational risks.

As shown within Table 3.2-8, cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations caused by Project construction activities would not exceed the single- source significance threshold at the offsite residence with the maximum impact, or MEI. Therefore, the impact from construction would be considered less-than-significant.

Operation
As shown within Table 3.2-8, the emissions associated with routine testing and maintenance of a diesel engine standby emergency generator would not exceed the single-source significance threshold at the offsite residence with the maximum impact, assumed to be 200 feet or furth er away (sensitive receptor exposure).

Similarly, the combined construction and emergency generator emissions would not exceed the applicable significance threshold. The impact would be less than significant.

Risks to Onsite Receptors
Per California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 387, CEQA focuses on how projects affect the environment, and does not include requirements to analyze how existing hazards or conditions impact a project’s users or residents. Therefore, the following review of potential health risks to the Project’s residents, or onsite receptors, is provided for informational purposes only.

Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-16 The Project would introduce new sensitive receptors in the area in the form of future residences. In order to identify potential community health risks when siting a new sensitive receptor, the BAAQMD recommends using a 1,000-foot screening radius around a project site and evaluating risks from highways, major roadways, and stationary sources . The air quality assessment performed for the Project included an evaluation of such operational community risks to onsite receptors .

Potential sources of emissions with a community health risk include Project related traffic on major roadways and op erational maintenance of the proposed emergency generator.

The Project would be located adjacent to Highway 12, which meets the BAAQMD’s major roadway criteria of 10,000 vehicles or 1,000 trucks per day . Other local roadways in the Project vicinity, including Los Alamos Road, Melita Road, and Montgomery Drive do not meet the BAAQMD’s major roadway criteria. The proposed Project would also both include an emergency generator onsite. No other on-site or off-site stationary sources were identified within a 1,000-foot study area.

The proposed emergency generator would only operate for testing and maintenance purposes and to generate electricity in the event of a power outage.

The maximum risk to an onsite resident would not exceed the maximum risk to an offsite receptor and would be considered less-than-significant.

Risks to Offsite Receptors
Table 3.2 -8 identifies the cancer risk, chronic hazard index, and annual PM

2.5 concentration from Highway 12 at the maximally affected offsite residential dwelling, as well as Pr oject and cumulative health risks associated with P roject implementation (construction and stationary sources). The screening cancer risk levels were adjusted using a factor of 1.374 4 to account for the new OEHHA guidance (detailed calculations are included in Appendix B, Air Quality Assessment). As shown in Table 3.2-8, community health risks to offsite receptors from Highway 12 and P roject sources would be below the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds, therefore the impact would be less than significant.

Table 3.2-8 Health Risk to Sensitive Offsite Receptors
Source of Pollutants Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Acute or
Chronic
Hazard Index
Project Sources
Unmitigated Project Construction
(Years 0-2)

7.2 (infant) 0.04 <0.01
Emergency Generator
(years 3 through 30)

0.2 <0.01 <0.01
Combined Construction &
Generator

7.4 0.04 0.01
BAAQMD Single Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-17 Source of Pollutants Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Acute or
Chronic
Hazard Index
Cumulative Sources
Highway 12, Link 611 (6ft elevation)
at 50 feet north
(Highway Screening Analysis Tool)

15.3 0.14 <0.02
Cumulative (Project plus nearby
sources)

22.7 0.18 <0.03
BAAQMD Single Source Threshold 100 0.80 10.0
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin 2020
Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact AQ-4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Analysis: Less than Significant
Implementation of the Project would not result in major sources of odor. The project type is not one of the common types of facilities known to produce odors (i.e., landfill, coffee roaster, wastewater treatment facility, etc.). Minor odors from the use of equipment during construction activities would be intermittent and temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Thus, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact C-AQ-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to air quality?
Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) The geographic scope for assessing cumulative relative to air quality is the San Francisco Air Basin.

By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact, in that individual projects are rarel y sufficient in size to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions may contribute to cumulative adverse air quality impacts. In developing regional thresholds of significance for criteria and precursor air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified regional significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions (BAAQMD 2017a). Similarly, the CO threshold (the 1- hour and 8- hour state ambient air quality standards) and screening criteria take into account background ambient concentrations and total Air Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.2-18 intersection volumes, respectively . As such, the threshold and screening criteria are cumulative in nature. Finally, consistency with an attainment plan is a cumulative analysis, as it analyzes a project in regards to an adopted plan that is based on growth projections for the region. Therefore, no additional cumulative impacts analysis is required.

The project-level analysis shows that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in a criteria pollutant for which the area is non- attainment, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and would not create objectionable odors . The project -level analysis above also would constitute the cumulative impact analysis, and no additional cumulative impacts analysis is required. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact related to air quality would not be cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

3.2.6 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.

BAAQMD. 2017b. Final 20107 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air-Cool the Climate. April 19.

BAAQMD. 2020. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Website Accessed April 9, 2020 at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status City of Santa Rosa. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. November 3.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics, Trends Summaries. Website accessed on April 14, 2020at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.pp
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 33, Rules and Regulations 9533. RIN–2060–AR06 Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Primary Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. February 17.

EPA. 2018. Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 6. Rules and Regulations 1099. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0003; FRL–9972–73–OAR Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Round 3. January 9.

Illingworth and Rodkin. 2020, Spring Lake Village Expansion Project Air Quality Assessment.

Revised February 5.

Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-1

3.3 Biological Resources
This section evaluates biological resource related impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following subjects are related to biological resources, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
 Consideration of the aesthetic impact of tree removals is evaluated in Section 3.1 (Aesthetics).  Consideration of water quality impacts are addressed in Section 3.8 ( Hydrology and Water Quality).

3.3.1 Setting
Regional Setting
The Project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Santa Rosa within Sonoma County, California. Biological resources within the City of Santa Rosa include sensitive aquatic and terrestrial plants, animals, and habitat . These resources can be roughly divided between those found on the Santa Rosa Plain and those located in the uplands to the east, with connections formed by creeks.

The Project area is situated near the foothills of the Sonoma Mountains and adjacent to Santa Rosa Creek. The City of Santa Rosa is bisected by the creek, which originates in the foothills of the Sonoma Mountains, and runs from east to west through the City, across the Santa Rosa Plain, and into the Laguna de Santa Rosa. Santa Rosa Creek and other creeks flowing through the city provide instream and riparian habitat that supports a distinct community of plants and animals and provides migration corridors that allow other wildlife to travel between suitable habitats that are otherwise separated by development.

Habitat within the C ity has predominantly been developed with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and agricultural uses. Developed areas have encroached on native vegetation, but numerous natural areas still remain within the city, including grasslands, woodlands, riparian areas, and vernal pools.

Local Setting
Habitat within the P roject area consists predominantly of annual grassland and coast live oak woodland, along with an area of seasonal wetland. T he grassland and woodlan d understory are periodically mowed based on obser vations made during site visits . Santa Rosa Creek is located approximately 150 feet off-site southwest of Melita Road. The area in which off-site improvements would occur southwest of Melita Road is characterized as ruderal (oat and non-native blackberry), and is not characterized as riparian habitat associated with Santa Rosa Creek. Habitat surrounding the Project area includes urban areas related to residential development, the Santa Rosa Creek riparian corridor, and oak woodlands associated with Annadel State Park situated to the southwest.

Biological Communities
Habitat occurring within the Project area includes annual grassland, seasonal wetland, coast live oak woodland, and ruderal, as described in detail below. Critical habitat and sensitive natural communities, including wetlands, known in the vicinity of the Project area are further described following the general communities. This information provides the basis for evaluating the potential for occurrence of special-status species within the Project area.

Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-2 Annual Grassland
In California, annual grassland generally occurs on flat plains to gently rolling foothills throughout the Central Valley, in the coastal mountain ranges to Mendocino County, and in scattered locations in the south portion of the state. Dominant species generally found within this habitat include introduced grasses such as, brome ( Bromus sp. ), soft chess ( Bromus mollis ), and wild oat ( Avena fatua).

Common forbs associated with annual grassland include clover (Medicago sp.), filaree (Erodium sp.), and turkey mullein (Eremocarpus setigerus) (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

The structure of this habitat varies from year to year based largely on precipitation, season, and presence of livestock. Annual plant seeds are germinated by rain in the fall months. Following these rains, plants grow slowly throughout the winter remaining relatively small until the spring when rising temperature stimulates rapid growth. Most annuals mature between April and June, although some species, such as tarweed ( Madia sativa) and turkey mullein, continue to grow into the summer.

Grazing by livestock typically supports a greater abundance of shorter grass (less than 12 inches tall), such as filaree and turkey mullein. Without the presence of livestock or mowing , annual grassland generally grows tall (greater than 12 inches) and dense with species such as ripgut brome (Bromus rigidus) and wild oat.

Annual grassland supports many wildlife species by providing suitable areas for foraging, nesting, and cover. Seasonal wetlands may also form within this habitat as low depression areas can retain water depending on local soils and hydrology.

Annual grassland at the Project site consists mostly of ruderal annual grassland, which is periodically mowed. Principal dominant species include: slender wild oat (Avena barbata), wild oat (Avena fatua), soft chess ( Bromus hordeaceus), and Italian rye grass ( Festuca perennis [=Lolium multiflorum, L. perenne]). Less common, but locally abundant, grasses include ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus ), Mediterranean barley ( Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), and the perennial species Harding grass (Phalaris aquatic ). A variety of herbaceous associates also occur within the grassland. The herb species are mainly non-native, but a few native species are locally abundant, including miniature lupine (Lupinus bicolor), coast tarweed ( Madia sativa), and Spanish- clover (Acmispon americanus var. americanus [= Lotus purshianus]) (Macmillan 2020).

Scattered trees and shrubs occur throughout the grassland within the Project site but represent less than 50 percent cover. Tree species include native coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and Oregon oak (Quercus garryana), as well as non-native English walnut (Juglans regia) and ornamentals. Shrubs are widely scattered, but not abundant, with a few localized dense patches throughout the area. Shrub species include coyote brush ( Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea), rock grape ( Vitis rupestris ), and Hmalayan blackberry ( Rubus armeniacus ) (Macmillan 2020).

Annual grassland is typically not considered a sensitive resource by regulatory authorities.

Seasonal Wetland
A seasonal wetland occurs in an approximate 0.096 acre slight depression near the northwest corner of the Project site. This area is occupied by distinct vegetation likely supported by a short duration of standing water. The dominant species is tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostris) with secondary species of soft chess, bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), common vetch ( Vicia sativa ssp. sativa), brome fescue (Festuca [Vulpia] bromoides), and small quaking grass (Briza minor) (Macmillan 2020).

Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-3 Coast Live Oak Woodland
Coast live oak woodland is present along the northwest and northeast border of the Project site, as well as along the southern boundary of the site. This habitat type corresponds to a phase of the Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak woodland) alliance (Sawyer 2009, CDFW 2010a & b, Klein 2015); to the coast live oak forest and woodland alliance (CDFW 2003), and to the coast live oak woodland habitat type (Holland 1986). In the classification scheme of CDFW, it is best referred to the Quercus agrifolia / grass association within the coast live oak woodland alliance. In the classification scheme of CNPS, this habitat type corresponds to a phase of the cismontane woodland habitat t ype. This alliance and the associations within it have state ranking S4, which corresponds to apparently secure natural communities and, thus, are not considered S ensitive Communities by the CDFW ranking system.

The coast live oak woodland on the site consists of individual trees or small closed-canopy stands of trees interspersed with open areas. Coast live oak is the most abundant tree species. Ot her trees present include the native valley oak and Oregon oak and non-native species including silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii , native elsewhere in northern California but not in the survey area), blue gum ( Eucalyptus globulus), and others that were not identifiable. The understory at the Project site includes the annual grassland described above with the addition of French broom (Genista monspessulana), Spanish broom (Spartium junceum), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and Aaron’s beard (Hypericum calycinum). Various herb species are also present in the understory with Robert geranium (Geranium robertianum ) being the most abundant and widespread (Macmillan 2020).

Ruderal
Ruderal habitat refers to any area with heavy and ongoing human disturbance. This habitat generally has a reduced value to wildlife when compared to other habitats, because of the ongoing human disturbance. The portion of the off-site improvement area north of Melita Road is considered ruderal and is two-tiered. The overstory includes three valley oaks, one coast live oak (alive, but with a broken trunk), and one California buckeye (Aesculus californica ). The understory consists primarily of non - native weeds, including hare barley (H ordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), slender wild oat ( Avena barbata), prickly lettuce ( Lactuca serriola), bur -chervil (Anthriscus caucalis), bur-clover (Medicago polymorpha), spinyfruit buttercup ( Ranunculus muricatus ), wild radish ( Raphanus sativus ), and common vetch (Vicia sativa ssp. sativa) (Macmillan 2020).

Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Critical habitat refers to a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. No critical habitat was identified in the P roject site, and none occurs within the immediate vicinity.

Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive habitats include: a) areas of special concern to resource agencies, b) areas protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), c) areas designated as sensitive natural communities by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and d) areas protected under local regulations and policies. For CDFW, natural communities with ranks of S1 to S3 are considered Sensitive Natural Communities to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-4 its equivalents. The application of ranking for determination of Sensitive Communities is summarized in Table 3.3-1 (Conservation Status Ranks).

Table 3.3-1 Conservation Status Ranks
Score Calculated Status Rank Status Description
Score ≤ 1.5 G1, N1, S1 Critically Imperiled

1.5 ≤ Score ≤ 2.5 G2, N2, S2 Imperiled

2.5 ≤ Score ≤ 3.5 G3, N3, S3 Vulnerable

3.5 ≤ Score ≤ 4.5 G4, N4, S4 Apparently Secure
Score > 4.5 G5, N5, S5 Secure
Isolated stands of coast live oak woodland occur within the Project site. The coast live oak woodland alliance and the associations within it have state ranking S4, and, thus, are not considered a Sensitive Natural Community, though removal of individual oaks is subject to the Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance.

The definition and regulatory framework of wetlands and jurisdictional waters are described in the ‘Clean Water Act’ (CWA) portion of this section (see below). The San Francisco District of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) issued a preliminary jurisdictional determination for the P roject site on April 30, 2015 (USACE 2015). USACE determined that a 0.096 acre seasonal wetland is located on the northwest portion of the Project site. In addition, the area southwest of Melita Road where culvert improvements would occur consists of approximately 0.022 acre of jurisdictional drainage to Santa Rosa Creek. Following the USACE determination, an additional roadside drainage excavated in uplands on the frontage to Los Alamos Road was identified in association with proposed off-site improvements. The roadside drainage conveys storm water flows in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 460 linear feet for a total area of 920 square feet or 0.02 acre adjacent to the Project site, and ultimately drains to Santa Rosa Creek near Montgomery Drive. A USACE determination has not been made regarding this drainage. Because the roadside drainage is created in uplands, it is anticipated that the USACE will not assert jurisdiction. However, the Regional Water Quality Control Board may consider the feature to be waters of the State.

Santa Rosa Creek, a jurisdictional waterway, is located to the southwest of the Project site and Melita Road. The City of Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan describes this reach of Santa Rosa Creek as mostly natural with aquatic habitat consisting of pools and riffles as well as shelter provided by boulders, roots, and undercut banks. A diversion structure on Santa Rosa Creek is located upstream of the Project site at the eastern end of Montgomery Drive where high flows are diverted to Spring Lake for flood control.

Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors refer to established migration routes commonly used by resident and migratory species for passage from one geographic location to another. Corridors are present in a variety of habitats and link undisturbed areas that would otherwise be fragmented. Resource agencies consider wildlife corridors to be a sensitive resource. Santa Rosa Creek is the nearest wildlife movement corridor near the Project site.

Special-status Species
Sensitive biological resources evaluated as part of this analysis include special-status species, which are plants and animals in the following categories:

Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-5  Listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under FESA or candidates for possible future listing;
 Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA);
 L isted as Fully Protected under the California Fish and Game Code;  Taxa identified by CDFW as species of special concern or rare;  Plants assigned a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B. The ranking system is summarized as follows:
– CRPR 1A Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere; – CRPR 1B Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; – CRPR 2A Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere; – CRPR 2B Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere;
 Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G); or
 Otherwise meets the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d).

Tables 1 and 2 of the Biological Resources Assessment (Appen dix C) for the Project list special - status species identified in the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and CNPS inventories within a nine USGS topographical quadrangle search range of the Santa Rosa quadrangle where the project is located. Quadrangles included in the data search were Healdsburg, Mark West Springs, Calistoga, Sebastopol, Santa Rosa, Kenwood, Two Rock, Cotati, and Glen Ellen.

Species considered to be beyond their known range or to have low habitat suitability for reproduction, cover, and/or foraging within the Project area are shown to have no or low potential for occurrence on the Project site and are not discussed further in detail. Species potentially needing further study based on the analysis presented in the tables are addressed in the following sections.

Special-status Plants
Several special -status plant species documented within the nine quadrangle search area were determined to have a low potential for occurrence at the Project site. No species were found to have a moderate or high potential. In addition, one species, narrow-anthered brodiaea (Brodiaea leptandra [B. californica var. leptandra]), was shown on the CNDDB as having the potential to occur within the Project area. Floristic surveys were conducted within different portions of the Project site on April 30, 2014, June 27, 2014, April 18, 2015, August 29, 2016, and April 20, 2017. An additional floristic survey was conducted on May 28, 2020. Each of the species identified as having a low potential to occur would have been observable at the time of the field surveys conducted at the Project site. The species include the following:
 Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum);  Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris);
 Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis);
 Narrow-anthered brodiaea (Brodiaea leptandra [B. californica var. leptandra]) Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-6  Pappose tarplant (Centromadia [Hemizonia] parry ssp. parryi);  Sonoma spineflower (Chorizanthe valida);
 Vine Hill clarkia (Clarkia imbricata);
 Fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea);
 Congested-headed hayfield tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. Congesta)  Thin-lobed horkelia (Horkelia tenuiloba);
 Baker’s goldfields (Lasthenia californica ssp. bakeri);  Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens);
 Colusa layia (Layia septenriaonalis);
 Jepson’s leptosiphon (Leptosiphon [Linanthus] jepsonii);  Woolly-headed lessingia (Lessingia hololeuca);
 Cobb Mountain lupine (Lupinus sericatus);
 Marsh microseris (Microseris paludosa);
 Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri);  North Coast semaphore grass (Pleuropogon hooverianus);  two-fork clover (Trifolium amoenum); and
 Santa Cruz clover (Trifolium buckwestiorum).

None of the species were observed within or immediately adjacent to the P roject site during the aforementioned appropriately timed surveys. Furthermore, habitat in the survey area is considered generally disturbed and ruderal reducing the likelihood of special -status plant species presence (Macmillan 2020, Appendix C).

Special Status Wildlife
Based on review of species’ life history and geographic distribution data, habitat requirements, and other available species information, several special -status wildlife species have a potential for occurrence within the Project vicinity. Wildlife with a potential for occurrence within or near the Project site, based on review of available data, are presented in Table 3.3-2 and discussed further below.

Table 3.3-2 Special-status Wildlife with a Potential for Occurrence Within or in Immediate Vicinity of Project Site
Species Status General Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence Fish
steelhead –
central
California
coast ESU
(Oncorhynchu
s mykiss
irideus)
FT Anadromous. Generally prefer
fast water in small-to-large
mainstem rivers, and medium-to-
large tributaries.

Potential for occurrence in
Santa Rosa Creek
Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-7 Species Status General Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence Amphibians and Reptiles
California
giant
salamander
(Dicamptodon
ensatus)
SSC Known from coastal forests near
streams and seeps from
Mendocino County south to
Monterey County and east to
Napa County. Adults may be
found under rocks, logs and
other debris adjacent to water
sources. Aquatic larvae are
found in cold, clear streams,
sometimes in lakes or ponds
CNDDB occurrence records
indicate potential for occurrence
in Santa Rosa Creek.

Pacific pond
turtle (Emys
marmorata)
SSC Associated with permanent or
nearly permanent water in a
wide variety of habitats.

Requires basking sites, nest
sites may be found up to 0.5 km
from water.

CNDDB occurrence records
indicate potential for occurrence
in Santa Rosa Creek.
foothill yellow-
legged frog
(Rana boylii)
SSC
(Sonoma
County)
Partly-shaded, shallow streams
and riffles with a rocky substrate
in a variety of habitats.

Santa Rosa Creek provides
potential habitat for foothill
yellow-legged frog and CNDDB
occurrence records of species
within five-mile radius of project
site.

California red-
legged frog
(Rana
draytonii)
FT, SSC Lowlands and foothills in or near
permanent sources of deep
water with dense, shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation.

Santa Rosa Creek provides
possible dispersal corridor for
California red-legged frog and
CNDDB occurrence records of
species within five-mile radius
of project site.

Red-bellied
newt
(Taricha
rivularis)
SSC Coastal drainages from
Humboldt County to Sonoma
County and inland to Lake
County. Lives in terrestrial
habitats and typically breeds in
streams with moderate flow and
clean rocky substrate.

Potential for occurrence in
Santa Rosa Creek.

Birds
Swainson’s
hawk (Buteo
swainsoni)
ST Breeds in stands with few trees
in juniper-sage flats, riparian
areas and in oak savannah.

Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as
grasslands, or alfalfa or grain
field supporting rodent
populations.

Project site does not provide
suitable foraging or nesting
habitat.

Northern
harrier (Circus
cyaneus)
SSC Prefers open country, like
grasslands, steppes, wetlands,
meadows, cultivated areas.

Annual grassland at project site
provide potential foraging
habitat and tree nesting habitat
Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-8 Species Status General Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence white-tailed
kite (Elanus
leucurus)
CDFW FP Rolling foothills and valley
margins with scattered oaks and
river bottomlands or marshes
next to deciduous woodland;
open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging close to
isolated, dense-topped trees for
nesting and perching
Annual grassland at project site
provides potential foraging
habitat for white-tailed kite.

Also, somewhat mature trees
(dbh of six inches or greater) at
site provide potential nesting
habitat.

American
peregrine
falcon (Falco
peregrinus
anatum)
SFP, BCC Near wetlands, lakes rivers, or
other water on cliffs, banks,
dunes, mounds or man-made
structures; nest consists of a
scrape or a depression or ledge
in an open site
Annual grassland at project site
provides potential foraging
habitat and CNDDB occurrence
records of this species within
five-mile radius of project site.
bald eagle
(Haliaeetus
leucocephalu)
SE Ocean shore, lake margins, and
rivers for both nesting and
wintering, most nests within one
mile of water; nests in large, old-
growth, or dominant live tree
with open branches, especially
ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa), roosts communally
in winter
Annual grassland at project site
provides potential foraging
habitat.

Mammals
pallid bat
(Antrozous
pallidus)
SSC,
WBWG-H
Deserts, grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands, and forests, most
common in open, dry habitats
with rocky areas for roosting;
roosts must protect bats from
high temperatures, very
sensitive to disturbance of
roosting sites
Trees at project site provide
potential foraging habitat for
pallid bat. Coast live oak
woodland habitat is moderately
suitable for species
reproduction and cover, but
disturbance within area reduces
likelihood of roost on-site.

CNDDB occurrence records
five-mile radius of project site.

Townsend’s
big-eared bat
(Corynorhinus
townsendii)
SSC, State
Candidate

T, WBWB-
H
Throughout California in a wide
variety of habitats, most
common in mesic sites; roosts in
the open, hanging from walls
and ceilings, roosting sites are
limiting and extremely sensitive
to human disturbance
Small to large trees (dbh of 11
inches or greater) with sparse
to open canopy (ten to 39.9
percent canopy closure) within
coast live oak woodland provide
moderate suitability for species
to reproduce, find cover, and
forage. However, disturbance
within area reduces likelihood
of a roost on-site.

Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-9 Species Status General Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence long-eared
myotis (Myotis
evotis)
WBWG-M Found in all brush, woodland,
and forest habitats from sea
level to about 9,000 feet, prefers
coniferous woodlands and
forests; nursery colonies in
buildings, crevices, spaces
under bark, and snags, caves
used primarily as night roosts
Trees on project site provide
potential habitat for long-eared
myotis reproduction, cover, and
foraging.

Invertebrates
obscure
bumble bee
(Bombus
caliginosus)
IUCN-VU Coastal areas from Santa
Barbara County north to
Washington State; food plant
genera include Baccharis,
Cirsium, Lupinus, Lotus,
Grindelia, and Phacelia
Potential food plants were
noted on-site and CNDDB
occurrence records of this
species within five-mile radius
of the project site.

Leech’s
skyline diving
beetle
(Hydroporus
leechi)
FSC Aquatic habitats CNDDB occurrence records
indicate Leech’s skyline diving
beetle within five miles of
project site. Potential habitat
may be present in Santa Rosa
Creek.

Source: Table compiled based on review of California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database for the Santa Rosa and surrounding USGS quadrangles. February 2020.

Note FSC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern; FE = federally listed as endangered; FT = federally listed as threatened; SE = state listed as endangered; ST = state listed as threatened; SFP = State fully protected (may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Wildlife Commission and/or CDFW). SSC = State species of special concern; CDFS = considered sensitive by the California Department of Forestry. WBWG_H or M = Western Bat Working Group High or Medium Priority. IUCN -V = International Union for Conservation of Nature, vulnerable.

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus)
Steelhead are part of the Central California Coast ESU (evolutionarily significant unit) and are federally listed as threatened. Steelhead are known to historically occur in Santa Rosa Creek. The federal listing includes all runs in coastal basins from the Russian River in Sonoma County, south to Soquel Creek in Santa Cruz County. They generally prefer fast water in small -to-large mainstem rivers, and medium-to-large tributaries. Young steelhead diet usually consists of zooplankton while adults feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects, mollusks, crustaceans, fish eggs, minnows and other small fishes (including other trout). Steelhead may spend up to seven years in freshwater before migrating to estuarine areas as smolts and then into the ocean to feed and mature. They remain at sea for up to three years before returning to the freshwater streams and rivers of their birth to reproduce. Spawning habitat consists of gravel-bottomed stream areas free of excessive silt.

California Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus)
California giant salamanders are a CDFW species of special concern. Their range includes north - central California from southern Santa Cruz County to extreme southern Mendocino and Lake Counties. Aquatic adults and larvae are found in cool, rocky streams and occasionally in lakes and ponds typically hiding within spaces between rocks in streambeds. In aquatic areas, California giant salamanders eat aquatic invertebrates, fish, and other amphibians. Their terrestrial diet consists of snails, slugs, and other invertebrates, as well as small mice, shrews, possibly reptiles, and other Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-10 amphibians. California giant salamanders are primarily nocturnal, but may also be active during the daytime. Breeding occurs from March to May with the peak in May. Adults may be found under rocks, logs and other debris adjacent to water sources. Aquatic larvae are found in cold, clear streams, sometimes in lakes or ponds. California giant salamanders have been recorded along the Project site in association with Santa Rosa Creek.

Pacific Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata)
Pacific pond turtle is a CDFW species of special concern. The species inhabits annual and perennial aquatic habitats, such as coastal lagoons, lakes, ponds, marshes, rivers, and streams from sea level to 5,500 feet in elevation. This species requires open, dry upland habitat with friable soils for nesting and prefer to nest on unshaded slopes within 5 to 100 meters of suitable aquatic habitat. Hatchlings generally emerge in late fall but may overwinter in the nest and emerge in early spring of the following year. The species requires basking sites such as partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks. Western pond turtles overwinter in both aquatic and terrestrial habitats; terrestrial overwintering habitat consists of burrows in leaf litter or soil. Nest predation rates are high and complete failure of nests is common, so recruitment is low and limits the species population. Western pond turtles have been recorded near the Project site in association with Santa Rosa Creek.

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii)
Foothill yellow-legged frog is a CDFW species of special concern. This species is found in woodland and forest streams and r ivers, and prefers flowing water with a rocky substrate (including at least some cobble-sized substrate), to which egg masses are attached. The FYLF does not aestivate and is rarely found far from a source of permanent water. Recent studies have found that FYLF are rarely found more than 12 meters from the stream channel but may move upstream or downstream as far as 7 km in response to water availability. The average distance adults were found outside the stream channel was 3 meters in all seasons with a maximum distance of 40 meters. This frog species breeds between March and early June. Egg clusters number between 100 and 1,000, typically from 200 to 300, and are attached to gravel or rocks in moving water near stream margins. FYLF occurrence is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the Project site and Santa Rosa Creek provides potential reproduction, cover, and forage habitat for the species.

California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii)
California red-legged frog (CRLF) is a federally threatened and CDFW species of special concern that is endemic to California at elevations ranging from sea level to about 5,000 feet. This species is dependent on suitable aquatic, estivation, and upland habitat. During periods of wet weather, starting with the first rainfall in late fall, red- legged frogs disperse away from their estivation sites to seek suitable breeding habitat. Aquatic and breeding habitat is characterized by dense, shrubby, riparian vegetation and deep, still or slow -moving water. Breeding occurs between late November and late April. CRLF estivate (period of inactivity) during the dry months in small mammal burrows, moist leaf litter, incised stream channels, and large cracks in the bottom of dried ponds . CRLF occurrence is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the Project site and Santa Rosa Creek provides a potential dispersal corridor for the species. Additionally, critical habitat for CRLF occurs within Annadel State Park to the southwest of the Project site.

Red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis)
Santa Rosa Creek and surrounding areas provide potential habitat for red- bellied newt, which has recently been listed as a Species of Special Concern by CDFW. This species is found in coastal Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-11 drainages from Humboldt County to Sonoma County and inland to Lake County. This species lives in terrestrial habitats and typically breeds in streams with moderate flow and clean rocky substrate.

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Northern harrier is a CDFW species of special concern. The northern harrier ranges throughout California at elevations up to 10,000 feet. Prey includes voles and small mammals, as well as birds, frogs, small reptiles, crustaceans, insects, and rarely on fish. Northern harriers are frequently observed in meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, desert sinks, and fresh- or saltwater emergent wetlands. The species is seldom found in wooded areas. Harrie rs most commonly occur in or near freshwater aquatic habitats with flat or hummocky, open areas of tall, dense grasses, or moist, dry shrubs situated along water edges. The species roosts on the ground in or along the border of wetlands. Nests are placed on the ground usually in shrubby vegetation at marsh edges. Northern harrier breed from April to September and nests are single-brooded. Loss and degradation of habitat, including loss of wetlands, nest failure from human disturbance, predator-control projects, agricultural practices, and unnatural predation pressure have all contributed to the decline of northern harrier populations. Annual grassland and riparian habitats on and in the vicinity of the Project site provide possible foraging opportunities for northern harrier, but the site is not ideal for nesting and no nests were observed during site visits.

White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus)
White-tailed kite is a CDFW fully protected species. This kite is known to occur along the Sacramento River, Feather River, Butte Creek, Big Chico Creek, at the Gray Lodge Wildlife Area, and throughout most of Butte County from the Sierra Nevada foothills to the Sacramento River . The species preys mostly on voles and other small, diurnal mammals, as well as occasionally on birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians. White- tailed kites forage in undisturbed, open grasslands, meadows, farmlands, and emergent wetlands. This raptor typically uses trees with dense canopies for cover and groves of dense deciduous trees for roosting. Nest placement can vary from single, isolated trees to trees within large woodlands. Nests are generally situated near the top of dense oak, willow, or other trees.

Breeding season for the white-tailed kite is from February to October with the peak f ledging period from May to June. Habitat loss from urbanization, including residential and commercial development, infrastructure development, and habitat fragmentation, is one of the principal threats to the species.

White-tailed kite is also intolerant of noise and human activities and will abandon nesting areas that are subject to high levels of human disturbances. The Project site provides potential nesting and foraging habitat for white-tailed kite.

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)
American peregrine falcon is a federal and state delisted species, as well as a CDFW fully protected species. This falcon is found inland throughout the Central Valley, and occasionally on the Channel Islands. The peregrine falcon frequents bodies of water in open areas with cliffs and canyons nearby for cover and nesting. The bird requires protected cliffs and ledges for cover. Riparian areas as well as coastal and inland wetlands are important habitats for the falcon yearlong, especially in nonbreeding seasons. American peregrine falcons breed near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water on high cliffs, banks, dunes, or mounds between March and August. The nest is a scrape on a depression or ledge in an open site. Historically, the use of the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) caused the decline of the American peregrine falcon in North America. The falcon breeding populations recovered enough for the bird to be delisted from FESA and CESA. However, the American peregrine falcon is still protected in California, as competition for nest sites and predation are continuing threats to the species. American peregrine falcon occurrence Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-12 is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the P roject site. Annual grassland at the P roject site provides possible foraging opportunities for peregrine falcon, but the site is not ideal for nesting and lacks vertical features (i.e., cliffs, mounds, etc.) typical of nest locations.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Bald eagle is a federally delisted, California listed endangered, and CDFW fully protected species.

The species range is wholly within North America, including Alaska, Canada, the lower 48 states, and northwest Mexico. Bald eagles may be found throughout most of California at lakes, reservoirs, rivers as well as some rangelands and coastal wetlands in the winter. In general, habitat requirements of the bald eagle include large, old- growth trees or snags in remote, mixed stands near water. Bald eagles require large bodies of water, or free flowing rivers with abundant fish, and adjacent snags or other perches. Bald eagles nest near coastlines, rivers, and large lakes where there is an adequate food supply between February and July. Annual grassland at the P roject site provides possible foraging opportunities for bald eagle, but the site is not ideal for nesting and lacks elements preferred by this species for nesting (i.e., cliffs, large snags, and old growth pine trees).

Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus)
Pallid bat is a CDFW species of special concern and occurs throughout California except in the high Sierra Nevada Mountains. This bat forages over open ground eating a wide variety of insects and arachnids as well as large, hard-shelled prey. Prey are most ofte n taken on the ground, but rarely taken aerially, and may also be carried to a perch or night roost for consumption. Pallid bat is found in grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through elevations with mixed conifers. Pallid bat is a social bat and roosts in groups. The species prefers rocky areas for roosting; day roosts are in caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally in hollow trees and buildings, while night roosts may be in more open sites such as porches. Pallid bat is nocturnal and hibernates in the winter.

Mating season is from October to February and young are born from April to July. Pallid bats are highly sensitive to disturbance of maternity colony sites which contributes to their decline in population. Also, loss of habitat, specifically oak woodlands, threaten the species, because pallid bat is highly associated with woodland or forest habitats. Pallid bat occurrence is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the Project site and t rees on the P roject site provide potential habitat for this species. Coastal oak woodland habitat is also moderately suitable for pallid bat reproduction and cover, but disturbance within the area reduces the likelihood of a roost on-site and no indication of a roost was noted during the site surveys.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)
Townsend’s big- eared bat is a state candidate for listing as threatened and a CDFW species of special concern. This bat occurs throughout the west and is distributed from the southern portion of British Columbia south along the Pacific coast to central Mexico and east into the Great Plains, with isolated populations occurring in the central and eastern U.S. Townsend’s big-eared bat has been observed yearlong in all but subalpine and alpine habitats. Habitat associations include: coniferous forests, mixed mesophytic forests, deserts, native prairies, riparian communities, active agricultural areas, and coastal habitat types. This bat requires caves, mines, tunnels, buildings, or other human- made structures for roosting. Separate sites may be used for night, day, hibernation, and maternity roosts. Most mating occurs from November to February with gestation lasting 56 to 100 days.

Historically, this species has declined due to direct mortality from people and destruction or disturbance of roost sites. These bats are sensitive to light and movement, so can be easily disturbed during the day. Coastal oak woodland at the project site provides moderate suitability for this species Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-13 to reproduce, find cover, and forage. However, disturbance within the area reduces the likelihood of a roost on-site and no indication of a roost was noted during the site surveys.

Long-eared Myotis (Myotis evotis)
Long-eared myotis is not listed under the FESA or CESA. However, this species is included on the CDFW Special Animals List and is ranked as vulnera ble within California. Also, this bat is listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature ( IUCN) least concern list and the Western Bat Working Group ranks the species as medium priority for conservation and management. Long-eared myotis ranges the entire Pacific coast and in the Sierra Nevada, Cascades, and Great Basin from the Oregon border south through the Tehachapi Mountains to the Coast Ranges. Coniferous woodlands and forests are the preferred habitat for long- eared myotis. This bat roosts in buildings, crevices, spaces under bark, and snags; caves are also used as night roosts. Long-eared myotis roosts singly or in fairly small groups. This species, like most bats, is nocturnal and hibernates in the winter. Habitat loss is considered a major threat to long -eared myotis populations. Coastal oak woodland habitats provide potential habitat for long-eared myotis to reproduce, find cover, and forage.

Raptors and Migratory Birds
Trees within and adjacent to the P roject site provide potential nest sites for common raptors that could also forage within the area. Migratory birds also forage and nest in a variety of habitats, including coastal oak woodland and riparian forest such as that associated with Santa Rosa Creek southwest of the Project site. Any active bird nests found within the Project area are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibits nest disturbance or destruction.

Obscure Bumble Bee (Bombus caliginosus)
Obscure bumble bee is not listed under the FESA or CESA. However, this species is included on the CDFW Special Animals List, which consists of all animal taxa tracked by the CNDDB regardless of their legal protection status. Obscure bumble bee is ranked as imperiled or critically imperiled within California and the IUCN lists the species as vulnerable. This bumble bee ranges from southern California to southern British Columbia along the Pacific Coast with scattered occurrence records from the east side of the Central Valley, but is uncommon or considered in decline throughout. Habitat for obscure bumble bee includes open grassy coastal prairies and Coast Range meadows. This species is considered a medium long-tongued bee that typically forages on varieties of Ceonothus, Cirsium, Clarkia, Keckiella, Lathyrus, Lotus, Lupinus, Rhododendron, Rubus, Trifolium and Vacciuium. Nesting occurs underground in abandoned rodent nests or aboveground in abandoned bird nests. Typical of bee species, colonies are annual with mated queens emerging from winter hibernation in early spring to forage and locate nest sites. Bumble bee populations as a whole are threatened by a number of factors. Obscure bumble bee in particular is likely threatened by climate change and habitat loss. The species appears to be extremely sensitive to human disturbance and does not thrive in heavy agricultural areas or urban centers, even if open spaces such as parks are present. Obscure bumble bee occurrence is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the P roject site. However, the occurrence is from a single record collected in 1947 within Santa Rosa. The exact location is unknown. Although presence is presumed extant for this record, recent population studies between 2002 and 2003 suggest very high population decline range-wide for this species.

Leech’s Skyline Diving Beetle (Hydroporus leechi)
Leech’s skyline diving beetle is not listed under the FESA or CESA. However, this species is included on the CDFW Special Animals List and is ranked as critically imperiled within California. Leech’s Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-14 skyline diving beetle is endemic to California and is known from several counties, including San Mateo, Marin, Sonoma, Inyo, and Siskiyou. This beetle is aquatic associated with shallow water of lacustrine habitats, specifically along the shore of ponds. The species is not well known and specific threats to this species have not been identified. Leech’s skyline diving beetle occurrence is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the Project site. However, the occurrence is from a single record collected in 1963 within Annadel State Park. The beetle was located along Bennett Mountain Lake west of Kenwood.

3.3.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The FESA of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) establishes a national policy that all federal departments and agencies provide for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and their ecosystems. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce are designated in the FESA as responsible for: (1) maintaining a list of species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (threatened) and that are currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (endangered) ; (2) carrying out programs for the conservation of these species; and (3) rendering opinions regarding the impact of proposed federal actions on listed species. The FESA also outlines what constitutes unlawful taking, importation, sale, and possession of listed species and specifies civil and criminal penalties for unlawful activities.

Pursuant to the requirements of the FESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed or proposed species may be present in the project region, and whether the proposed project would result in a “take” of such species. The FESA prohibits “take” of a single threatened and endangered species except under certain circumstances and only with authorization from the USFWS or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries through a permit under Section 7 (for Federal entities) or 10(a) (for non-Federal entities) of the Act. “Take” u nder the FESA includes activities such as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” USFWS regulations define harm to include “significant habitat modification or degradation.” On June 29, 1995, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling further defined harm to include habitat modification “…where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”
In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the FESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for such species (16 USC 1536[3][4]). If it is determined that a project may result in the "take" of a federally -listed species, a permit would be required under Section 7 or Section 10 of the FESA.

Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA 1977, as amended) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the U. S. It gives the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to implement pollution control programs, including setting wastewater standards for industry and water quality standards for contaminants in surface waters. The CWA makes it Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-15 unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, without a permit under its provisions.

Discharge of fill material into “waters of the U .S.,” including wetlands, is regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1251-1376). USACE regulations implementing Section 404 define “waters of the U.S.” to include intrastate waters (such as, lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and natural ponds) that the use, degradation, or destruction of could affect interstate or foreign commerce.

Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3; 40 CFR 230.3). The placement of structures in “navigable waters of the U.S.” is also regulated by the USACE under Section 10 of the Federal Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 401 et seq.). Projects are approved by USACE under standard (i.e., individual) or general (i.e., nationwide, programmatic, or regional) permits. The type of permit is determined by the USACE and based on project parameters.

The USACE and the EPA announced the release of the Clean Water Rule on May 27, 2015 (80 FR 124: 37054 -37127). The Rule is intended to ensure waters protected under the CWA are more precisely defined, more predictable, easier to understand, and consistent with the latest science. The intent is to: 1) clearly define and protect tributaries that impact the quality of downstream waters; 2) provide certainty in how far safeguards extend to nearby waters; 3) protect unique regional water s; 4) focus on streams instead of ditches; 5) maintain the status of waters associated with infrastructure (i.e., sewer systems); and 6) reduce the need for case-specific analysis of all waters. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed implementation of the Clean Water Rule pending further action of the court in October 2015. In response, the USACE and EPA resumed case- by-case analysis of waters of the U.S. determinations. Implementation of the Clean Water Rule is pending ongoing litigation.

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with the USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and responsible state wildlife agency for any federally authorized action to control or modify surface waters. Therefore, any project proposed or permitted by the USACE under the CWA Section 404 must also be reviewed by the federal wildlife agencies and CDFW.

Section 401 of the CWA requires any applicant for a federal license or permit, which involves an activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the U.S., obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. CWA 401 certifications are issued by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) under the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) established federal responsibilities for the protection of nearly all species of birds, their eggs, and nests. A migratory bird is defined as any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle. The MBTA prohibits the take, possession, buying, sell ing, purchasing, or bartering of any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21).

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle (Halia eetus leucocephalus ) and golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos ) a re federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668 -668c). It is illegal to take, Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-16 possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import at any time or in any manner a bald or golden eagle, alive or dead; or any part, nest or egg of these eagles unless authorized by the Secretary of the Interior. Violations are subject to fines and/or imprisonment for up to one year. Active nest sites are also protected from disturbance during breeding season.

State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter -Cologne Act provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations by establishing the California State Water Resources Control Board. The State Board is the statewide authority that oversees nine separate RWQCBs that collectively oversee water quality at regional and local levels. California RWQCBs issue CWA, Section 401 Water Quality Certifications for possible pollutant discharges into waters of the U.S. or state. In addition, for impacts to State-only jurisdictional waters, the RWQCB issues Waste Discharge Permits. The Project site is located within the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) enforces and permits actions regulated by the California Fish and Game Code, which governs the taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles, as well as natural resources such as wetlands and waters of the state. The code includes the California Endangered Species Ac t ( CESA) ( Sections 2050- 2115), Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement regulations (Section 1600- 1616), Native Plant Protection Act (Section 1900-1913), and Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act (Section 2800 et seq.) as well as provisions for legal hunting and fishing, and tribal agreements for activities involving take of native wildlife.

California Endangered Species Act
The CESA includes provisions for the protection and management of species listed by the State of California as endangered, threatened, or designated as candidates for such listing ( California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 through 2085). The CESA generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the CDFW, who maintains a list of state threatened and endangered species as well as candidate and species of special concern. The CESA prohibits the “take” of any species listed as threatened or endangered unless authorized by the CDFW in the form of an Incidental Take Permit. Under California Fish and Game Code, “take” is defined as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The species of special concern are broadly defined as species that are of concern to the CDFW, because of population declines and restricted distributions and/or they are associated with habitats that are declining in California. Impacts to special -status plants and animals may be considered significant under CEQA.

Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation which serve as habitat for fish and other wildlife species are subject to jurisdiction by the CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Any activity that will do one or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake; generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term “stream,” which includes creeks and Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-17 rivers, is defined in the CCR as follows: “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72).

Native Plant Protection Act
The CDFW administers the Native Plant Protection Act (Sections 1900 –1913 of the California Fish and Game Code). These sections allow the California Fish and Game Commission to designate endangered and rare plant species and to notify landowners of the presence of such species. Section 1907 of the California Fish and Game Code allows the Commission to regulate the “taking, possession, propagation, transportation, exportation, importation, or sale of any endangered or rare native plants.” Section 1908 further directs that “…[n]o person shall import into this state, or take, possess, or sell within this state, except as incident to the possession or sale of the real property on which the plant is growing, any native plant, or any part or product thereof, that the Commission determines to be an endangered native plant or rare native plant.” Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
The CDFW is the principal state agency responsible for implementing the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1991. The Act is designed to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land use. The NCCP plans developed in accordance with the Act seek to ensure the long-term conservation of multiple species, while allowing for compatible and appropriate economic activity to proceed.

Birds of Prey
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls) and their nests. These provisions, along with the MBTA, essentially serve to protect nesting native birds.

Fully Protected Species
The California Fish and Game Code also accords “fully protected” status to a number of specifically identified fish (Section 5515), reptiles and amphibians (Section 5050), birds (Section 3511), and mammals (Section 4700). As fully protected species, the CDFW cannot authorize any project or action that would result in “take” of these species even with an incidental take permit.

Regional and Local
Santa Rosa City Code Section 17-24, Trees
In 1990, the Santa Rosa City Council passed Ordinance 2858, which enacted the following regulations to protect certain trees, while at the same time recognizing an individual property owner’s freedom in how they treat their land. The following sections apply to the Project:
 Section 17-24.030 describes the conditions in which a permit is required to remove or alter any tree, including heritage, protected, or street trees.
 Section 17-2 4.050 describes tree alteration/relocation/removal requirements on properties proposed for development. This section also describes protection measures for heritage trees that must be implemented for all development projects (including fencing during construction, avoidance of disturbance and trenching within driplines, maintaining grade around trees, and Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-18 prohibiting the placement of paving or landscaping requiring summer irrigation in the vicinity of oaks), and a tree replacement program for all trees and heritage trees that are removed.

City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are generally related to biological resources and apply to the Project:
(OSC)-B Conserve the city’s open spaces and significant natural features.

OSC-B-4 Require that graded areas within new developments be revegetated.

OSC-D Conserve wetlands, vernal pools, wildlife ecosystems, rare plant habitats, and waterways.

OSC-D-1 Utilize existing regulations and procedures, including Subdivision Guidelines, Zoning, Design Review, and environmental law, to conserve wetlands and rare plants. Comply with the federal policy of no net loss of wetlands using mitigation measures such as:
• Avoidance of sensitive habitat;
• Clustered development;
• Tran sfer of development rights; and/or
• Compensatory mitigation, such as restoration or creation.

OSC-D-3 Preserve and restore the elements of wildlife habitats and corridors throughout the Planning Area.

OSC-D-9 Ensure that construction adjacent to creek channels is sensit ive to the natural environment. Ensure that natural topography and vegetation is preserved along the creek, and that construction activities do not disrupt or pollute the waterway.

OSC-E Ensure local creeks and riparian corridors are preserved , enhanced, and restored as habitat for fish, birds, mammals and other wildlife.

OSC-E-1 Maintain creek areas using practices that protect and support fish and wildlife as well as help retain hydraulic capacity.

OSC-H Conserve significant vegetation and trees and plant new trees.

OSC-H-1 Preserve trees and other vegetation, including wildflowers, both as individual specimens and as parts of larger plant communities.

OSC-H-2 Preserve and regenerate native oak trees.

OSC-H-4 Require incorporation of native plants into landscape plans for new development, where appropriate and feasible, especially in areas adjacent to open space areas or along waterways.

City of Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan
The City of Santa Rosa has specific goals related to waterways within their jurisdiction. The following goals and objectives from the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan are related to biological resources and apply to the off-site infrastructure improvements of the Project:

Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-19 Habitat (HA) Local creeks and riparian corridors are preserved, enhanced, and restored as habitat for fish, birds, mammals, and other wildlife.

Objective HA-1 Preserve healthy and/or environmentally sensitive creek areas.

Objective HA-6 Obtain and comply with all necessary regulatory agency permits.

Policy HA-6-2 Consistent with federal, state, and local regulations, impacts to existing habitat will be avoided if possible. Minimization and mitigation of any unavoidable impacts will be required.

3.3.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table

3.3-3 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are used to determine if the P roject would have a significant effect related to biological resources.

Table 3.3-3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
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?
Direct loss or harm of a sensitive
or special-status species

Loss or alteration of habitat that
could result in the ‘take’ of a
sensitive or special-status
species

Indirect disturbance (e.g.,
construction noise) that could
disrupt essential activities (e.g.,
nesting) of a sensitive or special-
status species
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IV (a)

Federal and State
Endangered Species Acts

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Bald Eagle Protection Act

Native Plant Protection Act

General Plan Policies OSC-
D-3, D-9, and E-1
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
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Direct removal of any riparian
community, oak woodland, or
other sensitive natural
community (except wetlands)

Alteration of a sensitive natural
community that could result in
local degradation

Indirect disturbance that could
reduce habitat function and
value
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IV (b)

Natural Community
Conservation Act

General Plan Policies H-1
and H-2
Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-20 Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
BIO-3: Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Placement of fill in wetlands,
waters of the U.S., or waters of
the State

Discharge of materials into
wetlands, waters of the U.S., or
waters of the State

Indirect disturbance that could
contribute to erosion and/or
negatively impact water quality
of wetlands, waters of the U.S.,
or waters of the State
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IV (c)

Clean Water Act section 404
and 401

General Plan Policy OSC-D-
1 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?
Create a barrier to movement
resulting in loss or harm to
migratory or local wildlife
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IV (d)

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

General Plan Policy OSC-D-
3 BIO-5: Would the project conflict
with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with an applicable local
policy or ordinance
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IV (e)

City Code Chapter 17.24

General Plan Policies OSC-
H-1, H-2, and H-4
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?
Conflict with an approved
conservation plan
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IV (f)

Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act

3.3.4 Approach to Analysis
A Biological Resources Assessment was prepared for the Project site to identify special-status plant and wildlife species and sensitive habitats that have the potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the Project site ( Macmillan 20 20, Appendix C). The assessment included literature and database searches as well as site surveys to determine what species have potential to be present on the Project site. The information and data collected for the assessment have been used as the basis of this biological resources analysis.

The evaluation of potential impacts on biological resources consider s both direct effects to the resource as well as indirect effects in a local or regional context. Potentially significant impacts would generally result in the loss of a biological resource or conflict with local, state, or federal agency conservation plans, goals, policies, or regulations. Actions that would potentially result in a significant Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-21 impact locally may not be considered significant under CEQA if the action would not substantially affect the resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis.

3.3.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.3-4 (Summary of Impacts – Biological Resources) provides a summary of potential impacts from the Proposed Project.

Table 3.3-4 Summary of Impacts – Biological Resources
Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
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
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
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
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
BIO-5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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
C-BIO-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to biological resources?
LS
Notes: NI = No Impact
LS = Less than Significant
LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impact 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?
Analysis: Significant
Special-Status Plants
Results of a nine quadrangle search area identified 21 special-status plant species that have a low potential for occurrence in the Project area. No species were found to have a moderate or high potential for occurrence. One species, narrow-anthered brodiaea (Brodiaea leptandra [B. californica var. leptandra]), is shown in CNDDB Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-22 records as having the potential to occur within the P roject site. Floristic surveys were conducted within different portions of the Project site on April 30, 2014, June 27, 2014, April 18, 2015, August 29, 2016, April 20, 2017, and May 28, 2020. No special-status pl ant species were identified on the Project site or off -site improvement areas during any of the aforementioned surveys. It was concluded that due to the highly disturbed, ruderal or developed nature of the Project site and off-site improvement areas, it is unlikely that any special-status plant species occur on the site. Therefore, based on literature review, habitat disturbance, and on-site survey observations, no impact to special -status plants would result from implementation of the Project.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
Santa Rosa Creek, located south west of Melita Road, provides instream and riparian habitat that supports a distinct community of plants and animals, including foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF), Cal ifornia red-legged frog (CRLF), California giant salamander (CGS), red-bellied newt , Pacific pond turtle (PPT), and steelhead. No work would occur below the top of bank of Santa Rosa creek or within the Santa Rosa Creek riparian corridor . Work south west of Melita Road would be limited to approximately 120 square feet for installation of a storm drain culvert replacement. This area is characterized as ruderal (oat and non- native blackberry), and no riparian habitat would be impacted. Therefore, there would be no loss of habitat for FYLF, CRLF, CGS, red-bellied newt, or PPT as a result of the Project. However, the location of the proposed storm drain culvert improvement southwest of Melita Road is within the maximum distance that FYLF, CRLF, CGS, red-bellied newt, and PPT have been documented to occur outside of stream channels. Because of this, there is a potential for these species to disperse into the area of the storm drain culvert during construction, and vegetation removal and ground disturbance would result in potentially adverse effe cts t o the species if present. The potential impact to aquatic species, from replacement of the culvert, is considered significant.

Steelhead are known to historically occur in Santa Rosa Creek. No Project activities are proposed to occur directly within Santa Rosa Creek and dewatering of the creek would not be required. As noted above, the culvert replacement would be approximately 100 feet east of the top of bank. There would be no direct impacts to Santa Rosa Creek or steelhead habitat. However, if construction activities were to substantially increase erosion or other pollutant runoff that could degrade water quality within the Santa Rosa Creek, an indirect impact to steelhead could result.

If water quality were degraded, the impact from project construction on steelhead would be significant.

Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds
Habitat within and adjacent to the Project site provides suitable nesting opportunities for many avian species, including raptors and migratory birds.

Raptors and migratory bird nests are considered to be a protected resource by federal and state agencies under the MBTA and California Code of Regulations.

Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-23 Northern harriers, American peregrine falcons, and bald eagles have a potential to occur on-site as occasional foragers or transients, but are not likely to nest on-site.

Additional forage area is available locally within Annadel State Park and surrounding areas, so implementation of the Project is not expected to substantially impact the foraging ability of these species.

However, the Project site provides potential nesting and foraging habitat for white- tailed kite, which is a CDFW fully protected species, as well as numerous migratory birds. The Project has the potential to impact these species if construction activities, including removal of trees or initial grading activities, were to occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Construction activities that resulted in the destruction or disturbance of an active nest would be a significant impact.

Sensitive and Special-Status Bats
Suitable roosting habitat for pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and long-eared myotis occurs within and adjacent to the Project site. In addition to the possible presence of these bats on -site, indirect effects such as increased noi se, dust, or increased human presence may occur from construction of the Project.

Disturbance or loss of habitat that could result in a “take” of sensitive or listed bat species, therefore, the impact would be significant.

Additional Species
Obscure bumble bee occurrence is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the Project site. However, the occurrence is from a single record collected in 1947 within Santa Rosa. Furthermore, the Project site is regularly disturbed from the nearby road, urban area, and mowing on -site, so the likelihood of regular occurrence or nesting by this bumble bee is reduced. Therefore, it is possible obscure bumble bee occur on-site as an occasional forager or transient. However, implementation of the Project is not expected to impact the species population because: (1) the species is not formally listed; (2) there are no recent records of the bee near the Project site; and (3) the species sensitivity to human disturbance precludes regular foraging or nesting on-site.

Leech’s skyl ine diving beetle occurrence is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the Project site. However, the occurrence is from a single record collected in 1963 within Annadel State Park. Although it is possible for Leech’s skyline diving beetle to be in the vicinity of the Project location, micro habitat (i.e., lake or pond margins) is not found on -site. Therefore, implementation of the Project is not expected to significantly impact the species population.

Impacts to obscure bumble bee and leach’s skyline diving beetle would be less than significant.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure B IO-1a: Avoid Impacts to Foothill Yellow -legged Frog and Other Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles
City of Santa Rosa shall ensure the construction contractor adheres to the following measures to reduce impacts to special -status amphibians and reptiles Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-24 during construction of the new storm drain culvert to be located on the southwest side of Melita Road:
• P rior to construction, all workers on the crew shall be trained by a qualifi ed biologist as to the sensitivity of the special-status species potentially occurring within the construction area south west of Melita Road. The training shall include a brief review of special -status species with the potential to occur onsite, including foothill yellow -legged frog, California red -legged frog, California giant salamander, red -bellied newt, and Pacific pond turtle. The training shall provide an overview of their habitat requirements, legal status, and protection requirements. The training shall also provide a brief overview of biological resource mitigation measures, environmental permits and proposed project plans (i.e., the SWPPP, BMPs, an d any other required plans). Personnel shall sign an attendance form that will remain on file with the City of Santa Rosa for verification of training.
• Pre-construction surveys shall be performed within 48 hours prior to initiation of construction activities (including initial ground disturbing activities) related to the storm drain culvert improvements southwest of Melita Road. • Prior to construction, a wildlife exclusion fence shall be installed along the southwest side of Melita Road along the upper limits of the Santa Rosa Creek corridor to prevent special-status amphibians and reptiles from accessing the site during construction. This fence shall be maintained during construction activities. The exclusion fence shall be installed such that the fabric is an appropriate height above ground per biologist recommendation and the fabric should be buried 4-6 inches below ground. The exclusion fence posts shall be located on the work side of the fence with the fabric on the outside relative to the stakes.
• All vegetation clearing for the storm drain culvert shall be done by hand under the supervision of a qualified biologist.
• No construction activities within the storm drain culvert area shall occur during rain events, defined as ¼ inch of rain falling within a 24- hour period.

Construction activities may resume 24 hours after the end of the rain event. • W ork shall not be conducted within the storm drain culvert area southwest of Melita Road any time 30 minutes before sunrise or sunset.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Avoid Impacts to Nesting Birds The City of Santa Rosa shall ensure the following measures to avoid impac ts to nesting birds are followed:
• To the extent possible, grading or removal of any vegetation shall be conducted outside the nesting season, which occurs between approximately February 1 and August 31. No preconstruction nesting bird survey is required for work conducted outside this period.
• If limiting grading or vegetation removal between August 31 and February 1 is infeasible and work must occur wi thin the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird (both passerine and raptor) survey of the landscap ed areas and Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-25 trees shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 7 days of ground breaking. If no nesting birds are observed, no further action is required and work shall occur within one week of the survey to prevent impacts to individual birds that could begin nesting after the survey.
• If bird nests (either passerine and/or raptor) are observed during the pre- construction survey, a disturbance -free buffer zone shall be established around the nest tree(s) until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. The radius of the required buffer zone can vary depending on the species, (i.e., 75 to 100 feet for passerines and 200 to 300 feet for raptors), with the dimensions of any required buffer zones to be determined by a qualified biologist based upon the distance necessary to prevent disturbance to the relevant species.
• To delineate the buffer zone around a bird nest, orange construction fencing shall be placed at the specified radius from the nest within which no machinery or workers shall intrude. After the fencing is in place there will be no restrictions on grading or construction activities outside the prescribed buffer zones. • I f initial ground disturbance is delayed or there is a break in project activities of greater than 14 days within the bird-nesting season, then a follow-up nesting bird survey should be performed to ensure no nests have been established in the interim.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Avoid Impacts to Sensitive or Listed Bats The City of Santa Rosa shall ensure the following measures to avoid impacts to roosting bats are followed.

If initial ground disturbance occurs during the bat maternity roosting season (May 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a bat habitat assessment of trees within 100 feet of the Project site. The assessment shall evaluate the trees for suitable entry points and roost features, and shall provide focused daytime surveys for day -roosting bats. If the biologist determines there is potential for maternity roosting bats to be present within 100 feet of constructio n areas, nighttime emergence surveys may be performed to determine if maternity roosting bats are present.

If bat maternity roosts are present, the biologist shall establish an appropriate exclusion zone around the maternity roost . Removal of trees that potentially support a bat maternity roost should only occur between September 1 and October 15, after the young have learned to be self-sufficient but before hibernation. Trees supporting bats should not be removed while bats are hibernating between October 15 and March 15 or otherwise while bats are present.

If a special-status bat species is found, or if suspected day roosts for special-status bats are identified, then the qualified biologist shall identify suitable measures for avoiding impacts to roosts to achieve the performance standard of ensuring bat species have relocated prior to demolition or removal of the roosting structure.

Measures shall include, at a minimum, phased removal of trees where selected limbs and branches not containing cavities are removed using chainsaws on the Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-26 first day, with the remainder of the tree removed using chainsaws or other equipment on the second day after all bats have left the roost.

The City shall also consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine whether there is a need for any additional or equally effective alternative measures for protecting bats with young if present, and for implementing measures to exclude non-breeding bat colonies during the construction process.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1d: Avoid Impacts to Steelhead
The City of Santa Rosa shall ensure the construction contractor adheres to the following measures in order to prevent potential erosion into the off -site riparian zone associated with Santa Rosa Creek:
• Construction associated with storm drain improvements southwest of Melita Road shall occur during the dry season.
• Standard BMPs shall be implemented, including the installation of silt fences immediately downslope of the work limits for the storm drain improvements. • All disturbed areas shall be restored post-construction and hydro seeded with a native seed mix.
• Measures outlined by permitting agencies, such as CDFW or RWQCB, to prevent diminished water quality and erosion shall also be implemented during construction.

After Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1a would reduce impacts to sensitive and listed amphibians and reptiles by conducting pre -construction surveys, implementing measures to exclude them from the Project site during construction, working when the species are least likely to be on- site, and providing worker education as to species’ potential pre sence. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1b and BIO-1c, the potential impact to raptors, migratory birds, and bats would be reduced to a less -than-significant level by locating any potential active nests or roosts before the start of construction and establish buffers and avoiding nests, if found, during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1d would reduce potential indirect impacts to steelhead by taking actions to prevent degradation of the water quality within Santa Rosa Creek and erosion from project activities.

Impact 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Analysis: Less than Significant
Coast live oak woodland is present in the northern portion of the Project site, as well as in along the western and southern boundary of the site. This habitat type corresponds to a phase of the Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak woodland) alliance in the Manual of California, used to determine sensitive natural communities by CDFW (Sawyer et al. 2009). In the classification scheme of CNPS, this habitat type Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-27 corresponds to a phase of the cismontane woodland habitat type. This alliance and the associations within it have state ranking S4, and, thus, are not considered sensitive habitats.

Santa Rosa Creek, located approximately 150 feet southwest of Melita Road, provides instream and riparian habitat that supports a distinct community of plants and animals. No Project work would occur below the top of bank of Santa Rosa creek or within the Santa Rosa Creek riparian corridor. Proje ct-related w ork southwest of Melita Road would be limited to approximately 120 square feet for installation of a storm drain culvert replacement. This area is characterized as ruderal (oat and non-native blackberry), and no riparian habitat would be impacted.

There would be no impact to sensitive natural communities. Refer to Impact BIO- 3 for an analysis of the Project’s impact to wetland resources.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact BIO-3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Analysis: Significant
In April 2015, the San Francisco District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a site visit of the Project site. The Corps verified a 0.096-acre seasonal wetland on the northwestern portion of the Project site, as well as 0.022 acre of other waters located off-site adjacent to Melita Road.

The on-site seasonal wetland appears to be man-made, possibly through ground disturbances associated with past agricultural uses of the property. Vegetation growing within the seasonal wetland area was predominated by weedy wetland indicator species, primarily flat nut sedge (Cyperus eragrostis). The soils within the on-site wetland area showed some evidence of prolonged saturation with the presence of some mottling in the surface soils.

After the Corps verification discussed above, a roadside drainage excavated in uplands was identified along the frontage of Los Alamos Road measuring approximately 2 feet wide. The roadside drainage conveys storm water flows in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 460 linear feet for a total area of 920 square feet or 0.02 acre adjacent to the Project site, and ultimately drains to Santa Rosa Creek near Montgomery Drive. Because the roadside drainage is created in uplands, t he U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is unli kely to assert jurisdiction. However, for the purposes of this analysis, the drainage is assumed to be jurisdiction, whether by the Corps or the State.

Based on the current design, the Project would require permanent fill of the 0.096 acre seasonal wetland, temporary impact to the 0.022 acre of other waters located adjacent to Melita Road, and permanent fill of approximately 70 linear feet of the roadside drainage along Los Alamos Road (0.003 acre). The impact of the Project on wetlands and the other jurisdictional waters would be significant.

Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-28 Mitigation: Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Compensate for Loss of Wetlands and Waters The City of Santa Rosa shall ensure the Applicant compensates for the loss of the seasonal wetland through the purchase of wetland credits in an approved mitigation bank within the Santa Rosa Plain so that there is no net loss in wetlands.

The Applicant shall compensate for impacts to other waters, by enhancing approximately 120 square feet of drainage area with the planting of native willow within the rock rip-rap at the reconstructed culvert outlet southwest of Melita Road and an additional 120 square feet downslope of this area. Any other temporarily disturbed wetlands and waters shall be restored post- construction and hydro seeded with a native seed mix to original state.

Santa Rosa Creek shall be completely avoided during construction activities. Silt fences shall be installed along the edge of the culvert where storm drain improvements are planned to reduce siltation and contaminated runoff from the improvement area into the creek during construction. Required permits from the regulatory agencies shall be received prior to the start of any on -site construction activity. The City and Applicant shall ensure any additional measures outlined in the permits are implemented.

After Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Implementation of Mitig ation Measure BIO -3 would reduce the impact of the Project on wetlands and other waters to a less -than-significant level by ensuring that no net loss in wetlands occurs, that disturbed areas are restored, and that areas are re-established.

Impact 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?
Analysis: Less than Significant
No established wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites are known within the Project site (Macmillan 2020). The riparian corridor along Santa Rosa Creek is suitable for wildlife movement. However, because the storm drain improvements along Melita Road would replace an existing u nderground structure, located 100 feet beyond the top of bank, and would therefore not introduce any new feature that would substantially interfere with movement within the creek corridor , t he impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact BIO-5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Analysis: Significant
The Santa Rosa General Plan establishes policies and goals for the conservation of biological resources and waterways. The policies include conserving valued habitats including wetlands, vernal pools, wildlife ecosystems, rare plant habitats, waterways, and significant vegetation and trees. Valued habitats identified in the Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-29 general plan that are present within the Project site and off-site improvement areas include native oak trees and jurisdictional wetlands Please refer to Impacts BIO-1 through BI O-3 for evaluation of impacts relative to valued habitats, as well as mitigation measures that would provide compensatory mitigation for Project - related impacts including special-status species and wetland habitats.

Tree inventories were conducted at the Project site in 2017 (Horticultural Associates 2017). The total number of trees inventoried was approximately 478 trees. Based on the current design, the Project would remove up to 264 trees, and 151 of those trees are subject to the City’s tree ordinance, including approximately 95 native oak trees. The removal of trees, including native oak trees, would be a significant impact and would require compliance with Santa Rosa’s Tree Ordinance.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure BIO-5 Compensate for Loss of Protected Trees The City shall ensure the Applicant complies with Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 17-24 for planting and regenerating trees. The Applicant shall apply for and obtain permit for alteration, removal or relocation, of heri tage, protected, or street trees and shall comply with the mitigation ratio requirements for tree removal mandated by the City Code. Approval by the Director of the City’s Recreation and Parks Department shall be obtained, as required. Replacement trees sh all be planted within the P roject site; however, if the Project area is inadequate in size to accommodate the replacement trees, the trees may be planted on public property with the approval of the Director of the City’s Planning and Economic Development Department, or through payment of in-lieu fees.

The tree protection measures identified in the 2017 Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report shall be implemented. These include, but are not limited to, the following measures:
• Tree Protection Zones shall be illustrated on the Improvements Plans to show the area around each tree to be preserved that must be protected at all times with tree protection fencing. The protected area beneath the canopy of each tree shall be designated by the Project arborist to ensure long term tree viability and health.
• Tree protection fencing shall be minimum 4-feet in height at all locations, and shall form a continuous barrier around trees to be preserved. • Trenching should be routed around the Tree Protection Zone whenever possible.

After Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would ensure compensation for loss of protected and heritage trees and implementing protective measures for the protected and heritage tr ees that would be preserved on -site in accordance with Santa Rosa City Code, Chapter 17-24. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-30 Impact 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? Analysis: No Impact
The Project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As such, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan. No impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact C-BIO-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to biological resources?
Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) The geographic boundary for cumulative impacts related to biological resources would be the range of species that would potentially be impacted by the Project.

The Project has potential impacts to special-status wildlife species, nesting birds, and wetlands. Implementation of some of the cumulative projects listed in Table 3- 1 (Projects Considered for the Cumulative Analysis) could have similar impacts as described for the Project. All projects within the City of Santa Rosa are required to include measures to minimize and avoid impacts to biological resources to reduce loss of special status species habitat, to ensure no net loss of wetland s, and to protect and replace trees in accordance with the City’s tree ordinance. In addition, applicable cumulative projects throughout the range of the biological resources would be subject to regulatory permits and the conditions for protecting resources that come with such permits. Because the biological impacts that could result from the cumulative projects identified in Table 3- 1 would be reduced with the incorporation of mitigation or are subject to regulatory permits, the cumulative impact to biological resources would be less than significant.

As discus sed under Impact BIO -1, BIO -3, and BIO -5, the Project’s impact on biological resources would be reduced to a less -than-significant level w ith implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a through BIO-1d, BIO-3, and BIO-5, as well as compliance with Environmental Protection Actions identified in Chapter 2 (Project Description). Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to special -status aquatic species, reptiles, nesting birds, roosting bats, wetlands, and trees would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is needed.

Biological Resources
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.3-31

3.3.6 References
City of Santa Rosa. 2009a. Draft Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Environmental Impact Report.

March.

City of Santa Rosa. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. November 3.

City of Santa Rosa. 2013. Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan. Public Draft. May.

Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 166 pp.

Macmillan, Lucy. 2020. Biological Resources Assessment Spring Lake Village East, Melita and Los Alamos Road, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California APN 031-101-026, -034 and -035.

June.

Horticultural Associates. 2016. Tree Inventory and Mitigation Report. Spring Lake Village East Parcel. June 23.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015. Letter to Lucy Macmillan from Jane M. Hicks Regarding File No. 2015-0051N. April 30.

Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-1

3.4 Cultural Resources
This section evaluates potential cultural resources impacts fro m 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 tribal cultu ral resources are addressed in Section 3.13 (Tribal Cultural Resources).

3.4.1 Setting
The following sections describe the environmental setting for cultural resources within the region and Project area. Information included in this section is based, i n 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 Ap pendix H, in accordance with Federal and State law and pursuant to requests from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and the Lytton Rancheria.

Archaeological Resources
The cultural chronology and ethnography of the Project region are described below.

Cultural Chronology
The following cultural sequence describes both people and sites found in the northern San Francisco Bay Area.

Paleoindian Period (ca. 6000 BC – 10,000 BC+)
Archaeological evidence indicates that human occupation of Cali fornia began at least 11,000 years ago. This is the time when humans first entered California. Lak eside sites were established with probable emphasis on hunting. Milling technology is lacking in this period. Exchange of goods occurred on a one to one basis and not regularized. Social units consisted of extended families that were largely self-reliant and moved to resources as they became available and were needed. Sites are located in habitats with the highest density of energy-effi cient resources, such as around lakes, bays, and marshes, with a few special sites at locations like q uarries and camps in between these locations. Sites have been found to contain only lithic materia ls as milling equipment has not been found, indicating seeds were not a part of the diet at this time.

Archaic Period (ca. AD1000 – 6000 BC)
Lower Archaic Period characteristics include lakes drying due to climatic changes. Abundant milling stones suggest an emphasis on plants/small seeds for food, and little hunting occurred. Limited exchange took place, and there was a reliance on the use of loc al materials. Wealth was not emphasized, and the dominant social unit appears to be the extended family. Sites during the Lower Archaic Period moved because population growth during this time would have required pursuit of slightly harder to obtain food resources. Lakes, bays, and mars hes would have continued to be occupied, but seeds began to become part of the diet and there is a movement into grassland habitats at this time.

Middle Archaic Period characteristics include a change in the c limate, which became more benign.

The economy became more diverse. A c o r n u s e w a s i n t r o d u c e d , a s suggested by mortars and pestles. Hunting was important as evidenced by the abundance of dart tips. Sedentism began along Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-2

with increased population and expansion. Sites increased during the Middle Archaic Period. In addition, sites are found in another environment, the oak woodland. Although expanding into the oak woodland habitat, not all of these sites were developed for the exploitation of acorns. What also occurs at this time is an increase in the duration of time a site is in use.

Upper Archaic Period characteristics include the growth of soci al-political complexity with status distinctions based on wealth. Shell beads gain importance, and they appear to serve as indicators of both exchange and wealth. Group-oriented religious organization s emerge with possible origin of Kuksu religious system. Exchange systems become more complex wi th regularized sustained exchanges occurring between groups. Territorial boundaries were fluid. Sites during the Upper Archaic Period included major semi-permanent villages occur alo ng lakes, marshes, and in this region, along the Laguna de Santa Rosa. This marks the beginning of extreme resource intensification, though primarily of lake and marshland resources. There is also a high number of mortars and pestles at these bay shore sites suggesting a heavy reliance on acorns. There are few changes observed at the grassland and oak woodland sites other than an increase in the number of formal versus expedient tools. This possibly suggests longer seasonal use of these camps.

Emergent Period (ca. AD 1800 – AD 1000)
Lower Emergent Period characteristics included the introduction of the bow and arrow, which largely replaced the dart and atlatl. South coast marine adaptations flourished. Territorial boundaries became well established, and regularized exchange between groups continued with increased goods being exchanged. Increasing evidence has been found of distinctions in social status linked to wealth.

Upper Emergent Period characteristics include the appearance of the clam shell disk bead money economy. Increasingly more goods were moved farther. Local spec ialization of production and exchange of goods grew. South and central exchange systems were interpenetrated.

Sites used in the Emergent Period time experienced major change s at the beginning of this period because of increased population placing pressure on food resources. Resource intensification shifts away from lakes, bays, and marshes due to food limits. People b egin to focus on the acorn which provides continuous and greater caloric yields, though with increase labor expenditure. During this time period, semi-permanent villages are established in oak woo dland environments to facilitate acorn harvest and storage.

Ethnography
Linguists and ethnographers tracing the evolution of languages have found that most of the indigenous languages of the California region belong to one of five widespread North American language groups: the Hokan and Penutian phyla, Uto-Aztecan, Alg ic, and Athabaskan language families (Origer & Associates 2018). The distribution and internal diversity of four of these groups (all language groups except for the Hokan) suggest that their original centers of dispersal were outside, or peripheral to, the core territory of California (Central Val ley, the Sierra Nevada, the Coast Range from Cape Mendocino to Point Conception, and the Southern California coast and islands).

At the time of Euro-American settlement, people inhabiting this area spoke Southern Pomo, one of seven Pomoan languages belonging to the Hokan language stock. The Southern Pomo’s aboriginal territory falls within present-day Sonoma County. To the north, it reaches the divide between Rock Pile Creek and the Gualala River, and to the south, it extends to near the town of Cotati. The eastern boundary primarily runs along the western flanks of Sonoma Moun tain and the Mayacamas Mountains until it reaches Healdsburg, where it crosses to the west side of the Russian River. At that Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-3

time, the Pomo were hunter-gatherers who lived in rich environm ents that allowed for dense populations with complex social structures. They settled in large, permanent villages which consisted of distributed seasonal camps and task-specific sites. Primary village sites were occupied continually throughout the year and other sites were visited in order to procure particular resources that were especially abundant or available only during certain seasons. Sites often were situated near natural resources, particularly sources of fresh water and areas of div erse and abundant plant and animal life. In 1992 the Southern Pomo and Coast Miwok established the FIGR and were federally recognized in 2000.

Archival Research
Archaeological work in the region began over a century ago with inventories conducted in the San Francisco Bay area between 1906 and 1908. Inventories have foun d sites throughout Sonoma County and parts of Marin County including sites located within less than a half-mile of the Project site. Archival research for the Project included examination of the library and project files at Tom Origer & Associates, and review of the archaeological site base maps and records, survey reports, and other materials on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Sources of information included but were not limited to the current listings of properties on the National Register of Histor ic Places (National Register) , California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources (California Registe r), and California Points of Historical Interest as listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s His toric Property Directory. In addition, ethnographic literature that des cribes appropriate Native Ameri can groups, county histories, and other primary and secondary sources were reviewed.

Regional Characteristics
The geology of the Project area consists of undivided, alluvial deposits that date to the Holocene (11,700 years to present) and late Pleistocene (323,500 years to 11,700 years ago) epochs. Soils at the site belong to the Manzanita series. Manzanita soils are mo derately well-drained gravelly silty loams found on alluvial fans and river terraces. Manzanita soils typically support the growth of annual and perennial grasses, forbs, wild berry vines, small shrubs, a nd scattered oaks. Historically, Manzanita soils were used mainly for prunes, walnuts, grapes, hay, and pasture.

The main year-round watercourse in the Project area is Santa Ro sa Creek. The original route of Santa Rosa Creek flowed approximately 25 meters southwest of the Project site. In the early 1960s, the Central Watershed Project consisted of a variety of flood c ontrol measures that included modification to this portion of Santa Rosa Creek and moved its course an additional 15 meters away to the southwest.

The geologic occurrence of obsidian occurs in what is now known as Trione-Annadel State Park.

Annadel obsidian is usually grayish, often with banding. It is marked by a rough texture and a somewhat non-homogenous matrix, which can make forming chippeds tone tools such as projectile points, knives, and scrapers challenging. Although farther away, Napa Valley obsidian was a highly prized commodity as it was higher quality stone and more easily knapped. Basalt and other igneous rocks are other elements of the area’s geology that were import ant to prehistoric people for the manufacture of handstones, metates, mortars, pestles, and choppers.

Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-4

Historic Resources
Santa Rosa
The City of Santa Rosa is centrally located within the County of Sonoma along Highway 101 approximately 55 miles north of San Francisco. The City was officially founded in 1854. Most of the early American settlers during the mid-1800s established farmsteads throughout the area, and Santa Rosa thrived through the first decades of the twentieth century as the trading center of the rich agricultural lands. In 1870, the first railroad was established through the City. The railroads made Santa Rosa a shipping hub for agricultural products, the lumber industry and basalt quarries.

The 1906 earthquake greatly damaged the City’s business section , and most of the commercial district had to be rebuilt. Santa Rosa continued to grow and prosper at a steady rate up to World War II. The war brought the development of two military airfields and government housing, which brought thousands of new residents to the area. Post-war through to the 1970s, Santa Rosa continued to experience large increases in population and residential develo pment. The growth spread out into the outlying farmsteads, which were generally replaced by large neighborhoods of tract housing and typical suburban development.

Hamlet of Melitta1
The Project site is located within the boundary of the former hamlet of Melitta, located approximately five miles northeast from downtown Santa Rosa. The hamlet exper ienced significant development along Santa Rosa Creek beginning in 1888 with the completion of the Southern Pacific Company’s Santa Rosa & Carquinez Railroad, w hich supported passenger trains and the regional export of Sonoma Valley paving blocks to San Francisco. After completion of the railroad, the hamlet grew into a small community that consisted of a number of individual farm s, an inn, a store, a post office, a railroad station and various buildings that supported blockmakers who worked in nearby quarries as part of the paving brick industry. At its peak, the hamlet’s borders extended roughly from Highway 12 to the north, Melita Road to the east, Annadel State Park to the south and Spring Lake Village to the west. (Page and Turnbull 2015)
By the early 1920’s, the paving block industry had collapsed following a sharp rise after the 1906 San Francisco fire. In 1934, railroad service to the hamlet was clo sed and the railroad and local stations abandoned. Many of the buildings that originally comprised the hamlet of Melitta have since been destroyed or rebuilt, however, the structure that used to contain a store and boarding house located at what is now 5850 Melita Road still exists. Built in 1915, the boarding house was later expanded to include a store circa 1932. Today the segment of the building w hich used to be the store is a single family residence, and the boarding house, along with a mid-cent ury addition, functions as a bed & breakfast known as the Melitta Station Inn. A recent historic r esource evaluation of the building at 5850 Melita Road concluded that it did not qualify as a historic resource. (Page and Turnbull 2015)

1 The spelling of “Melita” or “Melitta” has alternated throughout the years. For consistency with a recent historic resource evaluation, this EIR uses the spelling of “Melitta” when discussing the hamlet and associated buildings.

Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-5

3.4.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by th e National Historic Preservati on Act (NHPA) of 1966, the National Park Service's NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archaeological resources.

National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, describes the Criteria for Evaluation for the National Register as being composed of two factors (US Department of the Interior 1997). First, the property must be " associated with an important historic context." The National Register identifies four possible context types, of which at least one must be applicable at the national, state, or local level. As listed under Section 8, "Statement of Significance," of the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, these are:
 Criteria A: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
 Criteria B: Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.  Criteria C: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
 Criteria D: Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

Second, for a property to qualify under the NRHP’s Criteria for Evaluation, it must also retain "historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significanc e." While a property's significance relates to its role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to "a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance." To determine if a property retains the physical characteristics corresponding to its historic context, the National Register ha s identified seven aspects of integrity:
1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association.

Section 106 of the NHPA prescribes specific criteria for determ ining whether a project would adversely affect a historic property, as defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.5. An impact is considered significant when prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP are subjected to the following effects:
 physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property  alteration of a property
 removal of the property fr om its historic location
 change of the character of the pr operty’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance
 introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features
 neglect of a property that causes its deterioration
 transfer, lease, or sale of the property
Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-6

Cultural resource significance is evaluated in terms of eligibi lity for listing in the NRHP. NRHP significance criteria applied to evaluate the cultural resources for this Project are defined in 36 CFR

60.4. State
California Environmental Quality Act
Historic Resources and Unique Archaeological Resources
CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a project would have a significant effect on historical resources and unique archaeological resources. The CEQA Guideli nes define a historical resource as: (1) a resource listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in the Cal ifornia Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k) , or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (3) any object, building, structur e, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency deter mines to be historically sig nificant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, p rovided the lead agency’s deter mination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of CEQA Statute (PRC) Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the CEQA Guidelines criteria for a historical resource, then the site may meet the threshold of CEQA Statute Section 21083 regarding unique archaeological resources.

A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
 Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
 Has a special and particular qua lity, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
 Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (CEQA Statute Section 21083.2[g]).

The CEQA Guidelines note that if a resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor a historical resource, the effects of a project on that resource shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[c][4]).

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.

Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-7

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 manage 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 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 Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-8

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).

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 Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-9

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.

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.

Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-10

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.

HP-B Preserve Santa Rosa’s historic structures and neighborhoods.

HP-B-1 Ensure that alterations to historic buildings and their surrounding settings are compatible with the character of the structure and the neighbor hood. Ensure that specific rehabilitation projects f ollow the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to a reasonable extent, taking into consideratio n economic and technical feasibility.

HP-B-2 Preserve significant historic structures. Consider the l ife cycle costs when evaluating the alternatives to demolition of these structures, including the adaptive reuse of historic buildings for contemporary uses.

HP-B-8 Preserve sites that are eligible for the National Regist er of Historic Places, and pursue listing eligible sites in the Register.

3.4.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table

3.4-1 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are used to determine if the proposed Project would have a significant effect related to cultural resources.

Table 3.4-1 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
CR-1: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Adverse alteration of those
physical characteristics of a
historical resource that justify
its eligibility for the NRHP,
CRHR, or as a local landmark
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item V (a)

General Plan Policy
HP-B-1, 2, & 8
CR-2: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Adverse alteration of those
physical characteristics of an
archaeological resource that
justify its eligibility for the
NHRP, CRHR or as a unique
archaeological resource
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item V (b)

National Register Criterion
D and/or California Register
Criterion 4

General Plan Policy HP-A-
1, 2, 3, and HP-B-8
CR-3: Would the project disturb
any human remains, including
those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Potential disturbance of
human remains, including
Native American human
remains, associated grave
goods, or items of cultural
patrimony
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item V (c)

General Plan Policy HP-A-5
Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-11

3.4.4 Approach to Analysis
The evaluation of potential impac ts on cultural resources is ba sed on the potential for ground disturbance during construction ac tivities to disturb or destro y known or previously unrecorded cultural resources, such as unique archaeological sites, histor ic buildings, or human remains. The significance of most prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites is usually determined based on National Register Criterion D and/or California Register Criterion 4. These criteria stress the importance of a site to yield information important in prehistory or history. Archaeological resources are also assessed under CEQA as unique archaeological resources , defined as archaeological artifacts, objects, or sites that contain information needed to answer important scientific research questions.

The analysis of archaeological resources in this EIR section is based on Project-specific analysis performed by cultural resource specialists. Table 3.4-2 (Overview of Reports Utilized in Impact Analysis) summarizes the investigations completed for the Project.

Table 3.4-2 Overview of Reports Utilized in Impact Analysis Report Contents
Melitta Station Inn/5850 Melita
Road Historic Resource Evaluation,
Page & Turnbull. October 13, 2015.

This evaluation included an investigation of 5850 Melita Road to determine its historical significance. Specifically, whether the building is eligible for listing in the California Register.

A Cultural Resources Study for the
Spring Lake Village East Grove
Project, Tom Origer & Associates.

August 24, 2016.

This study included an overview of the regulatory context, geologic and cultural setting, Native American contacts, and findings of archival research and field inspection of the Project site.

Historical Resources Study for the
Spring Lake Valley East Grove
Project, Tom Origer & Associates.

August 2016, revised June 2017.

This report updated the August 2016 report prepared for the Project, to add parcels at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road to the study area.
2017 Building Evaluation Report,
Tom Origer & Associates. June 28,
2017.

This report was prepared to evaluate the potential for the residence at 5803 Melita Rosa to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Places.

Cultural Resources Summary for
the Spring Lake Village – East
Grove Project, Tom Origer &
Associates. January 30, 2020.

This report was prepared to summarize results of
archaeological investigations completed for the Project site and to evaluate the eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources.

3.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.4-3 (Summary of Impacts - Cultural Resources) provides a summary of potential impacts from the proposed Project.

Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-12

Table 3.4-3 Summary of Impacts – Cultural Resources
Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
CR-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
LS
CR-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
SUM
CR-3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
SUM
C-CR-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to cultural resources?
SUM
Notes: LS = Less than Significant
SUM = Significant Unavoidable with Mitigation
Impact CR-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse chan ge in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Analysis: Less than Significant
Impact CR-1 includes a historical evaluation of built resources (i.e. residences and other buildings) within the Project area. Please refer to Impac t CR-2 for an evaluation of historic-period archaeological resources.

Residence at 5803 Melita Road
The single-family home located on the Project site at 5803 Meli ta Road was evaluated for listing on the California Register. The home was originally constructed in 1950 as a single-story dwelling with a low pitched, hip roof with open eaves and composition shingles. A DPR 523 Form was prepared for the residence to evaluate whether the single-family home was eligible for lis ting on the CRHR.

The evaluation determined that the residence does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion in the California Register (Origer 2017b). Specifical ly, the structure was found to contain generic 1950s arc hitecture that neither illust rates the characteristics of a particular style, nor represents a transit ional form between styles, and therefore isn’t considered to be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to bro ad patterns of local or region al history or cultural heritage of California of the United States (Criterion 1) (Origer 2017b). Additionally, the structure was not considered an outstanding representation of 1950s architecture (Criterion 3), nor was it associated with a person of historical importance (Criterion 2) (Origer 2017b). The structure possesse d no intrinsic qualities that could answer or p rovide important information ab out our history (Criterion 4) (Origer 2017b). Therefore, demolition of the residence at 5803 Melita Road would not impact an historic resource.

Residence at 5815 Melita Road
The single-family home located on the Project site at 5815 Meli ta Road was built in 1977, approximately 42 years ago. The CRHR requires that a r esource be 50 years old for listing, which is the accepted period that is con sidered to have provided sufficient time to pass in order to obtain a scholarly perspective on the Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-13

event or individuals associated with the resource and to unders tand the historic importance of a resource. As a rule of thumb, if a building within the geographical scope of a survey is within five years of the 50-year threshold , then it will be cursorily reviewed by the surveyor and only included if it appears there are exceptional circumstances surrounding the resource, such as a remarkable design or the occurrence of a notable event. The residence at 5815 Mel ita Road is not age-eligible for listing. Therefore, demolition of the residence at 5815 Melita Road would not impact an historic resource.
225 Los Alamos Road
Based on historical aerial photographs dating back to 1953, the Project parcel at 225 Los Alamos Road was used as a rural residential property with an established orchard. Topographic maps show two buildings in this area as early as 1916. One building existed at the 225 Los Alamos parcel, and another buil ding in the vicinity of 5803 and 5815 Melita Road (Origer 2017a). Neither of the two buildings previously plotted on topographic maps are currently present at 225 Los Alamos Road. Remnants of the orchard remain present at the site today in the form of several walnut trees. Overall, the Project site is currently vacant with the exception of an irrigation well and an accompanying enclosure located on the southern side of the property parcel. The well enclosure is composed of only remnants of the initial buildings and was determined to not have historical significance (Origer and Associates 2017a). Removal of this structure would not impact a n historic resource.

Adjacent Buildings (5850 Melita Rd / 5852 Melita Rd / 5860 Melita Rd) The cultural resource records search determined that the Projec t site is located adjacent to several potential historic resources. These identified potential resources include the Melitta Station Inn located at 5850 Melit a Road, and buildings located at 5852 and 5860 Melita Road. The Project would not physically alter these properties.

Melitta Station Inn (5850 Melita Road) was constructed circa 19 15 as a boarding house in the hamlet of Melitta. The building was found to be historically associated with the development of the hamlet of Melitta, and as one of th e last remaining buildings from this era. However, extensive alterations to the building and surrounding area have removed much of the physical fabric that is representative of this significance. As such, Melitta Station Inn does not retain sufficient integrity to convey this identified historical significance and is not eligible for listing in the CRHR (Page & Turnbull 2015). Additionally, the Project does not propose any work on or in the footprint of the building, rather Project activiti es would take place adjacent to the building. Implementation of the Project would n ot affect a historic resource, as the Melitta Station Inn (5850 Melita Road) does no t qualify as a historic resource under the California Register.

The buildings on the remaining adjacent properties, including 5 852 and 5860 Melita Road, date to the early pa rt of the 20th century. The building at 5852 is situated toward the southwest end of the parcel (away from the majority of development activities on the Project site) and faces southwest toward Melita Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-14

Road. This building is screened from the majority of the proposed Project by a late- 20th century house and mature trees. Because the house is situated and oriented away from the Project site, and it is screened by mature trees, it is unlikely that the Project would impact the building’s historical importance (Origer 2017a). Similarly, because the house at 5860 Melita Road is situated and oriented away from the Project site, and is screened by mature trees, it is unlikely that the proposed Project would impact the building’s historical importance (Origer 2017a). The impact of the Project on adjacent structures would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact CR-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse chan ge in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Analysis: Significant
Based on Project-specific analysis performed by cultural resour ce specialists, archaeological resources that are eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources may be impacted by construction-related e xcavation and grading activities. Therefore, the Project’s construction-relat ed impact on archeological resources would be significant.
(Please see Section 4.3.2 for a discussion of a project alterna tive designed to maximally avoid archeological resources.)
During operation, no ground distur bing activities would occur o ther than those related to routine maintenance, such as landscaping or irrigati on repair in what would be already disturbed areas. Therefore, the operational impact would be less than significant.

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:

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
Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-15

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 ap propriate archaeological techniques that protect the integrity of a resou rce and ensure that no resources are affected. 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 per the requirements 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 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 Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-16

personnel shall not collect cultural materials, examples of whi ch are provided in the following description. Prehistoric archaeological site indi cators include:
obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles ); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened mi dden 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 affec ted stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, c eramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps).

A qualified archaeologist and representatives of FIGR and/or 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 establis hed by a qualified archaeologist and tribal representative to ensure that no further damage to a resource would result. Work may then proceed on other parts of the Project while mitigation for these resources is being carried out.

After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2a would reduce the imp act to historic eligible archaeological resources by requiring the development and implementation of an Archaeological Resource and Tribal Cultura l Resource Treatment Plan, archaeological monitoring, and consultation with representatives of the FIGR and Lytton Rancheria Native American Tribes.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c would further reduce the potential impact to archaeological resources by requiring furth er avoidance measures as identified in the confidential Appendix H.

Mitigation Measure CR-2d would further reduce the potential imp act to archaeological resources by outlining procedures to be taken in the event of inadvertent discovery of archaeol ogical or tribal cultural reso urces during Project construction.

However, even with implementatio n of these measures, Project-re lated excavations and ground-disturbance may materially impair the in tegrity of archaeological resources. Therefore, the impact would be signif icant and unavoidable, even with mitigation.

Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-17

Impact CR-3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Analysis: Significant
No human remains have been directly observed on the Project site. However, the possibility of encountering human remains during Project constr uction cannot be discounted. Therefore, the impact related to the potential dist urbance of human remains during construction is considered significant.

Following construction, no ground disturbing activities are ant icipated to occur other than those related to routine maintenance of the Project, such as landscaping or irrigation repair. Therefore, it is unlikely any human remai ns would be encountered during operation. T he operational impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c: Additional Avoidance Measures The City shall ensure implementat ion of avoidance measures as i dentified in Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c in the confidential Appendix H.

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 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 Measures CR-2b and CR-2c would reduce the potential impact by requiring avoidance measures as identified in the confidential Appendix H. Mitigation Measure CR-3 would further minimize the potential impact to human remains 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 Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-18

with implementation of these measures, it is possible that Project-related excavations and ground-disturbance may disturb human remains or items of cultural patrimony. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation.

Impact C-CR-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively consi derable contribution to impacts related to cultural resources?
Analysis: Significant
The geographic boundary for cumulative impacts related to cultu ral resources would be the range of tribe(s) cu lturally affiliated with the P roject site and the locality of cultural resources within the Project area. Impleme ntation of the cumulative projects listed in Table 3-1 (Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts) may require grading and excavation that could potentia lly affect cultural resources, human remains, or modify or otherwise impact histori c buildings/structures. Construction activities associated with c umulative projects would be subject to existing federal, state, local regulations, and policies for Project design and approval. CEQA requirements for protecting cultural resources and human remains would be applicable to each of the cumulative pro jects. The existing federal, state and local regulations, design policies and CEQA requirements would generally reduce potential impacts to cultur al resources from implementation of cumulative projects to a less-than-significant level. However, as discussed above under the Project impact analysis, the Project may potentially impact cultural resources. The Project’s contribution to the po tential 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 Impacts CR-2 and CR-3 for the description of Mitigation Measures CR-2a through CR-3.

After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation As noted under Impact CR-2 and Impact CR-3, implementation of M itigation Measures CR-2a through CR-3 would reduce the impact to cultural resources, however, even with implementation of these measures, Project-related excavations and ground-disturbance may materially impair the integrity of cultural resources. The Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would therefore be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation.

Cultural Resources

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.4-19

3.4.6 References
Page & Turnbull. 2015. Melitta Station Inn/5850 Melita Road Historic Resource Evaluation.

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. 2017a. 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. 2017b. 2017 Building Evaluation Report (5803 Melita Road).

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.

Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-1

3.5 Geology and Soils
This section evaluates potential environmental impacts related to geology and soils during construction and operation of the Project . In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following subjects are related to geology and soils, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
 Potential hazards from naturally-occurring asbestos in soils are evaluated in Section 3.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials)
 Potential impacts to water quality due to erosion, runoff, or alteration of drainage patterns are evaluated in Section 3.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality)

3.5.1 Setting
Regional and Local Geology
Santa Rosa lies within the northeastern potion of the Cotati valley found along the Santa Rosa Plain and also includes part of the Sonoma Mountains to the east. The City is situated at the confluence of the Matanzas Creek and Santa Rosa Creek, both of which originate from the Sonoma Mountains t o the east. Eastern valleys such as Rincon Valley are considered low intervening valleys at 200 to 300 feet above mean sea level with gentle slopes ranging from 0 to 15 percent. In general, Santa Rosa is underlain by volcanic deposits known as the Sonoma Volcanics, sedimentary rocks known as the Petaluma Formation, and alluvial deposits (Santa Rosa 2009). Published geologic maps indicate that the Project site is predominantly underlain by Holocene and Pleistocene alluvial deposits. The northeastern portion of the property is underlain by Pliocene fluvial and lacustrine deposits. Surface soils on the Project site are underlain by medium dense to very dense sand and gravel with varying amounts of clay, with occasional layers of clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel (RGH 2015).

Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loosely packed sandy or silty materials saturated with water are shaken hard enough to lose strength and stiffness. Liquefied soils behave like a liquid and are responsible for tremendous damage in an earthquake, causing pipes to leak, roads and airport runways to buckle, and building foundations to be damaged. Such liquefaction has been responsible for ground failures during almost all of California’s great earthquakes. The risk of liquefaction depends on many factors, including the height of the groundwater table and the composition of the underlying soil.

Liquefaction susceptibility is typically defined on a scale ranging from very low to very high based on the factors identified above. Most of Santa Rosa is at medium, low, or very low risk of liquefaction impacts in a seismic event. Soil samples collected from on -site geotechnical borings indicate the presence of layers with moderate potential for liquefaction on the Project site (RGH 2015). The area surrounding Santa Rosa Creek extending east to west across the City is at a high risk for liquefaction because of the presence of shallow groundwater in this area.

Landslides
Landslides result when soils on a hillside become unstable and slide down toward the base of the hill. They can occur very quickly or may unfold slowly over a period of days, weeks, months, or years.

Landslides can damage or destroy any structures built on or in (e.g., pipelines) the moving soil, and the flow of material can cause further damage to any structure in its path. Landslide risk depends on the types of earth materials of the hillside and the steepness of the slope. There are multiple types of landslides and they can be triggered by a number of different events, but the two most common forms Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-2 are earthquake- induced landslides and moisture- induced (rain, flooding, irrigation) landslides.

Earthquake-induced landslides can happen when the ground shaking makes the soil looser (sometimes as a result of liquefaction) or when rocks in the slope fracture, creating unstable conditions. Moisture-induced landslides can occur when the ground soaks up enough water to cause it to weaken and become unstable.

Landslide prone areas in the City can generally be broken down into two categories, with “mostly landslides” indicating slopes that are mostly susceptible to the hazard, and “many” landslides demonstrating a slightly lower susceptibility. Most of Santa Rosa lies on flat land with little to no risk of landslides. The steeper slopes with a higher risk of landslides are generally in the northeastern part of the City. The nearest area with high landslide potential is approximately 0.05 mile south of the Project site within Annadel State Park (USGS 1997).

Seismicity and Faulting
The closest fault to the Project site is the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault. In addition, as shown in Table 3.5-1 (Active Faults Near the Project Area), several other active faults in the region are also active and capable of causing significant ground shaking in Santa Rosa.

The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities has evaluated the probability of one or more earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 or higher occurring in California over the next 30 years. The result of the evaluation indicated a 72 percent likelihood that such an earthquake event will occur in the San Francisco region by the year 2038 (WGCEP 2015) . The site will therefore be subject to seismic shaking from moderate to severe earthquakes in the future. The design life of the Project can expect periodic slight to moderate earthquakes. However, the site is not located on any published Fault Zones based on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no active faults have been mapped on or projected toward the site (RGH 2015).

Table 3.5-1 Active Faults Near the Project Area
Fault Distance and Direction from the Project
Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek 3 miles southwest
Maacama 10 miles north-northwest
West Napa 16 miles east-southeast
San Andreas 23 miles southwest
Concord-Green Valley 26 miles east-southeast
Source: RGH 2015
Fault Rupture
Fault rupture is the actual movement and displacement of the ground’s surface along the fault boundary when an earthquake occurs. Depending on the type of fault, this displacement may be horizontal, vertical, or both. Damage from fault rupture can be severe depending on the size of the displacement, but is limited to the relatively small area along the fault boundary where the slip occurred. Not all earthquakes result in fault rupture that is visible at the surface, and strong earthquakes can occur without any discernible displacement along the boundary. However, the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo fault rupture zone (RGH 2015, Santa Rosa 2009).

Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-3 Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is the primary cause of damage and injury during earthquakes. Ground -shaking impacts can lead to surface rupture, liquefaction, landslides, and infrastructure failures, which could lead to fires and other secondary hazards. The geology of the impacted area alters the amount of ground shaking felt. Thick, water- saturated, unconsolidated materials will generally experience greater shaking motion than areas of firm bedrock.

The size and magnitude of an earthquake have different ways of being measured. The magnitude is a number that characterizes the relative size of an earthquake. Magnitude is based on measurement of the maximum motion recorded by a seismograph. Many scales, such as the Richter scale, do not provide accurate estimates for the magnitudes of large earthquakes. To account for these large earthquakes, the moment magnitude scale (abbreviated as MMS; denoted as MW or M) is preferred for its ability to cover a wide range of earthquake sizes and be applied globally. The moment magnitude scale is based on the total moment release of the earthquake. Moment magnitude is a product of the distance a fault moved and the force required to move it. It is derived from modeling recordings of the earthquake at multiple stations.

Paleontological Setting
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones), invertebrates (e.g., starfish, clams, ammonites and marine coral) and fossils of microscopic plants and animals (microfossils). The age and abundance of fossils depend on the location, topographic setting and particular geologic formation in which they are found. The University of California has a number of highly sensitive Pleistocene era vertebrate finds recorded within Sonoma County, two of which are within a few miles of the P roject site. The Project site is situated on ground surface that is primarily composed of undivided Holocene- Pleistocene alluvium with a narrow segment of Holocene ch annel. Additionally, the presence of streams in the vicinity of the Project site indicates that it is located within an alluvial floodplain capable of accumulating terrestrial fossils. (Finger 2016).

3.5.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
There are no federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to geology and soils applicable to the Proposed Project.

State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to s tructures for human occupancy. In accordance with this act, the State Geologist established regulatory zones, called “earthquake fault zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and published maps showing these zones. Within these zones, buildings for human occupancy cannot be constructed across the surface trace of active faults. Because many active faults are complex and consist of more than one branch, each earthquake fault zone extends approximately 200 to 500 feet on either side of the mapped fault trace. Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 3601(e), defines buildings intended for human occupancy as those that would be inhabited for more than 2,000 hours per year. The proposed Project area does not cross an Alquist- Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-4 Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CDC 2020). Therefore, the provisions of the act do not apply to the Project.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
Like the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 2690 to 2699.6) is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist- Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including strong groundshaking, liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. Its provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist -Priolo Act, where the State is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, with cities and counties required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones. Under the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local regulation of development. Specifically, cities and counties are prohibited from issuing development permits for sites within Seismic Hazard Zones until appropriate site-specific geologic and/or geotechnical investigations have been conducted and measures to reduce potential damage have been incorporated into the development plans. The California Geological Survey has not yet evaluated the Project site or surrounding area under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), which is codified in CCR Title 24, Part 2, was promulgated to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum standards related to structural strength, egress facilities, and general buil ding stability. The purpose of the CBC is to regulate and control the design, construction, quality of materials, use/occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards.

Santa Rosa NPDES Storm Water Permit and Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual
The City of Santa Rosa’s current NPDES storm water permit regulates both storm water and non- storm water discharges from public and private projects into the Santa Rosa municipal storm drain system. The permit requires a minimum set of best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented at all construction sites, as well as permanent storm water Low Impact Development ( LID) BMPs in accordance with the City’s Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (Storm Water LID Manual) (Santa Rosa 2017).

California Public Resources Code (PRC)
Section 5097.5 of the PRC protect s vertebrate paleontological resources located on public land.

Under Section 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 express permission of the public agency that has jurisdiction over the lands.

Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-5 Regional and Local
Local Hazards Mitigation Plan
Santa Ro sa’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ( Santa Rosa 2016) provides the City’s framework to mitigate local risks to natural hazards and plan for a resilient future . The Plan provides a set of strategies to reduce vulnerability to disaster through education and outreach programs, the development of partnerships, and implementation of actions to reduce the of impacts from a disaster.

City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are generally related geology and soils and are applicable to the Project.

NS-C Prohibit development in high-risk geologic and seismic hazard areas to avoid exposure to seismic and geologic hazards.

NS-C-1 Prior to development approval, require appropriate geologic studies to identify fault trace locations within active fault zones as designated by the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. California registered geologists or engineers must conduct these studies and investigation methodologies must comply with guidelines set forth by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

NS-C-2 Require comprehensive geotechnical investigations prior to development approval, where applicable. Investigations shall include evaluation of land slide risk, liquefaction potential, settlement, seismically -induced landsliding, or weak and expansive soils. Evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically-induced landslides, shall comply with guidelines set forth in the most recent version of the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Special Publication 117.

NS-C-3 Restrict development from areas where people might be adversely affected by known natural or manmade geologic hazards. Hazards might include unstable slopes, liquefiable soils, expansive soils or weak poorly engineered fills, as determined by a California registered geologist or engineer.

NS-C-8 Adopt mandatory, minimum erosion control measures for current properties and those under construction that exhibit high erosion potential, are in areas of steep slopes, or have experienced past erosion problems. Control measures shall reduce soil erosion from primary erosional agents, including wind, construction operations, and storm water runoff.

3.5.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table

3.5-3 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds ) are used to determine if the P roject would have a significant effect related to geology and soils.

Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-6 Table 3.5-3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
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?
Placement of a structure
intended for human
occupancy within an Alquist-
Priolo earthquake fault zone
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VII (a.i)

General Plan policy NS-C-1
GEO-2: Would the project cause
risk of loss, injury, or death
involving strong seismic ground
shaking?
Non-compliance with
California Building Code

Non-compliance with
recommendations of project-
specific geotechnical reports
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VII (a.ii)

General Plan policy NS-C-2

California Building Code (CCR
Title 24)

GEO-3: Would the project cause
risk of loss, injury, or death
involving seismic related ground
failure, including liquefaction?
Non-compliance with
recommendations of project-
specific geotechnical reports
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VII (a.iii)

General Plan policy NS-C-2

California Building Code (CCR
Title 24)
GEO-4: Would the project cause
risk of loss, injury, or death
involving landslides?
Non-compliance with
recommendations of project-
specific geotechnical reports
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VII (a.iv)

General Plan policy NS-C-2

California Building Code (CCR
Title 24)
GEO-5: Would the project result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Non-compliance with
applicable erosion and
sediment control measures
in Santa Rosa’s NPDES
stormwater discharge
permit.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VII (b)

Order No. R1-2015-0030

General Plan policy NS-C-8
Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-7 Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
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?
Placement of structures on
weak or unstable soils with
moderate to high potential
for liquefaction, lateral
spreading, settlement, or
expansion

Non-compliance with
recommendations of project-
specific geotechnical reports
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VII (c) (d)

General Plan policy NS-C-2
and NS-C-3

California Building Code (CCR
Title 24)
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?
Installation of septic systems
or wastewater disposal
systems in unsuitable soils
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VII (e)
GEO-8: Would the project directly
or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Disturbance of a known
fossil locality or located
within a geologic unit that
has high paleontological
sensitivity
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VII (f)

3.5.4 Approach to Analysis
A Geotechnical Study Report for the Project site was completed by RGH Consultants on January 6, 2015 (RGH 2015) (see Appendix D). The findings of the geotechnical study are utilized to evaluate the seismic and geologic hazards that may affect the proposed Project. The evaluation of potential impacts on paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance during construction activities to disturb or destroy known or previously unrecorded resources .

Paleontological resources were assessed based on review of site -specific geologic mapping and a records search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology database.

3.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.5-4 (Summary of Impacts - Geology and Soils) provides a summary of potential impacts from the Proposed Project.

Table 3.5-4 Summary of Impacts – Geology and Soils
Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
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
GEO-2: Would the project cause risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
LS
GEO-3: Would the project cause risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction?
LS
Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-8 Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
GEO-4: Would the project cause risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? LS GEO-5: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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
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
GEO-8: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
LSM
C-GEO-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils? LS
Notes: LS = Less than Significant
LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation
SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact 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?
Analysis: No Impact
The Project site is not located within an active fault zone as designated by the provisions of the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (RG H 2015).

Additionally, no landforms were observed at the Project site during completion of a site-specific geotechnical study that would indicate the presence of other active faults (RGH 2015). No impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact GEO-2: Would the project cause risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Analysis: Less than Significant
The Project is located in an area that would be subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake on the Rodgers Creek Fault that could expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects. Other principal faults capable of producing ground shaking at the Project site include the San Andreas, Maacama, West Napa, Concord -Green Valley, Hayward, San Gregorio- Hosgri, and the Calaveras fault.

The Santa Rosa General Plan includes policies to ensure that new structures are built with consideration of ground -shaking hazards, including design and construction of new development in adherence with current standards for earthquake-resistant construction. A design-level geotechnical study was performed for the Project site to generate geotechnical information for the design Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-9 and construction (RGH 2015). The geotechnical study includes an evaluation of seismic hazards related to ground shaking. The peak ground accelerati on (PGA) for the P roject site is 0.68g (RGH 2015). The geotechnical study identifies the appropriate 20131 California Building Code seismic design criteria to be used for structures at the P roject site. The study also identifies appropriate foundation supports to be used, including spread footings, post-tension slabs, retaining walls, and slab-on-grade designs.

As summarized in EIR Section 2.5 (Environmental Protection Actions Incorporated into the Project), implementation of Environmental Protection Action 1 is included as part of the Project. Project Measure 1 requires the Project to be designed and constructed in conformance with site- specific recommendations contained in geotechnical studies completed for the Project and any subsequent related geotechnical reports for the Project. Because the Project would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and with P roject-specific recommendations contained in design-level geotechnical studies, the potential impact related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact GEO-3: Would the project cause risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Analysis: Less than Significant
A geotechnical study performed for the P roject site identified layers of soil that exhibit moderate potential for liquefaction. The majority of the soils that exhibited the potential for liquefaction were identified between one and three feet below the ground surface. A deeper layer of soil that exhibited the potential for liquefaction was encountered in one boring at a depth of 9 to 12 feet below the ground surface. (RGH 2015).

Based on the presence of liquefiable soils at the P roject site, t he geotechnical study evaluated the potential for bearing capacity failure, lateral spreading and settlement to occur. Bearing capacity failure is the sudden and extreme settlement of foundations that typically occurs when the liquefied layer is relatively close (typically within two times the footing width, depending on the loads) to the bottom of the foundation. The geotechnical study determined that with remedial grading 2 in accordance with its recommendations, the potential for bearing capacity failure would be low.

Lateral spreading occur s where continuous layers of liquefiable soil extend to a free face, such as a creek bank. The geotechnical report concluded that while liquefiable layers are present on the site, they are discontinuous. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction-induced lateral spreading at the Project site is anticipated to be low (RGH 2015).

1 The 2016 California Building Code became effective on January 1, 2017, replacing the 2013 standards. Seismic design criteria identified in the geotechnical report prepared for the project remain applicable as those criteria were not altered by the new standards.
2 Remedial grading, as defined in the project geotechnical report, is the replacement of weak soils with properly compacted (engineered) fill (RGH 2015).

Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-10 The geotechni cal engineers who reviewed the P roject site used an industry standard method for determining soil characteristics called a Standard Penetration Test. Using the data from this test; they projected that the potential total and differential settlement due to densification of the liquefied soils found on-site is up to 0.43 inches.

As summarized in EIR Section 2.5 (Environmental Protection Actions Incorporated into the Project), implementation of Environmental Protection Action 1 is included as part of the Project. Project Measure 1 requires the Project to be designed and constructed in conformance with site- specific recommendations contained in geotechnical studies completed for the Project and any subsequent related geotechnical reports. This would include design in accordance with recommendations for grading and foundation support and the use of select engineered fill to address liquefiable soils. Because the Project would be constructed in accordance with project -specific recommendations contained in design-level geotechnical studies, the potential impact related to seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact GEO-4: Would the project cause risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Analysis: Less than Significant
Published landslide maps do not indicate large-scale slope instability at the Project site. Additionally, no active landslides were observed at the Project site during completion of site- specific geotechnical study field ac tivities (RGH 2015) .

Retaining walls would be constructed as part of the Project to provide stability to hillside slopes along the north side of the Project site adjacent to Highway 12. The landslide-related impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact GEO-5: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Analysis: Less than Significant
During construction, the upper few inches of topsoil containing organic matter more than two percent by weight would be removed in areas of the Project site that require grading. The removed topsoil would either be removed from the site, or if suitable, stockpiled for re-use as topsoil in landscaped areas . As summarized in EIR Section 2.5 (Environmental Protection Actions Incorporated into the Project), implementation of Environmental Protection Acti on 4 is included as part of the Project. Project Measure 4 requires the Project to include development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that would comply with applicable erosion and sediment control measures contained in the City of Santa Rosa municipal storm water permit and the State Water Board’s Construction General Permit. Both the City and State permits require the implementation of erosion control measures in order to prevent soil erosion and the resulting sedimentation or other pollution of nearby bodies of water. Because the Project would preserve topsoil on site, if suitable, and would implement applicable erosion Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-11 and sediment control measures during construction, the potential impact related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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?
Analysis: Less than Significant
A geotechnical study performed for the P roject site identified 2 to 3 feet of weak, porous, compressible, clayey soils on portion s of the site . The soils exhibited medium to high plasticity and moderate to very high expansion potential. The surface materials are underlain by medium dense to very dense sand and gravel with varying amounts of clay with occasional layers of clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel (RGH 2015). Weak, porous surface soils, such as those found at the site, appear hard and strong when dry but will lose strength rapidly and settle under the load of fills, foundations, slabs, and pavements as their moisture content increases and approaches saturation. The moisture content of these soils can increase as the result of rainfall, periodic irrigation, or when the natural upward migration of water vapor through the soils is impeded by, and condenses under fills, foundations, slabs, and pavements. In addition, expansive surface soils shrink and swell as they lose and gain moisture throughout the yearly weather cycle, which can result in heaving and cracking of lightly loaded shallow foundations, slabs, and pavements.

The geotechnical study determined that the detrimental effects of soil movements, such as those described in the previous paragraph, can be reduced by strengthening the soils during grading and by excavating the weak soils and replacing them with properly compacted (engineered) fill. Alternatively, satisfactory foundation support can be obtained by extending the foundation depths to more firm soils below the weak surface soils. The geotechnical study recommended both of these strategies for overcoming the weak soils found at the site.

The geotechnical study determined that the detrimental effects of the expansive soils can be reduced by pre-swelling such soils and covering them with a moisture fixing and confining blanket of properly compacted select fill. The study determined that to effectively reduce foundation and slab heave, given the expansion potential of the site’s soils, a blanket thickness of 30 inches would be needed. In exterior slab and paved areas, the select fill blanket would need to be 12 inches thick.

Alternatively, the structures can be founded on post-tensioned slabs-on-grade.

As summarized in EIR Section 2.5 (Environmental Protection Actions Incorporated into the Project), implementation of Environmental Protection Action 1 is included as part of the Project. Project Measure 1 requires the Project to be designed and constructed in conformance with site- specific recommendations contained in geotechnical studies completed for the Project and any subsequent related geotechnical reports. Because the P roject would be constructed in accordance with the specific recommendations contained in the geotechnical studies , the Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-12 potential impact related to expansive or unstable soils would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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?
Analysis: No Impact
Wastewater from the Project would be conveyed through Santa Rosa’s wastewater collection system to the Santa Rosa Laguna Treatment Plant. The Project would not involve the construction or use of septic systems or an alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact GEO-8: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Analysis: Significant
A records search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology database was conducted to determine the Project site’s paleontological setting and potential for significant impact of paleontological resources. The site is situated on ground surface that is primarily composed of undivided Holocene- Pleistocene alluvium with a narrow segment of Holocene channel. To the south, in Annadel State Park, there is a unit of volcano- sedimentary rock that has the potential to preserve fossils. Additionally, the presence of streams in the vicinity of the Project site indicates that it is located within an alluvial floodplain capable of accumulating terrestrial fossils.

The University of California has a number of highly sensitive Pleistocene era vertebrate finds recorded within Sonoma County, two of which are within a few miles of the Project site. Deposit frequency of paleontological resources within Pleistocene alluvium is generally unpredictable, therefore making it difficult to determine the potential for sensitive paleontological resources to be found during the construction activities. Therefore, implementation of the Project is considered to have the potential to uncover unknown paleontological resources. This is considered a significant impact.

During operation, no ground disturbing activities would occur under the Project.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the Project would impact paleontological resources.

The operational impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure GEO-8: Protect Paleontological Resources if Encountered during Construction
A qualified paleontologist shall be contracted to periodically inspect any ground disturbances that are part of construction activities including but not limited to excavations. The construction contractor shall stop all ground disturbing activities should any vertebrate fossils be encountered during construction. All ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted, and a Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-13 qualified paleontologist shall be notified to document the discovery as needed, to evaluate the potential resource, and to assess the nature and significance of the find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the paleontologist may record the find and allow work to continue, or recommend salvage and recovery of the material, if it is determined that the find cannot be avoided. The paleontologist shall make recommendations for any necessary treatment that is consistent with currently accepted scientific practices. Any fossils collected from the area shall then be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution where they will be properly curated and preserved.

After Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation Measure GEO-8 provides the construction contractor with the resources to identify and evaluate all potential paleontological resources that may be encountered during construction to prevent their direct or indirect destruction.

Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Impact C-GEO-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils? Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) The nature of geologic hazards is site -specific, and, therefore, geologic hazards do not generally accumulate as cumulative impacts. With compliance with State and local regulations and policies, construction would be consistent with current building standards for seismic and geologic hazards. Because these regulations are designed to protect the community at large, no significant cumulative impact would result.

Implementation of cumulative projects within the City of Santa Rosa may require grading and excavation that could potentially affect paleontological resources. If these resources are not protected, the cumulative effect of these projects would contribute to the continued loss of such resources. CEQA requirements for protecting paleontological resources are applicable to development throughout the City and State. As described above, a mitigation measure is provided for the Project that would reduce impacts on paleontological resources to a less- than- significant level. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the Project contribution to a cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

3.5.6 References
American Society of Civil Engineers. 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10.

California Department of Conservation (CDC). 1983. Special Studies Zones; Santa Rosa Quadrangle. July 1.

Field, E.H., and 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP). 2015.

UCERF3: A new earthquake forecast for California’s complex fault system: U.S. Geological Survey 2015–3009. March 9.

Geology and Soils
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.5-14 Finger, Kenneth L. 2016. Paleontological Records Search for Spring Lake Village East Grove Project. October 26.

RGH Consultants. 2015. Geotechnical Study Report, Spring Lake Village East Grove. January 6.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. November 3.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2016. City of Santa Rosa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. October.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2017. City of Santa Rosa 2017 Storm Water Technical Design Manual.

USGS. 1997. Summary Distribution of Slides and Earth Flows in Sonoma County, California.

USGS. 2016. Website searched on Sep 22, 2016.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php
Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-1

3.6 Greenhouse Gas and Energy
This section evaluates potential environmental impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy consumption during construction and operation of the Project. In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following subjects are related to GHG impacts, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
 Potential impacts to air quality are evaluated in Section 3.2 (Air Quality).

3.6.1 Setting
Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHG has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHG are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and water vapor (H2O).

While GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, the emission rate of CO 2, CH4 and N2O has been accelerated by human activ ities. Emissions of CO 2 are largely by ‐products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH 4 results from off ‐gassing associated with such activities as agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, which are generated during certain industrial processes. GHGs are typically reported in “carbon‐dioxide‐equivalent” measures (CO2e) as each GHG has a different global warming potential.

Potential climate change impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, a decrease in snowpack; sea level rise; and a greater number of extreme heat days per year, high ozone days, large forest fires, and drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include impacts on agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity (CARB 2014).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports U.S. GHG emissions for 2018 as 6,677 million metric tons of CO
2e (MMT CO2e). Electricity production accounted for approximately 27 percent of national GHG emissions, matched by the transportation sector at approximately 28 percent. The industrial sector followed at approximately 22 percent. Commercial and residential fuel use and the agricultural sector accounted for the remaining 22 percent (U.S. EPA 2020).

The California Air Resources Board ( CARB) estimated that in 2017 California produced about 424 MMT CO2e. The transportation sector was the highest source at 40 percent of the State’s total GHGs, followed by the industrial sector at 21 percent, and electricity generation (both in‐ state and out ‐of‐ state) at 15 percent. Commercial and residential fuel use, recycling and waste, high global warming potential, and agricultural sectors accounted for the remaining 22 percent of the State’s total GHG emissions (CARB 2017).

The City of Santa Rosa reported community emissions for 2007 as 1.3 MMT CO2e. Fifty-one percent came from the transportation sector, followed by 35 percent from the energy sector, with the remaining 14 percent coming from solid waste, stationary sources, water and wastewater, off -road, and agriculture (Santa Rosa 2012a).

Energy
City of Santa Rosa is a Community Choice Aggregation community. Consumers can choose either to purchase their electrical energy from PG&E or Sonoma Clean Power.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-2 The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) delivers electricity and provides natural gas service to the Project site. PG&E is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and purchases both gas and electrical power from a variety of sources, including other utility companies.

Sonoma Clean Power is a not-for-profit public agency whose Board of Directors is comprised of local representatives from participating cities and counties. Participating agencies include the Cities of Cloverdale, Cotati, Fort Bragg, Petaluma, Point Arena, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, Willits and the Town of Windsor, and the Counties of Sonoma and Mendocino.

3.6.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency responsible for implementing the Clean Air Act (CAA). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007, that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant as defined under the CAA, and that EPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs.

In response to the mounting issue of climate change, EPA has taken actions to regulate, monitor, and potentially reduce GHG emissions. Actions include a national program to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. However, there are no federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to GHGs that are directly applicable to the Project.

Energy
There are no federal regulations that apply to the Project related to energy resources in Sonoma County, or there are more stringent State regulations making the federal regulation moot (e.g.: Energy Policy and Conservation Act standards for light-duty vehicles).

State
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Executive Order S-3-05
In 2005, the Governor of California signed Executive Order S-3-05, which established GHG emission reduction targets to reduce emissions as follows:
 By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels
 B y 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels
 B y 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Secretary) was designated to coordinate oversight of the multi-agency efforts made to meet the targets.

The Cal/EPA Secretary must also submit biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the executive order, the Secretary of Cal/EPA created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The team released its first CAT Report in March 2006, with its most recent S -3-05-mandated CAT Report released in 2010. The report proposes to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-3 Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown announced E.O. B -30-15, which contains the following GHG emissions target:
 By 2030, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels The emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is an interim -year goal to provide substantial progress toward the ultimate goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Executive Order B-55-18
Executive Order E.O. B-55-18 was issued on September 10, 2018, and includes a statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. The order also requires the CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.

Assembly Bill 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In 2006, the Governor of California signed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), committing the State of California to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The statute requires the CARB to track emissions through mandatory reporting, determine the 1990 emission levels, set annual emissions limits that will result in meeting the 2020 target, and design and implement regulations and other feasible and cost effective measures to ensure that statewide GHG emissions will be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. In December 2007, the CARB approved the 2020 emissions limit at 427 MMT CO 2e. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which assesses scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to the understanding of climate change, has since revised the global warming potential of GHGs . Therefore, CARB recalculated the 2020 emissions limit as 431 MMT CO
2e. Projected business-as-usual emissions for
2020 are 509 MMT CO2e. A reduction of 78 MMT CO2e is needed to meet the goal (CARB 2012).

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
Senate Bill (SB) 32, passed in 2016, extended the goals of AB 32 and codifies the GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by year 2030, consistent with EO B-30-15. The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197 provides additional direction to CARB in developing each update to the Scoping Plan (described further below).

Climate Change Scoping Plan
In December 2008, pursuant to AB 32, the C ARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which outlined measures to attain the 2020 GHG emissions limit. The Scoping Plan estimated that implementation of identified measures would result in a reduction of 105.3 MMT CO2e from various sectors including transportation, energy, forestry, and high global warming potential gas sectors (originally reported as 174 MMT CO 2e, but updated to 105.3 MMT CO 2e in the Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures [found at the CARB website]). This is 24 percent more than is needed to meet the 2020 mandate.

The CARB has updated the Scoping Plan twice, approving the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Updated Scoping Plan) in May 2014, and the 2017 Scoping Plan in December 2017.

The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies progress made to meet the near -term (2020) objectives of AB 32 and defines California’s climate change priorities and activities for the next several years ( CARB 2017).

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-4 The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies the 2020 emissions limit as 431 MMT CO2e and the 2020 business- as-usual forecast as 509 MMT CO2e. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan provides strategies for meeting the mid-term 2030 GHG reduction target set by SB 32. The plan also identifies how the State can substantially advance toward the 2050 GHG reduction target of Executive Order S -3-05, which consists of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The recommendations cover the key sectors, including: energy and industry; transportation; natural and working lands; waste management; and water. The recommended measures in the 2017 Scoping Plan are broad policy and regulatory initiatives that will be implemented at the State level and do not relate to the construction and operation of individual projects.

The initial Scoping Plan recommended that local governments achieve a 15-percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, which aligns with the State’s goal of not exceeding 1990 emissions levels by 2020. However, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not contain a recommended reduction level or percent for local government’s municipal operations.

California Building Code, Title 24
Title 24 of the CCR regulates how each new home and business is built or altered in California. It includes requirements for the structural, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems of buildings, and for fire and life safety, energy conservation, green design, and accessibility in and about buildings. Two sections of Title 24 – Part 6, the California Energy Code, and Part 11, the California Green Building Standards Code or CalGreen Code – contain standards that address GHG emissions related to construction.

The California Green Building Standards Code, or CalGreen, became a mandatory code beginning January 1, 2011. The code takes a holistic approach to green building by including minimum requirements in the areas of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The CalGreen code has minimum mandatory standards and two additional tiers of voluntary measures intended to achieve greater levels of efficiency that result in lower levels of GHG emissions. Local governments must enforce the minimum standards and can choose to adopt either Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards to achieve greater positive environmental impacts.

Energy
State of California Energy Action Plan
In 2003, the three key energy agencies in California— the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Power Aut hority (CPA), and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) — jointly adopted an Energy Action Plan (EAP) that listed goals for California’s energy future and set forth a commitment to achieve these goals through specific actions. In 2005, the CPUC and the CEC jointly prepared the EAP II to identify the further actions necessary to meet California’s future energy needs.

To the extent that efficiency, demand response, renewable resources, and distributed generation are unable to satisfy increasing energy and capacity needs, the EAP II supports the use of clean and efficient fossil-fired generation. The plan recognizes that concurrent improvements are required to the bulk electricity transmission grid and distribution facility infrastructure to support growing demand centers and the interconnection of new generation, both on the utility and customer side of the meter.

Renewable Portfolio Standards
Originally established in 2002, the California Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program required that 20 percent of electricity retails sales be served by renewable resources by 2017. In subsequent Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-5 years, the bill would require publicly owned utilities (POUs), investor -owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the percent of renewable energy resources to 33 percent by 2020.

As of January 1, 2019, SB 100 increased the RPS to 60 percent by 2030 as the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country. Additionally, the law requires all of California’s electricity come from carbon-free resources by 2045. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) are jointly responsible for implementing the RPS program (CPUC 2019).

Regional and Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) publishes CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. These CEQA Guidelines were updated in June 2010 to include new thresholds of significance (2010 Thresholds) adopted by the BAAQMD Governing Board.

The BAAQMD’s Guidelines were further updated in May 2017 to address the California Supreme Court’s 2015 opinion in California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal.4th 369.

The BAAQMD Air Quality CEQA Guidelines provide screening criteria for land use based projects to determine whether a project can be assumed to have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions based on it its size. If a project exceeds the screening criteria, then thresholds of significance are provided for determining impacts. The guidelines do not provide construction thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, but encourage a Lead Agency to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that could occur during construction. The BAAQMD does not, itself, have a “qualified” Climate Action Plan or other qualified GHG reduction strategy.

The GHG thresholds of significance contain the following operational thresholds:
 Compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or  1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO
2e per year; or
 4.6 MT CO2e per service population (residents plus employees) per year.

The BAAQMD Guidelines do not provide construction thresholds of significance for GHG emissions.

Regional Climate Protection Authority
The Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) is governed by a twelve member Board of Directors comprised of representatives from the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Council Members from each of the nine cities – Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma and Windsor. The RCPA has three main areas of focus:
decarbonization, carbon sequestration, and resilience. The RCPA prepared the Climate Action 2020 and Beyond plan in 2016 as community-wide climate action plan (CAP) for all communities in Sonoma County. The Climate Action 2020 and Beyond plan is a regional framework that allows local governments to adopt locally-appropriate measures to reduce GHG emissions. In September 2019, the RCPA adopted a resolution declaring a climate emergency.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-6 Sonoma Clean Power
Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) formed in 2012 when the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors adopted a Joint Powers agreement between the Sonoma County Water Agency and the County of Sonoma.

Participating agencies include the Cities of Cloverdale, Cotati, Fort Bragg, Petaluma, Point Arena, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, Willits, and the Town of Windsor. The City of Santa Rosa joined SCP in 2013, allowing consumers the option to use Sonoma Clean Power rather than PG&E. SCP provides a number of clean energy service plans including the 91 percent carbon-free CleanStart plan, which sources 49 percent of energy from renewables, 42 percent from hydroelectric power, and 9 percent from general system power. Another option for customers is the EverGree n plan, which offers 100 percent locally-produced, renewable electricity. Renewable energy sourced by Sonoma Clean Power include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and biowaste.

City of Santa Rosa Community-Wide Climate Action Plan
In June 2012, the City of Santa Rosa adopted a community Climate Action Plan (CAP) which examines community ‐wide sources of GHG emissions, identifies reduction targets, and outlines strategies for reducing emissions. As provided in the BAAQMD’s comment letter on the CAP’s Supplemental EIR to the General Plan EIR, the CAP meets the programmatic threshold for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy established by the BAAQMD guidelines.

The CAP compares community -wide emission reductions achieved through implementation of the CAP with the following State directives:
 Scoping Plan Recommendations. The CAP would meet the State’s direction to local governments in the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Specifically, the initial Scoping Plan recommends that local agencies reduce community-wide emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The City’s CAP demonstrates that community-wide emissions would be reduced to 37 percent below baseline (2007) levels by 2020.
 AB 32 Statewide Target for 2020. In addition, AB 32 requires the CARB to reduce state -wide GHG emissions to 1990 level by 2020. Implementation of the City’s CAP would reduce community wide emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2015, which exceeds CARB ’s state-wide target.
 E.O. S-3-05 Target for 2050. As stated in the CAP, implementation of the CAP will set the City on a trajectory to achieve the state GHG reduction target set by E.O. S -3-05 of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

To be in compliance with the CAP, the following measures and actions are required to be incorporated into new development projects, where applicable:

Measure 1.1 CALGreen Requirements for New Construction
Continue to enforce and require new development to meet Tier 1 CALGreen requirements, as amended, for new nonresidential and residential development.

Action 1.1.1 Require new development to comply with the current provisions, as amended, of CALGreen, Part 11 of the California Green Building Standards Code.

Action 1.1.3 Require all new construction to be built with net zero electricity use, beginning in 2020.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-7 Measure 1.3 Smart Meter Utilization
Action 1.3.1 Require new construction and major remodels to install real-time energy monitors that allow building users to track their current energy use.

Measure 1.4 Tree Planting and Urban Forestry
Action 1.4.2 Implement the City's tree preservation ordinance.

Action 1.4.3 Require new development to supply an adequate number of street trees and private trees.

Measure 1.5 Cool Roofs and Pavements
Action 1.5 Require new sidewalks, crosswalks, and parking lots to be made of cool paving materials with a high solar reflectivity.

Measure 4.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Action 4.1.2 Update bicycle parking regulations for multi -family homes and commercial businesses to increase bicycle parking citywide.

Measure 4.3 Car Sharing and Transportation Demand Management Programs Action 4.3.5 Encourage new developments with more than 50 on- site employees to provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees
Measure 5.2 Biofuel, Fuel Cell, and Alternative Fuels

5.2.1 Require new refueling stations to provide biodiesel fuel, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, electric vehicle charging stations, or other alternative fuels.

Measure 7.1 Water Conservation
Action 7.1.1 Require new development to reduce potable water use in accordance with the Tier 1 standards of CALGreen.

Measure 9.1 Lawn and Garden Activity

9.1.3 Encourage the replacement of existing high maintenance and high water use landscapes (such as removing turf through the Green Exchange rebate program) with low water use vegetation to reduce the need for gas-powered lawn and garden equipment.

Measure 9.2 Construction Emissions
Action 9.2.1 Minimize idling times either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes or less (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Provide clear signage at all access points to remind employees of idling restrictions.

Action 9.2.2 Construction equipment shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications
Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-8 Action 9.2.3 Work with project applicants to limit GHG emissions from construction equipment by selecting one of the following measures, at a minimum, as appropriate to the construction project:
a. Substitute electrified equipment for diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment where practical.
b. Use alternative fuels for construction equipment on-site, where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel.
c. Avoid the use of on-site generators by connecting to grid electricity or utilizing solar-powered equipment.

Climate Emergency Resolution
On January 14, 2020, the Santa Rosa City Council adopted a Climate Emergency Resolution. This Resolution committed the City to ongoing efforts related to climate change and GHG emission reductions through the implementation of Climate Action Subcommittee direction, the work of City departments, and the collaboration with the Regional Climate Protection Authority. The resolution includes a goal for the City to achieve a carbon neutrality by 2030, and to contribute to the development of a countywide 2030 Climate Emergency Mobilization Strategy.

City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are generally related to greenhouse gas emissions and energy use and are applicable to the Project.

LUL-A Foster a compact rather than a scattered development pattern in order to reduce travel, energy, land, and materials consumption while promoting greenhouse gas emission reductions citywide.

LUL-A-1 As part of plan implementation – including development review, capital improvements programming, and preparation of detailed area plans – foster close land use/transportation relationships to promote use of alternative transportation modes and discourage travel by automobile.

LUL-E Promote livable neighborhoods by requiring compliance with green building programs to ensure that new construction meets high standards of energy efficiency and sustainable material use. Ensure that everyday shopping, park and recreation facilities, and schools are within easy walking d istance of most residents.

LUL-E-2 As part of planning and development review activities, ensure that projects, subdivisions, and neighborhoods are designed to foster livability.

LUL-M Ensure new development and streetscape projects provide pedestrian an d bicycle circulation improvements.

LUL-M-2 Require dedication of right-of-way for improvement and/or expansion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities where insufficient right-of-way currently exists.

LUL-S Develop an attractive, safe, and extensive network for pedestrian and bicyclist movements.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-9 LUL-S-3 Link pedestrian and bicycle paths to community destinations (parks, etc.), to the surrounding rural countryside trail system, and the downtown area.

LUL-S-4 Coordinate with the Sonoma County Parks Department regarding potential linkages to the rural countryside.

UD-A Preserve and enhance Santa Rosa’s scenic character, including its natural waterways, hillsides, and distinctive districts.

UD-A-12 Promote green building design and low impact development projects.

UD-G Design residential neighborhoods to be safe, human -scaled, and livable by addressing compact development, multi -modal connectivity, and reducing energy use.

H-G Develop energy efficient residential units and rehabilitate existing units to reduce energy consumption.

H-G-1 Maximize energy efficiency in residential areas. Utilize the following techniques:
implement the Santa Rosa – Build It Green (SR -BIG) program; fund energy conservation through the Housing Authority’s rehabilitation loans; promote home improvement strategies for energy efficiency; promote energy efficiency improvements that are sensitive to the historic significance of the residential structure; consider a program which would require energy efficiency improvements when a residential structure undergoes transfer of title or major renovation; the Sonoma County Energy Independence Program, which funds energy and water conservation improvements; and consider a program which requires energy audits and cost effective energy upgrades for existing residential structures.

H-G-2 Require, as allowed by the green point rating system, energy efficiency through site planning and building design by assisting residential developers in identifying energy conservation and efficiency measures appropriate to the Santa Rosa area.

H-G-3 Promote energy efficiency in the provision and use of water in all residential developments.

H-G-4 Reduce the amount of water used, encourage the use of recycled water for landscaping where available, and require compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Policy.

H-G-5 Continue to require the use of fuel efficient heating and cooling equipment and other appliances, in accordance with the City’s green building program.

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-8 Improve transit service along corridors where increased densities are planned.

T-J Provide attractive and safe streets for pedestrians and bicyclists.

T-J-1 Pursue implementation of walking and bicycling facilities as envisioned in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-10 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 paths, 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 experienced 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-8 Require new development to dedicate land and/or construct/install bicycle facilities, and provide bicycle parking as specified in the Zoning Code, where a rough proportionality to demand from the project is established. Facilities such as showers and bicycle storage should also be considered.

OSC-A-1 Cooperate with various public and private entities to create new public access trails to parks, open spaces, and drainage ways within the City, as well as to trail systems outside the UGB.

OSC-H Conserve significant vegetation and trees.

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.

PSF-A-19 Provide recreational opportunities and establish bike and pedestrian paths along Santa Rosa Creek through implementation of the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan.

GM-A Prevent urban sprawl by focusing growth within the Urban Growth Boundary.

GM-A-1 Contain urban development in the Santa Rosa area within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary.

3.6.3 Approach to Analysis
The GHG impact analysis in this EIR utilizes the thresholds of significance, screening criteria and levels, and impact assessment methodologies presented in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017). In accordance with the BAAQMD Guidelines c ompliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy is used to determine the Project’s impact on GHG emissions.

As described in Section 3.6.3 (Regulatory Framework), the Santa Rosa CAP is a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. Therefore, in accordance with the BAAQMD Guidelines, the evaluation of whether the Project would generate GHG emissions in a manner that would impact the environment Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-11 is based on the Project’s consistency with applicable GHG reduction strategies for new development identified in the Santa Rosa CAP. The reduction strategies in the Santa Rosa CAP include measures and action items related to construction, design, and operation of the P roject. Therefore, although the BAAQMD Guidelines do not provide construction thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, Project construction activities are evaluated for construction-related GHG reduction strategies.

In addition to evaluating the Project’s compliance with the Santa Rosa CAP, the EIR evaluates the Project’s compliance with additional policies included in the Santa Rosa General Plan. As summarized in the Santa Rosa CAP, the reduction strategies contained in the CAP are aligned with the goals and policies of the Santa Rosa General Plan. The measures presented in the Santa Rosa CAP are referenced generally throughout the General Plan. The analysis also evaluates the Project’s consistency with the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan.

Impacts to energy resources were evaluated as to whether or not the Project would result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of existing energy resources. The Project was evaluated for consistency or conflict with State energy efficiency goals.

3.6.4 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table

3.6-1 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are used to determine if the P roject would have a significant effect related to GHG emissions.

Table 3.6-1 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance
Thresholds Sources
GGE-1: Would the project generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Inconsistency with City
of Santa Rosa Climate
Action Plan
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VIII (a)

General Plan policy OSC-M-1

2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines, Table 2-1

Santa Rosa Climate Action
Plan
GGE-2: Would the project conflict
with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Conflict with applicable
policies of the Santa
Rosa General Plan 2035

Conflict with the State’s
adopted Climate Change
Scoping Plan
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VIII (b)

Santa Rosa General Plan
2035

2017 Climate Change Scoping
Plan
Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-12 Evaluation Criteria Significance
Thresholds Sources
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?
Result in environmental
impacts due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VI (a)

GGE-4: Would the project conflict
with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Conflict with adopted
goals and measures for
energy efficiency
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Checklist Item VI (b)

Santa Rosa Climate Action
Plan

Santa Rosa General Plan
2035

3.6.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.6-2 (Summary of Impacts - Greenhouse Gas and Energy) provides a summary of potential impacts from the proposed Project.

Table 3.6-2 Summary of Impacts – Greenhouse Gas and Energy Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
GGE-1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 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
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
GGE-4: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
NI
C-GGE-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact relative to greenhouse gas emissions and energy use?
LS
Notes: NI = No Impact
LS = Less than Significant
Impact GGE-1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Analysis: Less than Significant
Project construction activities would result in a temporary increase in GHG emissions, including exhaust emissions from construction equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute vehicles. Following construction, operation of the P roject Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-13 would result in an incremental increase in GHG emissions associated with Project- related vehicle trips and increased energy demands.

As summarized in Section 3.6.3 (Approach to Analysis), the evaluation of whether the Project would generate GHG emissions in a manner that woul d impact t he environment is based on the Project’s consistency with applicable GHG reduction strategies for new development identified in the Santa Rosa CAP. The reduction strategies in the CAP include measures and action items related to construction, design, and operation of the Project.

The CAP reduction strategies applicable to the Project are summarized in Section

3.6.2 (Regulatory Framework). In accordance with the City of Santa Rosa requirements, a compliance checklist for new development was used to determine the Project’s compliance with the CAP. An evaluation of the Project’s compliance with each Santa Rosa CAP reduction strategy is provided below.

CALGreen Requirements for New Construction
Action 1.1.3 of the CAP was adopted to coincide with C alifornia Energy Codes.

Since the CAP adoption, the CEC has determined that it is not possible to achieve net zero on a wholesale basis and “net zero” has been removed from the California Energy Codes. Appendix E of the Santa Rosa CAP states that, “To be in compliance with the CAP, all measures denoted with an asterisk are required in all new development projects unless otherwise specified. If a project cannot meet one or more of the mandatory requirements, substitutions may be made from other measures listed at the discretion of the Community Development Director. CAP Goal 1.1 requires projects to comply with Tier 1 CALGreen requirements, as amended, for new non-residential and residential development. Tier 1 CALGreen does not include “net zero” GHG assumptions for development. In addition, current California Green Building Code Standards apply to all projects and has been determined by the Director to be an acceptable substitution for CAP Goal 1 – 1.1.3.

Therefore, strict compliance with CAP Goal 1 – 1.1.3 is not achievable and not required for the Project.

Action 1.1.1 of the CAP requires new development to comply with the current provisions of CALGreen, Part 11 of the California Green Building Standards Code.

Site development, building design, and landscaping proposed by the Project is required to, and therefore would comply with, CALGreen Tier 1 standards.

Therefore, the Project would comply with Action 1.1.1 of the CAP.

Because the P roject will be required to comply with Title 24 energy efficiency requirements and because electricity providers must comply with the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio standards, the project would be consistent with the goals of the CAP.

Smart Meter Utilization
Action 1.3.1 requires new construction to install real-time energy monitors to track energy use. Sustainable design elements proposed for the P roject include the installation of energy monitoring. Therefore, the Project would be compliant with Action 1.3.1.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-14 Tree Planting and Urban Forestry
Actions 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 of the CAP require compliance with the City’s tree preservation ordinance and the provision of public and private trees in compliance with the zoning code. As described in Section 2, Pr oject Description, the Project includes tree replacement planting at the Project site in accordance with the City of Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance. The proposed replacement trees would be 24-inch box and larger trees, for a total count of 228 trees to be planted on site. The ratio of removal to replacement would be the equivalent of planting 275 trees over the minimum required site as identified in Section 2.3.2 of the Project Description.

Therefore, the Project would meet the stipulations set forth in the Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance and zoning code and would be compliant with Actions 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 of the CAP.

Cool Roofs and Pavements
Action 1.5 of the CAP requires the installation of new sidewalks, crosswalks, and parking areas with high solar reflectivity materials. The proposed sidewalks and paving that would be aggregate concrete, which is a high solar reflectivity material.

Therefore, the P roject would be compliant with Action 1.5 of the CAP. No other cool roof and pavement actions in the CAP are required at this time.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Action 4.1.2 of the CAP requires the provision of bicycle parking consistent with City regulations. The City of Santa Rosa’s zoning code (Standard 20-36.040) requires one bicycle space per eight senior housing units, if units do not have a private garage or private bicycle storage space. The proposed units would be able to use their garages as bicycle storage facilities, therefore, they do not require extra bicycle parking. In compliance with the Santa Rosa code, the proposed site development includes the provision of a bicycle rack to be located in a parking lot near the residential Villa building. The bicycle rack would provide space for at least ten bicycles for use by residents of the villa units. Therefore, the P roject would meet the stipulations set forth in the Santa Rosa zoning code and would be compliant with Action 4.1.2 of the CAP. No other bicycle and pedestrian actions in the CAP are required at this time.

Car Sharing and Transportation Demand Management Programs Action 4.3.5 of the CAP encourages new development with more than 50 on -site employees to provide subsidized or free transit passes. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the proposed development is anticipated to create the equivalent of up to 12 full -time employment opportunities at full occupancy.

Because the Project is expected to employ fewer than 50 employees, Action 4.3.5 of the CAP is not applicable to the Project as proposed. No other car sharing and transportation demand management actions in the CAP are required at this time.

Water Conservation
Action 7.1.1 of the CAP requires new development to reduce potable water use for outdoor landscaping in accordance with the Tier 1 standards of CALGreen. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the Project includes the planting of low Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-15 water use plants and the use of an existing on -site irrigation well as part of the proposed landscaping plan. This would reduce the need for potable water use for outdoor landscaping. Therefore, the Project would be compliant with Action 7.1.1 of the CAP.

Recycled Water
Action 7.3.2 of the CAP requires new development in zones anticipated to receive future recycled water to meet on-site separation requirements to allow for the use of recycled water. The proposed Project is not located proximate to current or future recycled water capabilities. Therefore, Action 7.3.2 of the CAP is not applicable to the Project. No other recycled water actions in the CAP are required at this time.

Lawn and Garden Activity
Action 9.1.3 of the CAP encourages the replacement of existing high maintenance and high water use landscapes with low water use vegetation to reduce the need for gas-powered lawn and garden equipment. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the Project includes the planting of low water use plants on the Project site. The Project’s proposed landscape plan would be required to comply with the City of Santa Rosa Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements for a low water use landscape. Therefore, the Project would be compliant with Action 7.1.3 of the CAP.

The P roject is anticipated to comply with the Action 9.1.2 of the CAP, which encourages new buildings to provide electrical outlets on the exterior in an accessible location to charge electric-powered lawn and garden equipment.

Construction Emissions
Actions 9.2.1, 9.2.2, and 9.2.3 of the CAP seek to reduce emissions from heavy - duty construction equipment by limiting idling and utilizing cleaner fuels, equipment, and vehicles. As described in Section 2.8 of the Project Description (Environmental Protection Actions Incorporated into the Project), Environmental Protection Action 3 would require provisions in contractor agreements for minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or less during construction, requiring construction equipment to be maintained per specifications established by the manufacturer, and using electric equipment and/or equipment using alternative fuels as feasible and appropriate. Therefore, the Project would be compliant wi th Actions 9.2.1, 9.2.2, and 9.2.3 of the CAP. No other construction emissions actions in the CAP are required at this time.

Voluntary Actions
While not required to do so, the Project is anticipated to conform with several additional measures outlined in the CAP. For example, the Project’s plans to improve the adjacent non-vehicular network to facilitate walking and biking would conform with Action 3.2.2 of the CAP. The Project’s plans to install traffic calming design features, such as the striped crosswalks within the intersection of Melita Road and Montgomery Drive, would conform with Action 3.6.1 of the CAP by improving pedestrian convenience and encouraging pedestrian and bicycle travel.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-16 The Project’s plans for establishment of community gardens on the P roject site would conform with Action 8.1.3 of the CAP.

As proposed, the P roject would be designed and operated in a manner that is consistent with the City’s adopted CAP, therefore, potential impacts due to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact GGE-2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Analysis: Less than Significant
General Plan goal OSC -M and policy OSC -M-1 direct the City of Santa Rosa to meet local, regional and state targets for reduction of GHG emissions through implementation of the CAP.

As summarized in Impact G GE-1, the City’s CAP is considered a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, as established by the BAAQMD’s guidelines and consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. The CAP would meet CARB’s initial Scoping Plan recommendation that local agencies reduce community -wide emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The CAP would achieve community-wide emission reductions that are consistent with AB 32’s state- wide emission reduction goal for 2020. Finally, the CAP will set the City on a trajectory to achieve the state GHG reduction target set by E.O. S -3-05 of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP and, by extension, requirements of AB 32 and CARB’s Scoping Plan adopted to achieve the emission reduction requirements of AB 32. Therefore, the Project would comply with General Plan goal OSC- M and policy OSC-M-1 and would have a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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?
Analysis: Less than Significant
Construction
Temporary energy use in connection with Project construc tion would entail consumption of diesel fuel and gasoline by construction equipment and by the transportation of earth moving equipment, construction materials, supplies, and construction personnel. The Project’s estimated construction -period diesel and gasoline fuel consumption was estimated using EPA’s greenhouse gases equivalencies calculator conversion factors. It is estimated that Project construction would consume approximately 13,915 gallons of diesel fuel for off - road equipment, hauling and vendor trips. Worker trips would consume an estimated 369 gallons of gasoline. Environmental Protection Action 3, as described in Section 2 (Project Description), would require provisions in contractor agreements for minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or less during construction, Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-17 requiring construction equipment to be maintained per specifications established by the manufacturer, and using electric equipment and/or equipment using alternative fuels as feasible and appropriate. With these design features in place, wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy resources is not anticipated during Project construction. Impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Operation
Project operation would consume energy for multiple purposes, including but not limited to building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. In addition, vehicle trips associated with operation would consume gasoline. Annual energy use of the building s is anticipated to include approximately 172 MWh of electricity and 3,264 therms of natural gas. This is based on energy use assumptions of CalEEMod (Appendix B).

The Project’s estimated annual operational diesel and gasoline fuel consumption was estimated using EPA’s greenhouse gases equivalencies calculator conversion factors. It is estimated that Project operation would consume approximately 7,891 gallons of gasoline for on-road trips annually. On-road diesel- fueled trips would consume an estimated 519 gallons of diesel annually.

The estimate of the Project’s energy use does not account for energy savings that would result from implementation of State measures, including increased energy efficiency from updated Title 24 requirements, which are not reflected in CalEEMod. The increase in energy demand resulting from the Project would not be expected to require or result in the construction of new sources of energy supplies or additional energy infrastructure capacity, and the Project would not conflict with applicable energy policies or standards in the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. Therefore, operation of the Project would not use large amounts of energy nor use it in a wasteful manner. The operational impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact GGE-4: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Analysis: No Impact
There are no local plans for renewable energy that would apply to the Project site.

Implementation of the Project would not obstruct a state plan for renewable energy.

The buildings that would be constructed as part of the Project would follow Title 24 standards where applicable. There would be no conflict with a State or local plan for renewable energy, and therefore no impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact C-GGE-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact relative to greenhouse gas emissions or energy use?

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-18 Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) GHG emissions, by their nature, represent a cumulative global impact. However, the geographic extent of CEQA is the State of California, therefore, the geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts related to greenhouse gases resources is the State of California. Similarly, the geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts related to energy resources is the State of California.

Greenhouse Gases
It is unlikely that a single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature. Instead, GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. Therefore, the P roject analysis presented in Impact GGE-1 and Impact GG E-2 represents the cumulative analysis for impacts from GHG emissions.

According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, if a project would generate GHG emissions above the BAAQMD threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. The Project analysis in Impact GG E-1 and Impact GGE-2 found that the Project as proposed would not conflict with applicable GHG reduction strategies for new development identified in the Santa Rosa CAP.

Additionally, the Project was not found to conflict with the CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan. Therefore, the P roject’s contribution to cumulative GHG impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore less than significant.

Energy
As described in Impact G GE-3, the Project would have a less -than-significant impact relating to inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuels or other energy resources during construction. Cumulative projects identified in Table 3-1 (Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts) would require the consumption of fuels and other energy resources during construction. However, each of the cumulative projects would be required to comply with existing and future laws and regulations governing energy use, similar to the Project. For this reason, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulat ive impact from construction related energy use.

Project operation was found to have a less-than-significant impact to energy use.

As with construction energy consumption, each of the cumulative projects would be required to comply with existing and future laws and regulations governing energy use, similar to the Project. For this reason, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact from operational - related energy use.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.6-19

3.6.6 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2012. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures.

Website accessed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf CARB. 2013. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2011. August.

CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. May.

CARB. 2016. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - 2016 Edition. Website accessed October 31, 2016: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm CARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November.

CARB. 2020. California Greenhouse Gas 2000-20017 Emissions Trends and Indicators Report.

Website Accessed April 15, 2020 at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-dataNatural Resources Agency. 2014. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk. July.

California Public Utilities Commission. 2019. California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS).

State of California. Website. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/rps_homepage/ Santa Rosa, City of. 2012a. Climate Action Plan. June 5.

U.S. EPA. 2016. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Website accessed October 31, 2016:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Website accessed April 15, 2020:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-1

3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section evaluates potential environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials during construction and operation of the Project. In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following subjects are related to hazards and hazardous materials, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
 Potential impacts to sensitive receptors from vehicle emissions are evaluated in Section 3.2 (Air Quality).
 Potential impacts to emergency access are evaluated in Section 3.12 (Transportation).

3.7.1 Setting
Summary of Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are a wide- ranging category of substances that include toxic substances, flammable or explosive materials, corrosive substances such as acids, and radioactive substances.

A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, State, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. Facts that influence the health effects of exposure to hazardous material include the dose to which the person is exposed, the frequency of the exposure, the exposure pathway, and individual susceptibility.

The California Code of Regulations (CCR) defines a hazardous material as a substance that, because of physical or chemical properties, quantity, concentration, or other characteristics, may either: (1) cause an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise managed (CCR, Title 22, Division

4.5, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 66260.10). Hazardous wastes refer to hazardous materials that are no longer used and have been disposed of or are awaiting disposal.

Emergencies involving hazardous materials often occur due to mechanical failure or human error.

These types of emergencies also sometimes occur as a secondary impact of another emergency, such as an earthquake or flood. Hazardous material releases can occur from buildings such as factories and processing facilities, as well as from vehicles that transport chemicals or other hazardous substances. Road vehicles, trains, and (more rarely) aircraft can all suffer accidents that cause a release of hazardous materials.

Wildfire Hazards
Areas vulnerable to wildfires are present throughout Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. In the greater Bay Area region, fire areas generally fall into two categories – State Responsibility Areas, where the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is responsible for fire protection, and Local Responsibility Areas, where local fire departments and fire protection districts have responsibility. The Project site is located within an area under the local responsibility of the City of Santa Rosa Fire Department. For areas under local responsibility, CAL FIRE identifies very high fire hazard severity zones to local agencies. At the local level, the City of Santa Rosa has created a local Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) zone to identify and consolidate four types of fire hazard zones in the community: moderate, high, very high, and mutual threat.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-2 Airport Operations
California’s Public Utilities Code requires that each county with an airport that is operated for the benefit of the general public establish an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Among its duties, the ALUC is responsible for ensuring the safe operation of new and existing air ports within its jurisdiction. The ALUC prepares an airport land use plan to address safety and other planning issues (eg., noise, land use compatibility) associated with airports in the county. From a safety perspective, the plan establishes safety compatibility standards and sets limitations on building heights and other factors that may interfere with the safe operation of the airport or that may otherwise present an aviation hazard for the public. The Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport is the nearest public use airport to the Project site that is included in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CALUP) for Sonoma County (Sonoma County 2016). The airport is located approximately 10 miles northwest of the Project site. The CALUP uses the criteria defined in Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (F.A.R.) for airspace protection standards around all public use airports in Sonoma County.

Evacuation Routes
The City of Santa Rosa’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) designates specific evacuation planning areas and routes (Santa Rosa 2017). The Project site is located within the Melita Evacuation Planning Area, and designated evacuation travel routes identified in the Project area include Highway 12 and Montgomery Drive.

3.7.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
The primary federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Department of Transportation. Federal laws, regulations, and responsible agencies relevant to the project are summarized in Table 3.7-1.

Table 3.7-1 Federal Laws and Regulations Related to Hazardous Materials Management
Classification Law or Responsible Federal Agency Description Hazardous Materials
Management and Soil
and Groundwater
Contamination
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
(also known as Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
[SARA])
Imposes requirements to
ensure that hazardous
materials are properly
handled, used, stored, and
disposed of and to prevent
or mitigate injury to human
health or the environment in
the event that such
materials are accidentally
released.

Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (amended by SARA 1986 and
Brownfields Amendments 2002)
Regulates the cleanup of
sites contaminated by
releases of hazardous
substances.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-3 Classification Law or Responsible Federal Agency Description Hazardous Materials
Transportation and
Handling
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Has the regulatory responsibility for the safe
transportation of hazardous
materials. The DOT
regulations govern all
means of transportation
except packages shipped
by mail (49 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR]).

Occupational Safety Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
Fed/OSHA sets standards
for safe workplaces and
work practices, including
the reporting of accidents
and occupational injuries
(29 CFR).

Structural and Building
Components (Lead-
based paint, PCBs,
and asbestos)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Regulates the use and management of PCBs in
electrical equipment, and
sets forth detailed
safeguards to be followed
during the disposal of such
items.

U.S. EPA The EPA monitors and
regulates hazardous
materials used in structural
and building components
and effects on human
health.

Hazard Mitigation
Planning
Stafford Act and Disaster Mitigation Act Requires state, local, and tribal governments to
develop and submit to the
Federal Emergency
Management Agency a
mitigation plan that outlines
processes for identifying
natural hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities of the
jurisdiction.

Source: Santa Rosa 2009 and 2016
State
Soil and Groundwater Contamination
The cleanup of sites contaminated by releases of hazardous substances is regulated primarily by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), which was amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), the Brownfields Amendments (2002) and by similar State laws. Under CERCLA, the EPA has authority to seek the parties responsible for releasing hazardous substances and to ensure their cooperation in site remediation.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-4 The State’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List, Government Code §65962.5) identifies sites with leaking underground fuel tanks, hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective actions, solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste, and other sites where environmental releases have occurred. Before a local agency accepts an application as complete for any development project, the applicant must certify whether or not the project site is on the Cortese List. Databases that provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting Cortese List requirements are managed by the DTSC and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). At sites where contamination is suspected or known to have occurred, the site owner is required to perform a site investigation and conduct site remediation, if necessary. There are two cleanup standards; one for residential and the other for commercial/industrial land uses. Standards are set for soil, groundwater, soil gas, and vapor intrusion of contaminants into buildings.

Hazardous Materials and Waste
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) oversees a Unified Program for hazardous materials and waste to ensure consistency throughout the State in regard to administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement. CalEPA certifies local government agencies known as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) to implement the hazardou s waste and materials standards.

Hazardous Materials Transportation
The State of California has adopted Department of Transportation regulations for the intrastate movement of hazardous materials. State regulations are contained in Title 26 of the CCR. In addition, the State of California regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating in the state and passing through the state (26 CCR). Both regulatory programs apply in California. The two State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Occupational Safety
Worker health and safety in California is regulated by C al/OSHA. California standards for workers dealing with hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) are contained in CCR Title 8. The DTSC and the State Department of Occupational Health and Safety are the agencies that are responsible for overseeing that appropriate measures are taken to protect workers from exposure to potential groundwater contaminants. At sites known or suspected to have soil or groundwater contamination, a site health and safety plan must be prepared. The health and safety plan establishes policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential hazards at the contaminated site.

Emergency Response
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, State, and local government, and private agencies. Responding to hazardous materials incidents is a part of this plan. The plan is administered by the State Office of Emergency Services (OES), which coordinates the responses of other agencies such as local fire and police agencies, emergency medical providers, CHP, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Caltrans.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-5 Regional and Local
Hazardous Materials and Waste
The Santa Rosa Fire Department oversees the local administrative requirements, permits, and inspections related to the CalEPA Unified Program. In California, hazardous waste generators are divided into two categories, small quantity generators and large quantity generators. The designation is based on the amount of waste produced each month. Small quantity generators are those that generate less than 1,000 kilograms or more of hazardous waste per month, excluding universal wastes, and/or 1 kilogram of acutely or extremely hazardous waste per month. Generators of hazardous waste volumes in excess of the volumes listed above are categorized as large quantity generators. All regulated businesses are required to submit their regulatory reports electronically either to their local regulatory agency or with the California Environmental Reporting System known as CERS.

Soil and Groundwater Contamination
In Santa Rosa, oversight of contaminated sites such as leaking underground storage tanks ( USTs) is performed by the Santa Rosa Fire Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Santa Rosa Fire Department implements a local oversight program under contract with the SWRCB to provide regulatory oversight of the investigation and cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination from leaking petroleum underground storage tanks and above-ground storage tanks. At sites where contamination is suspected or known to have occurred, the project sponsor is required to perform a site investigation and prepare a remediation plan, if necessary. For typical development projects, actual site remediation is completed either before or during the construction phase of the project. Site remediation or development may be subject to regulation by other agencies such as the DTSC.

Wildland –Urban Interface Area Ordinance
City of Santa Rosa Ordinance 3907, adopted March 3, 2009, established the boundaries of the Wildland – Urban Interface (WUI) Area within the City limits. Building standards within the WUI area are regulated by the California Building Code Chapter 7A.

Santa Rosa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Santa Rosa’s 2016 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), provides the framework to mitigate local risks to natural hazards and plan for a resilient futures (Santa Rosa 2016) . The City prepared the LHMP to ensure that hazard profiles reflect current conditions and best available science, and the policies are consistent with current City standards and/or relevant federal, state, or local regulations, and it is consistent with the Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements.

The LHMP provides strategies to mitigate anticipated disasters through education and outreach programs, development of partnerships, and the implementation of actions to reduce the impacts of a disaster. The LHMP includes an inventory of natural hazards to Santa Rosa, as well as identification of resources and evacuation routes that could be used should a hazard occur. Designated evacuation routes in the vicinity of Project site include Highway 12 and Montgomery Drive.

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 response policies and procedures. It addresses how the City will respond to extraordinary events or disasters, from preparation through recovery, and the responsibilities of each department and emergency operations center position. It also addresses the integration and coordination with other governmental levels and special districts.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-6 The EOP designates specific evacuation planning areas and routes. The Project site is located within the Melita Evacuation Planning Area. Designated evacuation travel 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 of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are generally related to hazards and hazardous materials.

NS-F Minimize dangers from hazardous materials.

NS-F-1 Require remediation and cleanup, and evaluate risk prior to reuse, in identified areas where hazardous materials and petroleum products have impacted soil or groundwater.

NS-F-2 Require that hazardous materials used in business and industry are transported, handled, and stored in accordance with applicable local regulations.

NS-G Minimize the potential for wildland fires.

NS-G-1 Require proposed developments in high or medium fire hazard areas to investigate a site’s vulnerability to fire and to minimize risk accordingly.

NS-G-2 Require new development in areas of high wildfire hazard to utilize fire- resistant building materials. Require the use of on- site fire suppression systems, including automatic sprinklers, smoke and/or detection systems, buffers and fuel breaks, and fire retardant landscaping.

NS-G-5 Require detailed fire prevention and control measures, including community firebreaks, for development projects in high fire hazard zones.

NS-G-6 Minimize single -access residential neighborhoods in development areas near open space, and provide adequate access for fire and other emergency response personnel.

3.7.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table

3.7-2 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are used to determine if the project would have a significant effect related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-7 Table 3.7-2 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
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?
Non-compliance with State
and federal hazardous
materials or waste
regulations

Potential for improper
transport, use, disposal, or
accidental release of
hazardous materials or
wastes due to non-
compliance with State and
federal hazardous materials
or waste regulations
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IX (a)(b)

California (Title 8 and 26 of
the CCR), and federal (CFR
29 and 49) hazardous
materials and waste
regulations
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?
Use, storage, or emission, of
acutely hazardous materials
or waste in quantity equal to
or in excess of the state
thresholds and within 0.25
mile of a school
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IX (c)

CEQA Guidelines Section
15186;

California Health and Safety
Code Section 25532,
Section (j)
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?

Location of project on or
adjacent to a site with
presence or likely presence
of hazardous substances or
petroleum products
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IX (d)

Government Code Section
65962.5 (Cortese List)

CEQA Guidelines Section
15186
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?
Location of project within an
airport land use plan or
within two miles of an airport
and introduction of new or
increased safety hazard
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IX (e)

Sonoma County
Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Plan
HAZ-5: Would the project impair
implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Location of project in areas
that impair or interfere with
adopted plan, including
emergency access routes
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IX (f)

City of Santa Rosa
Evacuation Planning Area
Maps
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-8 Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
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?
Location of project in a City
of Santa Rosa WUI zone or
CALFIRE designated zone.

Potential for fire ignition
during construction
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item IX (g)

City of Santa Rosa Wildland-
Urban Interface Fire Area

California Fire Code

3.7.4 Approach to Analysis
This impact analysis focuses on the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction, the potential to encounter hazardous substances in soil and groundwater, and the potential to discharge hazardous materials during Project operations. The evaluation was performed taking into consideration current conditions at the Project site, information in the Cortese List, and applicable regulations and guidelines. The analysis also addresses the potential for the Project to encounter hazardous materials during demolition activities; result in a release of hazardous materials from construction equipment; interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; conflict with a land use compatibility restriction within an airport safety zone; create fire hazards; or result in a release of hazardous materials during operation. Each potential impact is assessed in terms of the applicable regulatory requirements, and mitigation measures are identified as appropriate.

3.7.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.7-3 (Summary of Impacts - Hazards and Hazardous Materials) provides a summary of potential impacts from the project.

Table 3.7-3 Summary of Impacts – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
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
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
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
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
HAZ-5: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? NI
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-9 Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
HAZ-6: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? LSM
C-HAZ-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to hazards or hazardous materials? LS
Notes: NI = No Impact
LS = Less than Significant
LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impact HAZ-1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or dispos al of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Analysis: Less than Significant
Construction of the Project would include the transport and use of common hazardous materials inherent to the construction process, including petroleum products for construction equipment and vehicles, and paints, asphalt materials, concrete curing compounds, and solvents for construction of project improvements. These materials are commonly used during construction, are not acutely hazardous, and would be used in relatively small quantities.

In addition to the above- mentioned materials, construction of the Project would include demolition of the existing single -family residential homes at 5803 M elita Road and 5815 Melita Road. The buildings would be surveyed for the presence of hazardous materials (e.g. lead and asb estos-containing materials), and any hazardous wastes would be required to be separated, stored, and disposed of according to local state, and federal regulations. The off-site improvements within Melita Road would require the removal and disposal of existing storm drain pipe.

In the event that the storm drain pipe to be removed consists of asbestos - containing material, removal and disposal of the pipe would require compliance with health and safety protocols and acceptance by a State- approved disposal facility.

Numerous laws and regulations ensure the safe transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials (see Section 3.7.2 [Regulatory Framework]), and the Project Applicant and its contractors would be required to comply with such laws. For example, the removal of asbestos-containing materials in the residential homes and storm drain pipe, if present, would be subject to applicable Cal-OSHA and BAAQMD regulations (Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing). The contractor would be required to use methods specified in the regulations for control of emissions, such as wetting and wrapping of exposed asbestos ‐containing materials or other approved methods.

Containment would be required during work that disturbs asbestos-containing materials, and no visible emissions to the outside air from demolition would be allowed.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-10 Additionally, Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) regulate the transportation of hazardous materials and wastes, including container types and packaging requirements, as well as licensing and training for truck operators, chemical handlers, and hazardous waste haulers. Cal-OSHA also enforces hazard communication program regulations which contain worker safety training and hazard information requirements, such as procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information related to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to protect workers and employees.

Project construction would also be required to implement storm water best management practices during construction in accordance with City of Santa Rosa regulations and the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Storm Water Permit. Best management practices addressing materials management would be required, including proper material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, and management of concrete and other wastes.

Because the Applicant and its contractors would be required to comply with existing and future hazardous materials laws and regulations and applicable best management practices addressing the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during construction of the project would be less than significant.

Operation of the proposed facility may generate wastes, including, but not limited to, paint, used oil, and pharmaceutical wastes. The Applicant would be required to comply with local requirements, including the development of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Hazardous Materials Inventory Reports. Because the Applicant would be required to comply with existing and future hazardous materials laws and regulations, the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, substances or waste would be less than significant.

The proposed back -up emergency generator to be located on the P roject site would be of a design that includes an integrated base tank. An integrated base tank is a relatively small fuel tank built into an emergency generator unit. No separate aboveground or underground fuel storage tanks or storage drums would be located on the P roject site. The emergency back -up generator would be operated during a power outage and for routine maintenance in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Given the nature of the generator and the limited use, routine transport of fuel to the Project site would not be required. The risk associated with the proposed back -up emergency generator would be less than significant.

Future residents, grounds crews, and employees may be expected to use small quantities of common household cleaners, batteries, fertilizers and similar products. Such materials are often referred to as household toxics. The Sonoma County Waste Management Agency implements several ongoing programs to facilitate the proper disposal of such materials, including operation of a Household Toxics Facility at the Central Disposal Site and periodic toxics collection events Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-11 and toxic rover services. Because of the availability of such programs, the potential for improper disposal of such materials is considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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?
Analysis: Less than Significant
The nearest school relative to the Project site is Austin Creek Elementary School, located approximately one-half mile to the north. Therefore, the primary location of Project-related construction and operational activities would not be located within one-quarter of an existing school. Additionally, no proposed schools are known to be planned within one-quarter mile of the Project site.

During construction of the Project, a portion of truck traffic would be expected to utilize Highway 12 between Los Alamos Road and Farmers Lane. Such truck traffic would occur within one-quarter mile of Austin Creek Elementary School, Douglas Whited Elementary School, St. Eugene’s Cathedral School, and possibly other schools. Anticipated truck trips would be temporary and intermittent in nature, and the Project is not anticipated to require the hauling of contaminated soils or acutely hazardous materials or wastes. Therefore, the potential for P roject-related construction to emit hazardous emissions or involve handling of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes in the vicinity of a school would be less than significant.

Following construction, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No operational impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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? Analysis: No Impact
State of California Government Code §65962.5, the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List), is a planning document used to comply with the CEQA requirements for providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. The online data resources that provide information on facilities or sites pursuant to Section 65962.5 include:
• DTSC EnviroStor database;
• List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites by from the Water Board GeoTracker database;
• List of solid waste disposal sites identified by Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels;
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-12 • List of "active" Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the Water Board; and
• List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code;
A search of the Cortese List was completed in May 2020 and did not identify the Project site or off-site improvement areas as being on or adjacent to a site listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65965.5 (Cal EPA 2020). In addition, research conducted for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in Dece mber 2012 did not identify the Project site in regulatory agency files or databases as having issues of environmental concern. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, no indication of historic use, storage or disposal of hazardous materials or waste was identified at the Project site, nor indication of historic use of underground or aboveground fuel storage tanks ( EBA 2012). Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to being located on a site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65965.5. No impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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?
Analysis: No Impact
The nearest public airport to the Project site is the Charles M. Schulz -Sonoma County Airport, located over 10 miles to the northwest. Because the Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, the Project would not result in a related safety hazard in the project area. No impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact HAZ-5: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Analysis: No Impact
The Santa Rosa EOP identifies the City’s emergency planning, organization, and response policies and procedures. The EOP also addresses the integration and coordination with other governmental levels and special districts as required. The EOP outlines how the City will respond to extraordinary events or disasters, from preparation through recovery. The EOP designate s specific evacuation planning areas and routes. The Project site is located within the Melita Evacuation Planning Area. Designated evacuation travel routes identified in the P roject area include Highway 12 and Montgomery Drive. Los Alamos road and Melita Road, in which utility connections would be constructed, are not designated as evacuation travel routes. The Project would include installation of new sidewalk along Highway 12, but would not otherwise alter the functionality of the roadway or effect the use of Highway 12 as an evacuation route. Therefore, the P roject would not impair Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-13 implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s EOP or evacuation travel routes. No impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact HAZ-6: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Analysis: Significant
The City of Santa Rosa and CALFIRE have identified and designated areas within their jurisdiction that are at risk of wildland fires. The Project site and off -site improvement areas are not located within the established the boundaries of the Santa Rosa Wildland–Urban Interface Fire Area (Santa Rosa 2009). The Project site is not in a State Responsibility Area or within an established v ery high fire hazard severity zone. The nearest State Responsibility Area is located approximately 0.2-mile to the south of the Project site within Annadel State Park, and the nearest State -designated very high fire hazard severity zone is located approximately 0.75 -mile to the northeast of Highway 12 and the P roject site (CALFIRE 2007, 2019) . The nearest Local Responsibility Area designated very high fire hazard zone is located approximately 0.70- mile to the north of Highway 12 and the Project site (CALFIRE 2008).

Although the Project site and off -site improvement areas are not located within designated areas at risk of wildland fires, it is possible that accidental fire ignition could occur during construction (e.g. related to heavy machinery usage). Because the vegetation at the Project site could be dry during construction, and because of the close proximity of nearby residences, the construction -related impact is considered significant.

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

In the event of a fire or wildland fire, the City’s existing evacuation plan would be implemented, compliant with its standards for safety and evacuation. The Project would be required to be compliant with the current version of the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, and City of Santa Rosa Fire Department Standards. Project development plans would require review by the Santa Rosa Fire Department during the permit process to ensure compliance with applicable codes, ordinances and regulations.

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

The primary emergency vehicle access would be from Los Alamos Road, with a secondary emergency vehicle access from Melita Road. Adequate turning space would be provided along the emergency access pathway s t o allow emergency vehicles to quickly maneuver and egress.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-14 The Project would not impair implementation of the City's EOP or interfere with established evacuation travel routes (see Impact HAZ-5). The Project would not change existing circulation patterns or effect emergency response routes.

Electrical power and natural gas would be provided by PG&E from existing underground utility lines adjacent to the Project site. All electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure would be located underground and would tie- in to existing infrastructure. Because the Project site is located outside of the Santa Rosa Wildland–Urban Interface Fire Area and outside of designated very high fire hazard severity zones, and because the Project would require mandatory compliance with the California Fire Code and City of Santa Rosa Fire Development Standards, the operational impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Reduce Wildland Fire Hazards during Construction
Prior to construction, the applicant and its contractor(s) shall remove and/or clear away dry, combustible vegetation from the construction site. Grass and other vegetation less than 18 inches in height above the ground shall be maintained where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. Vehicles shall not be parked in areas where exhaust systems contact combustible materials. Fire extinguishers shall be available on the construction site to assist in quickly extinguishing any small fires, and the contractors shall have on site the phone number for the local fire department.

After Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-6 would require the use of construction techniques that would reduce the likelihood of wildland fires during construction of the Project. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -6, the impact related to wildland fires would be less than significant.

Impact C-HAZ-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to hazards or hazardous materials? Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) The Project would not result in impacts related to being located on a site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65965.5, being located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airport, or interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not contribute to any related cumulative impacts.

Similar to the proposed Project, the cumulative projects listed in Section 3, Table 3-1 (Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts) would include the transport and use of common hazardous materials inherent to the construction process, including petroleum products for construction equipment and vehicles, and paints, asphalt materials, concrete curing compounds, and solvents for construction of site improvements. Each of the cumulative projects would be required to comply with existing and future laws and regulations governing hazardous materials that have been developed to cover multiple overlapping projects and traffic from many Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.7-15 sources. For this reason, the potential cumulative impact from the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant. As a result, there would be no significant cumulative impact associated with increased hazards relative to hazardous materials to which the proposed project would contribute.

During construction, some portion of truck traffic from cumulative projects may also utilize Highway 12 between Los Alamos Road and Farmers Lane. Similar to the Project, truck trips associated with cumulative projects would be temporary and intermittent in nature and would be subject to Caltrans and CHP regulations. As a result, there would be no significant cumulative impact associated with increased truck traffic within the vicinity of a school to which the proposed P roject would contribute.

Some of the cumulative projects may be located in areas mapped as a fire- threatened community for wildland fires. Each of the cumulative projects would be required to provide adequate fire protection and the cumulative projects would not combine to create a significant cumulative effect related to risk from fire. Therefore, the cumulative impact related to wildfire would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

3.7.6 References
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2010. Taming Natural Disasters, Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2016. Cortese List Data Resources. Accessed May 5, 2020 at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Sonoma County. November 7.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Sonoma County. November 10.

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 EBA Engineering. 2012. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. Wildland – Urban Interface Fire Area Map. January 28.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2017. Santa Rosa Emergency Operations Plan.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2016. City of Santa Rosa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. October.

Sonoma County Airport Land Use Commission. 2016. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CALUP) Amendments. March 14.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-1

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section evaluates potential environmental impacts related to hydrology and water quality during construction and operation of the Project. In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following subjects are related to hydrology and wate r quality, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
 Potential impacts to riparian habitat and federally protected wetlands and waters are addressed in Section 3.3 (Biological Resources).
 Potential impacts related to loss of topsoil are addressed in Section 3.5 (Geology and Soils).  Potential impacts related to location on or near a hazardous materials site is addressed in Section

3.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
 Potential impacts related to co nstruction of new storm drain fa cilities are addressed in Section

3.14 (Utilities and Service Systems).

3.8.1 Setting
Regional Climate
The City of Santa Rosa’s climate is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and is divided into wet and dry seasons. Approximately 93 percent of the annual precipitation normally falls during the wet season, October to May, with a large percentage of the rainfall typically occurring during three or four major winter storms. According to the Western Regional Climate Center, rainfall at the nearest weather station with historical data is located in northwest Santa Rosa. This weather station has data from 1925 through 2010 and includes average precipitation totals of approximately 30.1 inches per year.

The mean annual potential evapotranspiration for the area is estimated to be approximately 42 inches per year (EBA 2020).

Santa Rosa Creek Watershed
The nearest waterway to the Project site is Santa Rosa Creek, which is located approximately 150 feet southwest of the site. The Santa Rosa Creek watershed drains approximately 78.6 square miles, including agriculture, parks and open space, and urban land uses. The headwaters are on the northwestern slope of Hood Mount ain, and the creek flows through the urban area of the City and then agricultural lands before joining the Laguna de Santa Rosa north of Sebastopol. The Laguna de Santa Rosa flows northerly to its confluence with Mark West Creek and on to the Russian River at Mirabel. From headwaters to its confluence with the Laguna, Santa Rosa Creek flows approximately 22 miles.

In accordance with Section 303(d) of the Fede ral Clean Water Act, state governments present the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) with a list of impaired water bodies by hydrologic sub-area. Santa Rosa Creek in the Project area is considered part of the Mainstream Santa Rosa Creek watershed, which is located within the Santa Rosa Hydrologic Sub Area, and within the overall Middle Russian River Hydrologic Area. The Mainst ream Santa Rosa Creek watershed is listed as impaired for indicator bacteria, sediment, and temperature (RWQCB 2012).

The current 2018 Basin Plan prepared by the Nort h Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) identifies the beneficial uses of surface waters in the region. The beneficial uses of the waters in the Santa Rosa Creek hydrologic s ubarea include: Municipal and Domestic Supply; Agricultural Supply; Industrial Service Supply; Groundwater Recharge; Navigation; Water Contact Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-2 Recreation; Non-Contact Water Re creation; Commercial and Spor t Fishing; Warm Freshwater Habitat; Cold Freshwater Habitat; Wildlife Habi tat; Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species; Migration of Aquatic Organisms; Spawning, Repr oduction, and/or Early Development. (NCRWQCB 2018)
Local Drainage
The existing storm water collection system in the Project area consists of storm drain and open drainage ditches along the edges of the 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. Surface water flow in Santa Rosa Creek is to the west and is perennial in nature.

Flooding and Dam Inundation
Flooding is a temporary condition in which land t hat is normally dry is partially or completely inundated. Flooding occurs when water bodies, such as streams, rivers, lakes, or reservoirs, are abnormally high and overflow into adjacent low-lying areas. These areas are known as floodplains, defined by their exposure to risk of recurring floods. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified several 100-year and 500-ye ar flood zones in Santa Rosa along creeks that are prone to flood in heavy rains. The Project site and off-site improvement areas are located in an area designated by the FEMA as Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2008).

The Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, within a 500-year flood hazard area, or within a floodway or other special flood hazard zone.

Dam inundation is a hazard that occurs when a flood control dam/water reservoir is damaged severely enough to compromise its ability to hold back water. When a dam fails, sudden fastmoving floods migrate throughout the inundation zone. The speed and volume of these floodwaters can damage or destroy property, cause injury or loss of life, and displace large numbers of residents and employees in the flood’s path. Eight dams are located within Santa Rosa’s urban growth boundary. Five additional dams outside of the City’s borders also have the potential to cause damage within Santa Rosa in the case of failures. As illustrated on Fi gure 12-4 of the City of Santa Rosa General Plan, the Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within a dam inundation zone (Santa Rosa 2009).

Regional Groundwater
The Project site is located in the Santa Rosa Plain Watershed (SRPW), and lies within the North Coast Hydrologic Region in the North Coastal Basin. The Santa Rosa Plain Watershed encompasses 262 square miles (167,680 acres) and includes a surface area of 160 square miles (102,400 acres) of groundwater basins, subbasins, or portions thereo f. The Project site is located within the Santa Rosa Valley-Rincon Valley Groundwater Subbasin (Groundwater Basin 1.055.03), which is defined as a low priority basin by the California Department of Water Resources. The Project site is within a Zone 1 groundwater availability area as defined by the Sonoma County General Plan. There are two existing groundwater water supply wells (Well-225 and Well-5815) located on the Project site near Melita Road.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-3 Concepts of Groundwater Hydrology
Water is present in two zones beneath the ground su rface. The upper zone is the zone of aeration (or vadose zone) where pore spaces in the geologic material are partly filled with air and partly filled with water. Wells do not produce groundwater from the vadose zone because the molecules of water adhere tightly to the various geologic materials. Wa ter stored in this zone of aeration is called soil moisture or vadose water. Soil moisture is drawn into the rootlets of growing plants. As the plants use the water, it is transpired as vapor to the atmosphere. Isolated zones of saturated soil can occur in the zone of aeration. These zones of perched groundwater can occur above low permeability layers and are separated from the main groundwater body by an underlying unsaturated zone.

The lower zone is the zone of saturation where all of the interconnected pore spaces in the geologic material are filled with groundwater, and only dissolved gaseous air is present. Groundwater in the saturated zone is either confined or unconfined. An aquifer containing unconfined groundwater is one that is not overlain by a conf ining bed of relatively low permeability geologic material. The upper surface of an unconfined body of groundwater is called the water table. It is represented by the level of water in a well penetrating the saturated zone. In an unconfined aquifer the water table is assumed to be connected to the atmosphere through the overlying soil pores.

A confined aquifer is overlain by relatively im permeable material and is isolated from overlying aquifers. Groundwater contained in confined aquifers is under pressure, and the level to which the water will rise in a non-pumping well is the potentiometric surface of the groundwater. The potentiometric surface is an imaginary surface that represents the upward pressure exerted by the confined groundwater on the materials overlying it.

Water recharges an aquifer through precipitation, stream flow, irrigation, or other sources by entering the ground and moving downward through the zone of aeration and into the zone of saturation.

Groundwater under pressure moves toward areas of lower pressure, such as pumping depressions.

In cases where the pressure relief area is along a stream channel, springs form and provide stream flow even during periods of low precipitation.

The general groundwater movement pattern of a basin can be interpreted from groundwater contour maps which show lines of equal elevation of the groundwater surface. Groundwater movement is perpendicular to the contour lines and from the higher elevation contours to the lower. The relative spacing between the contour lines indicates the hydraulic gradient of the groundwater, which is an index of the resistance encountered as the water moves through the aquifer.

3.8.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act, enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since, is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States and forms the basis for several State and local laws throughout the country. The Act es tablished the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act gave the U.S. EPA the authority to implement federal pollution control programs, such as setting water quality standards for contaminants in surface water, establishing wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry categories, and imposing requirements fo r controlling nonpoint source pollution. At the federal level, the Clean Water Act is administered by the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). At the state and regional levels in Califor nia, the act is administered and enforced by the Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-4 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The Project site is within the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insura nce to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains. FE MA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps identifying which land areas are subject to flooding. The maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the community. The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA, with the minimum level of flood protection for new development determined to be the 1-in-100 annual exceedance probability (i.e., the 100-year flood event).

State
Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act is the primary statute covering the quality of waters in California. Under the Act, the SWRCB has the ultima te authority over State water rights and water quality policy. The nine RWQCBs regulate water quality under this Act through the regulatory standards and objectives set forth in Water Quality Control Plans (also referred to as Basin Plans) prepared for each region. The five-member State Water Resources Control Board allocates water rights, adjudicates water right disputes, develops state-wide water protection plans, establishes water quality standards, and guides the nine RWQCBs locat ed in the major watersheds of the state. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables the SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters. The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act, issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to cities and counties through RWQCBs, and implements and enforces the NPDES General Permits.

NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities
The General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order No. 2009-0009, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014 and 2012-006) took effect on July 1, 2010 and was amended on February 14, 2011. The Order applies to construction sites that include one or more acres of soil disturbance. To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, dischargers must electronically file permit registration documents, which include a Notice of Intent, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other compliance related documents required by the General Permit. The SWPPP must include best management practices to identify, reduce or elimi nate sediment and other pollutants in storm water and non-storm water discharges during construction.

Regional and Local
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWQCBs adopt and implement water quality control plans (Basin Plans) which recognize the unique characteristics of each region with regard to natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems. The current 2018 Basi n Plan prepared by the NCRWQCB provides a definitive program of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses of water in the North Coast Region. Refer to the section above, Santa Rosa Creek Watershed, for the beneficial uses applicable to the watershed in which the Project site is located.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-5 The NCRWQCB also oversees and regulates groundwater investigations, clean-up, and abatement activities at sites with identified pollution problems. NCRWQCB Order No. R1-2009-0045, Waste Discharge Requirements for Low Threat Discharges to Surface Waters in the North Coast Region, applies to discharges of excavation dewatering. This Order requires development of a Best Management Practices/Pollution Prevention Plan to characterize the discharge and to identify specific measures to control the discharge, such as sediment controls to ensure that excessive sediment is not discharged and flow controls to prevent erosion and flooding downstream of the discharge.

Santa Rosa NPDES Storm Water Permit and Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual
NCRWQCB Order No. R1-2015-0030 is the City of Santa Rosa’s current NPDES storm water permit (NCRWQCB 2015). The permit re gulates both storm water and non- storm water discharges from public and private projects into the Santa Rosa municipal storm drain system. The permit requires a minimum set of best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented at all construction sites, as well as permanent storm water LID BMPs. In May 2017, the City adopted its current Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (Storm Water LID Manual) (Santa Rosa 2017), which applies to both privately sponsored projects and capital improvement projects that meet any of the following criteria:
 Development that creates or replaces 10,000 square feet or more of impervious material;  Street, road, highway, or freeway construction or reconstruction, creating or replacing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface;
 Development that creates or replaces a combin ed total of 1 acre or more of new impervious surface;
Projects that meet the criteria must capture, treat, and infiltrate storm water as close to the source as possible using small scale landscape-based features located throughout the project site per the criteria in the Storm Water LID Manual.

City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are related to hydrology and water quality and are applicable to the Project.

NS-D Minimize hazards associ ated with storm flooding.

NS-D-1 Ensure flood plain protection by retaining existing open areas and creating new open areas needed to retain storm water, recharge aquifers, and prevent flooding.

NS-D-3 Require that new development incorpor ate features that are consistent with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Pl an (SUSMP) into site drainage plans that would reduce impermeable surface area, increase surface water infiltration, and minimize surface water runoff during storm events. Such features may include:
 Additional landscape areas;
 Parking lots with bio-infiltration systems;
 Permeable paving designs; and
 Storm water detention basins.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-6 NS-D-5 Apply design standards to new development that help reduce project runoff into local creeks, tributaries, and drainage ways.

NS-F Minimize dangers from hazardous materials.

OSC-D Conserve wetlands, vernal pools, wildlife ecosystems, rare plant habitats, and waterways.

OSC-D-9 Ensure that construction adjacent to cr eek channels is sensitive to the natural environment. Ensure that natural topogr aphy and vegetation is preserved along the creek, and that construction activities do not disrupt or pollute the waterway.

OSC-I Conserve water and maintain water quality.

OSC-I-6 Protect groundwater recharge areas, particularly creeks and riparian corridors.

Identify and protect other potential groundwater recharge areas.

PSF-I Manage, maintain, and improve stormwater drainage and capacity.

PSF-I-3 Require erosion and sedimentation control measures to maintain an operational drainage system, preserve drainage capacity, and protect water quality.

PSF-I-4 Require measures to maintain and im prove the storm drainage system, consistent with goals of the Santa Rosa Citywide Cr eek Master Plan, to preserve natural conditions of waterways and minimize paving of creek channels.

PSF-I-6 Require implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce drainage system discharge of non-point source pollutants or iginating from streets, parking lots, residential areas, businesses, industrial operations, and those open space areas involved with pesticide application.

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan
The City of Santa Rosa has specific goals related to waterways within their jurisdiction. The following goals and policies from the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan are generally related to hydrology and water quality for the Project:

SW-1 Maintain hydraulic capacity of creeks.

SW-1-3 Balance habitat restoration and hydrau lic capacity. Provide a detailed hydraulic analysis for every project component affecting flood conveyance prior to implementation to identify allowable “roughness” values and to interpret those values in the form of a vegetation planting and monitoring plan. Consider use of detention basins and diversion channels wh ere appropriate to maintain hydraulic capacity.

SW-2 Implement the Storm Water Low Im pact Development Technical Design Manual
SW-2-1 New development and redevelopment projects shall comply with the City NPDES stormwater permit and with the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-7 SW-2-2 Stormwater treatment measures t hat involve small scale landscape based Low Impact Development Best Management Practices (BMPs) that treat stormwater as close to the source as possible shall be prioritized over other BMPs.

WQ-2 Use a combination of Storm Water Best Management Practices, constructed devices, and biological systems, to remove pollutants and protect water quality.

WQ-2-2 Implement the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual to reduce pollutants and runoff flows fr om new development and redevelopment projects.

3.8.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table

3.8-1 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are used to determine if the Project would have a significant effect related to hydrology and water quality.

Table 3.8-1 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
HWQ-1: Would the project
violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
Non-compliance with Waste
Discharge Requirements for Low
Threat Discharges to Surface
Waters in the North Coast
Region.

Non-compliance with the NPDES
General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities.

Non-compliance with the City of
Santa Rosa NPDES Storm Water
Permit.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item X (a)

General Plan Policies OSC-
D-9, PSF-I-3, PSF-I-6, NS-
D-3

SR Creek Master Plan Goal
SW-2

NCRWQCB Order No. R1-
2015-0030 and Santa Rosa
Storm Water Low Impact
Development Technical
Design Manual

General Construction
Permit (Order No. 2009-
0009, as amended by
Order No. 2010-0014 &
2012-006)

NCRWQCB Order No. R1-
2009-0045, Waste
Discharge Requirements
for Low Threat Discharges
to Surface Waters in the
North Coast Region
Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-8 Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
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?
Creation of a deficit in aquifer
volume or lowering of
groundwater levels such that the
production rates of nearby
domestic wells would not support
existing uses.

Creation of a substantial amount
of new impervious surfaces that
would interfere with groundwater
recharge.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item X (b)

General Plan Policy OSC-I-
6 HWQ-3: Would the project
substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
Uncontrolled runoff from
construction site.

Non-compliance with City storm
water requirements.

Non-compliance with the NPDES
General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item X (c)(i)

North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board Order
No. R1-2009-0050

NCRWQCB Order No. R1-
2015-0030 and Santa Rosa
Storm Water Low Impact
Development Technical
Design Manual

General Plan Policy PSF-I-
3, PSF-I-4, and PSF-I-6

SR Creek Master Plan Goal
SW-2 and WQ-2
HWQ-4: Would the project
substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Project actions would result in on-
site or off-site flooding.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item X (c)(ii)

Santa Rosa Storm Water
Low Impact Development
Technical Design Manual

General Plan Policy NS-D-
5, PSF-I-3,

SR Creek Master Plan Goal
SW-1, SW-2, and WQ-2
Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-9 Evaluation Criteria Significance Thresholds Sources
HWQ-5: Would the project
substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would 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?
Creation of increased quantity of
runoff such that capacity of storm
drains would be exceeded.

Project actions would result in
polluted runoff.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item X (c)(iii)

Santa Rosa Storm Water
Low Impact Development
Technical Design Manual
General Plan Policy NS-D-
5, PSF-I-3,

SR Creek Master Plan Goal
SW-1, SW-2, and WQ-2

HWQ-6: Would the project
substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Project actions would impede or
redirect flood flows.

Placement of aboveground
facilities in a flood hazard area.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item X (c)(iv)

Santa Rosa General Plan
Goal NS-D
HWQ-7: In flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones,
would the project risk release
of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Placement of facilities in a 100-
year flood hazard area or in areas
of potential inundation from dam
failure, tsunami, or seiche.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item X (d)

Santa Rosa General Plan
Goal NS-D
HWQ-8: Would the project
conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Conflict with Basin Plan
Conflict with sustainable
groundwater management plan.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item X (e)

North Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Basin
Plan

General Plan Policy NS-D-3

3.8.4 Approach to Analysis
Potential impacts to surface water quality ar e evaluated for both construction and operational activities. Construction impacts are evaluated for their potential to violate water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. The evaluation also considers additional runoff from new impervious areas, and whether the stormwater treatment techniques proposed as part of the Project would provide adequate capacity and treatment.

Flood hazard impacts are evaluated by assessing the Project’s location within a FEMA flood hazard area or other potential hazard area and the extent additional impervious areas could result in flooding.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-10 The Project would not alter the course of a stream or river, therefore this portion of the “standard” evaluation criteria is not discussed further in the impact analysis.

To address the Projects potential to conflict wi th a sustainable groundwater management plan, a groundwater availability study was completed to evaluate the adequacy of gr oundwater supplies to accommodate the Project’s irrigation demand while not interfering with groundwater recharge, groundwater management plans, and operation of nearby off-si te domestic wells (EBA 2020, Appendix E). As part of the study, two site visits of the Project si te were conducted, and a limited pumping test was conducted for WELL-225, one of the two existing domestic wells at the Project site, to estimate the approximate yield of the well and to calculate the estimated drawdown in the area from proposed use of the well. The study also included review of regional documents and maps to identify hydrology and water quality resources, off-site water supply wells, water well driller reports, and designation of a cumulative impact area for the Project. A “cumulative impact area” corresponds to the change in a specific area resulting from t he incremental impact of the Project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonabl y foreseeable future projects. Based on this definition, existing and future site developmen t characteristics and zoning designations for surrounding properties were considered, paired wi th the site hydrogeology and the nature of the proposed Project (EBA 2020).

3.8.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.8-2 (Summary of Impacts - Hydrology and Water Quality) provides a summary of potential impacts from the Project.

Table 3.8-2 Summary of Impacts – Hydrology and Water Quality Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
HWQ-1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
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
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
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
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
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
Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-11 Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
HWQ-7: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
NI
HWQ-8: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? NI
C-HWQ-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality? LS
Notes: NI = No Impact
LS = Less than Significant
LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impact HWQ-1: Would the project violate an y water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Analysis: Significant
Construction
No Project activities are proposed to occur directly within Santa Rosa Creek.

However, Project construction activities have the potential to degrade water quality as a result of erosion caused by earthmoving activities during construction or the accidental release of hazardous construction chemicals. In particular, the off-site stormwater drainage improvements along Melita Road would occur approximately 100 feet east of the creek channel. If not properly managed, construction activities could result in erosion, as well as the discharge of chemicals and materials, such as concrete, mortar, asphalt, fuels, and lubricants. Applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements could be violated, and polluted runoff could substantially degrade water quality.

SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009, as amended by Order No. 2012-0006, has been adopted for the purpose of protecting the water quality of storm water runoff, and applies to public and private construction projects that include one or more acres of soil disturbance. As the Project would both disturb greater than one acre of land, compliance with Order No. 2009-0009 would be required. As stated in Section

2.5.4 (Environmental Protection Action 4 - Implement Storm Water Control Measures during Construction), the Projec t applicant and/or its contractor shall obtain coverage under State Water Reso urces Control Board Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ. This will include submittal of permit registration documents (notice of intent, risk assessment, site maps, SWPPP, annual fee, and certifications) to the State Water Resources Control Board. The SWPPP will address pollutant sources, non-storm water discharges resulting from construction dewatering, best management practices, and other requirements specified in the above-mentioned Order. Compliance with Order No. 2012-0006, as outlined in Chapter 2, Project Description, would reduce the Projec t’s potential for polluted runoff during construction to substantially degrade water quality.

NCRWQCB Order No. R1-2015-0030 is the City of Santa Rosa’s current NPDES municipal storm water permit, which regulates both storm water and non-storm Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-12 water discharges into the municipal storm drain system. The permit applies to both public and private construction projects, and includes requirements for implementation of a minimum set of BMPs at construction sites. As the Project is located within the City of Santa Rosa, construction would be required to adhere to all requirements per Order No. R1-2015 -0030. As stated in Section 2.5.4 (Environmental Protection Action 4 - Implement Storm Water Control Measures during Construction), the Project would implement the necessary BMPs in an erosion and sediment control plan, or equivalent BMPs in the SWPPP in order to comply with the City’s storm water permit.

NCRWQCB Order No. R1-2009-0045 regulates short-term discharges of clean or relatively pollutant-free wastewaters to surface waters, such as groundwater from construction dewatering. Often, groundwater generated during dewatering activities is relatively clean, but contains elevated levels of sediment and turbidity, which if discharged to the storm drain system or to surface waters, could result in localized impacts to water quality. Given the shallow groundwater levels in the Project area (as high as approximately 4 feet below the existing ground surface), excavations for foundations, utility trenches, and other improvements that extend below four feet would need to be dewater ed to create a dry working surface. The discharge of sediment-laden groundwater to the storm drain system or Santa Rosa Creek during excavation dewatering could degrade water quality and violate water quality standards. Therefore, unregulated construction water discharges to surface waters or stormdrains, from excavation dewatering, could have a significant impact on water quality.

Operation
The City’s Storm Water LID Manual provides technical guidance for project designs that require the implementation of permanent storm water BMPs in accordance with the City’s NPDES storm water permit. Such projects include those that create or replace a combined total of one acre or more of impervious surface.

The Project would result in approximately 3.4 acres of new impervious surfaces.

As the Project would create over one acre of new impervious surfaces, it would be subject to the LID storm water design meas ures required by the City’s municipal storm water permit. As summarized in Chapter 2, Project Description, Section

2.4.1 (On-site Improvements), the Project design proposes collection and conveyance of storm water through a series of permanent on-site vegetated swales and storm drains that would convey storm water to several on-site rain gardens near Melita Road. The rain gardens would treat storm water runoff generated from Project-related roofto ps, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces in accordance with the require ments of the City’s LID requirements.

Therefore, operation of the Project would be in compliance with the City’s Storm Water LID Manual. The operational impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Manage Construction Dewatering If construction dewatering is required, the City shall require the Applicant and its contractor to evaluate reasonable options for dewatering management that would avoid discharging to a local surface water or storm drain. The following management options shall be considered:

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-13  Reuse the water on-site for dust control, compaction, or irrigation.  Retain the water on-site in a grassy or porous area to allow infiltration/evaporation.
 Discharge (by permit) to a sanitary sewer.

If discharging to the sanitary sewer, the Applicant shall comply with a one-time discharge permit or other type of approval requiring, as necessary, measures for characterizing the discharge and ensuri ng filtering methods and monitoring to verify that the discharge is compliant wi th the City’s local wastewater discharge requirements.

If discharging to a local surface water or storm drain, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under NCRWQCB Order No. R1-2009-0045, Waste Discharge Requirements for Low Threat Discharges to Surface Waters in the North Coast Region. The Applicant shall submit permit registration documents to the NCRWQCB, including development of a Best Management Practices/Pollution Prevention Plan to characterize the discharge and to identify specific measures to control the discharge, such as sedim ent controls to ensure that excessive sediment is not discharged, and flow controls to prevent erosion and flooding downstream of the discharge. The City sha ll ensure that the Applicant oversees implementation of the Best Management Practices/Pollution Prevention Plan during construction dewatering activities, including visual inspections and ensuring overall compliance.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1d – Avoid Impacts to Steelhead
Please refer to Impact BIO-1, in Section 3.3, for the full description of Mitigation Measure BIO-1d.

After Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would reduce potential Project impacts on water quality standards a nd waste discharge requirements from construction dewatering to a less-than-significant level by ensuring compliance with applicable waste discharge requirements, such that the discharge would not disrupt or pollute waterways. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1d would further reduce potential indirect water quality impacts to Santa Rosa Creek by taking actions to prevent degradation of water quality and erosion from off-site Project activities located in the vicinity of the creek.

Impact 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?
Analysis: Less than Significant
Groundwater Supply
The Project site is located within the Santa Rosa Valley – Rincon Valley Subbasin (Groundwater Basin 1.055.03), which is designated as a low priority basin by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) in Bulletin 118 Interim Update 2016 (CDWR 2016).

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-14 Given the shallow groundwater levels in the Project area (approximately 4 feet below the existing ground surface), tem porary groundwater dewatering may be required to provide a dry work area during certain construction activities, such as utility trenching. Dewatering methods generally involve pumping water out of a trench or excavation area. Such dewatering would be temporary and prolonged lowering of the groundwater levels in any one location would not be necessary.

Such temporary dewatering would have, at most, a very small effect on localized water levels in the immediate vicinity of the excavation area. No substantial deficit in the local groundwater basin or lowering of water levels would occur. Therefore, the impact on groundwater from construc tion-related dewatering would be less than significant.

Following construction, domestic water supply would be provided by the City of Santa Rosa’s municipal water system, which would not decrease groundwater supplies. However, the Project proposes the use of the two existing on-site water supply wells to meet the Project’s landscape irrigation demand, which has been estimated at 2.93 acre feet of groundwater annually. The initial groundwater use is expected to be higher during the first year as the landscaping is first planted and will diminish as the vegetation matures.

To evaluate whether there are adequate existing and future groundwater supplies to accommodate the Project irrigation, the volume of water in storage within a cumulative impact area was estimated. The evaluated cumulative impact area is 317 acres in size and was calculated to have approximately 11,174 acre-feet of water in storage (EBA 2020, Appendix E). U nder existing conditions, the wells serve domestic residences which demand approximately 85 acre-feet of groundwater per year. In comparison, the Project’s landscape irrigation demand is estimated to be 2.93 acre-feet per year. The Project’s groundwater supply demand represents 0.03 percent of the total groundwater in storage. The Project’s minimal groundwater use would not subs tantially decrease groundwater supplies such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the local sub-basin. The impact from operati on of the Project on groundwater supply would be less than significant.

Potential for Well Interference
Projected groundwater drawdown characte ristics associated with the Project’s landscape irrigation demand was estimated through a pumping test conducted for WELL-225 and an analytical computer model. The projected total annual groundwater use of 2.93 acre-feet per year equates to a daily water demand of 2,616 gallons per day (gpd) when averaged ov er the entire year. However, it is assumed that this daily water demand would vary seasonally, with most of the water use occurring during the summer and early fall. For the purpose of calculating the maximum daily water demand, it was conservatively assumed that all irrigation water use would occur over a 153-day period (i.e. May through September). Based on this assumption, the maximum daily water demand equates to 6,240 gpd for the Project.

Whereas the water demand scenario would likely occur intermittently throughout the day, the respective total volume was assumed to be pumped at one time as a Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-15 conservative measure to induce the maximum potential drawdown characteristics.

During an October 26, 2016 pumping test, WELL-225 was pumped at a rate of about 14 gallons per minute for an 8-hour period (approximately 6,700 gallons).

The evaluation of well interference was conducted utiliz ing a time-versus- drawdown analytical computer model. Given a discharge rate and estimates of aquifer characteristics, the analytical model predicts groundwater drawdown as a function of distance from a pumping well. The analytical model indicated the induced drawdown would be minimal, on the order of less than one foot approximately 50 feet from the pumping we ll, although, seasonal variations and rate and volume of groundwater extrac tion may affect the magnitude of the predicted influence. Based on the drawdown characteristics and the location of the nearest existing water supply well located approximately 100 feet to the east, drawdown would not be induced at the off-site well location as a result of the anticipated pumping scenarios. Additiona lly, on-site WELL-225 is approximately 90 feet shallower than the adjacent off-site well, making it further unlikely that pumping would have any influence on an adjacent well. The operational impact related to potential well interference would be less than significant.

Potential Interference with Groundwater Recharge
In relation to groundwater recharge, the Project would result in the installation of approximately 3.4 acres of impervious mate rials onto the overall 7.28-acre site (EBA 2020). However, the Project would incorporate open areas, such as bioswale rain gardens and other permeable planting and landscaped areas conforming to City of Santa Rosa LID standards that fa cilitate groundwater infiltration within the Project site. Although the Project would increase the amount of impervious surface at the site compared to existing conditio ns, such increases are not anticipated to impact the ability of water to infiltrate into the ground. The proposed rain gardens and other permanent LID features would capture, treat, and allow infiltrating runoff generated by the 85
th percentile storm event.

Based on the Project’s estimated groundwater demand of 2.93 acre-feet per year, the Project’s groundwater use would equate to approximately one percent of the water potentially available for recharge within the cumulative impact area (EBA 2020). The Project’s minimal effect on groundwater recharge would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge at the Project site or within the cumulative impact area. The operational impact related to groundwater recharge interference would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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? Analysis: Less than Significant
Existing drainage in the Project area is dominated by Santa Rosa Creek, which flows approximately 100 feet south of the nearest off-site improvement area along Melita Road. As described in the Local Drainage setting section, the existing storm Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-16 water collection system in the Projec t area consists of storm drain and open drainage ditches along the edges of the site that ultimately drain to Santa Rosa Creek near Montgomery Drive. The Santa Rosa Creek channel and adjacent floodplain would remain unaltered by Project construction or operation. As part of the proposed Project, stormwater associ ated with all new impervious surfaces would be collected via the Project LID features, including storm water rain gardens which have been designed to comply with the City of Santa Rosa’s LID Manual and the City of Santa Rosa Storm Wate r NPDES Permit requirements. This includes compliance with LID design standards, including drainage management areas, numeric sizing criteria for stor m water retention and treatment prior to discharge, site design measures to reduce runoff, stormwater treatment measures, and hydromodification guidelines. Stormwater would be released at the same rate as pre-project conditions, ultimately disc harging to the same culvert location as under existing conditions. As a result, potent ial on- or off-site erosion or siltation due to increases in impervious surfaces would be less than significant.

Please refer to impact HWQ-1 for an evaluati on of erosion or siltation relative to Project construction activities.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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?
Analysis: Less than Significant
The Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, within a 500-year flood hazard area, or within a floodway or other special flood hazard zone (FEMA 2008). Although the Project would create

3.4 acres of impervious surface within t he existing 7.28-acre site, it is not anticipated that the additional runoff ge nerated by the proposed improvements would not result in flooding on- or off-site. Stormwater generated as a result of the new impervious surfaces would be captured by the proposed permanent LID features which have been designed to comply with the City of Santa Rosa’s LID manual. The LID components would be installed in order to retain the increase in stormwater runoff to mimic pre-deve lopment hydrologic conditions. The LID components and drainage infrastructure would work with the existing topography of the site and would not significantly al ter the existing drainage pattern of the Project site.

Additionally, off-site storm water improv ements (see Section 2.4.2) are proposed in order to alleviate and prevent existing flooding that periodically occurs in the vicinity of the Project site during major rain events. With implementation of the LID components and the off-site storm water im provements it is not anticipated that flooding on- or off-site would occur. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-17 Impact 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?
Analysis: Less than Significant
On- and off-site drainage infrastructure would be installed during construction of the Project in accordance with the City of Santa Rosa LID Manual to retain the increase in runoff and mimic pre-development hydrologic conditions. The on-site LID features have been designed to capture, detain, treat, and then release runoff generated by the 85
th percentile storm event. Off-site storm water drainage improvements would also be implemented to increase the capacity of the infrastructure located in the immediate vi cinity of the Projec t site. Under existing conditions, an area within the Project vicinity occasionally floods during large storm events. Implementation of the on- and off- site storm water infrastructure would ensure the planned stormwater drainage system has adequate capacity to serve the Project. Additionally, the LID features would provide water quality treatment prior to the stormwater entering the off-site drainage system. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant im pact related to exceeding the capacity of the stormwater drainage system or providing additional sources of polluted runoff.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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?
Analysis: No Impact
The Project site and off-site improvement areas are located in an area designated by the FEMA as Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2008).

The Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, within a 500-year flood hazard area, or within a floodway or other special flood hazard zone. Additionally, as illustrated on Figure 12-4 of the City of Santa Rosa General Plan, the Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within a dam inundation zone (Santa Rosa 2009). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact HWQ-7: In flood hazard, tsunami, or sei che zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Analysis: No Impact
As summarized in Impact HWQ-6, the Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within a designated flood hazard zone or dam inundation area. The Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within a potential tsunami affected area as mapped by the California Office of Emergency Services.

The potential for seiche inundation is not readily mapped for small creeks such as Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-18 Santa Rosa Creek. The nearest portion of the Project site is located approximately 100 feet from the Santa Rosa Creek channel and is at a higher elevation, while the nearest off-site improvement area along Melita Road is located approximately 50 feet from the channel. The distance and elevation difference, along with the relatively small channel size of Santa Rosa Creek, make it very unlikely that the Project would be exposed to risks from se iche. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation. No impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact HWQ-8: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Analysis: No Impact
The Project site is located within the area subject to the North Coast Water Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists action plans and policies to achieve water quality objectiv es, protect present and future beneficial water uses, protect public health, and prevent nuisance (R WQCB 2018). As described under Impact HWQ-1, the Project would be required to comply with ordinance requirements, permits, and adopted BMPs that are specifically designed to reduce potential water quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. With implementation of the various requirements, BMPs, and LID features the Project would comply with all policies listed in the Basin Plan. Therefore, no impact related to obstruction of the Basin Plan would result.

As described in Impact HWQ-2, the Projec t site is located within the Santa Rosa Valley – Rincon Valley Subbasin, which is designated as a low priority basin designated by CDWR, therefore, the Project site is not located within a Medium or High Priority basin defined under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

As such, the basin is not subject to a Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan.

As further summarized in Impact HWQ- 2, the anticipated groundwater demand associated with landscape irrigation for the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies, interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

The most prominent surface water feature in proximity to the Project site is Santa Rosa Creek, located approximately 150 feet southwest of the nearest on-site irrigation well. Streamflow depletion modeling conducted for the Project indicates that streamflow depletion within Santa Rosa Creek would be less than 0.0000 cubic foot per second (EBA 2020). Theref ore, no streamflow depletion within Santa Rosa Creek impact would result and surface water conditions would be close to unchanged during operation of the Project. No impact would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-19 Impact C-HWQ-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality? Analysis: Less than Cumulatively Considerable (Less than Significant) The geographic boundary for cumulative projects related to hydrology and water quality impacts would be the area of t he sub-basin which could be potentially impacted by the Project. As described in HWQ-1 above, the Project would comply with water quality measures contained in the State Water Board’s Construction General Permit, as well as the City’s NPDES Permit. Compliance with applicable regulations as well as Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would reduce potential water quality impacts during construction to a less-than-significant level. In addition, the Project would comply with the City’s Storm Water LID Manual to capture and treat stormwater from the new imperviou s surfaces created by the Project. With implementation of the LID stormwater treatment improvements it is anticipated the Project would have less than significant impacts related to water quality and runoff.

Future projects, including those in Table 3-1 such as Elnoka Continuing Care Retirement Community, also would be subject to existing federal, state, and local regulations, including the City’s Storm Water LID standards and the State Water Board’s Construction General Permit regulations. Therefore, impacts to water quality during construction and operation would not be cumulatively considerable.

With regard to HWQ-3, HWQ-4, and HWQ-5, the Project includes the above mentioned LID improvements and has included improvements to existing off-site stormwater infrastructure system. With implementation of the improvements, the stormwater system would adequately accommodate stormwater from the proposed Project site and correct existing deficiencies in the system. In addition, none of the cumulative projects listed in Table 3-1 are near to the Project site such that they would use the same stormwater outfall to Santa Rosa Creek. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cu mulative impact regarding drainage and flooding.

As described in HWQ-2, the Project’s groundwater demand would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the local groundwater basin. The Project’s estimated annual groundwater demand of 2.93 acre feet equates to less than one percent of the groundwater in storage within the cumulative impact area and is substantia lly less than the amount of potential annual groundwater recharge (254 acre feet) for an average rainfall year. The Project’s contribution to a cumulative impact related to groundwater supply, would be less than significant.

With regard to HWQ-6 and HWQ-7, the Pr oject is not located within an area that is at risk for flooding, tsunami, or seiche. Therefore, the Project could not contribute to a cumulative impact related to a rel ease of pollutants resulting from Project inundation.

As described in HWQ-8, the Project does not conflict with the applicable Basin Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan, therefore the Project could not contribute to a cumulative impact related to a plan conflict.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is needed.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.8-20

3.8.6 References
EBA Engineering (EBA). 2020. Groundwater Availability Study. March 6.

Department of Water Resources. 1975. Evaluation of Groundwater Resources Sonoma County .

December.

California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). Bulletin 118 Interim Update 2016 (CDWR 2016).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer. Panel 06097C0734E.

North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board. 2018. Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region. June.

North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board. 2015. California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region, Order No. R1-2015-0030.

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2012. 303(d) list for the North Coast Region.

RGH Consultants. 2015. Geotechnical Study Report: Spring Lake Village East Grove Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. City of Santa Rosa General Plan.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June Santa Rosa, City of. 2017. City of Santa Rosa Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual.

Land Use, Population, and Housing
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.9-1

3.9 Land Use, Population, and Housing
This section evaluates potential environmental impacts related to land use, population, and housing.

In addition to the analysis provided in this section, the following subjects are related to land use, population, and housing, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
 Potential impacts related to visual charac ter and quality of the project, the site, and its surroundings are evaluated in Section 3.1 (Aesthetics).  Potential impacts related to project-generat ed noise and sensitive receptors are evaluated in Section 3.10 (Noise).
 Potential impacts related to recreational facilities are evaluated in Secti on 3.11 (Public Services and Recreation).
 Potential conflicts with the City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and impacts related to the performance of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, and designations of bicycle lanes and pedestrian corridors are evaluated in Section 3.12 (Transportation).

3.9.1 Setting
Land Use Patterns and Existing Uses
Santa Rosa voters approved a 20-year Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) measure in 1996, which encompasses an area of 45 square miles and incl udes incorporated and unincorporated land that will eventually be annexed and served by the City . The existing Spring Lake Village CCRC and the proposed expansion site are both located within the City limits, UGB, and Sphere of Influence of the City of Santa Rosa.

The Project is located in the eastern portion of S anta Rosa, which is located in the foothills of the Sonoma Mountains. The Project site is located in the vicinity of Santa Rosa Creek, which originates in the foothills of the Sonoma Mountains, and runs from east to west through the City, across the Santa Rosa Plain, and into the Laguna de Santa Rosa.

The Project site is located primarily in a residential area with a mix of very low to medium high density residential. The Project site is bounded to the north by Highway 12 and beyond by single-family residences; to the east by Los Alamos Road and multi-family residences; to the south by single-family residences and Melitta Station Inn, Melita Road, and Montgomery Drive; and to the west by single- family residences and a church. The Project includes off-site improvements located along portions of Los Alamos Road, Melita Road, and Highway 12.

Land Use Designation and Zoning
The Project site is currently designated as Very Low Density Residential by the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. The Very Low Density Residential designation describes development densities ranging from 0.2 to 2.0 units per gross acre.

The Project site is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR-20 and RR-40) by the City of Santa Rosa.

The largest of the three parcels that constitute the Project site (APN 031-101-026) is zoned RR-40 and the two smaller parcels containing single fami ly homes (APNs 031-101-035 and 031-101-034) are zoned RR-20. The RR-20 zone is very similar to the RR-40 with regard to allowable uses and development standards, but permits a higher residential density by allowing smaller minimum lot sizes. These zones apply to areas of the City intended to accommodate residential neighborhoods with compatible agricultural uses, but where the primary uses are residential and compatible Land Use, Population, and Housing
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.9-2 accessory uses. Other permitted uses include small community care facilities, small family day care homes, and small health care facilities. The proposed use of “Residential Senior Independent Living Facility” is considered to meet the definition of a “Community Care Facility”, as defined in the Santa Rosa Zoning Code. A Community Care Facility is a facility, place, or building that is maintained and operated to provide non-medical residential care, which may include home finding and other services, for children and/or adults, including: the physica lly handicapped; mentally impaired, mentally disordered, or incompetent; developmentally dis abled; court wards and dependents; neglected or emotionally disturbed children; the addicted; and the aged.

Table 3.9-1 displays the zoning purposes and standards for the RR-20 and RR-40 designations, as well as for the proposed zoning designations at the Project site of PD-0308.

Table 3.9-1 Spring Lake Village East Grove Zoning
Standards City RR-20 City RR-40 City PD-0308
Density 1 unit per parcel(a) 1 unit per parcel(a) 15 units per acre (a) Minimum lot size 20,000 sf 1 acre N/A
Primary structure setback
 Front
 Side-Interior
 Side-Corner
 Rear

 20 feet
 5 feet
 15 feet
 20 feet

 20 feet
 5 feet
 20 feet
 20 feet

 15 feet (b)
 5 feet 1-story/10 feet 2-story
 5 feet 1-story/10 feet 2-story
 5 feet
Lot Coverage 40% 40% 60%
Primary structure height limit 35 feet 35 feet 45 feet
Source: City of Santa Rosa 2010
Note
(a) Allows one accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
(b) 19 feet for garages and carports

3.9.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
There are no federal or State land use plans, policies, or regulations pertaining to the Project.

Regional and Local
City of Santa Rosa General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 are generally related to land use and planning and are applicable to the Project.

Land Use, Population, and Housing
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.9-3 LUL-E-2 As part of planning and development re view activities, ensure that projects, subdivisions, and neighborhoods are designed to foster livability.

Utilize the City’s Design Guidelines as a reference when evaluating the following neighborhood components:
 Streets. Street design, traffic calming, and landscaping can make great contributions to the creation of successful neighborhoods. Neighborhood streets should be quiet, safe, and accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.  Connections. Neighborhoods should be well connected to local shops and services, public plazas and gathering places, park lands, downtown, schools, and recreation by adequate and safe streets, bike lanes, public pathways, trails, general infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks and crosswalks), and transit.  Neighborhood Character. Each neighborhood should maintain a distinct identity, such as the historic preservation districts featuring Victorian cottages and California bungalows.
 Diversity and Choice. Neighborhoods should provide choices for residents with different values. Different housing types and locations within the City accommodate a diverse range of needs.

LUL-E-3 Avoid concentration of large community care facilities in a single residential neighborhood.

LUL-E-4 Protect the rural quality of Very Low Density areas within the Urban Growth Boundary through design and development standards in the Zoning Code, and development review.

LUL-F Maintain a diversity of neighborhoods and varied housing stock to satisfy a wide range of needs.

LUL-F-3 Maintain a balance of various housing types in each neighborhood and ensure that new development does not result in undue concentration of a single housing type in any one neighborhood. Downtown is excepted.

GM-A Prevent urban sprawl by focusing growth within the Urban Growth Boundary.

GM-A-1 Contain urban development in the Santa Rosa area within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary.

H-D Provide housing for households with special needs
H-D-11 Encourage the development of affordable housing for the elderly, particularly for those in need of assisted and skilled nursing care. Continue to provide funding and offer incentives such as density bonuses, reduced parking requirements, design flexibility, and deferred development fees.

Land Use, Population, and Housing
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.9-4 Santa Rosa Zoning Code
The Project includes a rezone from RR-20 an d RR-40 to PD-0308. PD-0308 was created on September 10, 1981 to facilitate the construction of a full life senior citizen facility at 5555 Montgomery Drive. As an expansion project, the applicant is requesting that the Project parcels be rezoned to PD-308, consistent with the existing Spring Lake Village campus. The Project would be owned and operated by the same entity as the existing Spring Lake Village Community Care facility located at 5555 Montgomery Drive. While the Project site and the site of the existing facility are not contiguous, their close proximity and common ownership will a llow them to function as a single entity for operational purposes. In a Policy Statement dat ed September 2, 1981, the development standards of the planned development are described. This Policy Statement set the base zone district as R-3- 15 (which standards apply unless modified by the PD), established the permitted uses, minimum site size, maximum lot coverage, parking, and other development standards. Some of these requirements have subsequently been modified, named minimum site size and maximum number of units, as the facility has been expanded over the years. The Project must comply with the development standards contained in the Santa Rosa Zoning Code, including those requirements in PD-0308.

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan
The following are the goals and policies from the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan that are applicable to this Project.

SW The ability of waterways to carry stor m water runoff and surface drainage is protected and improved to alleviate flood risk.

SW-2 Implement the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual.

WQ Water quality of creeks is protected and enhanced.

WQ-2 Use a combination of Storm Wate r Best Management Practices (BMPs), constructed devices, and biological systems, to remove pollutants and protect water quality.

PR Private property rights are respected.

PR-1 Where discretionary land use approvals are sought, development shall, to the extent possible, be consistent with the Master Plan.

3.9.3 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds
For the purpose of this EIR, the evaluation criteria and significance thresholds summarized in Table

3.9-2 (Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds) are used to determine if the Project would have a significant effect related to land use, population, and housing.

Land Use, Population, and Housing
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.9-5 Table 3.9-2 Evaluation Criteria and Significance Thresholds Evaluation Criteria Significance
Thresholds Sources
LUPH-1: Would the project physically
divide an established community?
A physical barrier to
movement dividing an
established community
that results in a complete
physical separation from
the rest of the
neighborhood.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item XI (a)

General Plan Policy LUL-E-2
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?
Any such conflict with an
applicable City of Santa
Rosa goal, policy, or
regulation

Conflict with the City of
Santa Rosa zoning
ordinance
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item XI (b)

Santa Rosa General Plan

City of Santa Rosa Zoning
Code

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek
Master Plan
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)?
Population growth
exceeding citywide
growth projections
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item XIV (a)
LUPH-4: Would the project displace
substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displacement of housing
or people necessitating
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere
CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, Checklist Item XIV (b)

3.9.4 Approach to Analysis
The impact analysis for land use focuses on whethe r implementation of the Project would conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. This analysis was performed by evaluating Project components against the regulations and plans described under the Regulatory Framework section, and by comparing changes in land use against existing conditions.

3.9.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 3.9-3 (Summary of Impacts - Land Use and Planning) provides a summary of potential impacts from the project.

Land Use, Population, and Housing
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.9-6 Table 3.9-3 Summary of Impacts – Land Use, Population, and Housing Evaluation Criteria Project
Impact
LUPH-1: Would the project physically divide an established community? 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
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
LUPH-4: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? LS
C-LUPH-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to land use or population?
NI
Notes: NI = No Impact
LS = Less than Significant
LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impact LUPH-1: Would the project physi cally divide an established community? Analysis: No Impact
Division of an established community typically occurs when a new physical feature, in the form of a highway or railroad, physically transects an area, thereby removing mobility and access within an established community. The majority of the Project site is currently vacant and surrounded by residential land uses and public roadways. There are no com ponents of the Project that would reduce mobility, access, or otherwise preclude continuity of established land uses in the Project area. Rather, with the development of the pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Los Alamos Road, Melita Road, and Highway 12 associated with the proposed Project, accessibility and mobility would be improved in the area.

Therefore, no impact related to division of an established community would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact 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?
Analysis: No Impact
As part of the Project, the site would be rezoned to be included in the Planned Development zone that exists for the main Spring Lake Village campus. The proposed Project would be consistent wi th the PD designation including lot size, setbacks, and height limitations shown in Table 3.9-1.

The existing Spring Lake Village campus is 31.5 acres. With the addition of the expansion parcel the total campus would be 37.33 acres. The setbacks for each individual building vary, but all would be in excess of 25 feet. As shown on Figure 2-3 (Proposed Project Site Plan), the setbacks exceed the setback limit of 5 to 15 Land Use, Population, and Housing
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.9-7 feet for PD-0308. The tallest building is the Villa at 28 feet 3 inches, which is within the 45-foot height limit of PD-0308.

Applicable land use policies (LUL-E, LUL-F, and GM-A) include promoting livable neighborhoods, maintaining a diversity of neighborhoods and varied housing stock, and preventing urban sprawl. The Project’s pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Highway 12, Los Alamos Road, and Melita Road would all serve to promote the livability of t he neighborhood and enhance the pedestrian and circulation network within the neighborhood. The nature of the Project as a senior living facility adds to the varied housing stock within the City of Santa Rosa.

The expansion would add independent living facilities for the elderly including dining, fitness, and lifestyle activities, supplemented by the health care facilities on the main campus. The location of the Project is within the Urban Growth Boundary, and would not be considered sprawl.

Community care facilities are allowed in almost all zoning districts in the City through a Conditional Use Permit. However, General Plan Policy LUL-E-3 seeks to avoid the concentration of community ca re facilities in any single residential neighborhood. City Code 20.42-060 states co mmunity care facilities cannot be located within 300 feet of another community care facility and can be located within 1,000 feet of another facility only if mitigated properly. While the Project results in the creation of a new partially-independent residential senior independent living facility, for regulatory purposes it is considered by the City to be an expansion of the existing facility and not a new facility per City Code 20.42-060. The rationale for this finding is that the Project site is located near the existing facility (approximately 530 feet measured parcel edge to parcel edge) and that the operations and management of the expans ion would be shared with the existing facility. Examples of the ways in whic h the existing and proposed facilities would share operations and management include leasing and administrative services, facility maintenance, staff and services, shuttle service between the two facilities, and extracurricular and enrichment services. Residents of the existing campus and the East Grove expansion site could use amenities at either location. In this way, the location of the Project is not in conflict with the Santa Rosa Zoning Code.

The Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan incl udes policies that focus on storm water and water quality as a means to protecting waterways in Santa Rosa. The Project would implement storm water measures, including implementing storm water rain gardens consistent with the City of Santa Rosa’s Low Impact Development Manual, consistent with Policy SW-2. The rain gardens would detain and remove pollutants through natural, physical, biologi cal, and chemical processes prior to water entering off-site roadside drainages and Santa Rosa Creek. In addition, as noted under Environmental Protection Action 4 in Chapter 2 (Project description), the Project would implement stormwater BMPS as part of compliance with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, consistent with Policy WQ-2.

In summary, the Project would be consist ent with the Santa Rosa General Plan and fulfill its goals and policies relative to providing livable, diverse neighborhoods.

Upon the successful rezone, the Project would be consistent with the Santa Rosa Zoning code with regard to allowable land uses, residential densities, and the Land Use, Population, and Housing
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.9-8 requirement to maintain a minimum 1,000 feet separation between community care facilities. The Project also would fulfill the goals and policies of the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan relative to storm water and water quality. No impact related to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation would result.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact LUPH-3: Would the project induce s ubstantial 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)?
Analysis: Less than Significant
Implementation of the Project would create 32 independent living units and twelve full-time employment opportunities. In 2009, the 2035 Santa Rosa General Plan EIR estimated that the population woul d be approximately 223,520 in 2035 and approximately 23,770 dwelling units would be added to the existing supply by that time. The 2019 population of Santa Rosa is estimated to be 176,753 according to the US Census Bureau. According to build ing permit data obtained from the City of Santa Rosa, 2,883 new housing units were constructed in the City between 2010 and 2019. This represents approximately 11% of the planned capacity. Therefore, the additional units to be created by the Project will not exceed the overall planned growth examined in the 2035 Santa Rosa General Plan EIR. The Project is not considered substantial unplanned population growth. It would provide needed community care housing for Santa Rosa senior citizens. Finally, the Project would not extend infrastructure or roads into areas that have not previously been accessible or developed. The potential impact from unplanned growth would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Impact LUPH-4: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Analysis: Less than Significant
Implementation of the Project would include removal of two existing single-family residential homes at 5803 Melita Road and 5815 Melita Road. The residences are owned by the Project applicant, Covia Communities, who currently rents the two homes. Overall, implementation of the Project would result in a net increase in residential units at the Project site and with in the City of Santa Rosa. Given only two residences would demolished, displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing would not occur, and no replacement housing elsewhere would be necessitated. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

Land Use, Population, and Housing
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.9-9 Impact C-LUPH-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to land use or population?
Analysis: No Impact
For land use, the geographic scope for assessing cumulative impacts is the area immediately surrounding the Project site, since this area would have the most relevant land use impacts. The Project was found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and proposed zoning requirements. Any future development that would occur within the City or in the Spring Lake Village surrounding area would be subject to further site-specific development and environmental review to determine consistency with the Santa Rosa 2035 General Plan, the City of Santa Rosa Zoning Ordinance, and other regional plans and policies, as appropriate. In addition, implementation of the cumulative projects listed in Table 3-1 (Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts) would not displace substantial numbers of exiting people or housing. No overlapping land use impacts from cumulative projects would occur.

Mitigation: No mitigation is needed.

3.9.6 References
Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. November 3.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2009. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Environmental Impact Report. June.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2010. Santa Rosa City Code 20-22.050 Residential District General Development Standards.

Santa Rosa, City of. 2013. Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan.

Noise
Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Draft EIR | Page 3.10-1

3.10 Noise
This section provides a description of the existing noise 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 subjects are related to noise, but are evaluated in other sections of this EIR:
 Noise impacts to wildlife are evaluated in Section 3.3 (Biological Resources).

3.10.1 Setting
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch.

Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.

Santa Rosa City CouncilMay 12, 2026

Santa Rosa City Council
May 12, 2026